Biblical inerrancy

[By Grace]

First let me say that I am a Christian, I do believe in God, I read scripture every day, and I am not trying to start a fight. What I do, I do in the name of exploration of scripture, gaining knowledge and understanding, and often times assuming the role of devil's advocate in order for people to consider an alternate view. It is in that capacity that I continue.

Now, do you want a translation error or are you looking for a contradictory error from God/Jesus? Allow me to give both.

Translation errors are easy and numerous. Just compare the KJV to the NASB and you'll see what I mean (www.biblegateway.com for fast comparisons). In particular check out Isaiah 14:12 and pay attention to which MAJOR word has been omitted.

As for the other...

My source will be the NASB:

Genesis 32:30 - So Jacob named the place [a]Peniel, for he said, “I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been preserved.”
John 1:18 - No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

Which is it? Has God been seen or not? Contradiction and error.

2 Samuel 6:23 - Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death.
2 Samuel 21:8 - So the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, Armoni and Mephibosheth whom she had borne to Saul, and the five sons of [a]Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she had borne to Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite.

Footnote [a] the name Michal in this verse has been changed to Merab in modern revisions, because scholars discovered the discrepancy and worked to correct the error.

Matthew 1:16 - Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called [a]the Messiah.
Matthew 3:23 - When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli [a]

Footnote [a] the name Eli is also written as Heli.

So who exactly was Joseph's father? Was it Eli or Jacob?


The list goes on. To think that a book as large as the Bible is error free, even though it was written by human beings, is pure drivel.

There are no such things as "translation errors". Supposing some translator used a word in Spanish, etc for a word in an english Bible. Woud that be a so-called error? Of course not! That is plain and simple.

They are variants of the original words and phrases that are used.

Please try again, and confine your "examples" to the autographa, the real issue behind the doctrine of inerrancy.

 

[Vanguard]

There are no such things as "translation errors". Supposing some translator used a word in Spanish, etc for a word in an english Bible. Woud that be a so-called error? Of course not! That is plain and simple.

They are variants of the original words and phrases that are used.

Please try again, and confine your "examples" to the autographa, the real issue behind the doctrine of inerrancy.

There are translation errors, but at this point we will have to respectfully agree to disagree. I won't be swayed of my opinion and neither will you. I see no reason to limit myself to your preferred source when I use a wide variety of them.

 

[By Grace]

There are translation errors, but at this point we will have to respectfully agree to disagree. I won't be swayed of my opinion and neither will you. I see no reason to limit myself to your preferred source when I use a wide variety of them.

It seems as if you may not know the difference between an original and a copy, then. Further you may not know the difference between an original and a translation. Tell me, have you ever studied a foreign language so that you were proficient?

if you did, you would learn that despite what you learned in the first semester course, there is no 100% correlation between the word in that language, and the same meaning for the English equivalent. For example, "dog" is learned as " un perro" in Spanish, and "un chien'" in French. But there are other English words to describe "dog" such as mutt, mongrel. cur, etc. For example in Puerto Rico, a mutt is a "sato" In Mexico, it is another word, meaning the same thing. Can you understand what I am saying?

Dialect variation in Biblical Hebrew is attested to by the well-known shibboleth incident of Judges 12:6, where Jephthah's forces from Gilead caught Ephraimites trying to cross the Jordan river by making them say [FONT=&quot]שִׁבֹּ֤לֶת[/FONT] ('ear of corn') The word, as requested by Jeptha's forces was pronounced "shiboleth". However, due to dialectal differences the Ephramites, they pronounced it "sibbileth" eliminating the "h" sound. The forst letter if the word in Hebrew is a Shin. Notice the dagesh forte (dot) between the 2nd and 3rd spike of the letter looking like a W going from right to left. If an Ephramite were to write that word, it would be EXACTLY the same consonants, excepting the dagesh Forte. Thus it is a spelling variation, and NOT an error.


When you included the differences in the spelling of Michel, as an example, you are getting into a MERE SPELLING VARIATION. And this is exactly what your footnote says: Footnote [a] the name Michal in this verse has been changed to Merab in modern revisions, because scholars discovered the discrepancy and worked to correct the error. I suspect that you added the part in red, but I reserve the right to be wrong. The point is a different spelling of a name does not constitute an "error". That is because standardization in spelling is a post printing press invention, and in English, we have Ben Franklin to thank for that. (a free history fact)


Accurately, you quote Genesis 32:30, but quite inaccurately, you ignore the context, and this is crucial. Jacob wrestled with the pre-incarnate Jesus. This is also called a theophany. For some reason, you also forget this, from Exodus:

Exodus33: 20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

21 And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:

22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:

23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

​

This does not contradict what John says, nor does it contradict what happened to Moses when he saw the "hinder parts" (after glow) of God as he passed by Moses after giving him the 10 commandments:

Exodus 34:29 And it came to pass, when Moses came down from mount Sinai with the two tables of testimony in Moses' hand, when he came down from the mount, that Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him.
30 And when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh him.
​

I am beginning to see a pattern of ignoring context. That is what many of the cultists do when they promulgate their heresies. I am NOT calling you anything, OK? However, I can not help to comment on that pattern.

As to your quoting Matthew 3:23, the verse does not exist. Therefore the place from which you are getting that data is wrong, and I am surely NOT trying to go personal, but it is plain to all to see that despite your protestations to the inerrancy of the Bible, you are quoting from a source that is designed to destroy the Bible.

Essentially, a simple examination of what you posted will lead to no other conclusion than you are attempting to deceive, and you are attempting (very unsuccessfully, I might add) to destroy the faith of the Christians here. For that, may the Lord rebuke you!

 

[Vanguard]

Essentially, a simple examination of what you posted will lead to no other conclusion than you are attempting to deceive, and you are attempting (very unsuccessfully, I might add) to destroy the faith of the Christians here. For that, may the Lord rebuke you!

I am only replying b/c my other post had a type-o in it. It was supposed to be Luke 3:23, not Matthew. Human error.

Furthermore, you really think you know me after a brief chat on a public internet forum? You are so far off the mark. And you believe that I am here trying to destroy Christianity? A little extreme, don't you think. Your view, opinion and belief are not the only one around. Others come here to learn. Some think for themselves, much like me. Just because you do not like it or don't agree with it does not mean you have to go on the offensive and make it personal. And you certainly don't need to PM me with the exact same message (that I stopped reading after about 5 seconds).

I said we should just politely agree to disagree and leave it at that. I am trying to remain civil, even on touchy subjects. Please refrain from personal vendettas and do the same. Thank you.

totopic

 

[By Grace]

I am only replying b/c my other post had a type-o in it. It was supposed to be Luke 3:23, not Matthew. Human error.

OK, I can accept that explanation as valid

Furthermore, you really think you know me after a brief chat on a public internet forum? You are so far off the mark. And you believe that I am here trying to destroy Christianity? A little extreme, don't you think. Your view, opinion and belief are not the only one around. Others come here to learn. Some think for themselves, much like me. Just because you do not like it or don't agree with it does not mean you have to go on the offensive and make it personal. And you certainly don't need to PM me with the exact same message (that I stopped reading after about 5 seconds).

I said we should just politely agree to disagree and leave it at that. I am trying to remain civil, even on touchy subjects. Please refrain from personal vendettas and do the same. Thank you.

totopic

The topic is "inerrancy in the autographa". You are the one who brought out silly spelling variations as proof of non-inerrancy.

The examples that you posted are so specious that I thought they were a cut-and-paste job from some hack website. Pointing out the false logic and false examples as I did is being civil. Simply, I refuted your assertions, and then I characterized the fact that you ignored the context, not once, but twice.

Legitimately, that sets my mind wondering of there will be a similar pattern. When I saw that you did not cite the Scripture correctly, the case was made in my mind. But that STILL does not make your point of errors in the NT. the difference between eli and heli is simply the difference of an "apostrophe" (') in Kioine Greek. that is a diacritical mark for a "rough breathing" hence the /h/ sound. So you have now a third example of a easily understood variance in the Bible. Obviously a hard-of-hearing scribe did not hear the leading /h/.

So do we have a pattern here? Indeed so!

You are attempting to discredit Scripture based on non-standardized spellings. That is specious, and indeed I believe that it is an attempt to destroy Scriptures and mislead Christians. That is something that I take extremely seriously. It is not a personal issue; instead it is an edification of the sheep issue.

The Bible defends itself, and I have studied it in both Hebrew and Greek. Thus I an far from "not thinking for myself" as you erroneously allege. But the issue is NOT about me, nor about my education; it is the autographa, meaning the original languages.

My opinion is that you need to study about the transmission and codification of Scripture from a reliable source, not relying on that poor source that you cited.

You objected that I believe you are attempting to deceive. Since that is the case, then how else should one classify the fact that you attempted to state that there are errors in Scripture using such silly spelling examples?

Plainly your examples do not hold water. Therefore your hypothesis is bogus, and there is nothing wrong with posting that statement, nor is it personal.

 

[Vanguard]

The topic is "inerrancy in the autographa"

Actually the topic and thread title is "Biblical inerrancy." That is more broad than just the autographa. I won't be replying to you anymore at this point, as I refuse to make this a personal debate. You go your way, I'll go mine. Back to the topic...

 

[Nick]

Let's cool it down, please. :yes

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Actually the topic and thread title is "Biblical inerrancy." That is more broad than just the autographa. I won't be replying to you anymore at this point, as I refuse to make this a personal debate. You go your way, I'll go mine. Back to the topic...

Vanguard, you are making it personal.
Whatever your intent, you are coming across as attacking the word of God.
You need to rethink how you are expressing yourself.

 

[Grazer]

I forgot it was me who started this thread lol

Ok. The thing is we have many different translations (NIV, NLT, KJV, etc) taking different interpretations of words that it shows one major aspect of the human involvement in scripture. But it goes deeper than that. There are currently around 5500 complete Greek new testament manuscripts. In total, there are over 200,000 variants/differences in them.

But despite this, historians and scholars say we have documents that are 99.95% of the original text (remember, we only have copies not the originals)

If we have what God intended, then the above figures should cause us to pause and think.

Gary habermas has done loads on this and below is one such video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEGXaGif0Ow

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[By Grace]

I forgot it was me who started this thread lol

Ok. The thing is we have many different translations (NIV, NLT, KJV, etc) taking different interpretations of words that it shows one major aspect of the human involvement in scripture. But it goes deeper than that. There are currently around 5500 complete Greek new testament manuscripts. In total, there are over 200,000 variants/differences in them.

But despite this, historians and scholars say we have documents that are 99.95% of the original text (remember, we only have copies not the originals)

If we have what God intended, then the above figures should cause us to pause and think.

Gary habermas has done loads on this and below is one such video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEGXaGif0Ow

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

Since we can not give reps here, I give you three virtual reputation points!

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

okay, now don't nobody get offended by what i am about to say.

the bible is full of errors.
i don't have the brain to figure it all out or understand it all.
so now what do i do?

should i just accept what other people tell me or should i continue to believe what the bible says?

 

[farouk]

okay, now don't nobody get offended by what i am about to say.

the bible is full of errors.
i don't have the brain to figure it all out or understand it all.
so now what do i do?

should i just accept what other people tell me or should i continue to believe what the bible says?

We need to approach the Word of God with the attitude that the foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of men (1 Corinthians 1.25).

 

[Vanguard]

okay, now don't nobody get offended by what i am about to say.

the bible is full of errors.
i don't have the brain to figure it all out or understand it all.
so now what do i do?

should i just accept what other people tell me or should i continue to believe what the bible says?

It is important to understand while there may be errors and contradictions within the Bible, God's message does not change. When myself or others "argue" or debate over verses, a phrase, or even a single word within a verse, we do so because we feel strongly about accuracy and interpretation. For most Christians, our arguments will be irrelevant as they do not change the Christian faith.

It is also important to understand that the literal translations (KJV, NASB, ESV, etc.) agree on about ~95% of the material in the Bible. The "modern advocates" are not saying the Bible is false or should be thrown out, they are just saying "there might be a different way of viewing that verse/phrase/word" than what is presented in older translations, with regard to that other ~5%.

Don't let it shake you up. Worship God, pray, love your neighbors and you'll be fine.

 

[farouk]

It is important to understand while there may be errors and contradictions within the Bible, God's message does not change. When myself or others "argue" or debate over verses, a phrase, or even a single word within a verse, we do so because we feel strongly about accuracy and interpretation. For most Christians, our arguments will be irrelevant as they do not change the Christian faith.

It is also important to understand that the literal translations (KJV, NASB, ESV, etc.) agree on about ~95% of the material in the Bible. The "modern advocates" are not saying the Bible is false or should be thrown out, they are just saying "there might be a different way of viewing that verse/phrase/word" than what is presented in older translations, with regard to that other ~5%.

Don't let it shake you up. Worship God, pray, love your neighbors and you'll be fine.

...but then, who decides which part is really God's message?

I think we need humbly to admit that what we perceive is marked and affected by sin and human prejudice, and we should instead 'receive meekly the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls' (James 1.21).

 

[Grazer]

...but then, who decides which part is really God's message?

I think we need humbly to admit that what we perceive is marked and affected by sin and human prejudice, and we should instead 'receive meekly the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls' (James 1.21).

Its all Gods message. Either we have what God intended or we don't. If we don't, we can't receive anything.

 

[farouk]

Its all Gods message. Either we have what God intended or we don't. If we don't, we can't receive anything.

Exactly; this is what I meant.

 

[Vanguard]

...but then, who decides which part is really God's message?

This is both complex and easy.

The complex version is there are numerous scholars, linguists, theologians, etc. and they will translate, revise, interpret, validate, cross reference, triple check, etc etc etc until they are blue in the face. From that, they produce a Bible for whatever publishing house they work for, pop a copyright on it, and send it out into the world. Many denominations (and cults) have their own version of the Bible. As you work your way through life, you try to find a church where you "fit in" and agree with their views. If accomplished, you tend to adopt their views and interpretations of God's word. For some, it is whatever they grew up with and they follow their parents into the church.

The easy version, and what I adhere to, is reading the Bible for yourself and developing your own personal relationship with God. As you read you'll start realizing that the Bible speaks of being kind, honest, truthworthy, loving, compassionate, etc. and it will appeal to your most basic senses. Follow that and you'll find your own path to God. The Lord could care less if you can't read Greek, Hebrew, can quote the Bible from memory, whether or not you go to church or worship on your own. In the end it is not the "label" you wear but how you lived, and was it in accordance with what He commanded.

 

[reba]

King James is my favorite translation just cause that is what I grew up hearing...
I am old but I was not around in 1600 so what the English was then is not exactly the same today...
Which translation one uses or how some
try to put the Word of God down is not going to make Gods word less then it is...
God is God He knew the hearts of man when He used them to compose the scripture and He knew the Word would be translated. God is more then capable of taking care of His word. Man tries and tries again to devalue the Word. God is 'bigger' than any of us or ALL of us.

 

[farouk]

King James is my favorite translation just cause that is what I grew up hearing...
I am old but I was not around in 1600 so what the English was then is not exactly the same today...
Which translation one uses or how some
try to put the Word of God down is not going to make Gods word less then it is...
God is God He knew the hearts of man when He used them to compose the scripture and He knew the Word would be translated. God is more then capable of taking care of His word. Man tries and tries again to devalue the Word. God is 'bigger' than any of us or ALL of us.

reba:

Good post, yes.

It's far more of a question of us conforming to the Word, than of finding a version and church which conforms to our thinking.

 

[Grazer]

Exactly; this is what I meant.

But this would include all the variances