inerrancy questions

Why do the scriptures have to be inerrant down to the use of one synonym over another?

Why do they have to be "inerrant" at all? By this I mean, do the scriptures themselves tell us that we MUST preserve the most uncorrupted copy of scripture possible?

Do we not reduce God's abilities when we claim He can't (or won't?) work through the NIV or the Amplified?

Is the Word of God not something more than ink printed on paper that can be destroyed at a moments notice?

See, as I see it, the whole arguement over which is the best Bible version comes down to the issue of inerrancy and God's ability to preserve His Word. Since I believe that Christ is the embodiment of the Word of God and God preserved Him unto heaven, we have better things to do than worry about whether our copy of the Bible is "perfect". Not only, but I think we take to much upon ourselves to believe we are capable of preserving a "perfect" copy of scripture and the idea that we imperfect humans can keep something "perfectly" might just become one of those idols the scriptures warn us about.

I do NOT want this thread to dissolve into discussion over the merits of one version over another. I especially don't want this to devolve into anther thread on which translation might be the best or worst. Stick to the issue of inerrancy, please.

Mods, if you feel this thread would be better suited to the "translation" forum feel free to move it.

 

Complete and wholy without mistake (including translation errors). Isn't that the normal definition of inerrant?

However, feel free to use your own definition of inerrant if it differs from mine, just be sure to clearly state what definition you are using. I'm sure we can learn something just from the different ways people here on the BB define the word.

 

Since I've set myself up on the opposite side of this debate let me point out:

2 Pet 1:19 says we have a "more sure" prophecy. More sure is not a definition of "inerrant".

21 says move of the Holy Ghost and doesn't really speak to inerrancy, unless you think a man can't make a spelling or grammar mistake when he is "moved of the Holy Ghost".

2 Timothy 3:16 given by God and profitable, but it is man that is expected to be made perfect, not the printed scriptures

1 John 5 speaks of records and testimony in heaven which even I would expect to be perfect and inerrant by any definition of the words. It doesn't claim that we today have a "perfectly inerrant" copy in every language thus translated.

1Th 2:13 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 also in you that believe.

I like this verse! I like it a lot because it supports my view of things. That is, it points to my view that scripture is a reflection of Christ and it is the Holy Spirit that perfects our imperfect translations and copies of copies of copies of Bible manuscripts.

I agree with the exception of those versions of the Bible which have been clearly changed to suit the preferences of one group or another. Even then, I believe that God is perfectly capable of preserving His own.

 

I would accept that ideal if we HAD a copy of the original autographs! But we don't. We have some very old manuscripts, but they can't be said to be "original". So where does that leave us?