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?
Bible Inerrancy Poll #2
Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Ed Edwards, May 29, 2004.
?
-
-1 the Bible has errors (i.e. is NOT inerrant)
8.0% -
0 the Bible has minor errors but is still useful
10.0% -
1 The Bible is inerrant on all doctrinal issues
19.0% -
2 The Bible is inerrant on all issues: doctrinal, historic, and scientific
49.0% -
3 The Bible is inerrant in the original autographs
6.0% -
4 The Bible is inerrant only in the KJV1611 Authorized Version
2.0% -
5 inerrant in any English translation based on the TR
6.0% -
6 The Bible is inerrant in all faithful English translations
0 vote(s)0.0% -
7 the Bible is inerrant as applied by _______ (post person or group)
0 vote(s)0.0%
Page 4 of 6
-
-
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). -
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! -
Thank you voter #78 for your participation.
-
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 -
Thank you voter #79 for your participation
-
Thank you voter #80 for your participation!
Thank you voter #81 for your participation! -
Ed, have you stated your position on this, or would you rather not until the poll is finished?
-
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. -
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. -
Yours,
Bluefalcon -
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. -
Thank you voter #82 for your participation!
-
Yours,
Bluefalcon -
Yours,
Bluefalcon -
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"? -
Yours,
Bluefalcon -
Sounds good to me.
It is your turn to bell the cat ;) -
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). -
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
Page 4 of 6