What is Biblical Inerrancy?

Some people you have to spell it out for.

 

Really, you who profess to love and read the KJV ought to read its preface!

Regarding the Sepuagint (LXX) it says:

Like I said before: Small errors in transmission/translation are interesting to work through but are generally a non-issue in regards to our eternal destiny.

I'll let the translators of the KJV answer your question:

Rob

 

You are totally correct. Inerrance is a completely wrong issue to fight over. Believing or not believing in inerrance has nothing to do with a person's salvation or the way they conduct their life. It is an issue that the Evil One has used effectively in bringing division amount Christians. It is so sad that some use this non-issue as a litmus test for determining who is Christian or not.

 

The best way I know to get 10 views of inerrancy, is to ask 6 Baptists to explain it! :laugh: :laugh:

And I fully believe in inerrancy, in the Biblical sense.

The fact that we do not apparently have any of the "original manuscripts", does not mean they do not still exist, FTR. How would one know if they actually saw an autograph?

Ed

 

Deacon,
I really appreciate you giving me that link to the full preface. I had never read that before. I stayed up late last night reading that thing. It was hard to stay with first of all because of the high english and we have lost so much, also because I was very tired. It was great reading though. I think I got the "gist" of it though. I will read it again soon. Now I understand that they (the writer of the preface) considered the LXX to be so.
This is not a cop-out, I still remember the words of the Lord Jesus. He said the OT scriptures were worthy and more than that, He quoted them and attributed authority to them as being the VERY Word of God.
You are saying though (and I approach this respectfully to you) that the translation of the OT Hebrew into the Greek (LXX) was "faulty" in places.
I don't want to punch and run, but I have two work runs to make and my children and MY GRANDSON is on his way to see his Paw-Paw. So I must make haste.

Bartimaeus

 

Bart, I apologize that I was not able to get back to you sooner.
This is an excellent question but one we probably do not agree on.

I would probably answer ether 2 or 3.
You would have to get specific as to what "all the texts" are.
Are we talking about greek manuscripts or english texts?

I believe any honest english translation to be the word of God.
Whether it be the KJV 1611 the KJV 1769 or any of those in between. Whether it is the NASB or the NIV or the ESV etc I don't think you will find any essential doctrine absent.

I believe God has preserved His Word by not allowing any single human entity to have a monopoly of His Word.
When cults like the Jehovah's Witness' try to tamper and alter the Bible they are not really able to.
THey may make a twisted "translation" but the truth is still there in all of the true Biblical text.
The widespread distribution of the Bible is such that the truth will never be lost and this I am thankful for.

I am also thankful that the RC church has never been able to have a monopoly on the transmission of the text.

Great question. It deserves discussion.

God bless you as you study,


Dale

 

Bart, I have been studying this whole issue a bit lately and have found it fascinating.
I have said this before but it is worth repeating: The Kings James Only Controversy is an excellent resource on this subject of the transmission and preservation of the Scriptures.
It has streghthened my faith in the power of God to preserve His word.


Here is another link I have not yet listened to but I have heard this author on the subject and found him to be very well studied on the issue.

http://www.aomin.org/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=261&osCsid=c60e5b0529c30bc6032cba2e8a550b59

 

Here is a little more about the above post:

 

Inerrancy doesnt speak to copiest errors. However if you want to discuss wether scripture is without error regarding doctrine, history, and science when it speaks to those issues then that is a valid argument for or against inerrancy.

 

From the Website CARM

 

Bible Believer,

As far as I've noted, it depends which version of the KJV Bible you are referring to, to my mind the Authorized or 1611 King James Bible is error free as it is the only Bible that is translated (taken from) directly from the Textus Receptus, whereas ALL other Bible versions are translated from Catholic translations of the Textus Receptus, and so are prone to error to varying degrees.

Bible inerrancy means that The Bible's author is in fact the Holy Spirit (Holy Spirit inspired). God only wrote one Bible.

2 Samuel 24:8-10 reads:
So when they had gone through all the land, they came to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days. And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah [were] five hundred thousand men. And David's heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said unto the LORD, I have sinned greatly in that I have done: and now, I beseech thee, O LORD, take away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly.

1 Chronicles 21:3-6 reads:
And Joab answered, The LORD make his people an hundred times so many more as they be: but, my lord the king, are they not all my lord's servants? why then doth my lord require this thing? why will he be a cause of trespass to Israel?
Nevertheless the king's word prevailed against Joab. Wherefore Joab departed, and went throughout all Israel, and came to Jerusalem. And Joab gave the sum of the number of the people unto David. And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and an hundred thousand men that drew sword: and Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword.

The reason for the "contradiction" or "inerrancy lies in 1 Chronicles 21:3 and 1 Chronicles 21:6:

Verse 3: And Joab answered, The LORD make his people an hundred times so many more as they be: but, my lord the king, are they not all my lord's servants? why then doth my lord require this thing? why will he be a cause of trespass to Israel?

Verse 6:But Levi and Benjamin counted he not among them: for the king's word was abominable to Joab.

1 Chronicles 21:3 states that God increased or made His people an hundred time as many more as they be (were), (hence 500 000 as opposed to 800 000)Then 1 Chronicles 21:6 clearly states that two tribes, namely Levi and Benjamin weren't counted (in the census), hence 470 000 as opposed to 500 000.

One has to read entire chapters to put Scripture into it's rightful context, not individual scriptures where the meaning can be taken out of context.

God Bless You,
Audrey

2SA 24:9 The census count was: Israel 800,000 and Judah 500,000.
1CH 21:5 The census count was: Israel 1,100,000 and Judah 470,000.

 

Authorized by who? God, or the Pagan King James? It tells you somewhere around the title page.

 

DO you actually use the 1611?
Also, which versions of the TR are "Catholic" versions and which are not?

 

1611 KJV also had the apocryphal writing. And as far as the Textus Receptus:

 

Deacon,
That was truly remarkable reading and I think that I will remember that I read that because of a friends bidding on the BB.
One point though, as I understand the issue, the LXX was not used in the translation of the AV 1611. Please help me with this. If it was not the Loosely translated LXX does not impact the Inerrancy issue of the AV.

Dale,
I have read White's book. I cannot comment today because I read it about three years ago.

Lastly, no one is answering my question. If you believe the many translations of the modern bilbles, how does one reconcile the incredeble number of inconsistencies found in them when they are reviewed side by side. You say they are the veritable Word of God? How can they be so?
Why didn't God preserve His Word on the triune Godhead in some of the translations? (the standard being not specifically, but idealy "jot and tittle") This is just one subject, I may ask about more in the future.

Bartimaeus

 

You are interested in this book that I do not recommend.

 

It refers to the autographs only, not apographs nor translations.