What is Biblical Inerrancy?

[PK]

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

Some people you have to spell it out for.

 

[Deacon]

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?

Really, you who profess to love and read the KJV ought to read its preface!

Regarding the Sepuagint (LXX) it says:

It is certain, that the Translation was not so sound and so perfect, but that it needed in many places correction; and who had been so sufficient for this work as the Apostles or Apostle-like men?
Yet it seemed good to the holy Ghost and to them, to take that which they found, (the same being for the greatest part true and sufficient) rather then by making a new, in that new world and green age of the Church, to expose themselves to many exceptions and cavillations, as though they made a Translation to serve their own turn, and therefore bearing witness to themselves, their witness not to be regarded.

[SNIP] Yet for all that, as the Egyptians are said of the Prophet to be men and not God, and their horses flesh and not spirit: so it is evident, (and Saint Jerome affirmed as much) that the Seventy were Interpreters, they were not Prophets;
they did many things well, as learned men; but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through ignorance, yea, sometimes they may be noted to add to the Original, and sometimes to take from it;

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

Like I said before: 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.

I'll let the translators of the KJV answer your question:

Now to the later we answer; that we do not deny, no, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) contains the word of God, no, is the word of God.
As the Kings Speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian and Latin, is still the Kings Speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere.
For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural man could say, “A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (els, there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but all scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be currant, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. [spelling adjusted]

Rob

 

[JustChristian]

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

Yes. I think that's a good summary. Many times I think we're wasting our time and effort fighting the wrong battles.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Yes. I think that's a good summary. Many times I think we're wasting our time and effort fighting the wrong battles.

You are totally correct. Inerrance is a completely wrong issue to fight over. Believing or not believing in inerrance has nothing to do with a person's salvation or the way they conduct their life. It is an issue that the Evil One has used effectively in bringing division amount Christians. It is so sad that some use this non-issue as a litmus test for determining who is Christian or not.

 

[EdSutton]

The best way I know to get 10 views of inerrancy, is to ask 6 Baptists to explain it! :laugh: :laugh:

And I fully believe in inerrancy, in the Biblical sense.

The fact that we do not apparently have any of the "original manuscripts", does not mean they do not still exist, FTR. How would one know if they actually saw an autograph?

Ed

 

[Bartimaeus]

Deacon,
I really appreciate you giving me that link to the full preface. I had never read that before. I stayed up late last night reading that thing. It was hard to stay with first of all because of the high english and we have lost so much, also because I was very tired. It was great reading though. I think I got the "gist" of it though. I will read it again soon. Now I understand that they (the writer of the preface) considered the LXX to be so.
This is not a cop-out, I still remember the words of the Lord Jesus. He said the OT scriptures were worthy and more than that, He quoted them and attributed authority to them as being the VERY Word of God.
You are saying though (and I approach this respectfully to you) that the translation of the OT Hebrew into the Greek (LXX) was "faulty" in places.
I don't want to punch and run, but I have two work runs to make and my children and MY GRANDSON is on his way to see his Paw-Paw. So I must make haste.

Bartimaeus

 

[Dale-c]

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

Bart, I apologize that I was not able to get back to you sooner.
This is an excellent question but one we probably do not agree on.

I would probably answer ether 2 or 3.
You would have to get specific as to what "all the texts" are.
Are we talking about greek manuscripts or english texts?

I believe any honest english translation to be the word of God.
Whether it be the KJV 1611 the KJV 1769 or any of those in between. Whether it is the NASB or the NIV or the ESV etc I don't think you will find any essential doctrine absent.

I believe God has preserved His Word by not allowing any single human entity to have a monopoly of His Word.
When cults like the Jehovah's Witness' try to tamper and alter the Bible they are not really able to.
THey may make a twisted "translation" but the truth is still there in all of the true Biblical text.
The widespread distribution of the Bible is such that the truth will never be lost and this I am thankful for.

I am also thankful that the RC church has never been able to have a monopoly on the transmission of the text.

Great question. It deserves discussion.

God bless you as you study,


Dale

 

[Dale-c]

He quoted them and attributed authority to them as being the VERY Word of God.

Bart, I have been studying this whole issue a bit lately and have found it fascinating.
I have said this before but it is worth repeating: The Kings James Only Controversy is an excellent resource on this subject of the transmission and preservation of the Scriptures.
It has streghthened my faith in the power of God to preserve His word.


Here is another link I have not yet listened to but I have heard this author on the subject and found him to be very well studied on the issue.

http://www.aomin.org/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=261&osCsid=c60e5b0529c30bc6032cba2e8a550b59

 

[Dale-c]

Here is a little more about the above post:

How We Got The Bible
[476MP3] $4.13


Click to enlarge
476 - How We Got The Bible

by Dr. James White

In this lecture, James White goes over the origins of the Bible. Many Christians take their Bible for granted and have never studied its history and origin. James discusses the canon of Scripture, textual criticism, inerrancy, interpretation, and inspiration. Also, there is an interesting section concerning Jesus' view of the Scriptures. The term "theopneustos" is covered, as well as transmission of the texts, supposed contradictions, the types of literature used in the Bible, and modern translations. If you want to know how to defend the Bible, this lecture is for you. (2 hrs, 44 minutes)

 

[JustChristian]

I'm curious. For those who believe that the King James version is without error how do you explain the kind of minor inconsistency I posted earlier? This is from the King James and there are a LOT more examples of minor inconsistencies in that translation just as there are in all that I've ever read.



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.

 

[Revmitchell]

I'm curious. For those who believe that the King James version is without error how do you explain the kind of minor inconsistency I posted earlier? This is from the King James and there are a LOT more examples of minor inconsistencies in that translation just as there are in all that I've ever read.



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.

Inerrancy doesnt speak to copiest errors. However if you want to discuss wether scripture is without error regarding doctrine, history, and science when it speaks to those issues then that is a valid argument for or against inerrancy.

 

[Allan]

I'm curious. For those who believe that the King James version is without error how do you explain the kind of minor inconsistency I posted earlier? This is from the King James and there are a LOT more examples of minor inconsistencies in that translation just as there are in all that I've ever read.



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.

How many fighting men were found in
Judah and Israel?
2 Samuel 24:9 and 1 Chronicles 21:5


Five hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9) - "And Joab gave the number of the registration of the people to the king; and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men who drew the sword, and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men."
Four hundred and seventy thousand (1 Chronicles 21:5) - "And Joab gave the number of the census of all the people to David. And all Israel were 1,100,000 men who drew the sword; and Judah was 470,000 men who drew the sword."
Israel Judah
2 Sam 24:9 800,000 "valiant" men 500,000
1 Chron. 21:5 1,100,000 men 470,000 men

Regarding Israel's number difference:
The solution to the difference in counts for Israel seems to be answered in the Hebrew word for "valiant," which is "chayil" found in 2 Samuel 24:9. It means, "men of valor, army, host, etc." It seems to mean that the men numbered in 2 Samuel 24:9 were those with battle experience where the men of 1 Chronicles 21:5 were not. It was most probably true that there were an additional 300,000 men ready for battle who had not yet experienced it. Therefore, 2 Sam. 24:9 numbers only the experienced men, where 1 Chronicles 21:5 numbers all men of battle ready age.

Regarding Judah's number difference:
The solution seems to provided for us in the following verse six which says, "But he did not number Levi and Benjamin among them, for the king’s command was abhorrent to Joab," (NASB). Verse six states that the numbering process had not yet been completed since the tribes of Levi and Benjamin had not been numbered.

From the Website CARM

 

[Goldie]

Bible Believer,

As far as I've noted, it depends which version of the KJV Bible you are referring to, to my mind the Authorized or 1611 King James Bible is error free as it is the only Bible that is translated (taken from) directly from the Textus Receptus, whereas ALL other Bible versions are translated from Catholic translations of the Textus Receptus, and so are prone to error to varying degrees.

Bible inerrancy means that The Bible's author is in fact the Holy Spirit (Holy Spirit inspired). God only wrote one Bible.

2 Samuel 24:8-10 reads:
So when they had gone through all the land, they came to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days. And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah [were] five hundred thousand men. And David's heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said unto the LORD, I have sinned greatly in that I have done: and now, I beseech thee, O LORD, take away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly.

1 Chronicles 21:3-6 reads:
And Joab answered, The LORD make his people an hundred times so many more as they be: but, my lord the king, are they not all my lord's servants? why then doth my lord require this thing? why will he be a cause of trespass to Israel?
Nevertheless the king's word prevailed against Joab. Wherefore Joab departed, and went throughout all Israel, and came to Jerusalem. And Joab gave the sum of the number of the people unto David. And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and an hundred thousand men that drew sword: and Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword.

The reason for the "contradiction" or "inerrancy lies in 1 Chronicles 21:3 and 1 Chronicles 21:6:

Verse 3: And Joab answered, The LORD make his people an hundred times so many more as they be: but, my lord the king, are they not all my lord's servants? why then doth my lord require this thing? why will he be a cause of trespass to Israel?

Verse 6:But Levi and Benjamin counted he not among them: for the king's word was abominable to Joab.

1 Chronicles 21:3 states that God increased or made His people an hundred time as many more as they be (were), (hence 500 000 as opposed to 800 000)Then 1 Chronicles 21:6 clearly states that two tribes, namely Levi and Benjamin weren't counted (in the census), hence 470 000 as opposed to 500 000.

One has to read entire chapters to put Scripture into it's rightful context, not individual scriptures where the meaning can be taken out of context.

God Bless You,
Audrey

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.

 

[JustChristian]

Inerrancy doesnt speak to copiest errors. However if you want to discuss wether scripture is without error regarding doctrine, history, and science when it speaks to those issues then that is a valid argument for or against inerrancy.

How do you know that this error is from copying?

 

[SBCPreacher]

...Authorized or 1611 King James Bible...

Authorized by who? God, or the Pagan King James? It tells you somewhere around the title page.

 

[Dale-c]

As far as I've noted, it depends which version of the KJV Bible you are referring to, to my mind the Authorized or 1611 King James Bible is error free as it is the only Bible that is translated (taken from) directly from the Textus Receptus,

DO you actually use the 1611?
Also, which versions of the TR are "Catholic" versions and which are not?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

1611 KJV also had the apocryphal writing. And as far as the Textus Receptus:

The irony is that the Received Text is not actually a single edition, but a sort of text-type of its own consisting of hundreds of extremely similar but not identical editions. Nor do any of its various flavours agree exactly with any extant text-type or manuscript. Thus the need, when referring to the Received Text, to specify which received text we refer to....It is sad to report that such a noble undertaking was so badly handled (all the more so since it became the basis of Luther's German translation, and later -- with some slight modifications -- of the English King James Version). The speed with which the book went through the press meant that it contained literally thousands of typographical errors.

 

[Bartimaeus]

Deacon,
That was truly remarkable reading and I think that I will remember that I read that because of a friends bidding on the BB.
One point though, as I understand the issue, the LXX was not used in the translation of the AV 1611. Please help me with this. If it was not the Loosely translated LXX does not impact the Inerrancy issue of the AV.

Dale,
I have read White's book. I cannot comment today because I read it about three years ago.

Lastly, no one is answering my question. If you believe the many translations of the modern bilbles, how does one reconcile the incredeble number of inconsistencies found in them when they are reviewed side by side. You say they are the veritable Word of God? How can they be so?
Why didn't God preserve His Word on the triune Godhead in some of the translations? (the standard being not specifically, but idealy "jot and tittle") This is just one subject, I may ask about more in the future.

Bartimaeus

 

[Askjo]

I have said this before but it is worth repeating: The Kings James Only Controversy is an excellent resource on this subject of the transmission and preservation of the Scriptures.

You are interested in this book that I do not recommend.

 

[Askjo]

What does Biblical inerrancy mean to you?

It refers to the autographs only, not apographs nor translations.