Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by JesusFan, Apr 13, 2011.
Just curious to see if anyone here holds to "limited" view on Biblical inspiration/infallibility?
I rather doubt it.
While we may not always understand the relationship between what is written and what "science" or "history' experts think occured, in the end it will be science and history that gives way to scripture.
There is no doubts here. I accept the original manuscripts to be without any error in any way.
What do you mean by error? Cause that's an important question. Are you saying the events don't contradict each or are you suggesting all the accountings need to line up precisely.
BTW, I hold to the ETS doctrinal statement which I sign yearly.
That the ORIGINAL manuscripts were FULLY w/o any errors within them... Accurate in every issue, wether historical/scientific/theological etc....
and that we DO have extremely accurate copies of them today, have some variances regarding numbers in OT, some harmonizing problems etc, but still essentially Accurate!
If God can't perserve His Word among men, how can He perserve your soul againt the powers of darkness?
Thankfully God does preserve His Word. Sadly, that has nothing to do with man-made, error-filled translations. God forbid.
We have all of God's divinely preserved Words in the 5500 copies. Deciphering and understanding what is man's addidion and commentary v God's actual Words is a herculean task. Hence my thankfulness for Dr. and Dr. Aland and the yeoman work they have done in blending all of the 5500 documents.
I do not know of one man-made translation in any language that does not have errors and poor word choices. Some errors come from man's limited understanding of the text; some are intentional mis-translations to "not offend" or to "promote some doctrine".