30 Jun 07
1 edit
My question is posed to those of faith. How many believe the word of God is inerrant? If you do believe the word of God to be inerrant, what does this mean? Do you believe the original text to be inerrant, do you believe that EVERY translation made is inerrant or just certain ones etc.? We all know that the Bible claims to be the inspired word of God. So does this translate into inerrantcy?
30 Jun 07
Originally posted by whodeyWill you accept me to discuss it , ot I'm not included in the phrase "those of faith" ?
My question is posed to those of faith. How many believe the word of God is inerrant? If you do believe the word of God to be inerrant, what does this mean? Do you believe the original text to be inerrant, do you believe that EVERY translation made is inerrant or just certain ones etc.? We all know that the Bible claims to be the inspired word of God. So does this translate into inerrantcy?
30 Jun 07
Originally posted by whodeyThe answer to the last question is "no."
My question is posed to those of faith. How many believe the word of God is inerrant? If you do believe the word of God to be inerrant, what does this mean? Do you believe the original text to be inerrant, do you believe that EVERY translation made is inerrant or just certain ones etc.? We all know that the Bible claims to be the inspired word of God. So does this translate into inerrantcy?
30 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyThe 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, but they all agree to the extent that there can be no doubt as to their trustworthiness.
My question is posed to those of faith. How many believe the word of God is inerrant? If you do believe the word of God to be inerrant, what does this mean? Do you believe the original text to be inerrant, do you believe that EVERY translation made is inerrant or just certain ones etc.? We all know that the Bible claims to be the inspired word of God. So does this translate into inerrantcy?
The King James bible was in use for nearly 400 years for the English speaking world until two gents by the names of Westcott and Hort translated from a body of manuscripts rejected by the translators of the King James as corrupt.
All subsequent versions of the bible since 1880, and at last count is over 1700, are translated from the work done, in secret I might add, by Westcott and Hort. They are all corrupt.
I'll give just one example, and there are thousands. Read 1John5:7 It a proof text for the Godhead. Compare this verse in any version except the new King James, and you will see.
30 Jun 07
Originally posted by josephwThis is just false. It's absolutely not true. Every word.
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, but they all agree to the extent that there can be no doubt as to their trustworthiness.
The King James bible was in use for nearly 400 years for the English speaking world unti ...[text shortened]... for the Godhead. Compare this verse in any version except the new King James, and you will see.
Nemesio
30 Jun 07
2 edits
Originally posted by josephwHilarious. After reading the first post, I was going to post a mocking reply declaring that the King James Bible is the only true version. (Why else would an English King endorse it?) But you beat me to it!
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, but they all agree to the extent that there can be no doubt as to their trustworthiness.
The King James bible was in use for nearly 400 years for the English speaking world unti for the Godhead. Compare this verse in any version except the new King James, and you will see.
I think it would really wow the judges if you entered a Fire and Brimstone sermon written in archaic English, as if preaching directly at King James' subjects.
30 Jun 07
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesHey, why not preach to King James and his boyfriend? I always find it ironic that a large number of Christian conservatives follow a version of the Bible commissioned for a gay king.
Hilarious. After reading the first post, I was going to post a mocking reply declaring that the King James Bible is the only true version. (Why else would an English King endorse it?) But you beat me to it!
I think it would really wow the judges if you entered a Fire and Brimstone sermon written in archaic English, as if preaching directly at King James' subjects.
30 Jun 07
Originally posted by josephwExcellent! 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.
[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,
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.