What is Biblical Inerrancy?

[Rippon]

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.

Rip:You are aware, of course, that the later NIV, the earlier NASB, and the NKJ were done in the 1980's, don't you?

Aside from obviously false translations such as the NWT, what Bible translations of today are done "by men with no fear of God"?

 

[JustChristian]

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.

I agree. That's really what I had in mind. It just didn't come out that way! Also, I agree that the term "factual errors" isn't clear either. That probably should have been "minor inconsistencies."

 

[PK]

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

Eve removed the word "every" in her reply to Satan as well (Subtracting from Gen 2:16).

 

[PK]

Perseverance of the saints - doctrine asserts that, since God is sovereign and his will cannot be frustrated by humans or anything else, those whom God has called into communion with himself will continue in faith until the end. Those who apparently fall away either never had true faith to begin with or will return. (wikipedia)

How can one believe that God can do this but cannot preserve His Word as he said he would?

 

[Dale-c]

How can one believe that God can do this but cannot preserve His Word as he said he would?

Who has said that God has not preserved His word?
I looked over this thread and didn't see that anywhere.
If someone has said that then shame on them but thus far I have now seen anyone say that.

 

[psalms109:31]

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.

Rip:You are aware, of course, that the later NIV, the earlier NASB, and the NKJ were done in the 1980's, don't you?

Aside from obviously false translations such as the NWT, what Bible translations of today are done "by men with no fear of God"?

I read all three and compared it to the KJ version and they were right with the KJ, but the NASB, NIV, and the NKJ was easier to understand because it is in Today's language, but I found the index to be important to because it showed what was left out from earlier manuscrips and what words also mean. They are all good translations.

God is in control when they had The Holy Bible translated, but reading some others today comparing to the KJ I didn't see them close.

 

[psalms109:31]

King James

If a bible can't attach Holy to it, i would waste my time reading it comparing it to the KJ

 

[SBCPreacher]

If a bible can't attach Holy to it, i would waste my time reading it comparing it to the KJ

Are we to assume that you're more interested in the cover than the content?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Tim LaHaye PROPHECY STUDY BIBLE (AMG Publishers, 2000) does not have the world 'holy' on the front, back, Title Page, nor spine. It does say it is a King James Version (KJV) but not which KJV it is - maybe it is one of the unholy KJVs?


Grant R. Jeffrey's KJV Prophecy Study Bible (Zondervan, 1998)) does not have the world 'holy' on the front, back, Title Page, nor spine. It does say it is a King James Version (KJV) but not which KJV it is - maybe it is one of the unholy KJVs?

 

[psalms109:31]

Assume

Are we to assume that you're more interested in the cover than the content?

No, I just have chosen to do that after hearing some verses in a translation without Holy and found out why they wouldn't attach it. Like I was following in my NASB with hebrew and greek dictionary and they were reading from the message. Mine said any sin the message saids titheing.

The context is what matter but I have chosen to not read one's that the writter couldn't even attach Holy to it.

If it is a good translation then they shouldn't be ashamed.

I just said which translation I read and found them to be good translations.

Holy doesn't matter, but the context does.

It is in my case the one I did read didn't match up.

 

[JustChristian]

Who has said that God has not preserved His word?
I looked over this thread and didn't see that anywhere.
If someone has said that then shame on them but thus far I have now seen anyone say that.

So you're arguing that God's preserving His word does NOT mean the the original, inerrant, inspired manuscripts are preserved without change? Maybe the minor discrepencies that exist in today's translations are a message to us that the Bible is primarily to convey the gospel message with the Old Testament as an introduction or background, not a history or science book although these are part of the Bible story.

Personally, I see the question of inerrancy as a non-issue since there's no way to prove it either way. rather than non-issue maybe I should say matter of faith. This faith is not to be confused with the kind of faith that changes our lives and ultimately saves us from Hell.

My position is that inerrancy is not a valid litmus test for Christians. Incorrect doctrine like Jesus was not devine or he did not die on the cross for our sins are the REAL issues.

 

[BaptistLady02]

It means to me that only the KJV is without error.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It means to me that only the KJV is without error.

That is blatantly ridiculous. Do you know how the bible was put together? I guess I could go around and say only the Septuigent is without error.

 

[SBCPreacher]

It means to me that only the KJV is without error.

Have you, through years Biblical study, determined this for yourself, or did you just believe what someone else said about the KJV?

So, is my NKJV filled with errors? Where are they? Book, chapter and verse please.

Is my wife's NASB filled with errors? Where are they? Book, chapter and verse please.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not anti-KJV. I just don't buy into the error (I'd rather say foolishness, but that wouldn't be nice) of KJV-onlyism.

 

[Bartimaeus]

Biblical Inerrancy

Who has said that God has not preserved His word?
I looked over this thread and didn't see that anywhere.
If someone has said that then shame on them but thus far I have now seen anyone say that.

Dale,
I agree with your point. I don't think anyone has said, "I don't believe God has preserved His Word". It is a good point. The question is: If you believe in the Preservation of the Scriptures....Where is it preserved?

1) Is it preserved in one text?
2) Is it preserved in all texts?
3) Is it preserved in a few of the texts?

Please these are open questions.

Bartimaeus

 

[Bartimaeus]

Biblical Inerrancey

Have you, through years Biblical study, determined this for yourself, or did you just believe what someone else said about the KJV?

So, is my NKJV filled with errors? Where are they? Book, chapter and verse please.

Is my wife's NASB filled with errors? Where are they? Book, chapter and verse please.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not anti-KJV. I just don't buy into the error (I'd rather say foolishness, but that wouldn't be nice) of KJV-onlyism.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot.

Can you say with absolute faith that your NKJV and your wife's NASB is the veritable Word of God?
Is it wholly and completely the Word of God? Does every word in your bibles carry the authority of God?

Bartimaeus

 

[Bartimaeus]

Biblical Inerrancy

Personally, I see the question of inerrancy as a non-issue since there's no way to prove it either way. rather than non-issue maybe I should say matter of faith. This faith is not to be confused with the kind of faith that changes our lives and ultimately saves us from Hell.

My position is that inerrancy is not a valid litmus test for Christians. Incorrect doctrine like Jesus was not devine or he did not die on the cross for our sins are the REAL issues.

BaptistBeliever,
Please forgive me if I have misunderstood what you are saying.
1) Inerrancy is a non-issue.
2) Inerrancy is a matter of faith.
3) Inerrancy is not as important in the matter of faith as faith that changes our lives.
4) Inerrancy is not as important in the matter of faith as faith that saves us from hell.
5) Inerrancy as a matter of faith is not as important as the Divinity of Christ or His substitutionary death.

Just requesting you to validate or clarify.

Bartimaeus

 

[Bartimaeus]

Biblical Inerrancy

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.

Archer, Lyons and Vestrum are good authors who can provide an anwer to your question.
I specifically agree with the answer that states that there is a big difference to men and "valient" men. I was in the military a long time and there is a difference. The Lord knows the difference also.

Bartimaeus

 

[Deacon]

Let's put the shoe on the other foot.

Can you say with absolute faith that your NKJV and your wife's NASB is the veritable Word of God?
Is it wholly and completely the Word of God? Does every word in your bibles carry the authority of God?

Bartimaeus

The apostles and Christians during the early centuries of Christianity used the Septuagint, in places a rather loose and free version of the Hebrew Scriptures.

How do you think they would answer your question?

But since you asked,
Yeah, I have absolute faith that the multiple versions I use are the word of God to me and to the community that uses them.

...and as the individual words communicate God's message, they too are authoritative.

Yikes, I'm begining to sound like Ed. :laugh: :saint:

Small errors in transmission/translation are interesting to work through but are generally a non-issue in regards to our eternal destiny.

Rob

 

[Bartimaeus]

Biblical Inerrancy

The apostles and Christians during the early centuries of Christianity used the Septuagint, in places a rather loose and free version of the Hebrew Scriptures.

I had never heard before that the Septuagint was "loose and free".
(Areas of it anyway) Can you tell me why it is like that and/or to what extent it is. Do you mean that it has been infused (for the lack of a better word) with man's ideas and influence?

How do you think they would answer your question?

But since you asked,
Yeah, I have absolute faith that the multiple versions I use are the word of God to me and to the community that uses them.

...and as the individual words communicate God's message, they too are authoritative.

What do you do with the areas in the difference between the texts?

Yikes, I'm begining to sound like Ed. :laugh: :saint:

Small errors in transmission/translation are interesting to work through but are generally a non-issue in regards to our eternal destiny.

How can it be the veritable Word of God and have errors, I mean every word? It either has to be the real McCoy or it isn't.

Bartimaeus