What is Biblical Inerrancy?

And people on both sides of the KJV debate agree on this so I see no relevance to this discussion.

 

I thought there was an argument about works in relation to understanding the bible. Sorry if I got it wrong. And yes your right but there is such a strong anticatholic sentiment amoung protestants sometimes that they step lightly when it comes to works. I just wanted to remind people that works are very important especially when considering what James has to say. But if I missed the jist. Oooops.

 

These modern versions and KJV on Rev. 19:8 disagreed each other because the righteouness and the righteous acts/deeds are not same meaning. I prefer the KJV over modern versions.

 

That is WHY you defend James R. White because he is also a Calvinist.

 

So what is your point?
Would you rather me defend the doctrine of those I do not agree with?
I defend him (and others) on Calvinism because I believe it is Biblical.
I defend him in his stand against RC doctrine because I believe his doctrine is Biblical.

 

See number 18 post - your last sentence.

 

I just recommended his book. It is an excellent work on the topic.

 

BINGO! So, has something been lost? The question has been asked, "How do we now that this isn't closer to the originals?" which is a good question but I ask, is this, "my righteous works", consistent with the rest of God's Word or is "Christ righteousness" consistent with the rest of God's Word?

 

So you want to interpret the bible by extrapolation? The bible is not a singular work 40 different authors over a period of about 1600 years. You say this may be closer to the originals but you can't be certain. You maybe forcing a meaning by this method that may not have originally occured. You may be forcing translation.

 

You are still avoiding my question.

 

Blue - Does it apply to the salvation?

Red - Does it apply to the salvation?

 

I have 3 NT books prior to 1611 KJV.

Rev. 19:8:

1526 NT - righteousness

1537 NT - righteousness

1557 NT - righteousness

These books agreed with a word, "righteousness" because the wording in these texts is identical to the autographs.

 

And how do you or they know that? The Original Autographs don't exist now and they did not then.

 

One thing that really annoys me about much of the stuff I have seen written about KJV onlyism is how often you see statements as facts without any documentation.

 

Do you deny the derivation?

 

What do you mean? Scriptures derived from the original authographs? Sure, but it's a pointless debate since none of the original texts exist nor have existed for millenia! We can't compare notes. Now if you mean that there are copies that derived from the original scriptures and are perfect copies exactly as they were written? I would say that you are wrong. There are transcription errors. Any analysis of scripture will show this even the texts that the KJV of the bible was translated from. Languages have changed and cultural meanings also have changed. Now the question is are they significant errors? No. The dead sea scrolls point that out. A word written twice in stead of once or a paragraph writen twice instead of once does not change the word of God. Greek has four words for love english one. So context is important. Many things should be taken into an account when reading scripture.
Now if you like arcahic English. Fine I can still quote the introduction to the Cantebury Tales in mideval english. But that doesn't mean the modern translations are wrong. I like Sheakespear, I like the KJB, but that is a preference I think you will have a hard time convincing me of the superiority of KJB over other english translations. Before the KJB got to translating the bible was translated from Hebrew to Aramaic to Greek to Latin to German first.
Ask yourself this. When do you believe that the Hebrews left Egypt? During the reign of Ramses the II or the Great? Do you believe it was before that? If it was before Rameses then the city called Rameses did not exist when the actual event occured. But the bible refers to a city called Rameses in Exodus. The bible is written about real places and names that were relevant for the time it was writen. Now if your a Jewish scribe and you see a city name that was no longer relevant because that same city is now Rameses would you call it Rameses since it is the same place? Like: No one call this place New Amsterdam anymore. Everyone knows it as New York. It's not a lie or an error to call it New York or Rameses. Still accurate but now it is in context of the current residents. This may have happened in the ancient world but since we don't have the autographs its a moot point.

 

To understand the difference between the autographa and apographa is that the autographa refers to the inspiration and the apographa refers to the preservation.

Look at the Textus Receptus and the Critical Texts. When nearly 10,000 different word variations between the TR and the CT disagreed each other, can they be equally verbally inspired?

 

There were several Byzantine text the one which Erasemus (a catholic) translated from was of dubious quality and he had to "fill in the gaps" (especially with revelations) using the Latin Vulate.

 

Dale-c, please see my answers in red and thank you for the challenge that has only strengthened my faith and belief in the KJB

 

PK, I will look into those.