Originally posted by josephw
[b]The original autographs were absolutely inerrant. The 25,000 extant manuscripts that the translators of the King James bible used have some trifling errors such as misspelled words,
Excellent! We are making progress. So as we can both attest that translations such as the KJB do have "flaws" even though you may still consider them to be "inerrant". The question then becomes, to what degree do these flaws exist and to what degree is being inerrant factored into the mix.
I realize that this topic is rather uncomfortable for those of faith who believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God, including myself. However, I think it important to investigate such issues and to have answers for such issues.
As for the original text, it would appear that there are many "contradictions" within the origianl text. However, there are many apolgetic web sites out there that are able to come to terms with such apparent contradictions. I say that some of these explanations are without a doubt accurate, however, what of all of them? Could some be contrived? One of the questions I ponder is, why have different accounts written by different authors? I mean, if you limit the Bible to one author then where could there be contradictions? Either the author is stupid or a poor writer for their to be contradictions in such a case. For example, it does strike me a little odd that there are four gospels. Why four? Why not just one? Could it be that all four are not geared to be "perfect" in terms of details, rather, they are written to show the importance of Christ and his subsequent resurrection? In fact, as I have pointed out on another thread ALL of the New Testament screams CHRIST HAS BEEN RESURRECTED!!! I merely ask the question, why? What are the implications? For those who are critics of the Bible, the details in terms of assumed or apparent inconsistencies in terms of the details within the Bible seem to be the primary objection. It also seems to me that those who scream INERRANT!!! are the ones who are egging them on.
I say these things not to shake anyones faith but rather strengthen their faith. For example, what if God is inspiring me to write this? Could there not be erors (pun intended). If, however, there are errors, then does what I am saying loose its purpose or power? Do I loose credibility?
To sum up, I have not concluded as of yet what inerrant means or what I embrace in terms of being "inerrant", rather, I am merely posing questions that I think are healthy to be asked. As for myself, I seek to edify and worship the author who inspired such works more than I do to worship the actual text. Do keep in mind that if you ONLY believe what is written in the Bible then you must throw out the inerrant doctrine because the word inerrant is not in the Bible. This does not mean, however, that the Bible does not say so, rather, this is merely an interpretation of what it means to be the "inspired" word of God.
30 Jun '07 11:251 edit
Innerrantcy
Back to Top