Bible Inerrancy Poll #2

bf: "if people who are uneducated to the facts pick up any two different translations and start comparing, they'll see that the strong word "inerrant" cannot be applied to both (because of the many differences mainly in the text used to translate)."

I think the problem here is two different semantic connotations to the terms "error" and "inerrant". Legitimate variety regarding translational rendering does *not* in my book an error make (nor did it to the KJV translators, who made the point in their preface that the King's speech, though rendered in different ways into French or other languages, yet remains the King's speech, despite the minor differences and imperfections caused by the process of translation).

bf: "I'm pretty sure you'd agree that's why the strong word "inerrant" is only talked about in terms of the autographs of Scripture."

Not on this point would I agree. Even I can make inerrant (but not necessarily inspired) statements (e.g. "I am a male"; 2+2=4," etc.).

bf: I'm of the persuasion that the strong word "inerrant" should be kept to the autographs only and not watered down to include all "faithful" translations or some other breed, as some seem to hold to on this board.

I don't think there is any reason to limit inerrancy to the autographs, even though I would hold that the autographs were inspired and inerrant. So long as a manuscript in the original language preserves the autographic text (in 90%+ accuracy, as has already been noted), to that extent the manuscript itself is "inerrant" with autograph precision; however, there is another aspect to inerrancy, and that is inerrancy as relates to doctrine and teaching:

Do the various "faithful" or "reliable" translations teach doctrinal or historical "error" -- either directly, or from some variant reading in their underlying base text? If not, then they also remain doctrinally and theologically "inerrant", even while not necessarily preserving the precise form of the autographs in all instances.

I would assert that, so long as doctrinal, theological, or historical "error" is *not* taught by a "faithful" or "reliable" translation, then we indeed *can* declare such a translation to communicate God-ordained scriptural "inerrancy" to us, *regardless* of the situation concerning the non-extant autographs.

 

I defer to the older and wiser that different translations of an inerrant original word are still inerrant after the translation process. Mainly what I was trying to say was that if 5-10 percent difference exists among any two translations as regards omission/addition/alteration of text, then all translations are not equal and cannot, by definition, have the same original words to translate from in the first place. Any original word that is accurately translated is inerrant, and any non-original or secondary word, or lack thereof, even if accurately translated, is thus not the inerrant Word of God. If translations include words that are not inerrant, or omit words that are................??????

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

I didn't misread you Bluefalcon. What my belief is, relates to what God has to say to us as human beings in what we call God's Word.

There will never be a perfectly, letter perfect translation from Greek to English, even if we knew we had each original manuscripts text correct--simply because Joe, the translator might use a more literal translation than Fred.

My point is, the modern versions (excluding possibly "The Message" and certain other paraphrases can be considered inerrant in that they contain God's Word in all its correct doctrine for us to read.

Now, whether or not the grammar is exactly the same and one version may be a little different in the way it describes a particular doctrine or verse is debatable. This is fine, but do we have "inerrant" Word of God in our translations? In other words, if we read them all the way from cover to cover will we come away with the entire "inerrant" message that God wants us to? Yes, if we understand the proper quirks of each style of translation. Will it be inerrant as far as having the perfect source document translated into the perfect English translation. No, impossible; but as I say again, inerrancy in the Bible means that I read the Bible and come away with the same message, stories, doctrines and plan of salvation, etc. And I believe even some of the weaker translations can fit in this category.

Even if complete verses have been left out, or they are footnoted as not being in some manuscripts, the overall theme and context of the Bible results in the same understandings.

Will that work for you?

 

It works, but I refuse to use the word "inerrant" in the way you have. I'd rather use "infallible" or some lesser word. If many translations omit, or for all intents and purposes omit, e.g., Mt. 17:21, but if in fact that verse is genuine and God-breathed, then those translations IMO are not "inerrant," because omitting Scripture in my book is an error.

BTW, only 2 Greek MSS before the 9th century omit Mt. 17:21 and only 3 after that time period, wheras 4 from before the 9th century contain it and hundreds afterward. Everyone go read your notes in your Bibles and see if they accurately reflect the actual facts of the Greek manuscript tradition. To me, the NIV's use of "Some manuscripts..." to describe the number of those that include the verse is misleading.

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

I can buy that. "Infallible" works for me and as you say is more accurate than "inerrant".

I can also see that MY use of "inerrant" could be misunderstood to believe letter-for-letter perfect, when we know this is not the case.

Thanks,

Phillip

 

bf: "Mainly what I was trying to say was that if 5-10 percent difference exists among any two translations as regards omission/addition/alteration of text, then all translations are not equal and cannot, by definition, have the same original words to translate from in the first place.

Agreed.

bf: "Any original word that is accurately translated is inerrant, and any non-original or secondary word, or lack thereof, even if accurately translated, is thus not the inerrant Word of God."

Also agreed, which is why determination of the original reading is of primary importance.

bf: "I refuse to use the word "inerrant" in the way you have. I'd rather use "infallible" or some lesser word."

Had you said "infallbile" in the first place regarding the teaching and doctrine found among MSS and translations reflecting various texttypes, I would not have quibbled over semantic disctinctions regarding the use of the term "inerrancy".

We all need to be precise, at all times. How often we fail in this endeavor.