Is the Bible inerrant?

Reluctant Theologian · 2025-11-22T19:39:03-0600

ChubbyCherub said:
If all of the bible is potentially contextual, symbolic, situational, time specific, people specific or with error, than how did we get this far by using it as the foundation of our faith?

Surely, Jesus referred to 'writings' not to appeal only to the Pharisees (there were other people in the world) but as a way to show all that the scriptures were inerrant with regards to prophesying His presence, purpose and authority.

So, we all now dismiss it because ... ? We don't understand? We don't ask the right questions? It suits our narrative? It's overly complex? We seek answers elsewhere? We have failed, as a society, to keep teaching what we once knew? We [fill in the blank]?

Without scripture, how would we even know of the existence of Jesus? Would we just do a, 'trust me bro' moment?

I don't understand this line of thinking at all? What am I missing here?

The Bible is written to a certain audience but also is relevant to me; it's written in certain culture(s) but its message transcends cultures, it's full of symbols but also contains historical and spiritual reality.

I trust the TNK/OT as it's sufficiently reliable still to get God's message, His instructions, His way of dealing with people and His people. And that's all despite the different nr of books in different traditions, the differences in wording between the LXX (Greek) and Hebrew (Masorete) texts ...

I trust the NT writings in the same way - I don't need inerrancy (in the 'Western/logical' way) - the collection as a whole tells me the story of Yeshua, the Apostles, the early churches in the middle of that 1st century AD and what God expects from me now.

Yet I don't have to panic when Biblical scholars point out to me the range of textual variations in the collection of manuscripts and copies we still have, or when they point out to me (with evidence) 2 Peter is highly unlikely to have been written by the Apostle Peter - assuming that to be a pseudo-graph doesn't change the Gospel. And that assumption also doesn't clash with any other part of the TNK/OT or NT writings.

E.g. the textual stability of the Quran since it was first written is much higher than that of the the Biblical books, but we shouldn't overlook the fact the Bible also is 10 times larger in volume. So it's harder to copy/transmit .. Despite that I prefer the Bible

Fervent · 2025-11-22T19:43:20-0600

Reluctant Theologian said:
E.g. the textual stability of the Quran since it was first written is much higher than that of the the Biblical books, but we shouldn't overlook the fact the Bible also is 10 times larger in volume. So it's harder to copy/transmit .. Despite that I prefer the Bible

You had me until this point, as the textual stability is not really higher it's simply that critical scholarship carries much bigger risks. In reality there is excellent evidence that the Qu'ran was originally written in a dialect that has since been lost, and the text itself was not really standardized until the early 20th century. But since critical scholarship carries serious safety risks it generally isn't publicized and democratized the way Biblical scholarship is.

Reluctant Theologian · 2025-11-22T20:08:48-0600

Fervent said:
You had me until this point, as the textual stability is not really higher it's simply that critical scholarship carries much bigger risks. In reality there is excellent evidence that the Qu'ran was originally written in a dialect that has since been lost, and the text itself was not really standardized until the early 20th century. But since critical scholarship carries serious safety risks it generally isn't publicized and democratized the way Biblical scholarship is.

The Quran was standardised twice; by Utman (around 650 CE) when he ordered any other deviating copies around to be burned, and later again in 1924 in Egypt. After 650 CE vowel symbols and pronunciation markers were added in the 8th century CE; originally the Quran was written without those markers. The 1924 standardisation also mainly deals with these markers, not the actual words themselves.

Interestingly it's highly likely the Hebrew TNK/OT Masoretic text with the pronunciation/vowel markers was produced after they noticed how succesful the Quranic addition of pronunciation markers was ... so it seems the Masoretes copied the method from the Islamic world even though the meaning of the markers in the Hebrew text is different from those in the Quran.

But still . .when comparing the earliest versions of Quran manuscripts available with the latest texts - the stability is higher (but please feel free to correct/show me otherwise). Another interesting bit is that printing was used for the Bible from the 15th century CE, but for the Quran printing only started in the 18th century CE (!!) - that's a lot later. When manually copying, the Bible is just much harder to copy (2 different languages and 10 times the volume in characters) - so naturally the fault rate per whole volume is expected to be higher.

Fervent · 2025-11-22T20:24:01-0600

Reluctant Theologian said:
The Quran was standardised twice; by Utman (around 650 CE) when he ordered any other deviating copies around to be burned, and later again in 1924 in Egypt. After 650 CE vowel symbols and pronunciation markers were added in the 8th century CE; originally the Quran was written without those markers. The 1924 standardisation also mainly deals with these markers, not the actual words themselves.

Interestingly it's highly likely the Hebrew TNK/OT Masoretic text with the pronunciation/vowel markers was produced after they noticed how succesful the Quranic addition of pronunciation markers was ... so it seems the Masoretes copied the method from the Islamic world even though the meaning of the markers in the Hebrew text is different from those in the Quran.

But still . .when comparing the earliest versions of Quran manuscripts available with the latest texts - the stability is higher (but please feel free to correct/show me otherwise). Another interesting bit is that printing was used for the Bible from the 15th century CE, but for the Quran printing only started in the 18th century CE (!!) - that's a lot later. When manually copying, the Bible is just much harder to copy (2 different languages and 10 times the volume in characters) - so naturally the fault rate per whole volume is expected to be higher.

Perhaps in a sense there is a higher fidelity, though that is at least a product of survivorship bias given the penchant for destruction of variants. But as far as I am aware, there isn't as open of a process for critical scholarship regarding the manuscripts that do exist. Also, there is the issue of what constitutes a variant given the dialect variance that exists within the manuscripts and the tolerance for at least seven distinct Arabic dialects or "readings". And in addition to the issues you mentioned, there is the unity of the text that is also in play given the relatively late collection into a single codex for the Bible compared to the Qu'ran. My minor quibble with what you had said was simply because it appeared to express a confidence in the Qu'ranic texts that the comparitive interest in critical scholarship creates a slight bias. There is also the issue of the oldest extant manuscript displaying a massive amount of variance from the later standardized texts from chapter order, number, and variant readings beyond the recognized "acceptable" variations.

Reluctant Theologian · 2025-11-22T22:12:36-0600

Fervent said:
Perhaps in a sense there is a higher fidelity, though that is at least a product of survivorship bias given the penchant for destruction of variants. But as far as I am aware, there isn't as open of a process for critical scholarship regarding the manuscripts that do exist. Also, there is the issue of what constitutes a variant given the dialect variance that exists within the manuscripts and the tolerance for at least seven distinct Arabic dialects or "readings". And in addition to the issues you mentioned, there is the unity of the text that is also in play given the relatively late collection into a single codex for the Bible compared to the Qu'ran. My minor quibble with what you had said was simply because it appeared to express a confidence in the Qu'ranic texts that the comparitive interest in critical scholarship creates a slight bias. There is also the issue of the oldest extant manuscript displaying a massive amount of variance from the later standardized texts from chapter order, number, and variant readings beyond the recognized "acceptable" variations.

Yes, I get that ... I think it's fair to say that from Uthman (650 CE) until now the Quranic textual stability is indeed higher than that of the NT writings over that time-frame; yet it's also true the earliest Quran manuscripts we have definitely show variance going back to pre-Uthmanic era. And those variants sometimes indeed changed the meaning of a verse.

The small size of the Quran, the very early (within 20 years of Mohammed) standardisation and the tradition of memorising/reciting the Quran (facilitated by its smaller size), all helped to maintain that textual stability.

It's true Quranic textual criticism is underdeveloped relatively to the Jewish/Christian ones. And indeed in the Islamic world it's common to exaggerate the Quranic stability and claim perfect preservation (which those earliest manuscripts show is not true). But in Christian traditional circles you will find the same exaggerated claim and even plain rejection of any textual criticism.

NT variants sometimes are plain copying errors, sometimes obvious 'corrections/additions' to facilitate the theology/understanding of the copyist. So all together I still would maintain the textual stability (from original author to now) of the NT is worse than that of the Quran, but that does not mean the Quranic 'revelation' is more believable or true that the NT. I believe Yeshua is the Son of God (YHWH) who died for our sins - something the Quran explicitly denies.

For mission and personal witness to Muslims - even as friends - I need to know the Quran, otherwise I can't make any comparative claims about it relative to the Bible. I need to know about the life of Mohammed in order to make comparative claims relative to Yeshua.

Be blessed!

ChubbyCherub · 2025-11-23T03:30:56-0600

“No prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:20–21).

What does it mean that the Bible is infallible? What is biblical infallibility? | GotQuestions.org

I know I said I was leaving but this thread weighs on my spirit and I had to pray for everyone involved, including myself, for understanding and guidance.

Can anyone explain to me why this link is incorrect?

Please actually read it, though, and tell me if I've missed anything in this thread that I need to reread for understanding.

Summary of this page as it is quoted at the bottom, "The Bible is the sole objective source of all God has given us about Himself and His plan for humanity. As God’s infallible Word, the Bible is inerrant, authoritative, reliable, and sufficient to meet our needs."

I'm so perplexed and saddened by this whole thread and I'm hoping that is due to misunderstanding on my part........

ChubbyCherub · 2025-11-23T03:50:36-0600

RamiC said:
I was replying to fhansen, in post 41. My screen is showing that.

Ok, apologies. I hope we can keep discussion Christ led and remain compassionate with mistakes. I'm not the most able forum navigator but I'm willing to learn.

2PhiloVoid · 2025-11-23T06:12:43-0600

ChubbyCherub said:
“No prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:20–21).

What does it mean that the Bible is infallible? What is biblical infallibility? | GotQuestions.org

I know I said I was leaving but this thread weighs on my spirit and I had to pray for everyone involved, including myself, for understanding and guidance.

Can anyone explain to me why this link is incorrect?

Please actually read it, though, and tell me if I've missed anything in this thread that I need to reread for understanding.

Summary of this page as it is quoted at the bottom, "The Bible is the sole objective source of all God has given us about Himself and His plan for humanity. As God’s infallible Word, the Bible is inerrant, authoritative, reliable, and sufficient to meet our needs."

I'm so perplexed and saddened by this whole thread and I'm hoping that is due to misunderstanding on my part........

Sister CC, I appreciate your citation of GotQuestions.org because they have some useful things to say. But try not to let all of this bother you.

Just keep in mind that the Slippery Slope argument that some folks worry over is more often than not a fallacy in critical reasoning rather than a cogent point.

ChubbyCherub · 2025-11-23T06:13:53-0600

2PhiloVoid said:
Sister CC, try not to let all of this bother you.

Just keep in mind that the Slippery Slope argument that some folks worry over is more often than not a fallacy in critical reasoning rather than a cogent point.

Thank you x

RamiC · 2025-11-23T06:43:44-0600

ChubbyCherub said:
I know I said I was leaving but this thread weighs on my spirit and I had to pray for everyone involved, including myself, for understanding and guidance.

That is very kind of you. :pray:

ChubbyCherub said:
Can anyone explain to me why this link is incorrect?

It does not include the perspectives or traditional ways of practicing Christianity that some Christians know are valid, and that do not require belief in inerrancy or infallibility of the Bible. I will go through it for the rest of this post, I will use italics for direct quotes from the article you linked, and dark blue for quotes from other articles or documents.

"The Bible claims to be infallible in 2 Peter 1:19, “We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable.” Peter continues with a description of how Scripture came to be: “No prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:20–21)."

There is clear point about what 2 Peter is reffering to with the word "Scripture" - 2 Ptr 1:19-21 - "This is often used as a proof-text about the whole of Scripture being effectively authored by God, but this goes well beyond what the passage is actually saying. Firstly, it refers specifically to OT prophecy, not to the whole of the Bible as we now have it." Bolding mine, from this link - What does the Bible really say about inerrancy?

The Got Questions website, which is the source of the article which you linked to, says this "Actually, 2 Peter 1:20 emphasizes the source of Old Testament prophecies, not who has the right to interpret the Bible today." Bolding mine, in another article here - What does 2 Peter 1:20 mean about interpreting Scripture? | GotQuestions.org .

"Also, we see infallibility implied in 2 Timothy 3:16–17, “All Scripture is God-breathed” and has the effect of producing servants of God who are “thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

"Firstly, the Bible ‘is able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus’ – in other words, the Bible points or leads you to the person of Christ and encourages you to have faith in him, which is what ‘saves’ you. So the Bible here is simply the witness to Jesus." Bolding mine, from the same link above - What does the Bible really say about inerrancy?

Again, Got Questions itself makes this point elsewhere - link to article called "Do I have to believe the Bible is inerrant to be saved? - Do I have to believe the Bible is inerrant to be saved? | GotQuestions.org, which says "We are not saved by believing in the inspiration or inerrancy of the Bible. We are saved by believing in the Lord Jesus Christ as our Savior from sin (John 3:16; Ephesians 2:8–9; Romans 10:9–10). At the same time, though, it is only through the Bible that we learn about Jesus Christ and His death and resurrection on our behalf (2 Corinthians 5:21; Romans 5:8).

"If God is infallible, then so will be His Word. The doctrine of Scripture’s infallibility is based on an understanding of God’s perfection of character. God’s Word is “perfect, refreshing the soul” (Psalm 19:7) because God Himself is perfect. Theologically, God is closely associated with His Word; the Lord Jesus is called “the Word” (John 1:14)."

This, I myself cited in post #39 of this thread, and it is very important. The article appears to condradict itself with this bit, because absolutely the first verses of the Gospel of John make it clear that "the Word" is not actually the Bible, but Jesus. Fervent seems to have been trying to say the same thing in post #29, with my apologies to Fervent if I am wrong about that.

In the Christian faith tradition that I follow, we have a historic document that refers to this matter, based on John 1-14 "II. Of the Word or Son of God, which was made very Man The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God," and our position on the Bible is referred to here "VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation..." and "XX. Of the Authority of the Church...and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another." Link to 39 Articles of Religion - 39articles .

"It should be noted that the doctrine of infallibility concerns only the original documents. Mistranslations, printing errors, and typos are obvious human mistakes and are easily spotted, most of the time. However, what the biblical writers originally wrote was completely free from error."

It is for this reason that I asked "Which one?" in my first post in this thread, I meant "Are we talking about inerrancy in the original hand written and untranslated form, or one of 776 languages this is a link, or about 900 English language versions. This is a link."?

"The Bible claims complete (as opposed to partial) perfection in Psalm 12:6, Psalm 19:7, Proverbs 30:5, and many other places."

Psalms and Proverbs written before the New Testament existed, before the Incarnation, do not necessarily refer to anything written after themselves.

"It is factual throughout"

Now this is a problematic phrase, because we know that the Bible is a diverse collection of different types of literature, many of which are not even attempting to be factual. That does make any part of the Bible false, or fallible, but it does make this statement wrong.

"and, in fact, judges us (rather than vice-versa),"
No, it is a collection of books, and it is powerless without the saving influence of the Holy Ghost to guide and secure our comprehension of it's messages.

“The word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12)."

Again, "the word of God" is identified here already, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." John 1 1-3 NIV

ChubbyCherub · 2025-11-23T06:57:38-0600

RamiC said:
That is very kind of you.

It does not include the perspectives or traditional ways of practicing Christianity that some Christians know are valid, and that do not require belief in inerrancy or infallibility of the Bible. I will go through it for the rest of this post, I will use italics for direct quotes from the article you linked, and dark blue for quotes from other articles or documents.

"The Bible claims to be infallible in 2 Peter 1:19, “We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable.” Peter continues with a description of how Scripture came to be: “No prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:20–21)."

There is clear point about what 2 Peter is reffering to with the word "Scripture" - 2 Ptr 1:19-21 - "This is often used as a proof-text about the whole of Scripture being effectively authored by God, but this goes well beyond what the passage is actually saying. Firstly, it refers specifically to OT prophecy, not to the whole of the Bible as we now have it." Bolding mine, from this link - What does the Bible really say about inerrancy?

The Got Questions website, which is the source of the article which you linked to, says this "Actually, 2 Peter 1:20 emphasizes the source of Old Testament prophecies, not who has the right to interpret the Bible today." Bolding mine, in another article here - What does 2 Peter 1:20 mean about interpreting Scripture? | GotQuestions.org .

"Also, we see infallibility implied in 2 Timothy 3:16–17, “All Scripture is God-breathed” and has the effect of producing servants of God who are “thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

"Firstly, the Bible ‘is able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus’ – in other words, the Bible points or leads you to the person of Christ and encourages you to have faith in him, which is what ‘saves’ you. So the Bible here is simply the witness to Jesus." Bolding mine, from the same link above - What does the Bible really say about inerrancy?

Again, Got Questions itself makes this point elsewhere - link to article called "Do I have to believe the Bible is inerrant to be saved? - Do I have to believe the Bible is inerrant to be saved? | GotQuestions.org, which says "We are not saved by believing in the inspiration or inerrancy of the Bible. We are saved by believing in the Lord Jesus Christ as our Savior from sin (John 3:16; Ephesians 2:8–9; Romans 10:9–10). At the same time, though, it is only through the Bible that we learn about Jesus Christ and His death and resurrection on our behalf (2 Corinthians 5:21; Romans 5:8).

"If God is infallible, then so will be His Word. The doctrine of Scripture’s infallibility is based on an understanding of God’s perfection of character. God’s Word is “perfect, refreshing the soul” (Psalm 19:7) because God Himself is perfect. Theologically, God is closely associated with His Word; the Lord Jesus is called “the Word” (John 1:14)."

This, I myself cited in post #39 of this thread, and it is very important. The article appears to condradict itself with this bit, because absolutely the first verses of the Gospel of John make it clear that "the Word" is not actually the Bible, but Jesus. Fervent seems to have been trying to say the same thing in post #29, with my apologies to Fervent if I am wrong about that.

In the Christian faith tradition that I follow, we have a historic document that refers to this matter, based on John 1-14 "II. Of the Word or Son of God, which was made very Man The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God," and our position on the Bible is refferred to here "VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation..." and "XX. Of the Authority of the Church...and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another." Link to 39 Articles of Religion - 39articles .

"It should be noted that the doctrine of infallibility concerns only the original documents. Mistranslations, printing errors, and typos are obvious human mistakes and are easily spotted, most of the time. However, what the biblical writers originally wrote was completely free from error."

It is for this reason that I asked "Which one?" in my first post in this thread, I meant "Are we talking about inerrancy in the original hand written and untranslated form, or one of 776 languages this is a link, or about 900 English language versions. This is a link."?

"The Bible claims complete (as opposed to partial) perfection in Psalm 12:6, Psalm 19:7, Proverbs 30:5, and many other places."

Psalms and Proverbs written before the New Testament existed, before the Incarnation, do not necessarily refer to anything written after themselves.

"It is factual throughout"

Now this is a problematic phrase, because we know that the Bible is a diverse collection of different types of literature, many of which are not even attempting to be factual. That does make any part of the Bible false, or fallible, but it does make this statement wrong.

"and, in fact, judges us (rather than vice-versa),"
No, it is a collection of books, and it is powerless without the saving influence of the Holy Ghost to guide and secure our comprehension of it's messages.

“The word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12)."

Again, "the word of God" is identified here already, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." John 1 1-3 NIV

Thank you very much for the time and effort you put into all of that to address things for me. I really do appreciate it and will bookmark to reflect.

My husband and adult child are not believers. We read the bible almost nightly, though, and they have many questions about events, timelines, authors etc. Some of these are addressed in the study bible I am using, some are not. Some I would like to be addressed via church elders but they have not come back to me after I asked to whom I should go for these questions. We don't pause reading the bible but the questions remain unanswered, in the meantime.

I know that we have had Tyndale Publishers in our church who often refer to Greek texts and translations, and who are not happy with the NIV translation, for example, due to errors in translating from Greek to Latin to English etc but I have no one sitting down with me to confirm a) provenance/validity of Greek texts being used as a measure b) breaking down the translations re: how they are versus how they should be e.g.

So, I really only have CF and the internet to use for a guide and I hope this explains why I have come across so passionate about trying to understand things.

Again, thank you for your time and effort.

RamiC · 2025-11-23T07:50:46-0600

ChubbyCherub said:
I know that we have had Tyndale Publishers in our church who often refer to Greek texts and translations, and who are not happy with the NIV translation, for example, due to errors in translating from Greek to Latin to English etc but I have no one sitting down with me to confirm a) provenance/validity of Greek texts being used as a measure b) breaking down the translations re: how they are versus how they should be e.g.

What version does your church approve of? Perhaps people on CF can help you with good background, history and study supports for some English language Bible the elders at your church do like.

Does your church, local or denomination, have a web site? A link to that might be useful for some of us.

I often quote the NIV on CF only because BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 150 versions and 50 languages. tends to default to it, and no one on CF is complaining.

RamiC · 2025-11-23T08:24:22-0600

ChubbyCherub said:
Ok, apologies. I hope we can keep discussion Christ led and remain compassionate with mistakes. I'm not the most able forum navigator but I'm willing to learn.

Mistakes = those thing we all make.

ChubbyCherub · 2025-11-23T11:19:27-0600

RamiC said:
What version does your church approve of? Perhaps people on CF can help you with good background, history and study supports for some English language Bible the elders at your church do like.

Does your church, local or denomination, have a web site? A link to that might be useful for some of us.

I tend to quote the NIV on CF only because BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 150 versions and 50 languages. tends to default to it, and no one on CF is complaining.

My church really endorses NIV which is contrary to their guest speakers. It is non-denominational.

RamiC · 2025-11-23T11:54:35-0600

ChubbyCherub said:
My church really endorses NIV which is contrary to their guest speakers. It is non-denominational.

Could the guest speakers have been trying to sell other versions of the Bible? If some people at your church might have bought one, that is fine activity, but you do not need to let it prevent you from just using the best one for you.

NIV Bible - New International Version - they have a fine looking website there, with a blog that looks especially helpful for articles about application to life.

What is the New International Version (NIV)? | GotQuestions.org - and here is Got Questions? website on the NIV.

This is an easy summary of different translation styles:

Formal Translation: A very word-for-word translation that often uses formal, more archaic language (example: the King James Version or NASB);
Dynamic Translation: A thought-for-thought translation (example: NIV or NLT);
Paraphrase Translation: An idea-for-idea translation that involves much more interpretation from the translator (example: The Message);

from here.

NIV is a Dynamic translation, so it is formed in English to blend easy readability with what the original languages said. Here is the NIV websites' own answer about which original texts were used "The translators of the NIV have used the Old Testament and New Testament texts that are widely accepted among modern scholars as giving the committee the best possible access to what God inspired in the original documents.

For the Old Testament the Masoretic Text, the standard Hebrew text as published in the latest edition of Biblia Hebraica, has been used throughout. The NIV translators have sometimes used variants of the Hebrew Masoretic tradition or other ancient versions, where these seemed to provide a superior text than the Masoretic tradition. These are all noted in the NIV translator footnotes that appear at the bottom of the page of the text that they reference.

For the New Testament, the translators have used the accepted Greek New Testament text as printed in the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testaments. Here also the translators have occasionally accepted a variant printed in these editions. Footnotes usually indicate the options in each case."

Is the Bible inerrant?

אַבְרָהָם

Well-Known Member

אַבְרָהָם

Well-Known Member

אַבְרָהָם

Active Member

Active Member

Another Perspective

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads