The statement that immediately addresses our disagreement is Article 10

“We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.
We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.”

Let me use a little thought transference to translate the above into a form of language that the common man can understand. Surely you won't object, as this is the same reasoning used when the KJV was deemed too hard for modern readers..

My translation of your artical 10 is as follows:

We believe that God was not able to keep his promise of preserving his word forever and while He was able to to muster enough power to keep a lot of what he said intact, we arent quite sure what is the good stuff and what are the mistakes.
We deny that essential elements of the Christian faith are un-affected by the absence of the autographs, despite the fact that without the autographs we cannot be sure what those basic elements truly ar, as all copies made since are corrupt with error.
We deny that just because two or more different versions say two or more different things, that they arent all the word of God.




Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,


Fundy