[Greektim]

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....

[Greektim]

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.

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Greektim

Hi Will. Please don't miss a crucial point that I do not deny the inerrancy of Scripture.

"Scripture" is a term for something written, I think you and I are in agreement that the Neo-orthodox/BArthian view of the "message" is wrong. So given that, which written version or combination of versions do you consider inerrant Tim? I'm not baiting you to get into a devate, I wish to establish a reference point for you position.

Grace and peace

Tony

[Greektim]

Originally Posted by tonybones2112

"Scripture" is a term for something written, I think you and I are in agreement that the Neo-orthodox/BArthian view of the "message" is wrong. So given that, which written version or combination of versions do you consider inerrant Tim? I'm not baiting you to get into a devate, I wish to establish a reference point for you position.

Grace and peace

Tony

I can say without any hesitation that at the very least, what was originally written was inerrant. I can also say that I believe the original words and meaning from the originals (I know you hate the originals only view) can be determined from the extant mss data we have. As to what version or combo of versions (what are you referring to as a version?) I am not convinced that the UBS or NA, MT, TR, Byzantine text and so on are perfect. I don't know that we have a Greek compilation of the NT that is perfect in that it reflects 100% the original reading. But that doesn't bother me b/c with the mss data we have, I feel confident that it is easy to determine. But I will also say that I don't believe the W&H text contradicts the TR. It differs textually but it does not contradict (i.e. blatantly teach something opposite).

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!)

[George]

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

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

Aloha brother Will,

Amen & AMEN - to ALL that you said.

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!

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.

[logos83]

Originally Posted by MPeak

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.

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.

[Will Kinney]

Originally Posted by Greektim

I can say without any hesitation that at the very least, what was originally written was inerrant.

Tim, how can you possibly know that what was originally written was inerrant? You have never seen it, and it doesn't exist. Isn't that a position of faith taken from 'bibles' that you yourself seem to imply are not inerrant?

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?

Tim, Can you tell us which of these texts do not contradict each other and are representative of your professed inerrancy?

“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.

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Greektim

I can say without any hesitation that at the very least, what was originally written was inerrant. I can also say that I believe the original words and meaning from the originals (I know you hate the originals only view) can be determined from the extant mss data we have. As to what version or combo of versions (what are you referring to as a version?) I am not convinced that the UBS or NA, MT, TR, Byzantine text and so on are perfect. I don't know that we have a Greek compilation of the NT that is perfect in that it reflects 100% the original reading. But that doesn't bother me b/c with the mss data we have, I feel confident that it is easy to determine. But I will also say that I don't believe the W&H text contradicts the TR. It differs textually but it does not contradict (i.e. blatantly teach something opposite).

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!)

Tim, thank you for replying to me. I have never debated you or lambasted you, have I? I apologize if you even think I have done either or been impolite to you in any way. But you just said only the original manuscripts are inspired and that all that remains inspired is Barth's theory. Is there a difference between "meaning" and "message"? I don't see one. Is there a difference?

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

[Greektim]

Originally Posted by tonybones2112

Tim, thank you for replying to me. I have never debated you or lambasted you, have I? I apologize if you even think I have done either or been impolite to you in any way. But you just said only the original manuscripts are inspired and that all that remains inspired is Barth's theory. Is there a difference between "meaning" and "message"? I don't see one. Is there a difference?

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

I was not referring ot you in the lambasting (is that how you say it???). What I mean by meaning is interpretation. I said that the words and letters and meaning was inspired. At least that's what I was intending to say.