1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Bible Inerrancy Poll #2

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Ed Edwards, May 29, 2004.

?
  1. -1 the Bible has errors (i.e. is NOT inerrant)

    8.0%
  2. 0 the Bible has minor errors but is still useful

    10.0%
  3. 1 The Bible is inerrant on all doctrinal issues

    19.0%
  4. 2 The Bible is inerrant on all issues: doctrinal, historic, and scientific

    49.0%
  5. 3 The Bible is inerrant in the original autographs

    6.0%
  6. 4 The Bible is inerrant only in the KJV1611 Authorized Version

    2.0%
  7. 5 inerrant in any English translation based on the TR

    6.0%
  8. 6 The Bible is inerrant in all faithful English translations

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  9. 7 the Bible is inerrant as applied by _______ (post person or group)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. manchester

    manchester New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    0
    What if I believe that, in the original autographs, the Bible is totally true and inerrant. However, over time it has become imperfect, and God has given us the Quran to correct those imperfections. Doesn't that satisfy the Baptist belief requirement? It's easy to believe that the originals, which nobody has and nobody can see, are good and moral and perfect, but who the heck knows what they said?
     
  2. Ziggy

    Ziggy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,162
    Likes Received:
    163
    Faith:
    Baptist
    manchester: “What if I believe that, in the original autographs, the Bible is totally true and inerrant. However, over time it has become imperfect, and God has given us the Quran to correct those imperfections. Doesn't that satisfy the Baptist belief requirement? It's easy to believe that the originals, which nobody has and nobody can see, are good and moral and perfect, but who the heck knows what they said?

    This is actually a good question, one that clearly demonstrates the need to bolster and clarify the assertion that Scripture is “inerrant in the autographs.” A further statement is needed in order to affirm the basic reliability and maintained inerrancy in the copied documents that have been preserved and perpetuated, even though any one of them might be “imperfect” in places.

    As Richard Bentley long ago (ca. 1715) observed, the aberrancies of any single MS are overcome not by speculation, but by comparison with other MSS that override such aberrancies:

    “The real text of the sacred writers does not now (since the originals have been so long lost) lie in any single MS..., but is dispersed in them all. ... It is good ... to have more anchors than one; and another MS. to join with the first would give more authority, as well as security...A third, therefore, and so a fourth, and still on, are desirable, that by a joint and mutual help all the faults may be mended." (Bentley, Remarks on a late discourse of Free-Thinking, section 32).
     
  3. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you voter #74 for your participation.
    Thank you voter #75 for your participation.
    Thank you voter #76 for your participation.
    Thank you voter #77 for your participation.

    So, as a result of my belief,
    i believe that the Holman Christian
    Standard Bible (HCSB) is the inerrant
    Written Word of God. Amen!
     
  4. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you voter #78 for your participation.
     
  5. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Poll Results: Bible Inerrancy Poll #2 (78 votes.)
    What does Bible Inerrancy mean to you?
    Choose 1
    8% (6) -1 the Bible has errors (i.e. is NOT inerrant)
    1% (1) 0 the Bible has minor errors but is still useful
    10% (8) 1 The Bible is inerrant on all doctrinal issues
    21% (16) 2 The Bible is inerrant on all issues: doctrinal, historic, and scientific
    45% (35) 3 The Bible is inerrant in the original autographs
    5% (4) 4 The Bible is inerrant only in the KJV1611 Authorized Version
    3% (2) 5 inerrant in any English translation based on the TR
    8% (6) 6 The Bible is inerrant in all faithful English translations
    0% (0) 7 the Bible is inerrant as applied by _______ (post person or group)

    Interesting, the first poll was also
    45% The Bible is inerrant in the original autographs.
    The questions on the two polls differ somewhat (I took out
    or combined 7 more answers so there would be fewer.
    Less than autographs is 40% now, was 30% in poll #1
    More than autographs is 16% now, was 24% in poll #1
     
  6. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you voter #79 for your participation
     
  7. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you voter #80 for your participation!

    Thank you voter #81 for your participation!
     
  8. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ed, have you stated your position on this, or would you rather not until the poll is finished?
     
  9. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    I voted for:

    6 The Bible is inerrant in all faithful English translations

    I consider the smaller numbers to be
    more liberal and the larger numbers
    more conservative.
    The most common answer is the
    middle of the road.

    Well except for
    #7 which is a humor (nobody picked it):
    it is really not proper to assume that
    our understanding of God's Written Word
    is inerrant, only that God's Written
    Word is inerrant.
     
  10. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you Ed. I voted the same way. I believe that all faithful translations are inerrant.

    It is obviously important that we continue to evaluate which new translations are faithful. With more and more translations the number of unfaithful translations will increase.

    I use "The Message" as one of those. Do you agree?

    This may sound off the subject, but I think it is getting to the heart of your questions. I won't go further with it.
     
  11. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    957
    Likes Received:
    15
    So you're saying that a "faithful translation" has in EVERY case made the proper choice (1) of the original Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic words to translate and (2) that it's translated it so that the exact meaning is conveyed (no loss of meaning in translation). And that if either of these criteria fails even once then the translation is not faithful, and thus errant. So tell me which one is the INERRANT one, please! Absolutely ridiculous, and similar to KJVO people. If you want to see differences in both of these criteria in every single translation available, it could be done, and thus only ONE or NO translation is inerrant by definition. I'd like to know which one is the inerrant one!

    Yours,

    Bluefalcon
     
  12. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bluefalcon: You err by assuming that
    there is one and only one correct
    translation that is possible.

    If you are correct, i believe that that
    one correct translatation this
    generation will not be the correct
    translation next generation. See, when
    we translate, we are shooting at a moving
    target. Words change meaning from
    person to person, from place to place,
    and from time to time.

    If you assume one and only one correct
    translation, you will get one and only one
    translatlion -- this is a logical error.
     
  13. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you voter #82 for your participation!
     
  14. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    957
    Likes Received:
    15
    You misread me. I assume there is NO perfect translation due to the inability of humans to choose inerrantly the correct Greek words, e.g., out of at least 200,000 variants in the NT Greek manuscripts every time and then to translate them correctly. The latter is more possible than the first, but even still not probable.

    Yours,

    Bluefalcon
     
  15. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    957
    Likes Received:
    15
    You misread me. I assume there is NO perfect translation due to the inability of humans to choose inerrantly the correct Greek words, e.g., out of at least 200,000 variants in the NT Greek manuscripts every time and then to translate them correctly. The latter is more possible than the first, but even still not probable.

    Yours,

    Bluefalcon
     
  16. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bluefalcom: "You misread me. I assume there is NO perfect translation ... "

    Yes, i misread that. Sorry if any harm was caused.
    I assume all translations are perfect unless it is
    easy to show otherwise. What you do say to KJVOs who
    say "I want the pefect word of God right in my
    pure and simple hands"?
     
  17. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    957
    Likes Received:
    15
    Learn Greek and then you're only 1/1000th of the way there! No, really, it is God's Word that is perfect, not the words that have been added to/subtracted from/altered in God's Word. If a translation has included words in the latter category, then its translators have unwittingly mixed imperfection with perfection. As for my answer to your question, I think it's best to educate our constituency to this matter of fact rather than allow them to keep on thinking that this or that translation is the undefiled Word of God in their hands, when in fact any translation is anywhere from 90-99 percent based on perfection, with 1-10 percent imperfection comprising the rest of the base. This is just the base, and errors of translation or, what you mentioned, living words coming/going out of use, may more or less complicate the issue after the relative perfection of the base text has been decided upon.

    Yours,

    Bluefalcon
     
  18. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sounds good to me.

    It is your turn to bell the cat ;)
     
  19. Ziggy

    Ziggy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,162
    Likes Received:
    163
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Why is it so hard simply to say that translations can be "generally" or even "exceedingly" "accurate and reliable"?

    This then would beg no questions regarding a theoretical 100% perfection in human-based efforts to render the word of God into English.

    And by this standard, I would suspect most formal equivalence translations (at least) would fall into about a 99% level of accuracy regarding the rendering of their underlying base text.

    (Now the issue of the base text remains a different issue, with about 5%-10% difference among versions, depending upon what NT book you happen to be looking at).
     
  20. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    957
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ziggy, what you say is fine with me. It just seems that if people who are uneducated to the facts pick up any two different translations and start comparing, they'll see that the strong word "inerrant" cannot be applied to both (because of the many differences mainly in the text used to translate). I'm pretty sure you'd agree that's why the strong word "inerrant" is only talked about in terms of the autographs of Scripture. I'm of the persuasion that the strong word "inerrant" should be kept to the autographs only and not watered down to include all "faithful" translations or some other breed, as some seem to hold to on this board.

    Yours,

    Bluefalcon
     
Loading...