AV1611 Bible Forum Archive

AV1611 Bible Forum Archive (https://av1611.com/forums/index.php)
-   Bible Versions (https://av1611.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   Inerrant scripture and imperfect translations? (https://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1272)

MPeak 05-23-2009 07:45 AM

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.

Winman 05-23-2009 08:32 AM

Quote:

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.
This is my stand as well Matthew. I am no scholar, and I could never argue with Bible correctors and deniers on this plane. And honestly, I do not try to prove the Bible to them. I have God's Word, why should I be on the defensive?

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.

bibleprotector 05-23-2009 08:42 AM

Quote:

I have God's Word, why should I be on the defensive?
Let us recognise that the proper King James Bible Only view is an "offensive" view. I mean that it offends enemies because it takes their ground.

tonybones2112 05-23-2009 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MPeak (Post 20479)
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.

This statement of faith means nothing, they back it with no Scripture.

“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

MPeak 05-24-2009 01:57 PM

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.

Jassy 05-24-2009 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MPeak (Post 20479)
Here is an article I posted on my blog. I thought it might be do some good here.

[I]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 …”

How utterly SHAMEFUL for some so-called "wise scholars" to make a Statement on Biblical Inerrancy - which actually throws down and stomps the Word of God underfoot as IMPERFECT!!!

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.

tonybones2112 05-25-2009 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MPeak (Post 20546)
"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.

Matthew, in the 1980s I spent 7 years collecting 135 versions of the bible. I invited any Christian who wished into my home and examine all of them to see 134 were all the same bibles, and the one left over was given by inspiration, the KJV. 134 translations of Vaticanus.

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

Greektim 05-26-2009 05:40 PM

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.

tonybones2112 05-26-2009 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greektim (Post 20745)
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.

Brother, there was no doubt plenty of Scripture used, there was very little believed apparently.

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

Will Kinney 05-28-2009 06:19 PM

Open denial of the inerrancy of Scripture
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Greektim (Post 20745)
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.

Hi Tim. And let's not miss the crucial point that what they are clearly doing is to deny the inerrancy of Scripture, just like you do.

“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


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:39 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.

Software for Believing Bible Study