Is the Bible really inerrant?

[PaladinGirl]

What about copiest errors? Is it really inerrant? :confused:

[e=mv^2]

Short answer: Yes

Long Answer:

There are many fundamentalists that believe that it is the King James 1611 version that is the best possible translation. It is the Textus Receptus that is the true infallible Bible and it was the source for the translation of the KJV1611.

There are some versions of the bible that are flawed and leave out passages or change important verses. Those are not considered infallible (or even valid by some).

[Project 86]

There is no simple yes or no answer to this. The original manuscripts were infallible. We have thousands upon thousands of manuscripts. Some very close to the time the originals were first written. We can use these to figure out was was orginally said. Some newer Bibles use manuscripts that leave out verses. I have yet to be won over by their arguments though that those verses were not originally in the first manuscripts.

What about copiest errors? Is it really inerrant? :confused:

[Lynn73]

Yes, I believe God was able to leave us His inerrant word.

[BarbB]

Holly, as regards the Old Testament, the copies of books of the OT found at Cumran are nearly identical to those we have today. This is a span of 2,000 years. I think that God has preserved his word to us by making copyist errors nearly non-existant.

So far as translation goes, it all depends on what is being translated. At the time the KJV was being compiled, the translators were using the oldest copies of the NT. There are older copies available now that are a bit different. That said, my project this year is to read through the KJV and use it in all my Bible studies! :wave:

[PaladinGirl]

See, this is the one thing that keeps me from classifying as a Fundamentalist by the rules definition. I do believe the originals were totally inerrant but copyist errors have crept in. Therefore, the modern versions we have are infallible in my opinion as nothing is bad enough to affect any doctrine whatsoever.

[Luciel]

Short answer: Yes

Long Answer:

There are many fundamentalists that believe that it is the King James 1611 version that is the best possible translation. It is the Textus Receptus that is the true infallible Bible and it was the source for the translation of the KJV1611.

There are some versions of the bible that are flawed and leave out passages or change important verses. Those are not considered infallible (or even valid by some).
What about all the other bibles? You can't honestly tell me that every single version before and after the KJV is contaminated, can you? What about the original greek and hebrew texts from which the bible was created, and all the versions copied from successively older texts that should logically be much more accurate than one only four hundred years old? What about the books of Esdras and the Wisdom of Solomon, and all the other Apocrypha that were cut from the KJV--along with entire paragraphs of text from the books that were left?

[e=mv^2]

There are others that can answer better than I but I will try.

What about all the other bibles? You can't honestly tell me that every single version before and after the KJV is contaminated, can you? What about the original greek and hebrew texts from which the bible was created, and all the versions copied from successively older texts that should logically be much more accurate than one only four hundred years old? What about the books of Esdras and the Wisdom of Solomon, and all the other Apocrypha that were cut from the KJV--along with entire paragraphs of text from the books that were left?

<WARNING - the following is not strictly fundamentalist thinking although it is common to many fundamentalists.>

The very first issue that you have to deal with in any version of the bible is that of its source. "We" believe that the Textus Receptus is the most pure original source available. One reason for this is that the Textus Receptus does not omit verses that are left out in other early greek/hebrew texts.

AVBunyan was kind enough in another thread to post the following quote:

"HERE'S THE ACID TEST Any version of the Bible, that does not agree with the GREEK TEXTUS RECEPTUS, from which the King James Bible was translated in 1611, is certainly to befounded upon corrupted manuscripts. Origen, being a textual critic, is supposed to have corrected numerous portions of the sacred manuscripts. Evidence to the contrary shows he changed them to agree with his own human philosophy of mystical and allegorical ideas. Thus, through deceptive scholarship of this kind, certain manuscripts became corrupt. Evidently from this source our modern revised version Bibles and paraphrases have come. Read pages 900-902, Vol. 16, 1936 edition Encyclopedia Britannica, and you will see that Origen taught the Lord Jesus Christ is a created being who did not have eternal existence AS God."

So then it is not every Bible that is infallible. It is the Textus Receptus that is the infallible source. The best english version that we have available is the 1611 King James version. That is not to say that it is the easiest to read or study. But it is the most accurate translation that we have in english.

[Luciel]

What exactly is the Textus Receptus? I've never heard of it.

[Lynn73]

Here is a site I found quite a while ago that I thought was excellent in it's comparions of the "Textus Receptus" or Received Text (KJV) with other Bibles. Of course, many won't agree. But it can be informative to show why some believe in KJV only.

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/another.htm

[twistedsketch]

What about copiest errors? Is it really inerrant? :confused:
You're actually overestimating the copiest errors. In Greek, unlike English, you can mess up the word order and it won't affect the meaning of the sentence. Of the thousands of copies of Scriptures available to us, if I'm recalling this right, all of them match 99% in meaning, with absolutely no errors that would cause a shift in doctrine.

Read "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. That's where I pulled it from, and it's great for arming yourself against the many "scientific" questions atheists use to question Christianity.

[Radagast]

You're actually overestimating the copiest errors.
Indeed -- we have early Greek manuscripts, and copies from the Greek, Latin, and other churches.

And they agree almost all the time.

-- Radagast

[Radagast]

What exactly is the Textus Receptus? I've never heard of it.
"Received Text" -- the Greek version of the NT passed down within the Greek Church right from the beginning. The KJV, NKJV, and (I think) NASB are based on in it.

-- Radagast

[Project 86]

The KJV, NKJV, and (I think) NASB are based on in it.


NKJV and NKJV are but the NASB is not.

[5solas]

Short answer: Yes

Long Answer:

There are many fundamentalists that believe that it is the King James 1611 version that is the best possible translation. It is the Textus Receptus that is the true infallible Bible and it was the source for the translation of the KJV1611.

There are some versions of the bible that are flawed and leave out passages or change important verses. Those are not considered infallible (or even valid by some).

My short answer: yes!

My long answer:
The Greek New Testament is the New Testament. All else is translation. ;)
(A. T. Robertson; source: http://www.inthebeginning.org/ntgreek/introduction.htm (http://www.inthebeginning.org/ntgreek/introduction.htm))



:wave:

[Buho]

I thought the KJV went through a few language translations before coming to what it is (as opposed to direct translation from Hebrew and Greek). Also, there's the problem with KJV in that it doesn't use our native language (namely, modern English). Languages and definitions change. So should the bible be retranslated from the oldest copies to fit the new languages every so often.

By the way, just for a lark, I'm trying to find the Ebonics Bible... :D

On the topic at hand, I believe the bible is inerrant. Not the word-for-word message of God, though, but the general idea that God wanted said. The human authors had liberty to phrase things how they wanted. My belief, and I can point out examples which I think suggest this, but at its root is just my belief.

[twistedsketch]

I thought the KJV went through a few language translations before coming to what it is (as opposed to direct translation from Hebrew and Greek). Also, there's the problem with KJV in that it doesn't use our native language (namely, modern English). Languages and definitions change. So should the bible be retranslated from the oldest copies to fit the new languages every so often.
Certain passages could not be found in the Greek manuscripts they had available, and the Textus Recieptus was done in a hurry, because there was a race to see who could publish the first printed Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. So what the monk had to do was back-translate a few passages from the Vulgate into Greek so they could be included.

[The Ascetic Crusader]

This is a dangerous topic of discussion...

[Buho]

And also one I notice is talked on a lot in this forum (I'm new here), so I'll read those about KJV first.

[lismore]

This is a dangerous topic of discussion...

Nah,

If our faith is true it will stand up to scrutiny.

The bible will be studied and proved to be inerrant.

If you fear what might be revealed................then are you sure you are saved friend?

God Bless
Lismore

:)

[e=mv^2]

Nah,

If our faith is true it will stand up to scrutiny.

The bible will be studied and proved to be inerrant.


One of the best posts ever.:clap:

[crossrunner]

One of the best posts ever.:clap:

I agree!! :amen: