Inerrant scripture and imperfect translations?
Here is an article I posted on my blog. I thought it might be do some good here.
During my research into bible translations, I came across the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. It is an evangelical declaration of the doctrines that Christians hold concerning biblical inerrancy. For the record, inerrancy is defined as being exempt from error. Article X of the Chicago Statement affirms that inspiration applies only to the original autographs and the following exposition states, “God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture,” and that “…no translation is or can be perfect …” It seems a contradiction to say that current copies of scripture are without error when all that Christians possess are imperfect translations. Can an imperfect document claim to be without error? That seems contradictory and seems to require some major intellectual hoops to reconcile. Now granted, the word "perfect" generally denotes completeness instead of without error. To be imperfect is to never be complete. In that sense, no translation is perfect because as language changes so translations change, thus presenting a never-ending imperfection. At the same time, what makes a translation "imperfect"? What causes a scholar to look at scripture and declare that there is need for change or improvement? It would seem that there are errors in the translation. Those errors make it imperfect and requiring correction. This completely destroys the doctrine of inerrancy. Christians continue to affirm both the imperfection of translations and the inerrancy of scripture, contradicting one another. If scripture is inerrant and the translations are imperfect, then the translations are not scripture. And if translations are scripture, then they are imperfect and with error. Inerrant scripture should be considered perfect, without need for correction or improvement. The point is that Christians deny what doubters openly affirm and there continues to be a deliberate ignorance of the fact that people will not trust mistakes. Liberal scholars who doubt the legitimacy of scripture because it is imperfect have a clearer understanding of the problem than evangelicals. They call scripture imperfect because they believe it is erroneous, containing error. I believe that the majority of Christians do not trust scripture. They read it and believe it, but they will not trust their daily lives to the very words written under the title of Holy Bible. If it is not perfect then it is not without error and not trustworthy. For now, I am left with the option of rejecting Christian scholarship and believing that the King James Bible I hold is perfect and without error. It is a matter of faith because the education establishment definitely sees things different. |
Quote:
But I believe the scriptures can only be understood spirtually. 1 Cor 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. I believe the King James Bible to be the infallible Word of God because I believe God's many promises to preserve His Word. Perhaps this is wrong, but I do not worry much about scholarship. I simply read the Bible and ask God to give me wisdom, understanding, and discernment of his scriptures. Those who try to understand the Bible without first placing their trust in Jesus and the Bible will never understand it. It cannot not be understood by the natural man. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
“God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture,” and that “…no translation is or can be perfect …” They have Scripture for these allegations? I have Baptist, Lutheran, Anglican, confessions of faith that all have Scripture to back their statements. I hate to sound bigoted but the word "evangelical" speaks volumes. I have Scripture to prove initial revelation, I have Scripture to prove "double" inspiration of copies and translations, and I have Scripture to prove triple inspiration of God's word in action. Do the "bible" publishing companies and their toadies, the "colleges" have any proof for their Jesuit claims? Don't hold your breath my friend. Grace and peace Tony |
Further Thoughts
"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Romans 10:17), so writes Paul.
The Christian faith is said to come about because we hear the word of God and believe what is says. If scriptures are imperfect, there will not be faith, but a compulsive obsession to perfect what is imperfect, to complete what is incomplete, to fix what is broken through repeated translations. And while we translate again and again to assuage our doubts, atheism has taken hold of the culture and the Godless have taught their ways to our children. I am convinced in my own mind that I cannot trust modern translations and will instead cling to what was produced in 1611, the King James Bible. |
Quote:
How DARE they!!! First of all, the Word of God is TRUE and INSPIRED: 2 Peter 1:21 - "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Secondly, the Word of God is PURE and TRIED: Psalm 12:6 - "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." Thirdly, the Word of God is PRESERVED: Psalm 12:7 - "Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." We HAVE it and we are so BLESSED to have it! The KJV is preserved perfectly. It isn't only the "original autographs" or manuscripts that are perfect, but the KJV has actually been spiritually inspired, translated, protected, and preserved. We must believe that our LORD God is powerful enough, and perfectly capable of doing, just as His Word promises. Fourthly, remember: Matthew 24:35 - "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Compare that with other translations, by their use of the Alexandrian texts, an impure source, they have: done away with, changed, added to, and taken away from, the TRUE Word of God. God blessed the source of the Antiochian original autographs! The LORD GOD that I worship is capable of doing what He promised. |
Quote:
Paul says in Romans that each person may be fully persuaded in their minds, but 7 Scripture verses convinced me of the KJV's status as the inspired words of God, not manuscript evidence. We walk by faith, not by sight. You ever see the size of a redwood tree seed and then the size of those fully grown redwoods in California? We are the size of those seeds, but if we study the KJV, rightly divide the KJV, then apply it in our lives and others, we can be the size of the tree, not the seed. Grace and peace to you. For the first time in history we hold all the original manuscripts in our language between two covers. Tony |
Let's not miss the point that the Chicago statement is not a statement of faith or a doctrinal statement in the typical sense. They are just stating their views..."we affirm/we deny." There was plenty of Scripture used at the gathering.
|
Quote:
1Th 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. I doubt there is 9 out of 10 Christians truly understand the meaning of the verse above and how it applies to inspiration. Grace and peace Tony |
Open denial of the inerrancy of Scripture
Quote:
“God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture,” and that “…no translation is or can be perfect …” It seems a contradiction to say that current copies of scripture are without error when all that Christians possess are imperfect translations." This is right out of the Genesis 3 "Yea, hath God said...?" society of which, if memory does not fail me, you too are a card carrying member. Will Kinney |
Hi Will. Please don't miss a crucial point that I do not deny the inerrancy of Scripture.
|
Speaking of crucial points,
Greektim you never responded to my question on the other thread... What do you consider the COMPLETE, INERRANT WORD OF GOD for today's believer, and what is you FINAL AUTHORITY on doctrine and spiritual matters? Please do not answer with a cop out like "THE BIBLE" because we are way beyond that here, and we would expect to know exactly WHICH BIBLE you consider the complete Word of God for today's believer.... |
I decided not to respond b/c...well...I was given the advice to not engage in that debate here. I am willing to respond, but I would prefer to do it on neutral ground.
|
Quote:
Grace and peace Tony |
Quote:
I should probably shut up for now b/c I know I am going to be lambasted for stating my views. If you want to discuss this in depth (which I am all for), I would ask that we either correspond through email or go to a neutral territory for discussion. Brother Tim and I have tried that before. At this point, It would help to understand what we mean by inerrant. Is it simply the fact that the text does not contradict itself, science, history, geography, theology, etc...? Or is it something more? PS - yes I agree that the neo-ortho view is very wrong. I believe that inspiration goes down past the word and to the very letter written (jot and tittle refer to Hebrew letters or markings of letters that distinguish one letter from another; i.e. the KJV translators imply the superiority of the Hebrew language ;); doh Tim shut up!) |
Re: " Inerrant scripture and imperfect translations?"
Quote:
:amen: Amen & AMEN :amen: - to ALL that you said. :amen: Praise God - I believe that brother Matthew has gotten a hold of the truth. No matter how long, or how hard we study the issue of "Which Bible is God's Holy word" - at some point FAITH (in God's promises) must take hold and lead the way to a firm conviction in the King James Bible as being the Holy, infallible word of God without error. "Intellectual Christianity" is the BANE of all that is true, pure and holy about our faith! "Intellectual Christianity" is seated in the "MINDS" of Academic "Christians", and NOT in their "HEARTS"! Psalms 139:23 Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts: {NOT MY "MIND"} Psalms 51:17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. {NOT THE "MIND"} Jeremiah 15:16 Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts. {NOT MY "MIND"} Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. {NOT THE "MIND"} Most of modern day Academic "Christianity" is a "religion" of the "MIND" and NOT the "HEART". There is a total absence of "the love of the truth" (you cannot truly "love" something you don't know) in today's highly educated ("schooled") Christian. If God does not pierce through the "FOG" of doubt and unbelief and shine the light of His truth on a skeptic's or a doubter's HEART - NOTHING that we say or do will change it. That is why I do not spend much time with "intellectual Christians" - it is an exercise in futility, and there is NO spiritual "profit" to be had! :eek: Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. |
Quote:
No real surprise here Paul wrote of those who corrupted the Word of God during his time II Corinthians 2:17--"For we are not as many, which corrupt the Word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ." I have never understood this issue either how can people question certain verses of the Bible in the modern translations than say we have God's Perfect Word. They must be smarter than me, because I don't understand it. Maybe I should ignore Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Proverbs 30:6; Matthew 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33; Revelations 22:18-19. |
Inerrant Scriptures?
Quote:
Quote:
“MEANINGLESS and PICKY DETAILS”? The following short list is just a sampling of the divergent and confusing readings found among the contradictory modern bible versions. There are numerous other examples. Among these “details” are whether Jeremiah 27:1 reads Jehoiakim (Hebrew texts, RV,ASV, NKJV, KJB) or Zedekiah (NIV, NASB); whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads Michal (Hebrew texts, KJB,NKJV, RV,ASV) or Merab (NIV,NASB), or 70 (NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV,KJB) being sent out by the Lord Jesus in Luke 10:1 or 72 (NIV), or the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV) or the 4th day (NASB, NIV), or God smiting 50,070 men in 1 Samuel 6:19 (KJB, RV,ASV,NASB) or 70 men slain (NIV, RSV), or there being 30,000 chariots in 1 Samuel 13:5 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, ESV) or only 3000 (NIV, & Holman), or 1 Samuel 13:1 reading - ONE/TWO years (NKJV, KJB, Geneva,Judaica Press Tanach), or 40/32 (NASB 1972-77) or 30/42 (NASB 1995, NIV), or _____years and.______and two years (RSV, ESV); 2 Samuel 15:7 “forty years” (Hebrew, Geneva, NKJV, NASB, RV) OR “four years” (NIV,RSV, ESV,NET), or whether both 2 Samuel 23:18 and 1 Chronicles 11:20 read THREE (Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, NKJV, NIV, NET, Holman or THIRTY from the Syriac NASB, RSV, ESV) or the fine linen being the “righteousness” of saints or the fine linen being the “righteous acts” of the saints in Revelation 19:8, or where 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign (Hebrew texts, NASB, NKJV, RV,ASV,KJB, ESV) or he was 18 years old (NIV), or that when God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead it is stated in Acts 13:33 “this day have I begotten thee” (KJB, NASB, NKJV,RV, ESV) or “today I have become your Father” (NIV). Thanks, Will K. |
Quote:
Hey, if I lambaste you or you feel picked on by me don't respond. Brother I know how things can degenerate in even a simple discussion of an inflammatory topic, go read the water baptism thread and see how it has been made into a schoolground slapfight. I had hoped for a reasonable discussion, it was in vain. Anyway, thanks for the response. Grace and peace Tony |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Grace and peace Tony |
Quote:
As a side note, I am curious about destroying the original copy once a new copy is made. Was that an ancient BC custom or do we only see that practiced by the Masoretes? |
Quote:
OH...by the way, I answered a question to Tony. He is pursuing dialogue through calm, courteous, and kind manner. I can respect that. |
Quote:
Amen. We walk by faith. I am curious which 7 Bible verses convinced you of the status of the KJB? thanks and God bless you brother. |
Quote:
1.De 17:18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: If you read the passage in Deut. 17, you see this is the future kings of Israel. Custody of the Scriptures were not given to the king, but to the Levites, the priests. Why did God place such emphasis on the king making a "copy" and not just go over to the Temple and study the "original manuscripts"? 2.Job 32:8 But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding. Beth, the "MV"s and original Manuscript Frauds of this world bleat that we teach "double inspiration" if we say the KJV is given by inspiration. If only they knew. I teach triple inspiration. 1. The original manuscripts 2. Copies and translations of the original manuscripts 3. The Holy Ghost working in you to give you understanding. 3. Isa 34:16 Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them. Simple statement any child can understand. In the OT, in the NT times, post apostolic and all through history God has kept His words somewhere in a "book". 4. 2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. Nearly all the knowing liars who deny Beth a copy of the original manuscripts in her language say the "holy" Scriptures are "only inspired in the original manuscripts". Yeah? Kewl. Then Timothy had these original manuscripts all his life? 5.2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: All Scripture is given by inspiration, not the original manuscripts was given. Everything God does is by His inspiration. 6.Ac 20:27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. Are any of the "books" of the Bible "lost"? What about I John 5:7, Acts 8:37, John 7:58-8:11, Mark 16:9-20, the ending of the Lord's prayer and the last 6 verses of Revelation 22? *7*I Thes. 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. This was the verse caused me to see what inspiration is. The problem with the MVs and unbelievers in God's preserved words is that the verse they say don;t belong still work effectually in the Christians who preach and believe them.(see the list above of "missing verses"). Beth, these 7 verses are the ones that really hit me between the eyes and opened them, there are hundreds of verses, thousands, that praise the word of God and testify for it and Him. These 7 are the most salient to me, there is a list of what I call The Five Verse Annex, would you like those? Grace and peace sister Tony |
Tony - this is great! I am going to print them out right now. I have thought of some of the same arguments, but you gathered them all so succinctly! :-)
Oh - and I love your triple inspiration - AMEN! Yes, I'd love the other verses. I'll print them out too. God bless you dear brother! Thank you. Side note: tears in my eyes as I write this, though I am not an extremely "emotional" person....but it is SO GOOD to talk to other people that believe God preserved His Word!!! And there is so much less fighting here than on many KJ boards. What a treasure you all are! |
The "Five Verse Annex"
Quote:
8. Isa 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. Every gospel tract ever given out with His words, every sermon that was ever preached with His words, every word of God that Beth has ever spoken to anyone at anytime anywhere, will not return to Him empty. Beth, this is why I quit arguing "manuscript evidence" with the Original Manuscipt Frauds. The manuscript evidence issue is a good one to study, the final factor in determining a person's decision on whether or not he or she has God's words in their hands today that can be bought in any thrift shop or Dollar Store is through the internal evidence of the Scriptures themselves. 9. 2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. "We can see that there is a clear mistranslation of what Matthew actually wrote..." Matthew never wrote a word. Neither did Luke, Peter, or Moses. They dictated the Scriptures: Ro 16:22 I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord. Paul gave a salutation in his own handwriting for each Epistle, and he appears to have written the book of Galatians himself. Peter was a fisherman, we have evidence of course he could read, we have no evidence Peter could write. My grandmother in Kentucky never went to school, she could spell words out and read them, she could not write. Jeremiah 36 is another pattern for how the Scriptures were actually written. Another problem the Original Manuscript Frauds have is that the "authors" of a given Scripture spoke under God's inspiration, the scribes were not "inspired". We have no evidence from any "original manuscript" of Romans that Tertius could spell correctly. 10. Ro 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. The Original Manuscript Fraud says "only the original manuscripts are inspired". If that were true, what they are saying is this: Ro 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the original manuscripts. If there are no "original manuscripts" by their teaching, there is no faith and no salvation, salvation is by grace through faith. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God, if there is no "word of God", there is no faith. Do you see the corner these fools paint themselves into? 11. Lu 4:21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears. Did Jesus Christ read from the original manuscript of Isaiah, or did He have a copy? He had a copy and called it Scripture. 12. Ps 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Beth, ask an Original Manuscript Fraud what is the Name above every name? The Lord Jesus Christ is what they will tell you, and they are correct. Ask them what the final authority for all matters are, they will say God. What is God's final authority? His words. Grace and peace sister Beth, I hope this has been helpful to you. Part Three of Triple Inspiration is on it's way. Tony |
amen, thanks Tony! Looking forward to it. :)
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:48 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Website © AV1611.Com.
Posts represent only the opinions of users of this forum and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the webmaster.