Is your Bible Inerrant?

Only on the odd numbered pages.

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]Tee Hee - you are too much Brother
HankD. Of course, i think there are also
inerrant footnotes on the odd numbered pages.

Timothy 1769: "Are all the variations in the foonotes inerrant too?"

Short answer: Yes.

Longer answer: In that they help convey the meaning of the
translated text, the footnotes are inerrant.
(The letter order in English is NOT inerrant.)
(The word order in English is NOT inerrant.)
The meaning of the words is inerrant
in my New King James Version (nKJV),
including the translator footnotes.

Also, the nKJV is much more HONEST than
the KJV1769 without translator footnotes.
The lack of translator footnotes in
the KJV1769 is dishonest. In fact, the
source from which the Bible is translated,
not being the original autographs, has
variations (under 4% of the words are
involved). KJV1769 without sidenotes
or footnotes is dishonest. nKJV
and KJV1611 with footnotes
and even KJV1873 with footnotes are all
HONEST.

BTW, i do know some who try to be a pastor
who distain footnotes. I wonder how anybody
that can explain the difference between
open communtion and closed Lord's Supper
can't explain the footnotes.

 

My Amplified Bible is inerrant.
Well, the Written Word of God software
works with the Amplified Bible hardware!!
Praise Jesus

 

Poll Results: Is your Bible Inerrant? (64 votes, 4 new votes)

+2 2. The Bible is inerrant on all issues: doctrinal, historic, and scientific 11% (7)

+1 3. The Bible is inerrant in the original autographs 45% (29)

+1 9. inerrant in any English translation translated by dynamic equivalence 2% (1)



Yes, my brand new, received yesterday
in the mail, THE 21ST CENTURY KING JAMES
VERSION (KJ21) is inerrant!

 

Amen, Brother Ed -- Preach it!

 

My new Bible:

THIRD MILLENNIUM BIBLE (TMB),
New Authorized Version (NAV)
(Dickinson Press, Inc.; 1998)

This Bible is inerrant, of course.

 

I have three inerrant KJVs on my
computer desk:
KJV1611
KJV1769
KJV1873.

 

Is anybody wanting to talk about the
inerrancy of THE READER'S DIGEST BIBLE?

 

1985 based on the 1971 RSV

 

Large type...
With the Scofield notes*
*notes are abbreviated
Just kiding about the Schofield notes.
The type is large enough for me to
read, so it must the large type.

 

While i wasn't looking, 4 more people voted, for a total
of 68 votes. All 68 votes are in the last column,
the last 8 votes are shown in the first column.
Thank you for helpin out with this poll by your
participation.

Poll Results: Is your Bible Inerrant? (68 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 1% (1)
== -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% (2)
+2 1 The Bible is inerrant on all doctrinal issues 13% (9)
+3 2 The Bible is inerrant on all issues: doctrinal, historic, and scientific 12% (8)
+2 3 The Bible is inerrant in the original autographs 44% (30)
== 4 inerrant only in the Textus Receptus (TR) 1% (1)
== 5 inerrant only in the KJV 1611 (exclusive of translator notes) 6% (4)
== 6 inerrant only in the KJV 1611 (including the translator notes) 1% (1)
== 7 inerrant only in the KJB1769 and/or KJB1873 1% (1)
== 8 inerrant in any English translation based on the TR 3% (2)
+1 9 inerrant in any English translation translated by dynamic equivalence 1% (1)
== 10 inerrant in all English translations 12% (8)
== 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)

 

Well, two new votes.
Thank you for voting!
Thetwo new votes were here:

+1 -- 3 The Bible is inerrant in
the original autographs 44% (31)

+1 -- 4 The Bible is inerrant only
in the Textus Receptus (TR) 3% (2)

Interesting week that i was gone.
I see some 36 hour topics, that is:
a topic that lasts 36 hours and then
quits. It will be kinda hard to keep
up with that while gone for 8 days
and 7 nights.

 

Some people believe that the Bible has minor errors from a human point of view, but that it is nonetheless inspired. </font>[/QUOTE]"Inerrant" means
without error; i suppose such a person would
believe the "seems to be an error" type error
is inspired? Personally i'm going with
the no-error type "inerrant".

 

Thank you voeter #71:

0 the Bible has minor errors but is still useful 4% (3)

Ah yes, another vote on the border
between inerrant and errant...

Again, thank you for your vote.

 

Thank you for voting.

Shall i start another similar thread
so we can all vote again this year???

 

For a somewhat similar poll
check this one:
KJVO slanted poll with insanely long name

 

Thank you, 3 new voters.
Here is the votes of the 6 voters #69 thru
74 (left column). In the far right (may be
folded back to a second line) is the total
votes and the percentage.

Poll Results: Is your Bible Inerrant? (74 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 1% (1)
= -- -1 the Bible has minor errors and should be used with caution 0% (0)
+1 - 0 the Bible has minor errors but is still useful 4% (3)
= -- 1 The Bible is inerrant on all doctrinal issues 12% (9)
= -- 2 The Bible is inerrant on all issues: doctrinal, historic, and scientific 11% (8)
+3 - 3 The Bible is inerrant in the original autographs 45% (33)
+1 - 4 The Bible is inerrant only in the Textus Receptus (TR) 3% (2)
= -- 5 The Bible is inerrant only in the KJV 1611 (exclusive of translator notes) 5% (4)
+1 - 6 The Bible is inerrant only in the KJV 1611 (including the translator notes) 3% (2)
= -- 7 The Bible is inerrant only in the KJB1769 and/or KJB1873 1% (1)
= -- 8 inerrant in any English translation based on the TR 3% (2)
= -- 9 inerrant in any English translation translated by dynamic equivalence 1% (1)
= -- 10 The Bible is inerrant in all English translations 11% (8)
= -- 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)