Question: Is There an Innerrant Bible?
- Thread starter Andrew1
- Start date
-
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.
I thought it was obvious, oh well, yes I'm a King James Bible believer 
ok. so .. unicorns?
more seriously though - but related - do you believe Proverbs 30:28 is talking about spiders or lizards? the KJV translated the word "spider" but almost every translation ever since into English has rendered it "lizard" and there is a large amount of linguistic evidence backing up the correction. i'm a fan of spiders, moreso thatn lizards, for absolutely no good reason but personal preference, so i am partial to the idea of "spider" in this verse. but i looked into it when i saw that there was a difference in all these other translations, and i can't poke a single hole in the scholarship. not that i'm any kind of scholar at all. what do you think, as an "inerrant" KJV-onlyist? can you conclusively show me it should be "spider" ? i would personally love to see that.
the other thing, as pointed out, that i can't escape about KJV-ism, is that there are so many other languages on earth than English. which is the "inerrant" Spanish or Dutch or Chinese version???
do all the people of the earth have to learn English - and Victorian English specifically - before they can actually have the word of God in its pure form? if so, why English? why not Hebrew & Greek?
Last edited:
I see, we know where the discrepancies lie, but that's not exactly an answer to my question, the question is (to revise it somewhat), which among those discrepancies are the word of God and is there a book called the Bible that contain the correct words out of these discrepancies and is therefore inerrant?
So you acknowledge that there are important discrepancies among the differing translations? Then I guess we at least better get the Bible that doesn't contain any of the improper readings among the important discrepancies.
Might God not have waited till just before people began to start multiplying upon the face of the earth to make his inerrant word available to as many people as possible?
In regards to the widespread availability of Gods mistakeless word I agree
So you acknowledge that there are important discrepancies among the differing translations? Then I guess we at least better get the Bible that doesn't contain any of the improper readings among the important discrepancies.
Might God not have waited till just before people began to start multiplying upon the face of the earth to make his inerrant word available to as many people as possible?
In regards to the widespread availability of Gods mistakeless word I agree
you mean when Adam & Eve were cast out of the garden?
or when Noah parked the ark?
if you're looking at modern times, the world's population ballooned in the 1950's. not the early 1600's.
i think it is very significant however that Christ came at a time when there was a relative peace - pax romana - over Europe & the middle east, and that Alexander had gone before, spreading the Greek language, culture and attitude of reason across so wide an area. this facilitated the spread of the gospel - transmitted in Greek speaking and writing.
with the empire-building conquests of England, Spain and others in the 17th and 18th centuries, the Bible was also spread across the world (in more than one language) and the KJV certainly was a tool in that. but so were the Geneva Bible and German, Porteugese and Spanish language editions, and these others were wider dispersed. English colonies didn't even print the KJV when they started printing their own Bibles -- that would have been a copyright infringement. so the first bibles printed in America were the Eliot Bible and German language ones.
today there are more Chinese speakers than any other language, and Spanish is spoken in more countries than any other language. what do you think, is there an 'inerrant' Spanish & Chinese translation? or do billions of people remain hopeless until they learn Victorian English?
the KJV is a beautiful translation and i'm quite thankful that it was made. many of the scriptures i have memorized in my heart are from this translation. i still think it's pretty ridiculous to think this is the "definitive" Word of God above every other rendering of it ((why English? seems vain)), neither the "best translation" into English.
or when Noah parked the ark?
if you're looking at modern times, the world's population ballooned in the 1950's. not the early 1600's.
i think it is very significant however that Christ came at a time when there was a relative peace - pax romana - over Europe & the middle east, and that Alexander had gone before, spreading the Greek language, culture and attitude of reason across so wide an area. this facilitated the spread of the gospel - transmitted in Greek speaking and writing.
with the empire-building conquests of England, Spain and others in the 17th and 18th centuries, the Bible was also spread across the world (in more than one language) and the KJV certainly was a tool in that. but so were the Geneva Bible and German, Porteugese and Spanish language editions, and these others were wider dispersed. English colonies didn't even print the KJV when they started printing their own Bibles -- that would have been a copyright infringement. so the first bibles printed in America were the Eliot Bible and German language ones.
today there are more Chinese speakers than any other language, and Spanish is spoken in more countries than any other language. what do you think, is there an 'inerrant' Spanish & Chinese translation? or do billions of people remain hopeless until they learn Victorian English?
the KJV is a beautiful translation and i'm quite thankful that it was made. many of the scriptures i have memorized in my heart are from this translation. i still think it's pretty ridiculous to think this is the "definitive" Word of God above every other rendering of it ((why English? seems vain)), neither the "best translation" into English.
Last edited:
The answer is NO. By the way which of the printings of the KJV is the inspired one lol? Did God give you details of the edition? None of them were absolutely accurate. Strange that God was so concerned about inerrancy and then overlooked the need to ensure the accuracy of the printing?
But there isn't one. True the KJV has more of the inaccurate readings than most, but we mustn't reject it for that reason. It was a good attempt at the time.
In fact there are no really important inaccuracies in the modern Greek texts
Might not God have sent a copy down from Heaven of an inerrant text.? Maybe Watchtower has it after all LOL (Although their 'inerrant' text keeps changing). But He didn't. And He was certainly not so fond of English that He chose it as the basis of the only inerrant translation. Sorry but your claims are ridiculous. And the suggestion that you got it from the Holy Spirit is blasphemous.
Do you know, you are SUCH a sad case? I presume you also believe in fairies?
But there isn't one. True the KJV has more of the inaccurate readings than most, but we mustn't reject it for that reason. It was a good attempt at the time.
In fact there are no really important inaccuracies in the modern Greek texts
Might not God have sent a copy down from Heaven of an inerrant text.? Maybe Watchtower has it after all LOL (Although their 'inerrant' text keeps changing). But He didn't. And He was certainly not so fond of English that He chose it as the basis of the only inerrant translation. Sorry but your claims are ridiculous. And the suggestion that you got it from the Holy Spirit is blasphemous.
In regards to the widespread availability of Gods mistakeless word I agree
[Rev 22:18 NKJV] For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book;
[Rev 22:19 NKJV] and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.
These warnings would suggest that the book of Revelation, at least, has been tampered with. Unless someone can name another warning in scripture that was not needed? (i.e. nobody incurred or will incur the penalty of it)
If it has been tampered with, we can still rest assured that if we study and show ourselves approved, we can get to the truth =)
[Rev 22:19 NKJV] and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.
These warnings would suggest that the book of Revelation, at least, has been tampered with. Unless someone can name another warning in scripture that was not needed? (i.e. nobody incurred or will incur the penalty of it)
If it has been tampered with, we can still rest assured that if we study and show ourselves approved, we can get to the truth =)
All Scripture is God-breathed (theo neustos).
Immaterial errors do not alter that.
Technical errors making the Bible "in error" is a red herring, misnomer and non-issue.
The issue is truth and trustworthiness. . .the rest is meaningless.
God has preserved the truth and trustworthiness of his word written.
The rest is a parlor game.
You are more interested in games than the substance of faith regarding God's word written.
Immaterial errors do not alter that.
Technical errors making the Bible "in error" is a red herring, misnomer and non-issue.
The issue is truth and trustworthiness. . .the rest is meaningless.
God has preserved the truth and trustworthiness of his word written.
The rest is a parlor game.
You are more interested in games than the substance of faith regarding God's word written.
I think calling it inerrant is an over-simplification. I understand the reason to do it; many people claim that if there is an error in it, it's not 'the word of God'. But that's just a hyperbolic fallacy. If someone made changes, or didn't interpret it quite accurately from one language to another, that doesn't make the whole thing 'not the word of God'. Just means we have to be more diligent in our studies, proving all things.
The wonderful thing about the Bible is it tends to say the same thing over...and over...and over. So if you find a place where it seems to contradict something it has said over and over and over, well, someone probably made a translation mistake or made a nefarious change to it.
The wonderful thing about the Bible is it tends to say the same thing over...and over...and over. So if you find a place where it seems to contradict something it has said over and over and over, well, someone probably made a translation mistake or made a nefarious change to it.
ok. so .. unicorns?
U'NICORN, n. [L. unicornis; unus, one, and cornu, horn.]
1. an animal with one horn; the monoceros. this name is often applied to the rhinoceros.
RHINOC'EROS, n. [L. rhinoceros; Gr. nose-horn.]
A genus of quadrupeds of two species, one of which, the unicorn, as a single horn growing almost erect from the nose.
(Noah Websters 1828 dictionary)
Yes I believe in unicorns
No I can't conclusively prove anything but I trust that God preserved his word without error and I believe on that basis that "spider" is the correct reading. from what I have briefly looked into, the reason scholars try to say "spider" is not accurate is that a different word for spider is used elsewhere in the Bible. However this isn't a good argument because a different word is used in Leviticus 11:30 for Lizard as well not just in the King James Bible but in the NIV, ESV, NASB and others. The point is even in English there are different words that have the same meaning. The context of the passage itself is referring to creatures with a seeming disadvantage. The spider though small manages to make its home in kings palaces by using its hands. Here's more on that: "Spider" or "Lizard" in Proverbs 30:28? - King James Version Today
I believe that there are many good translations in other languages based on the Hebrew moseretic text and the Greek textus receptus, but God never promised to preserve His word in every language. He just promised to preserve his word. People who translate the Bible into other languages ought to do there best to be faithful to those underlying manuscripts and not deviate from the King James Bible reading.
Hebrew and Greek are only spoken by a very few people in comparison to English. God by his providence knew that English would become the worlds dominant and most important language. English makes perfect sense.
So are you saying that only the underlying manuscripts are inerrant? which ones are inerrant, masoretic, septuagint, textus receptus, sinaiticus, vaticanus? As I understand it the word of God is referring to those things which are inspired by God. How can a book be God's word if God cannot lie does not make mistakes? It's His word after all, not mans.
[Rev 22:18 NKJV] For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book;
[Rev 22:19 NKJV] and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.
Why assign a penalty if someone wasn't going to do it? Can you cite one other warning with a penalty that nobody will ever incur?
[Rev 22:19 NKJV] and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.
Why assign a penalty if someone wasn't going to do it? Can you cite one other warning with a penalty that nobody will ever incur?
I
Nestle's follows Manuscripte C and UBS follows Manuscript B, the Textus Receptus follos Manscript L, W, 1, 13, pm, vg, sy.
So, which Greek? Aleph1, Aleph2, Aleph3, B1, B2, B3, C, L, W, Textus Receptus, Wescott and Hort, Scrivener's, Alfred, Griesbach, Elzevir, Erasmus, Tischendorf, Lachman, Souter, von Soden, Hodge-Farstad, Nestle's-Aland, (If so which edition between 1 and 26?, which printing of the 26th) UBS-Aland, Black, Metzger, Wikgren (Which edition between 1 and 4?) or the Greek English Diglot for the Use of Translators.
Recent scholarship demonstrates that the majority of manuscripts, as seen in the traditional Greek Textus Receptus represents the earliest, broadest (numerically and geographically) and most consistent edition of the New Testament. On the other hand the new versions and their underlying unsettled Nestle's-Aland type eclectic text, use manuscripts, from one local.
So, which Greek? Aleph1, Aleph2, Aleph3, B1, B2, B3, C, L, W, Textus Receptus, Wescott and Hort, Scrivener's, Alfred, Griesbach, Elzevir, Erasmus, Tischendorf, Lachman, Souter, von Soden, Hodge-Farstad, Nestle's-Aland, (If so which edition between 1 and 26?, which printing of the 26th) UBS-Aland, Black, Metzger, Wikgren (Which edition between 1 and 4?) or the Greek English Diglot for the Use of Translators.
Recent scholarship demonstrates that the majority of manuscripts, as seen in the traditional Greek Textus Receptus represents the earliest, broadest (numerically and geographically) and most consistent edition of the New Testament. On the other hand the new versions and their underlying unsettled Nestle's-Aland type eclectic text, use manuscripts, from one local.
Well, it's quite easy to answer that question. The bible states that the world was created in seven days. That's a mistake, right at the very beginning. The bible's 66 books are also chosen by men whose interpretations fitted with the common consensus of the time. This was deliberate, to unite Christian Rome and Pagan Rome under Constantine. That's evidence of political manipulation. And of course, there have been older texts found after the KJV was written which prove additional sentences were added in less archaic parchments.
Of course, the bottom line of the matter is that nobody can prove the authorship of several biblical books, nor prove that many of the things attested to, actually happened.
Belief is just that. Belief. You will believe what you will believe.
Of course, the bottom line of the matter is that nobody can prove the authorship of several biblical books, nor prove that many of the things attested to, actually happened.
Belief is just that. Belief. You will believe what you will believe.