Question: Is There an Innerrant Bible?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Andrew1

Senior Member
May 11, 2013
160
10
18
#21
I f your intent is to cast doubt on the authority of Scripture, responding to you will be a waste of time.


Actually my intent is to do the exact opposite, I'm trying to get people to admit their true position that they don't truly believe in inerrancy and then I can point them in the right direction from there. Their most absolutely is an inerrant Bible that can be believed 100%. You want to guess which one? :)

If you are truly seeking to understand how the Scripture can be authoritative and still contain error; I am happy to continue this discussion.
No my question is not about it being authoritative. The question is how can it be "inerrant" and still contain error. Please enlighten me.
 

Andrew1

Senior Member
May 11, 2013
160
10
18
#22
Yeah, I go with the one in red.............given his other thread here on the BDF
No I am not trying to cast doubt on the authority of scripture. I absolutely believe that there truly is an inerrant Bible that contains zero mistakes.
 

Andrew1

Senior Member
May 11, 2013
160
10
18
#23
In Seminary, we translated from the Masoretic texts. I know in Ph.D Greek courses, they translate the LXX. So yes, some differences appear. I have also spent some time studying the LXX in Greek, as well as comparing words to the ones that appear in Hebrew, and the Greek New Testament. But none of the differences affect doctrine. I know Jeremiah, the LXX takes away a lot of things. Hence, most translations use the Masoretic, although the things that are missing are mostly "The Lord says" and things which are not doctrinal in nature.

As far as the Greek texts, the same thing applies. The differences in the manuscripts are so tiny as to not affect doctrine. If you learned Greek, you could get a UBS or Nestle-Alland NT and all the textual differences are written below the text for every difference. After a while, you begin to see how these differences do not affect the text.

As for mistakes, we are talking sometimes one stroke of one letter, copied wrong, changing the word from men to donkeys, or things of that sort. Again, small errors that do not affect doctrine! Sometimes a difference might be the case of the word in Greek, or sometimes the tense of the verb - especially in Hebrew, where dropping a vowel point means a different vowel. (And yes, the vowel points were not in the original manuscripts, but that is because the people spoke Hebrew, and they didn't need them. When the Jews started losing Hebrew, the Masorets stepped in and added the vowel points for clarity and to preserve the unwritten aspect of the text)

The only reason I picked this quote from Wikipedia, is because it says exactly what my theological books say about infallibilty, so rather than type it all out, my fingers having some big issues these days, I copied and pasted. I would not normally use Wikipedia, unless it said exactly what was in my theology books.

I also compare between the modern translations and the Greek and Hebrew. It helps me to see the differences, but more important to appreciate the closeness of the texts. It says so much to me, that despite these human imperfections in transmitting the text, God totally preserves his Word. You don't need an inerrant text, you need to realize how God works in the lives of people to pass down his text, and for us, as long as 3500 years after some of the OT books, and 1900-1950 years later for the NT, we have the living Word of God to read, to study and to learn and grow from!


I hope that answers your questions. But feel free to ask more.
I see so according to you God's word isn't inerrant, am I right?
 
G

Gr8grace

Guest
#24
I see so according to you God's word isn't inerrant, am I right?
Just to be sure.......your not eluding to 1611 KJV are you?

If not, why drag this out? If you have a nugget of truth why not just say?
 

MarcR

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2015
5,486
183
63
#25


Actually my intent is to do the exact opposite, I'm trying to get people to admit their true position that they don't truly believe in inerrancy and then I can point them in the right direction from there. Their most absolutely is an inerrant Bible that can be believed 100%. You want to guess which one? :)



No my question is not about it being authoritative. The question is how can it be "inerrant" and still contain error. Please enlighten me.

If you are trying to make a case for the inerrancy of the AV (KJV); I will NOT be easily persuaded.

I have found several instances in which the AV grossly mistranslates the Hebrew text.

I certainly agree that those mistranslations do not in any way compromise the doctrinal truth that is being taught.
 

Andrew1

Senior Member
May 11, 2013
160
10
18
#26
Just to be sure.......your not eluding to 1611 KJV are you?

If not, why drag this out? If you have a nugget of truth why not just say?
I thought it was obvious, oh well, yes I'm a King James Bible believer :)
 

Elin

Banned
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
#27
I'm sorry but I'm still really interested in your position on
how The Bible is only inerrant in a "material" sense this is an interesting definition of inerrancy.
Does the Bible really say that?
The Bible does not address the definition of inerrancy.

If a math book has half a dozen misspelled words, but all its mathematics, problems and examples are correct, do those misspelled words alter the purpose, teaching and mathematical accuracy of the math book?

They do not, for they are not material errors.

There are no material errors in the Bible.

Material import and immaterial import are not new concepts.
 
Last edited:
J

Jasher

Guest
#28
It's been only in the last 6 months that I have started reading the AENT (Aramaic English New Testament.) The author claims that there are 500 errors in translation of the Greek that ARE NOT in the Aramaic. Here in the west we are taught that the Bible was originally written in Greek. I now do not believe that this is true. Common sense says that the people who lived the New Testament would have written in the common language of their day which was Aramaic - not Greek. The learning of Greek was discouraged and ridiculed in Israel in the days of the New Testament. Other places outside of Israel it was not. They even had a saying that one who studies Greek is like one who eats swine's flesh. Israel had been anti Greek ever since the time that Antiochus tried to force Hellenize the Jews back in 168BC.

I think the eastern Aramaic Peshitta has a lot to contribute but the two most popular editions were translated each by one man. To me this is never a good situation. It is too easy for one person to add unrestrained personal biases into the text. The problem that I have with Roth's AENT is that he is of a Messianic group that wants to add the law of Moses to the New Testament. This is a bad bias that casts a blight over his entire work. But one that I have been able to filter out as most of his bias is in his notes and not primarily in the translation.

I am noting these errors that the author points out and a few of them I was already having problems with. Plus the translations are very pricey. In my view this is something that the Bible translation houses should have jumped on - but they didn't probably because of the fierce insistence that the Bible was written in Greek. If a translation house comes out with a new work that is trashed by too many groups - their investment is totally lost. I feel it is valuable and will continue on with it under these mildly difficult conditions. The errors are mostly not earth shaking but are nonetheless errors.

The AENT is based on 22 books of the New Testament (Khabouris Codex) and is said to be dated to three generations of copies back to the time of Nero. This makes it the oldest copy ( of the New Testament in existence. About 50-60 years older than any Greek manuscript. Of course this is denied by the pro Greek group.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Elin

Banned
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
#30
It's been only in the last 6 months that I have started reading the AENT (Aramaic English New Testament.) The author claims that there are 500 errors in
translation of the Greek that ARE NOT in the Aramaic.
The NT was not written in Aramaic, it was written in Greek.

There are no Aramaic transcripts, that is pure speculation.
 
Feb 7, 2015
22,418
413
0
#31
I thought it was obvious, oh well, yes I'm a King James Bible believer :)
And yet you seem to think there were 66 books? The KJV was delivered, replete with every single book of the Apocrypha included in it.
 

valiant

Senior Member
Mar 22, 2015
8,025
124
63
#32
So all scripture only was given by inspiration of God and isno longer the inerrant word of God? What about 2Timothy 3:16?

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
all Scripture IS given by inspiration of God. And we do know where the discrepancies lie. It continues to be profitable as outlined. and it would be foolish to say it was not. Most of the discrepancies are unimportant.

Certainly there are no good grounds for seeing the KJV as 'the inspired text'. Good text though it may be it contains far too many problems and contains spurious texts..

If God had wanted a perfect text it would have been a Greek txt so that everyone could share it. But such a text does not exist and it would be absurd to suggest that it did. The discovery of p66 has confirmed the accuracy of the Revised Text.

Or does this passage no longer apply to modern day Christians?
we are far better off than the early church were.
 

valiant

Senior Member
Mar 22, 2015
8,025
124
63
#33
It's been only in the last 6 months that I have started reading the AENT (Aramaic English New Testament.) The author claims that there are 500 errors in translation of the Greek that ARE NOT in the Aramaic. Here in the west we are taught that the Bible was originally written in Greek. I now do not believe that this is true. Common sense says that the people who lived the New Testament would have written in the common language of their day which was Aramaic - not Greek. The learning of Greek was discouraged and ridiculed in Israel in the days of the New Testament. Other places outside of Israel it was not. They even had a saying that one who studies Greek is like one who eats swine's flesh. Israel had been anti Greek ever since the time that Antiochus tried to force Hellenize the Jews back in 168BC.

I think the eastern Aramaic Peshitta has a lot to contribute but the two most popular editions were translated each by one man. To me this is never a good situation. It is too easy for one person to add unrestrained personal biases into the text. The problem that I have with Roth's AENT is that he is of a Messianic group that wants to add the law of Moses to the New Testament. This is a bad bias that casts a blight over his entire work. But one that I have been able to filter out as most of his bias is in his notes and not primarily in the translation.

I am noting these errors that the author points out and a few of them I was already having problems with. Plus the translations are very pricey. In my view this is something that the Bible translation houses should have jumped on - but they didn't probably because of the fierce insistence that the Bible was written in Greek. If a translation house comes out with a new work that is trashed by too many groups - their investment is totally lost. I feel it is valuable and will continue on with it under these mildly difficult conditions. The errors are mostly not earth shaking but are nonetheless errors.

The AENT is based on 22 books of the New Testament (Khabouris Codex) and is said to be dated to three generations of copies back to the time of Nero. This makes it the oldest copy ( of the New Testament in existence. About 50-60 years older than any Greek manuscript. Of course this is denied by the pro Greek group.
we KNOW that the NT was written in Greek. There is no doubt about it. It is not difficult to detect 'translation Greek'.

you rely too much on what 'is SAID'.. But said by whom and with what evidence? Greek was spoken in parallel with Aramaic in Galilee. It was the strict Jews (the enemies of Christ) who looked down on it. And most of Paul's letters were to the Greek world.

The Gospels were certainly written in Greek. Your theories are simply untrue.
 

valiant

Senior Member
Mar 22, 2015
8,025
124
63
#34
It's been only in the last 6 months that I have started reading the AENT (Aramaic English New Testament.) The author claims that there are 500 errors in translation of the Greek that ARE NOT in the Aramaic. Here in the west we are taught that the Bible was originally written in Greek. I now do not believe that this is true. Common sense says that the people who lived the New Testament would have written in the common language of their day which was Aramaic - not Greek. The learning of Greek was discouraged and ridiculed in Israel in the days of the New Testament. Other places outside of Israel it was not. They even had a saying that one who studies Greek is like one who eats swine's flesh. Israel had been anti Greek ever since the time that Antiochus tried to force Hellenize the Jews back in 168BC.

I think the eastern Aramaic Peshitta has a lot to contribute but the two most popular editions were translated each by one man. To me this is never a good situation. It is too easy for one person to add unrestrained personal biases into the text. The problem that I have with Roth's AENT is that he is of a Messianic group that wants to add the law of Moses to the New Testament. This is a bad bias that casts a blight over his entire work. But one that I have been able to filter out as most of his bias is in his notes and not primarily in the translation.

I am noting these errors that the author points out and a few of them I was already having problems with. Plus the translations are very pricey. In my view this is something that the Bible translation houses should have jumped on - but they didn't probably because of the fierce insistence that the Bible was written in Greek. If a translation house comes out with a new work that is trashed by too many groups - their investment is totally lost. I feel it is valuable and will continue on with it under these mildly difficult conditions. The errors are mostly not earth shaking but are nonetheless errors.

The AENT is based on 22 books of the New Testament (Khabouris Codex) and is said to be dated to three generations of copies back to the time of Nero. This makes it the oldest copy ( of the New Testament in existence. About 50-60 years older than any Greek manuscript. Of course this is denied by the pro Greek group.
THE KHABOURIS CODEX, THE NEW TESTAMENT IN ARAMAIC (SYRIAC), MANUSCRIPT ON VELLUM, ASSYRIA (PROBABLY NINEVEH), 11th or 12th Century. 262 leaves, 260 x 184 mm.
Provenance: According to the colophon, this manuscript was copied in Nineveh, the capital of the Assyrian Empire, from a now lost manuscript which may have dated to the second century A.D., and bears the authenticating seal and signature of the Bishop of Nineveh as a true and accurate copy. Carbon-dating has now shown that this copy was made in the eleventh or twelfth century (from 1000-1190 A.D.).
The Khabouris Codex is one of the most famous, complete and readable New Testament Aramaic manuscripts in existence. It was discovered in 1966 by two American explorers in a mountain-top monastery on the Turkish/Iraqi border. They were looking for the earliest complete New Testament manuscript, thought they had now found it, and paid the monks $25,000 for it. Many American evangelicals were excited by this discovery, though later carbon dating proved it to have been written in the 11th to 12th century rather than the 2cd century. It still has a cult following.
 

valiant

Senior Member
Mar 22, 2015
8,025
124
63
#35
It's been only in the last 6 months that I have started reading the AENT (Aramaic English New Testament.) The author claims that there are 500 errors in translation of the Greek that ARE NOT in the Aramaic. Here in the west we are taught that the Bible was originally written in Greek. I now do not believe that this is true. Common sense says that the people who lived the New Testament would have written in the common language of their day which was Aramaic - not Greek. The learning of Greek was discouraged and ridiculed in Israel in the days of the New Testament. Other places outside of Israel it was not. They even had a saying that one who studies Greek is like one who eats swine's flesh. Israel had been anti Greek ever since the time that Antiochus tried to force Hellenize the Jews back in 168BC.

I think the eastern Aramaic Peshitta has a lot to contribute but the two most popular editions were translated each by one man. To me this is never a good situation. It is too easy for one person to add unrestrained personal biases into the text. The problem that I have with Roth's AENT is that he is of a Messianic group that wants to add the law of Moses to the New Testament. This is a bad bias that casts a blight over his entire work. But one that I have been able to filter out as most of his bias is in his notes and not primarily in the translation.

I am noting these errors that the author points out and a few of them I was already having problems with. Plus the translations are very pricey. In my view this is something that the Bible translation houses should have jumped on - but they didn't probably because of the fierce insistence that the Bible was written in Greek. If a translation house comes out with a new work that is trashed by too many groups - their investment is totally lost. I feel it is valuable and will continue on with it under these mildly difficult conditions. The errors are mostly not earth shaking but are nonetheless errors.

The AENT is based on 22 books of the New Testament (Khabouris Codex) and is said to be dated to three generations of copies back to the time of Nero. This makes it the oldest copy ( of the New Testament in existence. About 50-60 years older than any Greek manuscript. Of course this is denied by the pro Greek group.
LOL the proGreek group consists of 99.99 percent of the world's scholars
 
Jun 19, 2015
72
1
0
#36
No I am not trying to cast doubt on the authority of scripture. I absolutely believe that there truly is an inerrant Bible that contains zero mistakes.
So do you read from the 1611 version or one of the other versions that came out?
 

breno785au

Senior Member
Jul 23, 2013
6,002
765
113
39
Australia
#37
Good thing we have an inerrant God who gives us His inerrant Spirit :)
 

Nick01

Senior Member
Jul 15, 2013
1,272
26
48
#38
No my question is not about it being authoritative. The question is how can it be "inerrant" and still contain error. Please enlighten me.
I think the key question that needs to be asked is: define error.
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
30,707
3,650
113
#39
No I am not trying to cast doubt on the authority of scripture. I absolutely believe that there truly is an inerrant Bible that contains zero mistakes.
Andrew, I think it is your turn to explain your position.
 

MarcR

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2015
5,486
183
63
#40
It's been only in the last 6 months that I have started reading the AENT (Aramaic English New Testament.) The author claims that there are 500 errors in translation of the Greek that ARE NOT in the Aramaic. Here in the west we are taught that the Bible was originally written in Greek. I now do not believe that this is true. Common sense says that the people who lived the New Testament would have written in the common language of their day which was Aramaic - not Greek. The learning of Greek was discouraged and ridiculed in Israel in the days of the New Testament. Other places outside of Israel it was not. They even had a saying that one who studies Greek is like one who eats swine's flesh. Israel had been anti Greek ever since the time that Antiochus tried to force Hellenize the Jews back in 168BC.

I think the eastern Aramaic Peshitta has a lot to contribute but the two most popular editions were translated each by one man. To me this is never a good situation. It is too easy for one person to add unrestrained personal biases into the text. The problem that I have with Roth's AENT is that he is of a Messianic group that wants to add the law of Moses to the New Testament. This is a bad bias that casts a blight over his entire work. But one that I have been able to filter out as most of his bias is in his notes and not primarily in the translation.

I am noting these errors that the author points out and a few of them I was already having problems with. Plus the translations are very pricey. In my view this is something that the Bible translation houses should have jumped on - but they didn't probably because of the fierce insistence that the Bible was written in Greek. If a translation house comes out with a new work that is trashed by too many groups - their investment is totally lost. I feel it is valuable and will continue on with it under these mildly difficult conditions. The errors are mostly not earth shaking but are nonetheless errors.

The AENT is based on 22 books of the New Testament (Khabouris Codex) and is said to be dated to three generations of copies back to the time of Nero. This makes it the oldest copy ( of the New Testament in existence. About 50-60 years older than any Greek manuscript. Of course this is denied by the pro Greek group.

The Syrian Aramaic Peshitta was a second century AD translation of the LXX into Syrian Aramaic; and several NT books were included in the translation. If you have been told otherwise; you have been misinformed.