Many Christian denominations will have in their statements of faith something to the effect of "We believe the Bible to be the divinely inspired, inerrant Word of God." However, that statement raises some issues. I'd like to cover them one at a time.
1. Which translation of the Bible are they referring to? Some Bibles are not translated as well as others, especially when you move down to dynamic or paraphrased versions. Are they referring to the Hebrew and Greek, or are they referring to English? If they are referring to English translations, then they are missing the cultural and time period idioms.
2. The Autographs, which were the original works of both the OT and the NT, have long been lost or destroyed. The OT Autographs went up in flames when Nebuchadnezzar II destroyed the temples in Jerusalem in 587 BCE. The point is, how can anyone claim that the modern Bible is inerrant when you don't have the original writings to compare to? You can't!
3. Why are there so many different translations? The answer is: copyright laws. Publishing houses have copyrights on their translations, and it is often cheaper for another company to do their own translation instead of paying royalties. Since plagiarism has to be avoided, that means words and formatting have to be different.
4. There are some Christian sects that wrote their own version of the Bible. The problem with many of those sects is that the authors (I refuse to say translators) were NOT fluent with Hebrew or Greek, and couldn't read those languages if they tried. Instead, they use the "Holy Spirit-as-guide" excuse in order to avoid being questioned about their scholarship. That does not stop theologians from pointing out the obvious errors of those translations.
The point is that biblical inerrancy is not something that can be proven. It is a belief without merit, and gets hammered into the masses so hard that many accept it as truth. Unfortunately, those people have been brainwashed by repetition.
Biblical Inerrancy
Moderator: Moderators
-
American Deist
- Apprentice
- Posts: 214
- Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2017 5:08 pm
- Location: Alabama, USA
Biblical Inerrancy
Post #1I am only responsible for what I say, not what you fail to understand!
P.D. Chaplain w/ Th.D., D.Div. h.c.
P.D. Chaplain w/ Th.D., D.Div. h.c.
Re: Biblical Inerrancy
Post #2[Replying to post 1 by American Deist]
[center]
Question: Who made Blastcat the king of arguments?
Answer: Me.[/center]
The Greek Bible... probably was not written by any apostle. There is just no reason to think that witnesses to Jesus were extremely literate in Greek.
Ok, we don't have any originals ( at least, not yet ).
That doesn't mean what we HAVE has any significant errors.
They could still be "God inspired", and hence... perfect.
But then we have to ASSUME that a perfect God exists, that it somehow verified each and every word. An all knowing, all powerful god might be able to pull it off, too.
I think a HUGE honking mistake that all too many people make is to assume what they want to prove. I see it all the time in here.
I might ask a theist : "How do you know that the Bible god is real?"... if they say that it's by way of the divinely inspired, and thus "perfect" Bible, they don't realize how circular their thinking is.
Round and round they go.. not proving anything but their bad reasoning.
I had to go check... what a great point.
Many Bibles HAVE to be different.
Wow.. that one really blew my mind.
US copyright laws ... public domain starts in 1923.
Anything written after that is subject to the copyright laws.
So, yeah.. apparently, external data isn't required at all.
What Role Does the Holy Spirit Play In Apologetics?
Your argument is good.
I think it could use a little improvement. I spot "leaps".
And it's a little messy.
A bit of editing.. cleaning up.. getting rid of stuff that isn't demonstrated.. bob's your uncle.
You might want to include questioning the reasoning that supports KNOWING that something is without error. How can we test for that, if you seem what I mean.
I've just had a very brief conversation with a Muslim apologist ( very young and naive, I think ). He went straight to the Quran being perfect ( same deal as what you are talking about, different holy book ).
This was on Facebook, so I told him if he has established that the Quran IS perfect, then there is no use discussing if it is or not. I thanked him for sharing.. and I never heard from him again. Apparently, that was the whole of his argument. Maybe he was so naive as to think that he actually won the debate. I have NO idea.
Sometimes, fundamentalists are impossible to talk to... if they put up a wall, it might be 2000 miles long and thirty feet high. And we all know who has to PAY for that.
Great post.
I think you should refine the ideas.. they are very good.
Maybe a little bit of polish might make them shine a little more
I think it's really worth the effort.
Ok.. these statements about brainwashing I think you mean to use them as premises to your conclusion.
Right now, you aren't demonstrating the reasoning of how you got them. I'm PRETTY sure that many theists would simply disagree about that "brainwashing".
The argument is a little messy.
And bits of it.. are leaps and are unsupported by facts.
One thing at a time for this cat.
[center]
Question: Who made Blastcat the king of arguments?
Answer: Me.[/center]
One of my favorite "mood" movies is "Lost in translation", with a fabulous Bill Murray.American Deist wrote:
1. Which translation of the Bible are they referring to? Some Bibles are not translated as well as others, especially when you move down to dynamic or paraphrased versions. Are they referring to the Hebrew and Greek, or are they referring to English? If they are referring to English translations, then they are missing the cultural and time period idioms.
The Greek Bible... probably was not written by any apostle. There is just no reason to think that witnesses to Jesus were extremely literate in Greek.
This point is a little weak, in my opinion.American Deist wrote:
2. The Autographs, which were the original works of both the OT and the NT, have long been lost or destroyed. The OT Autographs went up in flames when Nebuchadnezzar II destroyed the temples in Jerusalem in 587 BCE. The point is, how can anyone claim that the modern Bible is inerrant when you don't have the original writings to compare to? You can't!
Ok, we don't have any originals ( at least, not yet ).
That doesn't mean what we HAVE has any significant errors.
They could still be "God inspired", and hence... perfect.
But then we have to ASSUME that a perfect God exists, that it somehow verified each and every word. An all knowing, all powerful god might be able to pull it off, too.
I think a HUGE honking mistake that all too many people make is to assume what they want to prove. I see it all the time in here.
I might ask a theist : "How do you know that the Bible god is real?"... if they say that it's by way of the divinely inspired, and thus "perfect" Bible, they don't realize how circular their thinking is.
Round and round they go.. not proving anything but their bad reasoning.
Now THAT was actually news to me !!American Deist wrote:
3. Why are there so many different translations? The answer is: copyright laws. Publishing houses have copyrights on their translations, and it is often cheaper for another company to do their own translation instead of paying royalties. Since plagiarism has to be avoided, that means words and formatting have to be different.
I had to go check... what a great point.
Many Bibles HAVE to be different.
Wow.. that one really blew my mind.
US copyright laws ... public domain starts in 1923.
Anything written after that is subject to the copyright laws.
William Lane Craig, a very notorious apologists has said that "I think that the fundamental way in which we KNOW Christianity is true is through the inner witness of the Holly Spirit"American Deist wrote:
4. There are some Christian sects that wrote their own version of the Bible. The problem with many of those sects is that the authors (I refuse to say translators) were NOT fluent with Hebrew or Greek, and couldn't read those languages if they tried. Instead, they use the "Holy Spirit-as-guide" excuse in order to avoid being questioned about their scholarship. That does not stop theologians from pointing out the obvious errors of those translations.
So, yeah.. apparently, external data isn't required at all.
What Role Does the Holy Spirit Play In Apologetics?
If that's your POINT, or the conclusion to your argument, then it should follow from the premises.
Your argument is good.
I think it could use a little improvement. I spot "leaps".
And it's a little messy.
A bit of editing.. cleaning up.. getting rid of stuff that isn't demonstrated.. bob's your uncle.
You might want to include questioning the reasoning that supports KNOWING that something is without error. How can we test for that, if you seem what I mean.
I've just had a very brief conversation with a Muslim apologist ( very young and naive, I think ). He went straight to the Quran being perfect ( same deal as what you are talking about, different holy book ).
This was on Facebook, so I told him if he has established that the Quran IS perfect, then there is no use discussing if it is or not. I thanked him for sharing.. and I never heard from him again. Apparently, that was the whole of his argument. Maybe he was so naive as to think that he actually won the debate. I have NO idea.
Sometimes, fundamentalists are impossible to talk to... if they put up a wall, it might be 2000 miles long and thirty feet high. And we all know who has to PAY for that.
Great post.
I think you should refine the ideas.. they are very good.
Maybe a little bit of polish might make them shine a little more
I think it's really worth the effort.
American Deist wrote:
It is a belief without merit, and gets hammered into the masses so hard that many accept it as truth. Unfortunately, those people have been brainwashed by repetition.
Ok.. these statements about brainwashing I think you mean to use them as premises to your conclusion.
Right now, you aren't demonstrating the reasoning of how you got them. I'm PRETTY sure that many theists would simply disagree about that "brainwashing".
The argument is a little messy.
And bits of it.. are leaps and are unsupported by facts.
One thing at a time for this cat.
-
Clownboat
- Savant
- Posts: 9381
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
- Has thanked: 906 times
- Been thanked: 1260 times
Re: Biblical Inerrancy
Post #3My church would use the different translations to help make whatever point they were trying to make. They would read a passage from the KJ version, then go to another passage and use the Amplified version, and then refer to yet another passage and use the NIV. The differing versions can help you with your sermon. Is the wording not quite what you want in the KJV in a particular passage? Try another....American Deist wrote: Many Christian denominations will have in their statements of faith something to the effect of "We believe the Bible to be the divinely inspired, inerrant Word of God." However, that statement raises some issues. I'd like to cover them one at a time.
1. Which translation of the Bible are they referring to? Some Bibles are not translated as well as others, especially when you move down to dynamic or paraphrased versions. Are they referring to the Hebrew and Greek, or are they referring to English? If they are referring to English translations, then they are missing the cultural and time period idioms.
2. The Autographs, which were the original works of both the OT and the NT, have long been lost or destroyed. The OT Autographs went up in flames when Nebuchadnezzar II destroyed the temples in Jerusalem in 587 BCE. The point is, how can anyone claim that the modern Bible is inerrant when you don't have the original writings to compare to? You can't!
3. Why are there so many different translations? The answer is: copyright laws. Publishing houses have copyrights on their translations, and it is often cheaper for another company to do their own translation instead of paying royalties. Since plagiarism has to be avoided, that means words and formatting have to be different.
4. There are some Christian sects that wrote their own version of the Bible. The problem with many of those sects is that the authors (I refuse to say translators) were NOT fluent with Hebrew or Greek, and couldn't read those languages if they tried. Instead, they use the "Holy Spirit-as-guide" excuse in order to avoid being questioned about their scholarship. That does not stop theologians from pointing out the obvious errors of those translations.
The point is that biblical inerrancy is not something that can be proven. It is a belief without merit, and gets hammered into the masses so hard that many accept it as truth. Unfortunately, those people have been brainwashed by repetition.
It always bothered me a bit just how often they would jump from one version to another while preaching their message.
Is it inerrant? Obviously not, but there are tricks of the trade to attempt to fool your sheep IMO.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
-
JehovahsWitness
- Savant
- Posts: 21140
- Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
- Has thanked: 794 times
- Been thanked: 1128 times
- Contact:
Re: Biblical Inerrancy
Post #4[Replying to post 1 by American Deist]
Well for Jehovah's Witnesses (who do indeed believe the bible to be the word of God) it doesn't matter which translations. We believe religious truth can be found using any translation; indeed Jehovah's Witnesses have printed on their own presses the King James Version, The American Standard Version and other bible translations. When we preach we often ask the householders to use their own bible translation (whatever it is).
Obviously if people are to read and benefit from the words in the bible it must be in a language they actually speak or understand. Few people speak or can understand ancient Hebrew or Greek.
How can anyone claim that the modern Bible is inerrant when you don't have the original writings to compare to? We can be confident about what the contents of the originals because of the thousands of copies we have from different sources.
3. Why are there so many different translations? We have lots of different translations of the bible because people all over the world speak and read different languages. A French person for example that doesn't speak English would not be able to understand an English translation of the bible and visa versa. So we need translators to put the bible into the language of the people.
Even in one langagues there are various translations. This is for the following reason:
- language changes over the years. The English people spoke for example in 1611 when the King James Version first appeared is almost unrecognizable from the English we speak today. So we need to translations even in the same language.
- We learn more about the ancient texts. Discoveries and information comes to light to better help us understand how a text should be translated. For example in 1947 ancient texts were discovered (called the Dead Sea Scrolls) they included many non-biblical texts that helped scholars better understand the context of the times when the bible texts were being written as well as many ancient copies of bible books themselves. This has lead scholars to better translate the bible.
- Not all translations are equal. Although any bible translation can indeed be used to find the truth about God, not all bible translations make that easy. Some use language that is particularl difficult for the modern reader to understand, some display and unreasonable amount of bias towards non-biblical traditions and worse many have deliberately removed the Divine Name (YHWH in English Jehovah) from the bible.
4. There are some Christian sects that wrote their own version of the Bible. While there are paraphrase bibles that present the translators ideas of the bible texts rather than a faithful rendition of the original, most bibles, since they are peer reviewed and translators are usually aware of the respect many have towards the bible, conform to a fairly high standard. Side by side I am not aware of any bible translations that have arbitrarily added verses or departed radically from the original Hebrew or Greek.
Further Reading WHICH TRANSLATION SHOULD I READ?
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102007409#h=19
Literal bible translations
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blo ... bible.html
Well for Jehovah's Witnesses (who do indeed believe the bible to be the word of God) it doesn't matter which translations. We believe religious truth can be found using any translation; indeed Jehovah's Witnesses have printed on their own presses the King James Version, The American Standard Version and other bible translations. When we preach we often ask the householders to use their own bible translation (whatever it is).
Obviously if people are to read and benefit from the words in the bible it must be in a language they actually speak or understand. Few people speak or can understand ancient Hebrew or Greek.
How can anyone claim that the modern Bible is inerrant when you don't have the original writings to compare to? We can be confident about what the contents of the originals because of the thousands of copies we have from different sources.
3. Why are there so many different translations? We have lots of different translations of the bible because people all over the world speak and read different languages. A French person for example that doesn't speak English would not be able to understand an English translation of the bible and visa versa. So we need translators to put the bible into the language of the people.
Even in one langagues there are various translations. This is for the following reason:
- language changes over the years. The English people spoke for example in 1611 when the King James Version first appeared is almost unrecognizable from the English we speak today. So we need to translations even in the same language.
- We learn more about the ancient texts. Discoveries and information comes to light to better help us understand how a text should be translated. For example in 1947 ancient texts were discovered (called the Dead Sea Scrolls) they included many non-biblical texts that helped scholars better understand the context of the times when the bible texts were being written as well as many ancient copies of bible books themselves. This has lead scholars to better translate the bible.
- Not all translations are equal. Although any bible translation can indeed be used to find the truth about God, not all bible translations make that easy. Some use language that is particularl difficult for the modern reader to understand, some display and unreasonable amount of bias towards non-biblical traditions and worse many have deliberately removed the Divine Name (YHWH in English Jehovah) from the bible.
4. There are some Christian sects that wrote their own version of the Bible. While there are paraphrase bibles that present the translators ideas of the bible texts rather than a faithful rendition of the original, most bibles, since they are peer reviewed and translators are usually aware of the respect many have towards the bible, conform to a fairly high standard. Side by side I am not aware of any bible translations that have arbitrarily added verses or departed radically from the original Hebrew or Greek.
Further Reading WHICH TRANSLATION SHOULD I READ?
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102007409#h=19
Literal bible translations
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blo ... bible.html
To learn more please see other posts related to...
THE BIBLE , AUTHORSHIP & TRANSMISSION and ... BIBLE TRANSLATIONS
Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Thu Oct 20, 2022 7:00 am, edited 9 times in total.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
Re: Biblical Inerrancy
Post #5[Replying to post 4 by JehovahsWitness]
That's ridiculous.
All the copies that we have add up to NOT ONE original.
Your "confidence" isn't evidence.
JehovahsWitness wrote:
We can be confident about what the contents of the originals because of the thousands of copies we have from different sources.
That's ridiculous.
All the copies that we have add up to NOT ONE original.
Your "confidence" isn't evidence.
-
American Deist
- Apprentice
- Posts: 214
- Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2017 5:08 pm
- Location: Alabama, USA
Re: Biblical Inerrancy
Post #6The Autographs do not exist. Therefore, you can't say beyond a shadow of a doubt that what we have today is perfectly preserved and would unerringly sync with the originals. It is physically IMPOSSIBLE to compare any source that exists today to those original works.JehovahsWitness wrote: We can be confident about what the contents of the originals because of the thousands of copies we have from different sources.
JW
Biblical inerrancy is just a belief that is not verifiable. It does not matter what your personal opinion or organizational opinion is on the matter. There is absolutely no way to prove biblical inerrancy.
Last edited by American Deist on Wed Mar 01, 2017 2:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I am only responsible for what I say, not what you fail to understand!
P.D. Chaplain w/ Th.D., D.Div. h.c.
P.D. Chaplain w/ Th.D., D.Div. h.c.
Re: Biblical Inerrancy
Post #7[Replying to post 4 by JehovahsWitness]
[center]The Big Honking "And Yet" in the room[/center]
And yet, they disagree.
And yet, none of these translations are of the original texts.
And yet, no translations have demonstrated any of these stories are true.
[center]The Big Honking "And Yet" in the room[/center]
And yet, they disagree.
And yet, none of these translations are of the original texts.
And yet, no translations have demonstrated any of these stories are true.
Last edited by Blastcat on Wed Mar 01, 2017 1:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Biblical Inerrancy
Post #8[Replying to post 6 by American Deist]
It's all "Greek to me".
Do we imagine for one minute that Jesus spoke poetic Greek?
Do we imagine that the apostles did?
What is JW thinking about?
His confidence makes NO sense at all.
JehovahsWitness wrote:
We can be confident about what the contents of the originals because of the thousands of copies we have from different sources.
That's right, and the earliest texts that we DO have :
It's all "Greek to me".
Do we imagine for one minute that Jesus spoke poetic Greek?
Do we imagine that the apostles did?
What is JW thinking about?
His confidence makes NO sense at all.
-
JehovahsWitness
- Savant
- Posts: 21140
- Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
- Has thanked: 794 times
- Been thanked: 1128 times
- Contact:
Re: Biblical Inerrancy
Post #9[Replying to post 6 by American Deist]
#QUESTION: Can we say that bible translations are 100% without error?
No, there are a number of minor scribal errors in the bible, but it would be inaccurate to say that we cannot be confident that what we have today accurately reflects what was originally written.
If one has enough copies from various sources, even if the copies are not identical, we can be confident of what the original contained. What has protected the bible is the way it was transmitted. People mistakenly think that there was one original and then one copy of the original and one copy made of the copy of the original etc. This was not the case. Numerious copies were made of the original and numerous copies of those copies. This means that when copyists did make errors they could subsequently be identified and corrected.
To illustrate let us take a simple example of a sentence. Imagine we did not have original sentence but had various copies. Look at the following sentences.
JW
Further Reading
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102007409#h=5
FURTHER READING (blog entry)
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blo ... orter.html
#QUESTION: Can we say that bible translations are 100% without error?
No, there are a number of minor scribal errors in the bible, but it would be inaccurate to say that we cannot be confident that what we have today accurately reflects what was originally written.
How can this be if we do not have the originals?"last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed." - Sir Frendric Kenyon
If one has enough copies from various sources, even if the copies are not identical, we can be confident of what the original contained. What has protected the bible is the way it was transmitted. People mistakenly think that there was one original and then one copy of the original and one copy made of the copy of the original etc. This was not the case. Numerious copies were made of the original and numerous copies of those copies. This means that when copyists did make errors they could subsequently be identified and corrected.
To illustrate let us take a simple example of a sentence. Imagine we did not have original sentence but had various copies. Look at the following sentences.
Is it possible to know what the original sentence said dispite the fact that none of the sentences above are the same? Yes, thanks to the fact we can compare the sentences and find what is common to them all. In a similar way, the thousands of copies we have of the bible manuscripts (as well as the internal pararellism of its style - repeating details in within the same book or across different books) enables us to have confidence in the integrity of transmission of the bible.--drank my coffee and ----- I walked the ---.
I drank my coffee and then I walked.
I drank his tea and ----- I walked the dog.
I dropped my cousin and then I talked to the dog.
I drank my coffee and then I worked the duck.
JW
Further Reading
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102007409#h=5
FURTHER READING (blog entry)
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blo ... orter.html
To learn more please go to other posts related to...
BIBLICAL AUTHORSHIP & TRANSMISSION and ...THE 7 CREATIVE DAYS OF GENESIS
Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Sat Aug 27, 2022 5:49 pm, edited 2 times in total.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
Re: Biblical Inerrancy
Post #10[Replying to post 9 by JehovahsWitness]
We have NO idea what the originals were like.
Maybe the originals were all in Greek.
How THAT happened, nobody knows.
That's ridiculous.JehovahsWitness wrote:
#QUESTION: Can we say that bible translations are 100% without error?
No, there are a number of minor scribal errors in the bible, but it would be inaccurate to say that we cannot be confident that what we have today accurately reflects what was originally written.
We have NO idea what the originals were like.
Maybe the originals were all in Greek.
How THAT happened, nobody knows.
