What is Biblical Inerrancy?

[Dale-c]

So, PK from what I am seeing you do not believe in the KJV only per se but rather in the texts that they were taken from?
And you would then admit that the KJV is prone to copy errors etc?

 

[Dale-c]

Maybe I missed something in those articles PK, but I still don't see an answer from you for my question so I will ask them again:

1. If you insist on a 100% perfect and literal translation, which edition of the KJV contains 100% word for word THE Word of God?
There have been many revisions of the KJV and I highly doubt you use the 1611.

I saw the link you posted but which one of these revisions is with out error?

2. By what authority is the KJV "The Bible" and other translations are not, such as the Geneva Bible, the ASV, the NKJV and the NASB et al?

I didn't see an answer to this anywhere.

3. What was THE Bible in the years prior to 1611 in England and at what exact time did the KJV become "The Bible"

YOu have not answered this either.

 

[PK]

Maybe I missed something in those articles PK, but I still don't see an answer from you for my question so I will ask them again:

1. If you insist on a 100% perfect and literal translation, which edition of the KJV contains 100% word for word THE Word of God?
There have been many revisions of the KJV and I highly doubt you use the 1611.

I saw the link you posted but which one of these revisions is with out error?

2. By what authority is the KJV "The Bible" and other translations are not, such as the Geneva Bible, the ASV, the NKJV and the NASB et al?

I didn't see an answer to this anywhere.

3. What was THE Bible in the years prior to 1611 in England and at what exact time did the KJV become "The Bible"

YOu have not answered this either.

Please go back and read again. You obviously did not read the articles.

 

[Askjo]

There were several Byzantine text the one which Erasemus (a catholic) translated from was of dubious quality and he had to "fill in the gaps" (especially with revelations) using the Latin Vulate.

You did not answer my question:

Look at the Textus Receptus and the Critical Texts. When nearly 10,000 different word variations between the TR and the CT disagreed each other, can they be equally verbally inspired?

Please answer my question -- Yes or no??

 

[Ed Edwards]

Askjo: // Look at the Textus Receptus and the Critical Texts. When nearly 10,000 different word variations between the TR and the CT disagreed each other, can they be equally verbally inspired? //

1. I cannot read the Textus Receptus nor the Critical Texts. I don't read Greek so I can't read the LXX either. What I can read, and have, is the NIV; from which the N.T. is derived largely from the Critical Texts. What I can read, and have, is the nKJV from which the N.T. is derived largely from the Textus Receptus.

2. I doubt if there is 10,000 differences, the NT just isn't that long.

3. Who is the author of any differences between the two? I believe that God inspired both the Textus Receptus and the Critical Texts. Furthermore: Everything I known about God leads me to have full confidence in the things that I don't know about God..

4. Both the TR & CT are equally verbally inspired. My proof from Scripture:

2Ti 3:16-17 (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition):
For the whole Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God, and is profitable to teache, to conuince, to correct, and to instruct in righteousnesse,
17 That the man of God may be absolute, being made perfect vnto all good workes.

The only way to get whole & absolute is to study the NIV and the nKJV. IF you speak a 300 year old English, feel free to use the Geneva Bible and the KJV1611 Edition (the real KJV, before the Bible Modifiers got their hands on the KJV ).

 

[Ed Edwards]

Askjo: //Look at the Textus Receptus and the Critical Texts. When nearly 10,000 different word variations between the TR and the CT disagreed each other, can they be equally verbally inspired?//

Consider this from the KJV1611 Edition Bible:

Matthew 1:11
And ||Iosias begat Icchonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon.

First Translator's Margin Note:
Some read, Iosias begate Iakim, and Iakim begat* Iechonias.

* Ed's footnote: 'begat' is the reading in the original - should have been 'begate' - oops!

Translated, one TR source said:
Matthew 1:11 (TR source 1):
And Iosias begate Icchonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon.

Translated, another TR source said:
Matthew 1:11 (TR source 2):
And Iosias begate Iakim, and Iakim begat Iechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon.

Are both TR sources of Matthew 1:11 equally verbally inspired? Or was one source of the TR wrong?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You did not answer my question: Please answer my question -- Yes or no??

I believe the scriptures were inspired particularily the originals. Translations are just that: Translations of inspired words. My point was that the Textus Recepticus was not as error free as you might suppose. Since we don't have the originals to compare notes its a moot point. If you're looking for a pristine error free (immaculate if you will) texts of scriptures that have been handed down exactly (down to the Yod) as the originals I say dear friend you are mistaken and I challenge you to find them. You will not find it with the TR. What you will find are many copies that have transcription errors or missing items. Since the bible was translated many times with many languages we can compare notes with the other text and derive commonalities. We can also compare with the Dead Sea Scrolls.

 

[Dale-c]

Please go back and read again. You obviously did not read the articles.

ACtually I want your answers. it appears that your answer is "I believe whatever Sam Gipp says"

Well, James White would destroy Gipp's arguments but have you read his book?
If you can't articulate what you believe, you have no belief. You are just parroting what someone else says. You don't have a clue for yourself.
You just have to hope Sam Gipp has done his homework.

 

[PK]

ACtually I want your answers. it appears that your answer is "I believe whatever Sam Gipp says"

Well, James White would destroy Gipp's arguments but have you read his book?
If you can't articulate what you believe, you have no belief. You are just parroting what someone else says. You don't have a clue for yourself.
You just have to hope Sam Gipp has done his homework.

Dale, Dale, Dale...
Is that animosity in your typing? I did not promote this person by name. I only said that the articles summed up the point very well. I do not follow any man but I like how you have been promoting James R. White's teachings over the last couple of weeks. :tonofbricks:

 

[Bartimaeus]

This is a strawman.
You are dodging the real issues of the thread and making up your own strawmen to swat down.

So what is the real issue of the thread? Is it not God promising to give us an inerrant text of scripture. Is it not the ability of God to preserve His Word through countless ages. As this is the real issue.......
When God promised to preserve His Word and then I find that God has promised to preserve my words, are they not related. Are they not kindred issues?

I am not fabricating straw men. It is easy to pass off an issue and not address it by labeling it as a strawman. Call it what you want. It is related. It is cognate. It is very relative to the original question. You must not want to deal with it.


Who said God has not preserved his word? Certainly not me!

I have not said that you had. So you bringing up here in a post to me is merely taking up space.

Yes, it is important God holding us accountable for our actions is a total rabbit trail from the issue at hand.

Your statement here is a little incoherant. PK last posted the information about accountability. So if you are again addressing me on the issue you are merely taking up space.


You say others have not answered questions but please answer me this:

1. If you insist on a 100% perfect and literal translation, which edition of the KJV contains 100% word for word THE Word of God?
There have been many revisions of the KJV and I highly doubt you use the 1611.

First of all I will be glad to answer your question. I use and believe that the 1789 Edition of the AV 1611 is the Word of God for the English speaking people. I believe that it is the Inerrant Word of God. I believe your late grandfather and I would agree on this position. I never spoke to him on this issue but I believe I am correct on this. No, I do not use the AV 1611 1st Ed., if that is what you mean.

2. By what authority is the KJV "The Bible" and other translations are not, such as the Geneva Bible, the ASV, the NKJV and the NASB et al?

I believe that the Antiochian line of scripture to be the line that the Lord has blessed and has historically shown to be authoritative. When you say, "By what authority is the KJV "The Bible" and others are not,...." I believe you are exposing your inexperience and inablility to debate the issue. Most men on this board know my position and study. They may not agree with it, but they do know from where it comes. Then.... my friend you throw the Geneva Bible and ASV, NKJV and NASB in the same basket. They are from different lines of scripture. They do not have the same origins. Once again, you show you are a freshman.

3. What was THE Bible in the years prior to 1611 in England and at what exact time did the KJV become "The Bible"

Now why do you ask this question? Do you not know? Do you not know that I believe that God had a text for His people? I will gladly answer. God blessed and used the Geneva Bible prior to the AV 1611. There is enough historical information on the Geneva and the 1611 to show the passing of one and the use and blessing of the next. "Exact time" is again showing the novice position.


I will remind you of your own words from the last page that have been preserved for few days now
So, I will admonish you to take your own advice and answer my questions.

Now answer my question.

Bartimaeus

 

[Dale-c]

xDale, Dale, Dale...
Is that animosity in your typing?

No, and I apologize if you felt so. At least not at you, my brother in Christ. I wish only to deal with truth and error and do not mean to attack you personally in any way. If I have come across that way, please accept my apologies.


As For James White, he is an excellent scholar on the issue and is a a scholar in greek. he knows his stuff.
he cites his references he backs up his claims. Is he the final authority on the issue? Certainly not.

But! You have yet to really answer my questions

 

[Dale-c]

My Question was :
1. If you insist on a 100% perfect and literal translation, which edition of the KJV contains 100% word for word THE Word of God?
There have been many revisions of the KJV and I highly doubt you use the 1611.

First of all I will be glad to answer your question. I use and believe that the 1789 Edition of the AV 1611 is the Word of God for the English speaking people. I believe that it is the Inerrant Word of God. I believe your late grandfather and I would agree on this position. I never spoke to him on this issue but I believe I am correct on this. No, I do not use the AV 1611 1st Ed., if that is what you mean.

I assume you meant the 1769 version rather than the 1789. Most people I know of use the 1769 which is the most common text today.
So am I to assume that the previous editions had errors that needed to be corrected and the 1769 was the perfecting of the KJV translation?

Also, My grandfather never had a position such as yours as far as I am aware. He in fact did change at one time to another translation but it was more difficult for people in the pew who still had the KJV to follow along so he reverted to the KJV but for a time at least still used the other version for personal study.
As others around him began to make an issue out of the KJV I think he reverted back to it but I am not sure of the reasons as I never discussed it with him.
Also my dad has preferred the TR but is not KJV only per se as you are.

My Next question was:

2. By what authority is the KJV "The Bible" and other translations are not, such as the Geneva Bible, the ASV, the NKJV and the NASB et al?
To which you answered:

I believe that the Antiochian line of scripture to be the line that the Lord has blessed and has historically shown to be authoritative. When you say, "By what authority is the KJV "The Bible" and others are not,...." I believe you are exposing your inexperience and inablility to debate the issue. Most men on this board know my position and study. They may not agree with it, but they do know from where it comes. Then.... my friend you throw the Geneva Bible and ASV, NKJV and NASB in the same basket. They are from different lines of scripture. They do not have the same origins. Once again, you show you are a freshman.

First:

I believe that the Antiochian line of scripture to be the line that the Lord has blessed and has historically shown to be authoritative.

By what criteria has the Lord shown this to be authoritative and the others not so?

Second:

When you say, "By what authority is the KJV "The Bible" and others are not,...." I believe you are exposing your inexperience and inablility to debate the issue.

I am not an expert in this field but I think this is a very good question.

Third:

Then.... my friend you throw the Geneva Bible and ASV, NKJV and NASB in the same basket. They are from different lines of scripture. They do not have the same origins. Once again, you show you are a freshman.

I am aware that these are not all from the same text lines. I never claimed they were.
But if the KJV is the perfect Word of God to the exclusion of all others then that precludes the others I mentioned from being perfect as well, regardless of underlying texts used.


Next I asked:
3. What was THE Bible in the years prior to 1611 in England and at what exact time did the KJV become "The Bible"
To which you answered:

Now why do you ask this question? Do you not know? Do you not know that I believe that God had a text for His people? I will gladly answer. God blessed and used the Geneva Bible prior to the AV 1611. There is enough historical information on the Geneva and the 1611 to show the passing of one and the use and blessing of the next. "Exact time" is again showing the novice position.

1. I am asking because I want to know your response.
2. If the Geneva Bible was God's perfect Word before the 1611 did it cease to be perfect after either 1611 or perhaps in 1769 when the KJV was apparently perfected?
Is the Geneva still perfect to this day or is it superseded by the KJV?

What of the differences between the two?

For instance the KJV reads in 1 Cor 6:9 the following:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

But in the KJV 1769 we read:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor wantons, nor buggerers,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Which way is it in your view of word for word accuracy? Is it "wontons and buggerers" or is it merely the "effeminate"?


You call me a freshman and unable to debate this issue but you have no idea how much I have studied, nor do I know how much you have studied.
Neither of our sides of the argument are right or wrong based upon the amount of studying we have personally done.

 

[Bartimaeus]

Dale,
Your post is getting quite lengthy. I am willing to deal with it in it's entirety, but I have been awake since 5 am Sat. and it is now Sun at 10:30. I am very tired and I am afraid I will not be very sharp right now.... the 1789/1769 mistake is my best example right now.
I know this .... if I knew as much about the issue here as you know about mac's I would be exceptionally sharp. Right now I am very dull. Lots to discuss and now I must decline and retire.

Bartimaeus

 

[Dale-c]

Bart, no hurries. I am interested in the truth as you are I am sure.
Take your time to do it right when you have the time. Meanwhile, rest well and God bless you and your family!

 

[Ed Edwards]

// in the KJV 1769 we read:

Quote:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor wantons, nor buggerers,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God.//

Apparently that is the Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition???

 

[Dale-c]

Ed, it seems Bat was not the only tired one last night. Yes, I switched the KJV and the Geneva, got them backwards! Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Dale-c]

Wow, I must have overwhelmed everyone with that long post. Looks like I killed the thread

 

[PK]

The issue here is that you are trying to disprove the inspiration of the KJB but God promised to preserve His Word.

"For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh in you that believe." (1 Thess. 2:13)

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The issue here is that you are trying to disprove the inspiration of the KJB but God promised to preserve His Word.

"For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh in you that believe." (1 Thess. 2:13)

I think I know whats going on here. There was another discussion I had with a member of the Primitive Baptist church. So I researched them. There is a belief that the apostolic deposit of faith came from Jesus Christ to the apostles to the true churches at the same time accepted books now present in the King James Bible was passed on completely and without error until the these books were translated into English (KJB). They believe that the other christian churches became apostate and incorporated paganism. two lines of churches one "true church" with "one true" scriptures that moved through history and a pagan church. The KJB then becomes the only authorized bible.

Besides falling on the side of legalism these guys have a problem. Their a new outcroping of Christianity born out of the missionary baptist debates and seperated themselves out. There is no historical record of them coming down from the apostles through the different churches in Turkey, Syria, Egypt, Greece, Italy, North Africa, Spain, And Gaul through the reformation and finally into the US where these guys actually started. They must insist on the Pre-eminance of KJB over all other scripture and so a perfectly pristine translation handed down through the ages. Historical document don't prove this out. Actual study of Scriptures and the translated text don't prove this out. They don't require facts though it has to be faith. (Kind of like the burning bussom of the LDS) I find that there is a kind of Mantra that they use on most if not all of their websites John 4:24 "God is spirit and his worshipers must worship in spirit and truth." Believing that only they have the truth in its entirety which is the KJB. No other text can be accepted. Anything that the bible doesn't specifically mention they are silent as well. I think they would have a hard time with Jude which quotes from the book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses. I think if they understand how scriptures were handed down to us they would have real issues. I believe these guys can't really be reasoned with because they just believe. the "don't confuse me with the facts" thing.

 

[Bro. James]

Now that we have introduced the notion that there might be a True Church, is it not reasonable to suppose there might also be a False Church--a synogogue of Satan? Do we turn to the Word of God, the traditions of men, or a combination thereof for a standard faith and practice? Maybe Grandma Moses?

Jesus told us He would build His Church and He gave Her His authority, His Word, and the Holy Spirit to keep Her on the straight and narrow. He said He would be with Her forever. Most of the past two millenia have shown a church never on the straight and narrow even through today. Are we saying that Jesus cannot keep His Bride from being defiled?

He has kept Her, just like He said He would. She has survived the onslaught of the hordes of Hades. You will not find Her listed in Who is Who in Religion. You will find Her waiting and watching for the Bridegroom to return.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Selah,

Bro. James

P.S. To "Thinkingstuff": how long have you studied this group called Primitive Baptists?