Is your Bible Inerrant?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Ed Edwards, Sep 21, 2003.

?

Is your Bible Inerrant?

  1. -3 the Bible has many major errors and is invalid

    1.0%
  2. -2 the Bible has major errors so is only marginally useful

    1.0%
  3. -1 the Bible has minor errors and should be used with caution

    4.2%
  4. 0 the Bible has minor errors but is still useful

    11.5%
  5. 1 The Bible is inerrant on all doctrinal issues

    12.5%
  6. 2 The Bible is inerrant on all issues: doctrinal, historic, and scientific

    45.8%
  7. 3 The Bible is inerrant in the original autographs

    3.1%
  8. 4 The Bible is inerrant only in the Textus Receptus (TR)

    4.2%
  9. 5 The Bible is inerrant only in the KJV 1611 (exclusive of translator notes)

    2.1%
  10. The Bible is inerrant only in the KJV 1611 (including the translator notes)

    1.0%
  11. 7 The Bible is inerrant only in the KJB1769 and/or KJB1873

    3.1%
  12. 8 inerrant in any English translation based on the TR

    1.0%
  13. 9 inerrant in any English translation translated by dynamic equivalence

    9.4%
  14. 10 The Bible is inerrant in all English translations

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  15. 11 inerrant as implemented in the Doctrine of the Church of England <img border="0" title="" alt=

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  16. 12 inerrant implemented in the US Republican Party platform <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is your Bible Inerrant.
    The answer depends upon what you mean
    by Inerrant. I hereby introduce the
    Inerrancy scale. What do you mean
    by "Inerrant"?

    You do NOT have to answer to read
    the results.

    *note - only levels 1-12 are "inerrant".
    Levels 0, -1, -2, and -3 are included
    for completeleness (some folk don't believe
    in inerrancy)
     
  2. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Somebody vote before everybody figures
    out I voted "10 The Bible is inerrant
    in all English translations"

    [​IMG]
     
  3. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow!!! 15 votes already. [​IMG]
     
  4. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Did you like my cute little reminder that
    INERRANCY means "as writ"
    and NOT "as implemented" [​IMG]

    I discussed 6 years ago or so with a
    person who had NOT SINNED IN 20 YEARS.
    Well, i sure ain't like unto him :(
     
  5. Abiyah

    Abiyah
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/abiyah.gif>

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    Messages:
    5,194
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know a lot of people who claim that they have not
    sinned in 1 year, 5 years, 10, 25, 50, 65, and more.
    Amazingly, I used to believe them! But the lives
    of some of these was what made me believe
    initially in Calvinism. It was either that or believe
    the whole lot of them were headed for hell. :-D
     
  6. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow! 20 votes this morning:



    Poll Results: Is your Bible Inerrant? (20 votes.)
    Is your Bible Inerrant?

    -3 the Bible has many major errors and is invalid 0% (0)
    -2 the Bible has major errors so is only marginally useful 0% (0)
    -1 the Bible has minor errors and should be used with caution 0% (0)
    0 the Bible has minor errors but is still useful 5% (1)
    1 The Bible is inerrant on all doctrinal issues 5% (1)
    2 The Bible is inerrant on all issues: doctrinal, historic, and scientific 10% (2)
    3 The Bible is inerrant in the original autographs 45% (9)
    4 The Bible is inerrant only in the Textus Receptus (TR) 0% (0)
    5 The Bible is inerrant only in the KJV 1611 (exclusive of translator notes) 10% (2)
    The Bible is inerrant only in the KJV 1611 (including the translator notes) 0% (0)
    7 The Bible is inerrant only in the KJB1769 and/or KJB1873 0% (0)
    8 inerrant in any English translation based on the TR 5% (1)
    9 inerrant in any English translation translated by dynamic equivalence 0% (0)
    10 The Bible is inerrant in all English translations 20% (4)
    11 inerrant as implemented in the Doctrine of the Church of England 0% (0)
    12 inerrant implemented in the US Republican Party platform 0% (0)


    \
    [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  7. j_barner2000

    j_barner2000
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2003
    Messages:
    888
    Likes Received:
    0
    now i have degrees of the English Translations. It is entirely inerrant in the origional autographs. However based upon linguistic changes and cultural changes, the English are faithful translations and in all major points correct, however, we may have interpretation issues if we don't consider the cultural, linguistic or historical contexts of the scripture, or the time/region it was translated in. Example... In the English language, common usage of the words and grammer have changed dramatically in 400 years. Even dialectic variations caused issues back in that day.
     
  8. Matt Black

    Matt Black
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    I voted 1. Perhaps I should start a whole new thread on why, as it is somethng I struggle with...

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  9. bryan1276

    bryan1276
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2003
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    0
    I vote for the total inerrancy and perfection of the King James Bible in all its editions.
     
  10. Taufgesinnter

    Taufgesinnter
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    0
    Even though they disagree with each other? Cool! You're on the right track.
     
  11. bryan1276

    bryan1276
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2003
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    0
    glad you took the bait tauf. Tell me where the KJV editions disagree and I'll believe you. (And dont tell me you believe in all the modern versions since you've established that you dont agree with things that disagree)
     
  12. Taufgesinnter

    Taufgesinnter
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    0
    First, your parenthetical statement is untrue. I asked you whether you thought all editions of the KJV were inspired even though they disagree. Then I commended you for a more mature attitude and for taking a position--that different versions can disagree yet be inspired--that reflects considerable thought about the arguments and evidence, thinking perhaps you had begun on the right path. Or I was ironically chiding you for the opposite, but unsure whether your post was droll to begin with.

    From Ed Edwards:

    Ruth 3:15D (KJV1769):
    ... and she went into the city.

    Ruth 3:15D (KJV1873):
    ... and he went into the city.

    Ruth 3:15D (KJV1611);
    ... and he went into the citie.

    Did Ruth or Boaz go into the village
    to see Naomi?

    _________________________
    Since perfection is 100%, this example should prove sufficient.
     
  13. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow! 32 Votes this morning!

    Poll Results: Is your Bible Inerrant? (32 votes: 1 errant, 31 inerrant.)
    Is your Bible Inerrant? Choose 1


    -3 the Bible has many major errors and is invalid 0% (0)
    -2 the Bible has major errors so is only marginally useful 0% (0)
    -1 the Bible has minor errors and should be used with caution 0% (0)
    * 0 the Bible has minor errors but is still useful 3% (1)
    **** 1 The Bible is inerrant on all doctrinal issues 12% (4)
    ** 2 The Bible is inerrant on all issues: doctrinal, historic, and scientific 6% (2)
    **** -
    **** -
    **** -
    **** 3 The Bible is inerrant in the original autographs 50% (16)
    * 4 The Bible is inerrant only in the Textus Receptus (TR) 3% (1)
    ** 5 The Bible is inerrant only in the KJV 1611 (exclusive of translator notes) 6% (2)
    - 6. The Bible is inerrant only in the KJV 1611 (including the translator notes) 0% (0)
    - 7 The Bible is inerrant only in the KJB1769 and/or KJB1873 0% (0)
    * 8 inerrant in any English translation based on the TR 3% (1)
    - 9 inerrant in any English translation translated by dynamic equivalence 0% (0)
    **
    *** 10 The Bible is inerrant in all English translations 16% (5)
    - 11 inerrant as implemented in the Doctrine of the Church of England 0% (0)
    - 12 inerrant implemented in the US Republican Party platform 0% (0)

    [​IMG]
    Thank you for participating. [​IMG]
    Like they say in Chicago [​IMG]
    Vote Early; Vote Often
    [​IMG]
     
  14. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Greetings new member
    Brother Bryan1276. May God bless you
    much and your family and your ministry.
    May this be so that we might give all the
    more honor and glory unto our blessed
    Lord and Savior: Messiah Iesus*. AMEN

    * Jesus is "Iesus" in the REAL KJV1611

    I was reading in a comic book
    (i get some good philosophy and doctrine
    from comic books [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] )
    that there was a Catholic plot at the
    time of King James to contaminate
    his new Bible by having the apocrypha
    added and those pesky translator sidenotes.
    So any edition of the KJV that contains
    these features must be contaminated from
    hell. I guess here we may have a split
    between orthodox KJBO (King James Bible
    Onlyism) and reformed KJBO?

    [​IMG]
     
  15. Archangel7

    Archangel7
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    This issue was raised and a number of specific examples given in a thread a couple of weeks ago. No KJV-Only advocate has responded to it yet.

    Examples of Real Differences Between the 1611 KJV and Today's KJV

    [ September 24, 2003, 08:55 AM: Message edited by: Archangel7 ]
     
  16. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you for that link, Brother Archangel [​IMG]
     
  17. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    From the Baptist Faith and Message, 1963 of the Southern
    Baptist Convention, boldness added by Ed:

    I. The Scriptures

    The Holy BIble was written by men divinely
    inspired and is the record of God's revelation
    of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of
    divine instructions. It has God for its author,
    salvation for it end, and truth, without any
    mixture of error
    , for its matter. It reveals the
    principles by which God judges us; and
    therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world,
    the true centerof Christian union, and the
    supreme standard by which all human conduct,
    creeds, and religious opinions should be tried.
    The criterion by which the Bible is to be
    interpreted is Jesus Christ.

    Amen, SBC Brothers & Sister -- Preach it!

    But, in this context, what does "inerrant" mean?


    [​IMG]
     
  18. bryan1276

    bryan1276
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2003
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ill try to answer everyone here. Tauf you ask if Ruth or Boaz went into the 'citie'--they both went. Easy enough. Concerning the person that said something about a Roman Catholic plot to add the Apocrypha. Since all Bibles included the Apocrypha up until the KJV, but the "protestant" Bibles had the Apocrypha put either between the testaments or as an addenda, this plot thing makes no sense.
    1. Tyndale’s Bible (1525 AD) placed by itself apart from scripture...
    2. Coverdale’s Bible (1535 AD) same
    3. Matthew’s Bible (1537 AD) placed between testaments
    4. Taverner’s (1539 AD) same
    5. AV 1611 same
    6. Great Bible (1539 AD) placed in an appendix
    7. Geneva Bible (1560 AD) same
    8. Bishop’s Bible (1568 AD) same

    Ive never heard of a plot to install something that already installed... The difference between all these Bible and the Vaticanus and RCC texts which are the basis for all modern versions is that the RCC texts place the Apocrypha AS scripture. Did you know that the underlying text to your modern Bibles ACCEPTED the Apocrypha and the KJV did not accept it? As King James said "I don't accept the Apocrypha because I am no Papist."
     
  19. bryan1276

    bryan1276
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2003
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    0
    Archangel... I've never heard anyone give any TEXTUAL revisions, which is what haters of the KJV call them while loving any revisions done in the 20th century. I have a book that lists every EDITION of the KJV and its additions such as the Apocrypha taken out of a 1613 edition, or John Canne's preface put into and Amsterdam edition in 1644, or parallel texts placed by Dr. Scattergood in 1676 and on and on. Now folks that hate the KJV call those REVISIONS, but the text was never REVISED. There are changes in spelling in some editions like asswaged to assuaged in Gen 8:1, or mortar for moter in Gen 11:3, and on and on, but again, the words don't change. "Or" has been substituted for "AND" in Joshua 19:2, and for those of you who bow to scholars know either is acceptable in the "Original Manuscripts" [​IMG] So, I guess to answer you Archangel, I've heard the accusations, checked the references and come to the conclusion I originally stated... I believe all editions of the KJV. YOu guys seem so eager to get us Bible Believers to NOT beleive in our Bibles. Why. Ask yourself why you're so quick to judge a person who believes the Bible for their Bible belief and defense of it.
     
  20. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    So the KJV was in error both times??? Very interesting theory. Note that it does not say "they" went into the city in any revision.
    If this is the range of your knowledge on this topic then you are poorly informed. No MV is based solely on Vaticanus. Further, it is extremely hypocritical of you to make the RCC charge since the text used to translate the KJV was collated by the Catholic scholar Erasmus who used the RCC Latin Vulgate as a source and guide for his Greek text.
    Actually "texts" don't accept or reject anything. Users of texts either accept or reject the Apocrypha. But more to your point, aleph and B both pre-date the general acceptance of the Apocrypha as scripture in the western (Roman) church. Besides that, the RCC was not in any sense fully developed nor as apostate in the 400's as it was by the time Erasmus huddled in Basil.
    Again, the KJV neither accepts nor rejects anything.
    Interesting that he should make such a statement. There were political manueverings during his day to bring England back under Rome. They appear to have been unable to meet James' price. Besides that, he had a pretty good gig going on since he was the monarch and the prelate of the Church of England... in other words, for all intents and purposes, he was a pope.
     

Share This Page

Loading...