[Will Kinney]

The following is part of a discussion I had with a Christian who does not believe any Bible is the inerrant word of God.

"Why did you call it 'baloney' ?"

Hi brother _______, I understand your concern about the way I answered your stance on the question of the inerrancy of the Bible. Let me explain a little bit. I am deliberately somewhat confrontational and "in your face" when I see the typical clichés you posted about where you think God's inerrant words are today. I have heard and read the same platitudes hundreds of times.

Your stated position is not at all well thought out. It superficially sounds very religious, but in reality says nothing. I want to get your attention and hopefully you will think it through a bit more.

Here is what you said: "Just remember, if you want the inerrant Word, as it is in its raw self, without any question as to its validity - then you need to become a student in its original languages. NO translation, including the KJV, is 100% accurate...they all have their strengths in translation and they all have their weaknesses."

Now brother, instead of taking offense by my basically calling this a bunch of baloney (which it is), think about what you are really saying here.

If we need to learn the original languages like Hebrew and Greek, then the average Joe and Jane out there can't really know what God has said. All he or she is left with are inferior, error prone, and imperfect translations, and we need the "expert scholars" to clear things up for us. All of these things are implied by your statement. In other words, the average working guy and Christian Mom or student has to settle for something less that the pure word of God. You are stealing the inspired Bible right out from under them and placing some kind of special class of modern day priestcraft as interpreters.

Secondly, you should know by now that there is no "The Hebrew text", and much less any "The Greek Text" for anyone out there to compare all versions with to see if they are right or not.

Thirdly, even if we all knew Hebrew and Greek, there still would not be any inerrant Bible as the Final Standard, simply because all these guys who write today's "bibles" come up with entirely different meanings in hundreds of verses, even when they are looking at the same text.

Fourthly, none of the bible versions out there like the NASB, NIV, ESV, NKJV, Holman follows the exact same underlying Old Testament or New Testament texts as do the others. They are all different from each other and they often contradict one another in both text and meaning.

And fifthly, when you make a statement like this: "NO translation, including the KJV, is 100% accurate...they all have their strengths in translation and they all have their weaknesses." - what do you think this implies?

It means that even though all the other translators have taken your initial advice on how to find the inerrant word of God by becoming students of the original languages, yet they have failed to give us an inerrant Bible (in your humble opinion, of course).

It also means that Your expertise is above and beyond everybody else's, because You have examined all the Bible versions in detail (which I highly doubt) and have found them all to be wanting. So, this begs the question: Why then haven't YOU, with all your advanced learning, published for the needy Christian world an inerrant Bible that only has strengths and no weaknesses in it?

Brother, I just want you and all others who express similar views (and there are many today who hold the same views you do) to realize how utterly vacant of any real meaning, and pretentious your statement of faith about the Bible really is.

Sometimes a mild rebuke is called for, and if someone tells me there is no inerrant, complete, inspired Holy Bible on this earth, I get a bit indignant about it.

"This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith." Titus 1:13

I do not reject you personally as a brother in Christ; it is your position of unbelief in an inspired, inerrant Holy Bible that I attack. I hope you can see the difference. If I didn't love God's word or care about where the church is clearly headed with today's mindset regarding the inspired Scriptures, then I would say nothing.

"Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way." Psalm 119:128


Will Kinney

These are points that critics of the KJV always have trouble with. By critics, I am talking about Christians...not non-believers.

It amazes me that a Christian can accept that his bible has errors within its pages.As far as the many and varied Alexandrian derived bibles are concerned, that would be correct, but Personally, I am very intollerant of that view when it is applied to the KJV and will not beat around the bush with a soft reply.

As the Christian critic usually points to "the originals" as the only place where Gods word was recorded perfectly ,I ask if he or anyone he has ever heard of ever seen an original manuscript...the answer is obviously going to be "no".

So, with no originals to compare with, how can anyone know where and what these mistakes are? Was John3:16 in the originals? What about John 14:6?

If it is certain that mistakes exist in the Bible, why are they still there after so many reprints and revisions? Would anybody buy and use a street directory if they knew that there were mistakes and errors in the street names and locations?? No, of course not, so why use a Bible that had admitted errors within its pages??

How can a man stand up to preach on a subject as important as eternal security, for example, if he thinks that the book he is preaching from cannot be trusted???

Mat 7:25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not; for it was founded upon a rock.

As the Christian critic usually points to "the originals" as the only place where Gods word was recorded perfectly ,I ask if he or anyone he has ever heard of ever seen an original manuscript...the answer is obviously going to be "no".

The false idea that only the originals (called "Autographs" by text critics) are authenic is the doctrine of "Inerrancy". Benjamin Warfield applied this astronomical term to the bible version issue and gave it this meaning. I do not believe that doctrine. The church has never believed it either. Just start with the London Baptist Confession of Faith and work your way forward. You won't see Inerrancy in any of the old confessions. In fact, (I think) you will not see it until the late 1970's in a confession. The Chicago Statement on Inerrancy.

The church has always believed in the doctrine of Infallibility of the Word of God. It says the copies of the originals (called "Apographs" by text critics) are themselves preserved by God and are therefore authentic.

Inerrancy leads people to the conclusion that translations are the work of men and may offer a "high degree of accuracy" but are not infallible. Exactly the opposite of the church's historical stand for centuries.

Could you please clarify the distinction you are trying to make between inerrancy and infallibility. Thanks. I very much believe in both. My Bible is inerrant - has no errors. And it is infallible - incapable of errors. Warfield did not invent that doctrine - I believe believers throughout history believed the Bible was inerrant. What he did was come along and only apply that to the originals, when true believers historically believed the Bible they held in their hands - whether a copy or a translation - was inerrant.

[Diligent]

When scholars use the word "inerrancy" it is usually only applied to the mythical "original autographs."

I too believe in inerrancy -- for both the "originals" that no longer exist, and their copies, and faithful translations of them. Typically "infallibility" is a term applied to the Bible as a whole (originals, copies, translations) and therefor usually mocked by critics, whereas "inerrancy" is a term they claim to defend but only for the originals, which conveniently don't exist.

That's my understanding of the difference. I certainly regard the Bible as inerrant, but I think that ok.book.guy's point is that the "doctrine" of inerrancy, as described by Warfield, is not what you and I mean when we say it. The term "inerrant" is almost always quallified by "inerrant in the original manuscripts."

Originally Posted by jerry

Could you please clarify the distinction you are trying to make between inerrancy and infallibility. Thanks. I very much believe in both. My Bible is inerrant - has no errors. And it is infallible - incapable of errors. Warfield did not invent that doctrine - I believe believers throughout history believed the Bible was inerrant. What he did was come along and only apply that to the originals, when true believers historically believed the Bible they held in their hands - whether a copy or a translation - was inerrant.

Brother Jerry. When a bible believer says "inerrant" I wince. That's a knee jerk reaction on my part. Not your problem at all. But that's why I spoke up on it: it was getting to me. Here's the deal as I understand it:

The term inerrant was originally used to describe the "fixed stars" in their courses. Its use dates back to the 1650's . In a literary sense, infallible and inerrant are twins. But they are not the same in the text critical sense.

Starting from the very first christian confession that deals with the text of the bible and everyone since then down to the 20th century pre 1970's, bible believers always and only used the term infallible (in their confessions of faith). And it always meant then and means now, that the originals were without error AND the copies the survive today are without error. It is also part of the doctrine of infallibility that the reason the copies that survive to this day are authentically the word of God without error, is because of God's special preservation of them (you can refer to the London confession or Westminster confession for corroboration. You will look there in vain for a reference to "inerrancy"). So infallibility teaches what you're saying: i.e. that BOTH the originals and the copies are without error.

Now. Back in the 19th century when german higher criticism became known, some very earnest and godly bible teachers became concerned that real christians were about to be labeled as "obscurantists" by the intellectual world. So some men in this category, inparticular B.B. Warfield, went to europe and studied higher criticism. His goal was to embrace as much of it as he could and "baptize" it so as to preserve the church from being ostricized by the world of academia. The result of these men's efforts is a lower form of higher criticism called textual criticism. ONe of the planks in their platform is that we do not know what the originals looked like in all details. So if the higher critics find an "error" in the copies of the surviving bible manuscripts, Warfield and textual criticism will be able to say "well that's just transmission error that crept into the mss. The "originals" would not have had that. Warfield knew the historical teaching of the churches to be infallibility which taught that the copies as well as the originals were authentic. He was now changing that. So he had to come up with a new term with which to make the distinction. That term was "inerrancy" and was taken (he says) because it was already in use as a scientific term. He wanted to sound scientific. He feared being labeled as an obscurantist.

Now his worries are not mine. And his doctrine is certainly not mine. So, his word is not mine. For if I use that term, I will know I"m eliminating the copies from infallibility. But I believe the originals , the copies , and the translations that God gave us from the days of the Reformation to be the very authentic word of God!

The term inerrancy is a term of the scholars who gave us the RV, RSV, NASB, and NIV. I'm a KJV/AV man. I don't say inerrancy. I only say infallible as did the churches' confessions always say. As I said previously: The first confession where inerrancy appears (I believe) is in 1979 called The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. Check it out here. And note who you're budding up with when you say inerrancy. All neo-evangelicals, modern translations, "high degree of accuracy" folks.

Here is the modern understanding of the term inerrancy.

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/chicago.htm

Note:

Article VI.

We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration.
We deny that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without the parts, or of some parts but not the whole.

Article X.
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.


Not thanks. I have much much more than "great accuracy". I have God's infallible word in my hands!

You will note that they redefine infallible to agree with inerrancy. I say redefine because the churches' confessions and doctrine has always extended infallibility to the copies!

E. Transmission and Translation Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission.
The verdict of this science, however, is that the Hebrew and Greek text appears to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.


So God didn't perserve His word for us the way we've always been taught and the way I believe!!!

This statement defines what is meant today by inerrancy. If you use this word, this is how you're going to be understood.

you know will, i had the same kind of conversation with a guy just a while back, i just asked him questions till he defeated himself. it went like this [ names were changed to protect identity]

me: so you don't believe the kjv is the pure, innerant word of God?

him: no

me: so God lied when he said his words shall not pass?

him: no, he kept his words in the original autographs

me: you mean the autographs that are no longer in existance?

him yes

me: if they are no longer in existence then how do we have word today?

him: well we don't

me: so you think God is LIAR?

him: no, God has kept his word for us

me: where, in what bible translation, or manuscript

him: we don't have an innerant bible today

me: how can you say that in light of Psa 12:6-7
(6) The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
(7) Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever.

him: what i meant to say was, oinly the originals were inspired

me: no doubt about that, but the scripture says that the scripture shall be PRESERVED, or KEPT FROM HARM, so how did God keep his word?

him: in the original languages

me: ok, which manuscripts?

him: in the originals

me: but you just admitted the originals have been destroyed for a long time

him: thats right

me: so you do think God is a liar?

him: NOT AT ALL, I BELIEVE THAT THE BIBLE IS GOD'S WORD

me: which one. with all the missing verses and contraditcions in the new versons they can't be the word of God, remember, God is not the author of confusion?

him: still the kjv is error riddled

me: prove it, but before you throw an "error' at me from the kjv, you might wanna go check out www.av1611.com they explain every so called "error" in the king james bible.. furthermore, i'm still waiting for you to tell me where i can get the bible spoken of in psalm 12. the one that is preserved and kept.

him: i doubt they can answer them all. plus i told you that we don't have a bible without error anymore

me: so you believe that God is a liar? Jesus said NOT ONE JOT OR TITTLE SHALL PASS..
if you believe God has preserved his word, and kept it from defilement, and is not a liar, then you tell me which bible is the word of God

him: in the original manuscripts is the word of God

me: but the originals are gone, do you mean the copies, as in the manuscripts we have today?

him: yes, thats what i meant to say

me: ok, i'll give you that, but only if you can now tell me exactly which manuscripts are 100% without error, and are just as accurate as the original autographs

him: there are none, only the originals were without error and inspired

me: we already established that the originals only were inspired, but we also estsablished that the originals were copied and the words themselves were preserved. now i'm just trying to tell me which bible and or manuscripts are the preserved copies that are equal to the original autograph?

him: you narrow minded idiot, haven't you been listening to what i've been saying?

me: yes i have, thats the problem. i've been listening, and you have not answered one of my questions. i ask you which bible or text is the infallible word of God and you say none, which is an admittance that you think God is a liar, based on pslam 12:6-7. then you say God is not a liar, so i ask which bible ortext is the infallible word of God? and you can't answer.. you're driving a circular arguement. there is 2 choices, and you try to cop out and pick a third which is not offered or in existence.. either God, in your eyes, is a liar, and we do not have a bible that is the perfectly preserved word of God.. OR choice 2, God is truth and he never lies, and we do have his infallible, written word, today. which is it? is God a liar? or did he keep his word and give us the bible, without error, perfectly preserved, infallible, innerant?

me: hello, are you there

me: hellllllooooooo

me: come on make your choice, it's one or the other

me: hello, you there

i never heard from this guy again, people said i was mean for attacking his faith.. i said, we don't even know what his faith was, so how could i attack it?

Will, as usual you are a master at defending the 1611-1769 KJB, most excellent response to a most incredulous position...

Blessings form our lord always, Clyde Harris

[bibleprotector]

There is only one "King James Bible", and it is not limited to 1611-1769. It was the same version and translation in 1611 as it is today. There are obviously various editions of the King James Bible, but any edition which is of the proper tradition and linked to the historical lineage is a "King James Bible", no matter where or what year it was published. (As I have elsewhere pointed out, any person using a normal Bible today or a computer software program is not using an edition which matches word for word to 1769.) Defence of the King James Bible as a version and translation is not limited to Bibles from some time period, because the same version and translation of 1611 is present in various editions available today.