So why do we believe...?

[Gold Dragon]

OK, since you believe that none of the Bible is "to" you (I assume that would have to mean not only that the commands of the Bible are not "to" you, but also the promises of the Bible are not "to" you) on what do base your eternal future? Where is the security of your faith?

If you cannot trust the texts of the Bible (where one word change can completely change an eternal truth) where is your security?

There is a wonderful word called faith that God inspired the writer of Hebrews to describe as...

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."

One of the amazing things about faith is that it is certainty and conviction about things that aren't certain. If it was certain, there would be no faith.

While I don't believe the versions of the bible that I use are infalliable, I have great confidence that the translators have tried their best with the resources available to them, to reflect the words and thoughts of the original inspired authors.

Jesus said that every jot and tittle was eternally important (and indestructable). Paul noted that an entire doctrine of NT truth is built on one letter in the OT... how do you know Paul did not just have a copy with a "copyist's error"?

Galatians 3
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

An entire messianic truth built on one letter (or possibly two in hebew).

The examples of where one word or even letter change would change an eternal doctrine are legion.

I don't determine doctrine based on the word-for-word literal interpretions of a single verse and am open to the possiblity that my interpretations could be in error. I don't assume my interpretations are a perfect understanding of the will of God.

Instead, I reflect on what all of scripture has to say about a topic and even then, I consider my interpretations of scripture to be mere shadows of what God truly wants because his revelation is also continually being made complete in the Holy Spirit at work in his people.

 

[SumTinWong]

You are turning the tables here Lollard.
You have not answered my question.
GEL

I have. You have not excepted my answer. "I think I have answered your question to the best of my ability. There are plainly errors in the texts which we read from. I did not assert that all of the texts were invalid. I didn't even assert that the ones with the mistakes are invalid. All I have said was there are errors. Unless you can deny that, I guess I have answered that question."

That was my answer. You can ask me a hundred times over and that is still my answer. This does not change the fact that I believe that the Bible is inspired, and it doesn't change the fact that it is my final authority. The errors are not God's errors they are mens errors. I have faith that the message that God wanted transmitted to His people has come through anyway.

Now if you would be so kind as to answer my question...

 

[BBAS 64]

Good Day, Lollard

There are some good debates out there and I can point you to them.

Here is a discussion of this issue:

http://www.straitgate.com/aom/dl/03.htm

March 13,2003

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[SumTinWong]

Good Day, Lollard

There are some good debates out there and I can point you to them.

Here is a discussion of this issue:

http://www.straitgate.com/aom/dl/03.htm

March 13,2003

Peace to u,

Bill

Once again thanks for the link! I glanced at it but will listen to some of it today when i get back.

Peace!

 

[bleechers]

There is a wonderful word called faith that God inspired the writer of Hebrews to describe as...

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."

One of the amazing things about faith is that it is certainty and conviction about things that aren't certain. If it was certain, there would be no faith.

While I don't believe the versions of the bible that I use are infalliable, I have great confidence that the translators have tried their best with the resources available to them, to reflect the words and thoughts of the original inspired authors.

So let's follow this line of reasoning.

You speak of "faith" but faith in what? The Muslim has "faith". The Hindu has "faith". Do you understand the word "faith"? Paul speaks of things he "knows". Faith is a conclusion built on infallible evidence, it is not a willy-nilly, "hope-so, think-so, crossing-my-fingers-I'm-right" thing. It is the evidence of truth based on an inerrant book.

Look again at what I said: "If you cannot trust the texts of the Bible (where one word change can completely change an eternal truth) where is your security?"

So you have "faith" in something that may be in error? Something which cannot be trusted? And for evidence of the validity of "faith" as something beyond or more reliable than the scriptures you point... to the scriptures?

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."

How do you know this does not contain a copyist's error? Perhaps the word "faith" was added... perhaps there was a deletion of something apart from faith... perhaps "things" should read "anything"... perhaps "not seen" should read "already seen". If you postulate that the Bible is not a reliable source of truth down to the letters, then you can hardly use it as evidence of a doctrine on which you hang your eternal fate.

Are you not "certain" of your salvation? I am certain and I base my certainty on the infallible scriptures and the promises made "to" me. I have "assurance".

The verse you quoted uses the word "assurance" yet you turn around and say "If it was certain, there would be no faith"... It is certain, that is why we have "assurance". Faith is a certainty. It is certain because God has clearly given us evidence in His word. By your standard, the Koran might be truth. How can you be "certain" that the Bible is the Word of God?

I don't determine doctrine based on the word-for-word literal interpretions of a single verse and am open to the possiblity that my interpretations could be in error. I don't assume my interpretations are a perfect understanding of the will of God.

Instead, I reflect on what all of scripture has to say about a topic and even then, I consider my interpretations of scripture to be mere shadows of what God truly wants because his revelation is also continually being made complete in the Holy Spirit at work in his people.

This is a non-sequitor. Stating the Bible is without error does not mean that our interpretations must be without error. That is not my argument. My argument is that ANY conclusion drawn from texts that not inerrant are, by definition, suspect. When one draws a conclusion from a premise, he must establish that the premises are true.

You are correct to say that we must compare scripture with scripture and that one verse may not give a complete picture. However, in the case of the verse I quoted (re: seed vs. seeds) it is the crux of the argument. It is a verse that cannot be paraphrased or dismissed.

By arguing that the scriptures we have are not reliable only complicates this idea, though. The more errant verses compared the greater the chance of error.

As to conclusions, do you conclude that we are saved by grace apart from any works? If so, how do you come to that conclusion? If you don't make distinctions between the scriptures, how do you know that the doctrine of grace is "to" you? Perhaps it's not, right?

Why trust any verse (or number of verses) if any or all could be in error?

How can we have faith in something we can't trust to be accurate?

 

[Gold Dragon]

So let's follow this line of reasoning.

You speak of "faith" but faith in what? The Muslim has "faith". The Hindu has "faith". Do you understand the word "faith"?

Apparently you have a perfect understanding of the word faith. Please correct me.

Paul speaks of things he "knows". Faith is a conclusion built on infallible evidence, it is not a willy-nilly, "hope-so, think-so, crossing-my-fingers-I'm-right" thing. It is the evidence of truth based on an inerrant book."

It is evidence of truth through which Paul knows. But the "based on an inerrant book" was added by you and is not found in Paul's words. Your faith is that the Holy Spirit has preserved an inerrant scripture in the form of the KJV for you to draw doctrine from. My faith is that the Holy Spirit has preserved an inspired scripture that is as close to being inerrant as possible with our current evidence, in the form of other translations for me to draw doctrine from. Why is my position such a preposterous one while yours is such a reasonable one?

Look again at what I said: "If you cannot trust the texts of the Bible (where one word change can completely change an eternal truth) where is your security?"

So you have "faith" in something that may be in error? Something which cannot be trusted? And for evidence of the validity of "faith" as something beyond or more reliable than the scriptures you point... to the scriptures?

Inerrancy is not required for trust. I trust my parents, my pastors, my wife, the legal system, the government, the history books, the scientific papers, Christian authors, the newspapers, etc even though all those things are frequently in error.

My security is not in the inerrancy of the bible but in the perfect Holy Spirit dwelling in me.

I point to the scriptures mostly for your benefit, because of the authority it holds in you. Although it does hold authority in me, just not for the same reasons.

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."

How do you know this does not contain a copyist's error? Perhaps the word "faith" was added... perhaps there was a deletion of something apart from faith... perhaps "things" should read "anything"... perhaps "not seen" should read "already seen". If you postulate that the Bible is not a reliable source of truth down to the letters, then you can hardly use it as evidence of a doctrine on which you hang your eternal fate.

It could contain one. But it is by faith that I believe that the Holy Spirit has preserved the meaning of the scriptures through the ages. Just like it is by faith that you believe the Holy Spirit has preserved the inerrancy of the scriptures through the ages.

Are you not "certain" of your salvation? I am certain and I base my certainty on the infallible scriptures and the promises made "to" me. I have "assurance".

I am certain of my salvation and I base my certianty on the inspired sciptures and the promises made "for" me.

The verse you quoted uses the word "assurance" yet you turn around and say "If it was certain, there would be no faith"... It is certain, that is why we have "assurance". Faith is a certainty.

Faith is a certainty in things that are uncertain. That was my point. I can know something is uncertain and still have faith in its certainty. Does that make sense?

I know that my wife could cheat on me but I still have faith that she wouldn't.

It is certain because God has clearly given us evidence in His word. By your standard, the Koran might be truth. How can you be "certain" that the Bible is the Word of God?

I'm not sure what the Koran has to do with this. I can assure you that Muslims consider the Koran to be the inerrant word of God too.

By arguing that the scriptures we have are not reliable only complicates this idea, though. The more errant verses compared the greater the chance of error.

By saying that there are errors in our bibles does not say that the bible is unreliable. In fact, I find the bible to be highly reliable and its preservation through history is a remarkable story and standard for literary and historical accuracy. However, that doesn't mean it is a perfect reflection of the originals.

As to conclusions, do you conclude that we are saved by grace apart from any works? If so, how do you come to that conclusion? If you don't make distinctions between the scriptures, how do you know that the doctrine of grace is "to" you? Perhaps it's not, right?

Because of my faith in the inspiration of the Bible. These doctrines were in effect long before the doctrine of inerrancy was spelled out. It isn't "to" me as a command but the doctrine of grace is "for" all of mankind, of which I am a member.

Why trust any verse (or number of verses) if any or all could be in error?

Why trust any person, if they could be wrong?

How can we have faith in something we can't trust to be accurate?

I pointed to many examples above.

 

[Gold Dragon]

bleechers. I don't want to argue with you. I'm just trying to explain my position and show that those who believe that the KJV has errors still considered the bible to be the inspired and authoritative word of God that is invaluable for drawing truth and doctrine. I have the utmost respect for the bible as God's word, but I am also realistic about how the words on those versions got to us.

You are welcome to believe in the inerrancy of the KJV. But please understand that many other Christians in the present and the past do not believe this and were still able to rightly interpret scripture and have faith in its words.

 

[bleechers]

Your arguments are illogical It's futile to try to argue against circular reasoning. I've tried a couple of times...

Crux of the matter:

Holy Spirit has preserved an inspired scripture that is as close to being inerrant as possible

Preserved = Inerrant. If the texts we have are not inerrant then the inspired scripture has not been "preserved". The same reasonsing can be used to refute the rest of your arguments as well.

My security is not in the inerrancy of the bible but in the perfect Holy Spirit dwelling in me.

The same HS that can't protect the innerant Word?

Inerrancy is not required for trust. I trust my parents, my pastors, my wife, the legal system, the government, the history books, the scientific papers, Christian authors, the newspapers, etc even though all those things are frequently in error.

The holes in the this argument are so large and obvious that it needs not comment.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Preserved = Inerrant. If the texts we have are not inerrant then the inspired scripture has not been "preserved". The same reasonsing can be used to refute the rest of your arguments as well.

Yes it is the crux of the matter. You believe preserved = inerrant. I do not. I'm not saying that the HS couldn't preserve an inerrant bible, I'm just saying that I don't believe he did.

While you believe that without inerrancy we should dismiss the bible and all of our doctines, I disagree. Just like I don't think that if a newspaper makes a mistake, that I should never read it. Or if my wife makes a mistake, I should never trust her.

 

[SumTinWong]

I posted these errors that are in the Bible at an earlier time and no one ever refuted them, or gave an explaination for them:

II Chronicles 36:9 says that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he became king.
II Kings 24:8 says Jehoiachin was 18 years old when he became king.

II Samuel 10:18 talks about David slew the men of 700 chariots of the Syrians and 40,000 horsemen and Shobach the commander.
I Chronicles 1:18 says that David slew the men of 7000 chariots and 40,000 footmen

I Chronicles 9:25 says that Solomon had 4000 stalls for horses and chariots.
I Kings 4:26 says that he had 40,000 stalls for horses

Matthew 27:9 attributes a prophecy to Jeremiah; it is actually found in Zecheriah.

I have heard various people comment on the last one:
John Wesley:"Mat 27:9 - Then was fulfilled - What was figuratively represented of old, was now really accomplished. What was spoken by the prophet - The word Jeremy, which was added to the text in latter copies, and thence received into many translations, is evidently a mistake: for he who spoke what St. Matthew here cites (or rather paraphrases) was not Jeremy, but Zechariah. Zechariah 11:12."

Abert Barnes:"Spoken by Jeremy the prophet - The words quoted here are not to be found in the prophecy of Jeremiah. Words similar to these are recorded in Zec_11:12-13, and from that place this quotation has been doubtless made. Much difficulty has been experienced in explaining this quotation. In ancient times, according to the Jewish writers; “Jeremiah” was reckoned the first of the prophets, and was placed first in the “Book of the Prophets,” thus: Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the twelve minor prophets. Some have thought that Matthew, quoting this place, quoted the Book of the Prophets under the name of that which had the “first” place in the book, that is, Jeremiah; and though the words are those of Zechariah, yet they are quoted correctly as the words of the Book of the Prophets, the first of which was Jeremiah."

Adam Clarke:"Mat 27:9 -
Jeremy the prophet - The words quoted here are not found in the Prophet Jeremiah, but in Zec_11:13. But St. Jerome says that a Hebrew of the sect of the Nazarenes showed him this prophecy in a Hebrew apocryphal copy of Jeremiah; but probably they were inserted there only to countenance the quotation here."

Fromt eh Geneva Bible Translation notes:"As this prophecy is found in (Zec_11:12) it cannot be denied that Jeremy's name slipped into the text either through the fault of the Scribe, or by someone else's ignorance: it may also be that it came out of the margin by means of the abbreviation on one of the letters, the one being "yod" and the other being "zayin", which are very similar: But in the Syrian text the Prophet's name is not written down at all. "

Peoples New Testament:"Then was fulfilled. The prophecy is found in Zec_11:12. Albert Barnes shows that a change of a single letter in the original would transform Zechariah into Jeremiah, and it is supposed that some early copyist made the mistake. Another explanation is that Jeremiah, in the Jewish arrangement of the prophets, stood first, and that his name was given to the whole book of prophecy."

Anybody else have any other explainations for these errors?

 

[Gold Dragon]

Lollard. My aim is not to prove to KJV-only folks that they are wrong and I am right. I only want them to be open to the idea that a belief in the inerrancy of the KJV isn't the only way to have faith in the the authority of the bible as God's inspired word, rightly interprest scriptures, and draw authoritative doctrine from the bible.

I believe fundamentalist/dispensational/KJV-only/literal interpretation is a valid way to understand God's revelation and there are definitely worse ways. However I believe there are also better ways to understand God's Word and I simply ask that KJV-only types will give me a chance to describe what those ways are before the condemnation or dismissals start coming out.

 

[SumTinWong]

I hope you are not saying that I am trying to prove that they are wrong either, just to admit something that is clearly there. My intent, if I have not been clear (which is very possible), is to do somewhat the same thing that you are doing. I am trying to point out that there is no more "right" version of the Bible, that they all contain some errors in translation, and therefore are not the perfect books that some claim them to be.

 

[Gold Dragon]

I hope you are not saying that I am trying to prove that they are wrong either, just to admit something that is clearly there. My intent, if I have not been clear (which is very possible), is to do somewhat the same thing that you are doing. I am trying to point out that there is no more "right" version of the Bible, that they all contain some errors in translation, and therefore are not the perfect books that some claim them to be.

No prob Lollard. Clarifications are always good. Although that last sentence sounds awefully like you are trying to prove them wrong.

I also have one thing to add. One of the pivotal documents on innerancy, The Chicago Statement of Innerancy in 1978 accepted by evangelicals worldwide has this to say.

A Short Statement
1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God's witness to Himself.

2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms: obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.

3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.

4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.

5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.

However, it also has this note.

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 appear 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.

Similarly, no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the autographa. Yet the verdict of linguistic science is that English-speaking Christians, at least, are exceedingly well served in these days with a host of excellent translations and have no cause for hesitating to conclude that the true Word of God is within their reach. Indeed, in view of the frequent repetition in Scripture of the main matters with which it deals and also of the Holy Spirit's constant witness to and through the Word, no serious translation of Holy Scripture will so destroy its meaning as to render it unable to make its reader "wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:15).

 

[SumTinWong]

I fixed it, and I see what you were saying. What I said could be seen as antagonistic. Anyway there is nothing in that statement of Innerancy that I would disagree with.