Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Forum for Polls' started by PhatCat, May 22, 2006.
Please answer honestly how you feel about the Bible and how it relates to your life.
Poll Results: #5 Bible Inerrancy Poll (55 votes.)
#5 Bible Inerrancy Poll
(column 1 is the last 4 votes #51-#55):
+1 - -1. The Bible has errors (i.e. is NOT inerrant) 7% (4)
== - 0. The Bible has minor errors but is still useful 2% (1)
+2 - 1. The Bible is inerrant on all doctrinal issues 13% (7)
== - 2. inerrant on all issues like historic/scientific 2% (1)
== - 3. The Bible is inerrant in the original autographs 62% (34)
+1 - 4. inerrant only in the KJV1611 Authorized Version 11% (6)
== - 5. inerrant in any English translation based on the TR 0% (0)
== - 6. inerrant in all faithful English translations 4% (2)
== - 7. inerrant as applied by _____ (post person or group) 0% (0)
That is the results of a similar poll at:
(note: current poll is in error????
check listings of poll results on page 5 and page 1 )
if the bible was fallible and errant - then it wouldn't be the word of God.
"if the bible was fallible and errant - then it wouldn't be the word of God."
Same logic as:
if King David was fallible and errant - then he wouldn't be a man of God
if Moses was fallible and errant - then he wouldn't be a man of God
God is mightier than the words used to relay HIS WRITTEN WORD.
God is mightier than the men used to relay HIS LIVING WORD
God is HIS LIVING WORD.
so Ed... do you honestly believe that the bibles we have today (i use the KJV because i've grown up with it) are fallible and errant?
if so - better throw them away and learn greek and hebrew! oh but... man wrote those - that was just man's account of what they think God told them...
that's bull. (excuse my reference to bad language)
that is a joke.
the bible is the infallible - inerrant - word of God. otherwise our faith is vain
still pondering J.Jumps reasoning of the differances between body, soul and spirit
but i will apply it here and see if it works - J.Jump - if you read this - please respond if i am incorrect in understanding what you've displayed in another thread.
king david's flesh is fallible and errant - but his spirit was not - his spirit was not able to sin - but the flesh was. therefore he still is a man of God - because he truly repented - and not some "Oh God im sorry!" deal - he truly repented - and no record was written of him doing that again... otherwise it would have been written - just like all the falls israel's kings made after David.
same goes for everybody else.
you have no argument.
Gekko: //so Ed... do you honestly believe that the bibles we have today (i use the KJV because i've grown up with it) are fallible and errant?//
Bad question. There is no call for anybody to tell me what I
believe. Please limit yourself to telling what you believe.
I beleive that God CAN do a perfect work toward
His PERFECT WILL using inperfect subjects.
Here is my answer to my quiz:
- 6. inerrant in all faithful English translations 4% (2)
I do NOT believe the LIBERAL belief that only the KJVs
are inerrant. I do NOT believe the LIBERAL belief
that the majority of posters this board believe:
3. The Bible is inerrant in the original autographs 62% (34)
Gekko: //the bible is the infallible - inerrant - word of God. otherwise our faith is vain//
what in your opinion is the Bible that is infallible and inerrant.
A picture of it would be nice. Thank you.
to me? well. the first translation from the greek and hebrew - which to my understanding is the KJV. i do not wish to debate this. i dont believe that any other translation is not the bible though. who knows - maybe there are other translations that are close to the originals... but what do i know.
what's wrong with liberal beliefs?
and what's wrong with asking you what you believe? if you read carefully - i never told you what you believe - i simply wanted to clarify something. tis all.
Gekko: //to me? well. the first translation from the greek and hebrew - which to my understanding is the KJV. i do not wish to debate this.//
If 'first' means foremost, then that is a good opinion.
If however 'first' has the timewise meaning, the KJVs were not
the first English translation. Yes 'KJVs' is correct, there are
more than one KJV.
In my computer I have three borrowed
Geneva Bible, 1587 edition
KJV1769 Edition with Strong's numbers.
All three are inerrant and infallible.
However, my understanding of the Bible is NOT inerrant nor
is my understanding of the Bible infallible.