What is Biblical Inerrancy?

[JustChristian]

What does Biblical inerrancy mean to you?

 

[donnA]

What does factual errors mean?

 

[StefanM]

"The original manuscripts of the Bible were inerrant but errors were introduced in translation" was my selection.

However, my REAL position would be that the autographs were inerrant but errors were introduced in document transcription, not translation.

 

[Ed Edwards]

On another board I use this for my Signature:

More than one Scripture
magnifies God's Word.

Psalm 34:3 (KJV1611 Edition):
O magnifie the Lord with me,
and let vs exalt his name together.
​

I sure do believe that. 'Inerrancy' is what it is called.

If there appears to be a conflict between two versions or two parts of the same version -- The Holy Spirit will lead us to the truth. More than one Scripture helps us understand the wealth of truth that is found in ALL of God's word - not just one sample of it. If there appears to be a conflict between two versions or two parts of the same version -- it is NOT God's fault. That confusion is in us or among us - we need to figure it out instead of blowing our own foot off

-

 

[Bro. James]

Inerrancy: is sort of a corollary to the omniscience of God. He knows the end from before the beginning and everything in between. Since He is HOLY, HOLY, HOLY, He cannot make an error. Hence the concept of inerrancy.

Man can make no claim to such a quality--he makes errors all the time. In fact he has failed miserably in everything God set before Adam's race. Man is totally depraved and unable to remedy his situation of himself. Jesus is the only remedy.

Regarding scriptural errors: since God cannot lie nor make mistakes, man surely must be responsible for any discrepancies. The translators are not without error. e.g. the KJV translators were in error using the word Easter instead of Passover. While Easter may have been a well established Holy Day by the 17th century, it is still pagan in orgin and practice. The translators also reveal their connection with pedobaptist groups. The word baptism is a transliteration not a translation. The greek meaning is to dip, plunge or immerse. These words would contradict the practice of sprinkling and afflusion of infants as well as adults. (the word never means washing)

It is difficult to believe that God waited until the 17th century to give us an error free translation--in our vernacular--Olde Englishe, anyway. Millions of Christians, past and present are not literate in English of any sort.

One could contend that the KJV is the best among English translations; but that does not make this translation, which includes several editions, infallible.

Shall we go to the monks and the Vulgate?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[JustChristian]

What does factual errors mean?

2SA 24:9 The census count was: Israel 800,000 and Judah 500,000.
1CH 21:5 The census count was: Israel 1,100,000 and Judah 470,000.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

"The original manuscripts of the Bible were inerrant but errors were introduced in translation" was my selection.

However, my REAL position would be that the autographs were inerrant but errors were introduced in document transcription, not translation.

Kind of pointless since none of the autographs are exant. A better question: does the bible have to be perfect without factual error to be inspired by God?

 

[Bartimaeus]

Inerrancy?

Let us see what's in the puzzle bibles today
It always helps us find our very own way,
this piece, that piece it is all in the pie
the way I see it through my very own eye,
Did God really say He could preserve it through
because IF He can't do what He said
He can't preserve you!

Written for my brethren who have soooo many to choose from.
Written by Bro Bartimaeus 6-3-08.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Let us see what's in the puzzle bibles today
It always helps us find our very own way,
this piece, that piece it is all in the pie
the way I see it through my very own eye,
Did God really say He could preserve it through
because IF He can't do what He said
He can't preserve you!

Written for my brethren who have soooo many to choose from.
Written by Bro Bartimaeus 6-3-08.

Nice little diddy but how do you explain instances like baptistbeliever quoted? That isn't the only one. Now when the originals were writen it could have been on the mark but none are extant. There are coping errors as you can read in Archer's book of bible difficulties. That doesn't mean the truth is off.

 

[psalms109:31]

Scripture

Me I found the NIV, NASB, NKJ, and KJ all good translations that has brought a good understanding because one word in Greek and Hebrew can mean many things in English. Those translation brought me better understanding. Those Holy Bible's were tranlated in the right time when men had fear of God. Today's bible translation by men with no fear of God I really don't trust them.

The Gospel are an account of what they seen, by eye witnesses.They might have a little difference, because one may not of seen what another seen. The main things is God through the Holy Spirit reminded them what was really important what Jesus said.

John 14:26
But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Any other contradiction is because men have misunderstood the scripture. God is in control, So He had the Holy Bible tranlated just the way He wanted it to be and gave us what He wanted us to know. You can trust God.

I couldn't vote because you don't need to learn Greek and Hebrew to study the manuscripts, but trust in God that He had the Holy Bible translated and gave us what He wanted us to know.

When you read the scripture spend time in the index to, there is importand things there to.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Me I found the NIV, NASB, NKJ, and KJ all good translations that has brought a good understanding because one word in greek and Hebrew can mean many things in English. Those translation brought me better understanding. Those Holy Bible's were tranlated in the right time when men had fear of God. Today's bible translation by men with no fear of God I really don't trust them.

The Gospels are an account of what they seen, by eye witnesses.They might have a little difference, because one may not of seen what another seen. The main things is God through the Holy Spirit reminded them what was really important what Jesus said.

John 14:26
But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Any other contradiction is because men have misunderstood the scripture. God is in control, So He had the Holy Bible tranlated just the way He wanted it to be and gave us what He wanted us to know. You can trust God.

I couldn't vote because you don't need tolearn greek and Hebrew to study the manuscripts, but trunt in God that He had the Holy Bible translated and gave us what He wanted us to know.

I can agree with that. Thanks.

 

[StefanM]

Kind of pointless since none of the autographs are exant. A better question: does the bible have to be perfect without factual error to be inspired by God?

IMO, inspiration by God requires inerrancy in the autographs.

That being said, I do not believe we should apply overly literal 21st century scientific standards to an ancient text.

But the issue for me is not inerrancy (a buzz word) but authority.

When the text is clear (from a text-critical position), then I accept it.

I am far more concerned with the belief that one can reject the teachings of Paul than I am about a buzz word.

 

[Bartimaeus]

Innerrancy?

I've never been good at joining country clubs or societies. There's a real big one here abouts. It started a long time ago and for you folks who like things because it is simply the oldest around, seem to flock there anyway.

This group is called the Y.H.G.S. Society

Yea, hath God said?

Bartimaeus

 

[Thinkingstuff]

IMO, inspiration by God requires inerrancy in the autographs.

That being said, I do not believe we should apply overly literal 21st century scientific standards to an ancient text.

But the issue for me is not inerrancy (a buzz word) but authority.

When the text is clear (from a text-critical position), then I accept it.

I am far more concerned with the belief that one can reject the teachings of Paul than I am about a buzz word.

Good point.

 

[Bartimaeus]

Inerrancy?

What happens when the clear "text critical" that the Holy Spirit guides you into is different than the clear "text critical" that the Holy Spirit guides me into?

What is the final authority?

Reminds me of a crew I saw building a house one day. They all used standard american measurements. They were not there the next day and a new group took up the hammer and nails and used the metric syst. Then, to beat it all it continued to change back and forth between crews and the prospective homeowner really ended up with a wonderful house.

So.....let's all use a different standard and try to build something.

Bartimaeus

 

[Thinkingstuff]

inerrancy

I've never been good at joining country clubs or societies. There's a real big one here abouts. It started a long time ago and for you folks who like things because it is simply the oldest around, seem to flock there anyway.

This group is called the Y.H.G.S. Society

Yea, hath God said?

Bartimaeus

cute likening us to Satan in the garden.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

inerrancy

What happens when the clear "text critical" that the Holy Spirit guides you into is different than the clear "text critical" that the Holy Spirit guides me into?

What is the final authority?

Reminds me of a crew I saw building a house one day. They all used standard american measurements. They were not there the next day and a new group took up the hammer and nails and used the metric syst. Then, to beat it all it continued to change back and forth between crews and the prospective homeowner really ended up with a wonderful house.

So.....let's all use a different standard and try to build something.

Bartimaeus

Well that's the point stephan m is making. You run into problems using a modern context to study scripture. Keep in mind Paul used the LXX rather than the KJV as did most early christians. What was his authority? When Paul praised the Bareans what scriptures do you think they were using? LXX.

 

[Dale-c]

What is the final authority?

The anglican translators of the KJV?
Or is it the people who made the 1769 revision to the KJV?
Or???

God's word is inerrant.
Man's fallible translations are not inerrant.

This is why it is important that we not trust one person or group with a monopoly on the translation of God's word.
PLacing all authority for translation into the hands of a single entity is what the RC church wants.

I would highly suggest James White's book "The King James Only Controversy" to anyone who would like to learn more about this issue.

 

[annsni]

I would highly suggest James White's book "The King James Only Controversy" to anyone who would like to learn more about this issue.

I heartily agree. What an AWESOME book on this topic. Easy to follow but detailed to give you good information. I hate non-fiction books but this was so enjoyable to read and I feel I learned a LOT about Biblical translating.

 

[swaimj]

However, my REAL position would be that the autographs were inerrant but errors were introduced in document transcription, not translation.

I like this option better than the ones given in the poll. Still, I would simply define inerrancy as "The scriptures, as originally given, are without error". Issues of translation or transmission do not affect inerrancy.