Inerrancy of Scripture - Bible believer or bible agnostic?

[Guest Guest]

How is it grasping at straws, when the KJV translators themselves acknowledged what they did about their translation work? (I won't quote it here, but you know what they said, I believe.) They never claimed that the Bible they had translated was "without error."

They specifically call it an "exact translation of the holy scriptures into the English tongue" in their introduction. That is all that KJVO's, ruckmanites excluded, say.

The translators also say that:

"things of this quality have ever been subject to the censures of illmeaning and discontented persons,"

And also:

"we shall be maligned by selfconceited brethren, who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing, but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their anvil;"

Who do you suppose fits that description.

"Pure" is an adjective describing "words," not "a book."

Yet, somehow, in the NT, when ever it quotes the OT, it is quoting a book, and always as if that book being quoted is beyond all doubt the completely authoritative word of God.

Here again you make a leap in logic. None of these passages is remotely referring to God's words. You are taking huge liberties with what these unconnected verses are saying. I have no problem understanding the symbolism of leaven in the Bible, when correctly interpreted. Yes, leaven is used in various places as a picture of sin. But there is absolutely no connection in the Bible between the ideas expressed here and the doctrine of preservation. The idea of leaven is, to my knowledge, never used in connection with God's words at all. So, it is a non sequitur to apply "leaven" to "preservation."

The biblical principal of leaven is that you cannot take that which is Holy, combine it with that which is impure, and still have something Holy. Here is another passage that doesn't even use the term "leaven" but it is teaching exactly the same thing.

"Haggai 2:11-14 Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Ask now the priests concerning the law, saying, If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any meat, shall it be holy? And the priests answered and said, No. Then said Haggai, If one that is unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean? And the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean. Then answered Haggai, and said, So is this people, and so is this nation before me, saith the LORD; and so is every work of their hands; and that which they offer there is unclean."

Anyway, if you choose to say I am making a "leap in logic" by applying the biblical principal of leaven to the scriptures just because there is no exact verse using "leaven" in relation to corrupt scriptures, then, I take it, you also think Paul was wrong where he quotes Deuteronomy 25:4?

After all listen to what he says:

"1 Corinthians 9:9-11 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?"

What a "leap in logic" right? He quotes an OT passage about taking care of your oxen and applies it directly to taking care of those who preach the gospel even though the verse quoted was not directly dealing with that. Looks like Paul was prone to making leaps of "logic" virtually identical to the "leap of logic" I made. :bonK:

[trc123]

Yet' date=' somehow, in the NT when ever it quotes the OT it is quoting a book, and always as if that book being quoted is beyond all doubt the completely authoritative word of God.[/quote']

Hey Seth, I love my King James Bible and I believe it is the Word of God. I believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Word of God. With that said, you indicate that, "in the NT when ever it quotes the OT it is quoting a book." While I understand what you are saying and I'm certain they had the scrolls and manuscripts of Scripture, I'm not certain every quote is referenced to a "book" or "scroll" as such.

Many, many references in the New Testament are verbal references by the one speaking or the author. Yes, many to refer to "it is written," but many are also verbal references to "words" of the prophets, etc. and not necessarily a "book" or "scroll." While I believe every word in the Holy Scriptures that I hold in my hand is true and from the Lord God, it should still be recognized in all fairness that one can not say "when ever it quotes the OT it is quoting a book."

Matthew Chapters 1 to 3 alone have:
"for it is written...."
"which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet saying,...."
"which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet saying,......"
"for thus it is written by the prophet,....."
"was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying,....."

In just the first three chapters of the first book of the New Testament there is clearly a mix of how God's Word is referenced.

Not meaning to be disagreeable, that's just how I see it......

Peace! TRC

[Guest Guest]

The NT writers were not contemporary with the OT prophets so everything they knew of them came from "books". Look up "fulfilled" in the NT and see how much OT scripture NEEDED to be fulfilled. If it wasn't Gods perfect word there would have been no need to fulfill it. It doesn't matter if it says spoken or written in the NT when speaking of the OT, because the only way they would have know it was spoken is if it was also written. It would be just like if I said, "Paul says:" and give a bible quote from one of his epistles. The only way I know he said that is by the scripture.

[trc123]

One may logically make that assumption (and personally I believe that is true); but that is not precisely what all the NT references to the OT actually say in my King James Bible. Once you hang everything on every precise word in a translation, I would think you'd have to stay consistent in recognizing that it doesn't precisely reference an actual book in every instance. Peace! TRC

[Guest Guest]

One may logically make that assumption (and personally I believe that is true); but that is not precisely what all the NT references to the OT actually say in my King James Bible. Once you hang everything on every precise word in a translation, I would think you'd have to stay consistent in recognizing that it doesn't precisely reference an actual book in every instance.

Well, I think where it says it was "spoken" by the prophets and quotes an OT verse it is obviously coming from a book or scroll, but if you like I can amend my statement and say that every place where it says "it is written" it is treated as if what was written was the authoritative word of God.

[Annie]

They specifically call it an "exact translation of the holy scriptures into the English tongue" in their introduction. That is all that KJVO's, ruckmanites excluded, say.

The translators also say that:

"things of this quality have ever been subject to the censures of illmeaning and discontented persons,"

And also:

"we shall be maligned by selfconceited brethren, who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing, but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their anvil;"

Who do you suppose fits that description.

None of these are the quotations about which I am speaking. Here are the statements to which I was referring:

[quote="KJV translators' Preface to the King James Bible http://www.piney.com/DocKJVPref1611.html"]

"if anything be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place.

Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere.

A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else, there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) [James 3:2] also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it.

The translation of the Seventy [septuigint] dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doth it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Jerome and most learned men do confess) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy of the appellation and name of the word of God.

(Regarding variant readings, the KJV translators say) Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be so sound in this point...It hath pleased God in his Divine Providence here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation...but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us that confidence...Now in such a case doth not a margin do well to admonish the reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident; so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. (AMEN, BROTHERS!) Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good; yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded...They that are wise had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other."

[Guest Guest]

None of these are the quotations about which I am speaking. Here are the statements to which I was referring: [quote="KJV translators' Preface to the King James Bible "] "if anything be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place. Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere. A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else, there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) [James 3:2] also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. The translation of the Seventy [septuigint] dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doth it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Jerome and most learned men do confess) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy of the appellation and name of the word of God. (Regarding variant readings, the KJV translators say) Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be so sound in this point...It hath pleased God in his Divine Providence here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation...but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us that confidence...Now in such a case doth not a margin do well to admonish the reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident; so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. (AMEN, BROTHERS!) Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good; yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded...They that are wise had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other."

http://www.piney.com/DocKJVPref1611.html

Yet, somehow, in the NT, when ever it quotes the OT, it is quoting a book, and always as if that book being quoted is beyond all doubt the completely authoritative word of God.

The biblical principal of leaven is that you cannot take that which is Holy, combine it with that which is impure, and still have something Holy. Here is another passage that doesn't even use the term "leaven" but it is teaching exactly the same thing.

Boy, these guys took the words right out of my mouth! They sure weren't KJVO! More leaps in logic, and some major generalization. Christ and the apostles quoted from various versions of OT scripture, even the Septuigint (see above). By Christ's time, there were many, many translations and manuscripts in circulation. Even in the KJV, the quote in the NT does not always match word-for-word the one in the OT. We've discussed this before. This is common sense. I have never said that we have a perfect translation of God's word. All of the translations contain errors, and so are not perfect. There is no need to connect the "leaven" idea with the doctrine of preservation to figure out that this is true.

[Guest Guest]

Boy, these guys took the words right out of my mouth! They sure weren't KJVO! More leaps in logic, and some major generalization. Christ and the apostles quoted from various versions of OT scripture, even the Septuigint (see above). By Christ's time, there were many, many translations and manuscripts in circulation. Even in the KJV, the quote in the NT does not always match word-for-word the one in the OT. We've discussed this before. This is common sense. I have never said that we have a perfect translation of God's word. All of the translations contain errors, and so are not perfect. There is no need to connect the "leaven" idea with the doctrine of preservation to figure out that this is true.

You are ripping up what they said. :roll I don't have the inclination to address every quote you make so I will just deal with this one.

"if anything be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place.

They are speaking about the fact that they reviewed the earlier english translations and corrected a few errors, made the wording more smooth, etc., while at the same time making a note that the errors in the earlier english bibles were fairly minor. Secondly, even as you quote it it does not support your position, as they said they corrected the earlier english versions where they were "not so agreeable to the original" and the whole foundation of your position is that there is nothing original or perfect in any language. You are misunderstanding or misapplying the majority of your remaining quotes as well, but I doubt it would do the least bit of good to correct you, after all we have been round and round, and you haven't really listened to anything that has been said. If scripture itself cannot convince you of its perfection, how can the words of men possibly do so?

[Annie]

If scripture itself cannot convince you of its perfection, how can the words of men possibly do so?

I have stated, and demonstrated on other threads, that I am more than willing to be taught by the scripture; the bare fact is that you have to pull scriptures out of context, and then add your own ideas to them, to find any "biblical" support for the KJVO position. The scripture does not indicate that there will ever be a perfect book. It speaks only of God's words, which have always been and always will be pure, no matter where they are found.

The only reason I quoted the KJV translators is that you didn't reference the statements to which I was referring, and I wanted to clarify that. I assure you that I did not rip their remarks out of context. (That's why I included the sentences around just about every part that I highlighted in bold.) You are correct that the translators were referring to the practice of earlier translators of continually reviewing manuscripts and making better translations as they were able. In fact, much of the Preface details the history of different translations. It is clear that the KJV translators considered themselves to be part of this stream of history...making the most reliable translation possible at the time (while including things which were unclear to them--variant readings of which they found impossible to know for sure the correct meaning/rendering--in the margins). They clearly did not consider themselves to have reached "perfection" in translation. Anyone who has read the Preface in its entirety would acknowledge that.

[Annie]

Seth, I forgot until now that I promised you to try to get to the rest of one of your posts. Sorry I left that loose end hanging. Here it is:

I am not even dealing with KJVO at this point, I am dealing with the issue that you do not believe that anyone can hold ANY bible in ANY language and say that it contains ONLY the word of God. Your position is unfortunately almost the antithesis of psalm 119 as well as the antithesis of faith and belief in general. Your whole aproach to ALL scripture is one of "Yea hath God said". If you feel there is a contradiction between two passages you reject one and cry the other is a "scribal error". That is wicked. (emphasis added)

Seth, which of these verses is the "perfect word of God?" They cannot both be, because God's words do not contradict one another.

2 Samuel 8:3-4 (KJV)
3 David smote also Hadadezer, the son of Rehob, king of Zobah, as he went to recover his border at the river Euphrates.
4 And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen

[Guest Guest]

Seth, I forgot until now that I promised you to try to get to the rest of one of your posts. Sorry I left that loose end hanging.

That is fine, I had intended to quit posting on this thread, and as it is I intend to leave your whole post "hanging". I have posted many, many, direct scriptural references and every one you have attempted to explain away by attempting to redefine the meanings of the words, or you deny that it says what it is clearly saying. "Matthew 15:14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." Is the verse that has been coming to mind.


Seth, which of these verses is the "perfect word of God?" They cannot both be, because God's words do not contradict one another. 2 Samuel 8:3-4 (KJV) 3 David smote also Hadadezer, the son of Rehob, king of Zobah, as he went to recover his border at the river Euphrates. 4 And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen

I am not even dealing with KJVO at this point, I am dealing with the issue that you do not believe that anyone can hold ANY bible in ANY language and say that it contains ONLY the word of God. Your position is unfortunately almost the antithesis of psalm 119 as well as the antithesis of faith and belief in general. Your whole aproach to ALL scripture is one of "Yea hath God said". If you feel there is a contradiction between two passages you reject one and cry the other is a "scribal error". That is wicked. (emphasis added)

[Annie]

I have posted many, many, direct scriptural references and every one you have attempted to explain away by attempting to redefine the meanings of the words, or you deny that it says what it is clearly saying.

Seth, I don't want to be unkind, but it has been, in fact, you who have added your own ideas to these verses instead of letting them speak for themselves. "Scripture" unjustifiably becomes "one book." "God's pure words" become "one and only one version of the Bible." Every verse you have listed as support for the KJVO position needs "additional explanation" in order for it to bolster your arguments. I, on the other hand, have not put words into God's mouth. I have not added my own ideas to the text. God's word has been preserved, as He said it would. His words are just as pure today as they were the day He uttered them to the original writers of Scripture. The fact that all of His words are not all gathered together in one and only one place does not negate these truths.

Actually, there is a perfectly reasonable explanation of these verses, they do not need to "contradict" as you so hastily conclude, but considering you have denied and rejected so much truth already why should I show you more? You are LOOKING for errors not for truth. What saith the scripture: "Galatians 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." I can try to help people who believe God and just don't understand something, but there is not much I can do to help those with an evil heart of unbelief. Abraham already knew "in Isaac shall thy seed be called.", yet when God told him to sacrifice him he still believed God, he didn't cry "contradiction". With your point of view it seems you would have decided that there was an "error" some place and would have rejected the command of God. When a person will not hear truth there comes a point when you leave them to their own devices, their blindness is a just reward for their rejection of already revealed truth. BTW If someone else is reading this who is not a bible agnostic and has any difficulty with these passages, pm me and I will try to explain, like I said, there is a perfectly reasonable explanation. :Green

Seth, if there is a perfectly reasonable explanation, why not just post it? I think I've demonstrated before (when you clarified the "valiant men" issue for me) that I am teachable when shown by the scripture that I am wrong. (And, no doubt there are others besides us following this thread as well.) I understand if you do not want to continue this conversation, so no pressure...Despite what you think, I am very interested in the truth. I don't have to "look for" contradictions/errors; having been raised reading the Bible, I've known they were there since I was a child. I actually remember, as an elementary-aged child, noting a discrepancy between passages about some other king's age (can't remember who it was right now, but I think it started with J), and wondering about it. Anyone who reads the Bible notices things like this. They don't have to look for it. You're reading through a passage, and you say, "Hey, I thought he was only eight when he became king." (Kids notice things like that: an eight-year-old king!!) "But this passage says he was eighteen. Hmmm...I wonder which it was." (I'm still drawing a blank on the king's name--Jehoi-something?) Sure, sometimes you can look at other passages, or other material in the contradictory passages, records, geneologies, etc., and reconcile the differences. But sometimes you can't. Sometimes the numbers just don't add up; they blatantly disagree. In those instances, we can either call the particular translation "perfect" and God a liar, or God's words perfect and the translation mistaken. I personally am not shaken by these minor errors/contradictions, because I have no problem researching other manuscripts and translations to find the answers. And, if I'm still not sure, even after researching, whether Solomon had forty thousand or four thousand stalls for his horses (1 Kings 4:26; 2 Chronicles 9:25), it really doesn't matter, since that minute bit of information does not impact any foundational Christian truths in the slightest.

Oh, I remembered...Jehoiachin was the king's name. (I didn't remember this on my own; I did a quick search.) 2 Chron. 36:9 says that he was eight years old when he began to reign, and 2 Kings 24:8 says he was eighteen.

Seth, once again I do understand if you do not want to continue this conversation, and I thank you for the interaction.

[Pastor Matt]

I think I've demonstrated before (when you clarified the "valiant men" issue for me) that I am teachable when shown by the scripture that I am wrong. (And' date=' no doubt there are others besides us following this thread as well.)[/quote']
Sorry, but after reading your posts in this thread I can't see where you are willing to learn. I'm sure that I am not the only one who see this in this thread.

[Annie]

BroMatt, I am willing to learn from the scripture. There is a difference between that and being willing to accept arguments based on verses taken out of context with fallacious human reasoning added to them. When Seth pointed out from scripture the difference between "men who drew the sword" and "valiant men," I accepted that. I LOVE the scripture. It is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. It burdens me that people have blasphemed God by calling other translations of His word "the devil's work," "trash," "per-versions," and "poison," among other things. It sorrows me that some have added their own ideas to scripture and based an entire doctrine on those ideas. I strive to be faithful to the scripture, and to take God at his word. I would love to hear Seth (or others) address my ideas, and I am certainly open to changing my opinions if scripture indicates that I should, just as I did with the "valiant men" issue.

[Pastor Matt]

Again, I am telling you how you come across to others.