Is God's Word Inerrant

[NoNameMcgee]

Yikes. What verses would they use? Do I want to know?

how is it always you finding my deleted posts

O_O


its in one of the women being silent threads

 

[Zmouth]

1611 KJV first addition had errors, the he and she bible, God does things right the first time.

Still has errors punctuation errors, like this. ), and others as well as another below the law wasn't given by Moses but through Moses big difference in meaning.

KJV
John 1:17 is another instance of a poor preposition. "By" should be "through": "For the law was given by [through] Moses . . . ." Moses did not proclaim his law, but God's Law.

So then the new translations got it right?

John 1:17
For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Matt 27:9
King James Bible
Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;

Since you brought this up, please read and study what John Gill has pointed out in his commentary of this verse. That was NOT an error.

"Through the purchasing of the potter's field with the thirty pieces of silver, the price that Christ was valued at, a prophecy in the writings of the Old Testament had its accomplishment: but about this there is some difficulty. The evangelist here says it was spoken by Jeremy the prophet; whereas in his prophecy there is no mention of any such thing.

There is indeed an account of his buying his uncle Hanameel's son's field, in ( Jeremiah 32:7-12 ) , but not a word of a potter, or a potter's field, or of the price of it, thirty pieces of silver; and that as a price at which he, or any other person was valued; but the passage which is manifestly referred to, stands in ( Zechariah 11:12 Zechariah 11:13 ) , where are these words, "and I said unto them, if ye think good, give [me] my price, and if not, forbear; so they weighed for my price thirty [pieces] of silver: and the Lord said unto me, cast it unto the potter, a goodly price that I was prized at of them. And I took the thirty [pieces] of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord":

the removing of this difficulty, it might be observed, that the Syriac and Persic versions make no mention of any prophet's name, only read, "which was spoken by the prophet"; and so may as well be ascribed to Zechariah, as to Jeremy, and better: but it must be owned, that Jeremy is in all the Greek copies, in the Vulgate Latin, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions, and in Munster's Hebrew Gospel.

Various things are said for the reconciling of this matter: some have thought that Zechariah had two names, and that besides Zechariah, he was called Jeremy; but of this there is no proof. Jerom F25 affirms, that in an Hebrew volume, being an apocryphal work of Jeremy, which was shown him by one of the Nazarene sect, he read these words verbatim: so that though they do not stand in the writings of Jeremy, which are canonical Scripture, yet in an apocryphal book of his, and which may as well be referred to, as the book of Maccabees, the traditions of the Jews, the prophecies of Enoch, and the writings of the Heathen poets. Moreover, Mr. Mede F26 has laboured, by various arguments, to prove, that the four last chapters of Zechariah were written by Jeremy, in which this passage stands; and if so, the reason is clear, for the citation in his name.

But what seems best to solve this difficulty, is, that the order of the books of the Old Testament is not the same now, as it was formerly: the sacred writings were divided, by the Jews, into three parts: the first was called the law, which contains the five books of Moses; the second, the prophets, which contains the former and the latter prophets; the former prophets began at Joshua, and the latter at Jeremy; the third was called Cetubim, or the Hagiographa, the holy writings, which began with the book of Psalms: now, as this whole third and last part is called the Psalms, ( Luke 24:44 ) , because it began with that book; so all that part which contained the latter prophets, for the same reason, beginning at Jeremy, might be called by his name; hence a passage, standing in the prophecy of Zechariah, who was one of the latter prophets, might be justly cited, under the name of Jeremy. That such was the order of the books of the Old Testament, is evident from the following passage F1

 

[Magenta]

how is it always you finding my deleted posts

O_O

its in one of the women being silent threads

Haha I must have quoted you before you deleted it

One of the women must be silent threads? Gosh, there are so many of them

Are men trying to tell us something?

 

[NoNameMcgee]

Haha I must have quoted you before you deleted it

One of the women be silent threads? Gosh, there are so many of them

Are men trying to tell us something?

this one

http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...en-not-speak-church.html?highlight=beat+sense

 

[Magenta]

this one

http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...en-not-speak-church.html?highlight=beat+sense

I just saw another of your posts go POOF

 

[GaryA]

Since you could post certain verses right here, right now, and get several differing interpretations, we have to realize that none of us can, without a doubt, that what we are reading is what God intended. Therefore, it is foolish to make a statement about what we assume is "God's word" being inerrant.

That may be why the Bible never says God's word is inerrant.

It is not foolish...

The Word of God is most certainly inerrant -- even if ten-out-of-ten interpretations are wrong.

Whether any particular translation of scripture contains any error ( grammatical, doctrinal, or otherwise ) is another matter altogether...

The Word of God is without error - by definition ( God does not make errors. ) - and, without exception.

Albeit, the Word of God can be "made to no effect" according to the 'level' and 'extent' of perversion of the written record that we call the scriptures.

And, that is where the real question lies.

God said that He would preserve His Word.

If we believe that, then we know that we have His preserved Word.

The question is -- when, where and how was / is it preserved?

 

[NoNameMcgee]

I just saw another of your posts go POOF

lol...


prove it

 

[BeyondET]

So then the new translations got it right?

John 1:17
For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

Some bibles are still holding on to the "by Moses" statement even the new translations. it may not be a big deal, people should know Moses didn't write the ten commandments but I assume bibles keep it in because it is also known some of the more in detail mentionings of the Ten Commandments Moses did write, so it is a two way street on that 50/50 statement.

 

[Willie-T]

It is not foolish...

The Word of God is most certainly inerrant -- even if ten-out-of-ten interpretations are wrong.

Whether any particular translation of scripture contains any error ( grammatical, doctrinal, or otherwise ) is another matter altogether...

The Word of God is without error - by definition ( God does not make errors. ) - and, without exception.

Albeit, the Word of God can be "made to no effect" according to the 'level' and 'extent' of perversion of the written record that we call the scriptures.

And, that is where the real question lies.

God said that He would preserve His Word.

If we believe that, then we know that we have His preserved Word.

The question is -- when, where and how was / is it preserved?

Are you leading us down the KJV Only path? LOL

 

[GaryA]

All anyone needs to do is turn to Luke 14:26 to see that some interpreters wrote what is in TOTAL error by today's reading.

There is not one person here who can truthfully say they did not have to have that verse explained to them before they understood Jesus was NOT saying we had to have hatred in our hearts for our entire families. And yet we have several people here who will emphatically tell us that particular wording is exactly what God intended for us to read.

Now, you may hate everyone in your family, but I do not. I do, however, hold God above them..... but if no one had ever told me that is what Luke14:26 meant, I would never know.

I call that an error that "inspired" translators wrote right into the text you and I read from.

The context of the passage explains the verse. The need to have the verse explained to you comes from staring too hard at one tree while ignoring the forest.

I believe there are a number of reasons why the verse was translated as it was --- but, I will have to try to explain those later...

In view of those reasons - based on the context of the passage --- there was / is no better way for the verse to be translated!

Just because you don't see it - doesn't automatically mean that it is not 'perfect'.

There is no error in that verse.

 

[Dino246]

As with every concept, "inerrant" means different things to different people. Even with a standard dictionary definition (I know... which dictionary?) we probably wouldn't agree completely. Perhaps a better way to approach this is to give a definition of "inerrant" and then ask whether people believe that the Bible is inerrant according to that definition. Even then, people who vote 'No' might be judged as not believing in the inerrancy of Scripture generally, which would not necessarily be the case (actually, it would be fallacious, but it happens anyway... often).

That's also the problem with big surveys. I've participated in enough to know that terms are confusing. Quite often, I'll read a question, grasp what the intent is, and conclude that the question is poorly worded. A completely-unrelated example may help to illustrate:

A few years back, I was involved in a forum for toy car enthusiasts. Someone asked, "What is the largest scale model that Matchbox has produced?" I noted in response that the question could be read at least three different ways (all valid), and possibly a fourth:

What is the largest scale model that Matchbox has produced? (largest casting overall)

What is the largest scale model that Matchbox has produced? (scale models only, not fantasy castings)

What is the largest scale model that Matchbox has produced? (1:1 would be the size of the real thing, 1:60 would be 1/60th in length etc.) Even this can be read two ways, if people think that a larger denominator might be read as a larger scale. By the way, the answers would all be different depending on the interpretation of the question.

So too, when people read the word, "inerrant" they might think "every translation is completely without error", or more likely, a certain translation is completely without error. Or, they might think that the originals are without error. Or perhaps, that the Bible is accurate in all it asserts. Or that the Bible is an accurate record of what happened or was spoken.

Because the Bible does not, in itself, state that it is "inerrant" (using that word), I treat this issue the same way I treat biblical-sounding statements like, "God has infinite power". I believe it is scripturally sound to state that God's power is adequate for His purposes and His will, and is far beyond the power of humankind and of the rest of creation.

So... waddayamean by "inerrant"?

 

[Enow]

From bible dot org.

James Boice (Does Inerrancy Matter? [International Council on Biblical Inerrancy], p. 9) told of a gathering of ministers where an evangelical pastor argued a point based on the Bible’s teaching. He referred to Jesus’ words and to His promise to return.


When he had finished, a professor from a leading Protestant seminary stood up to counter what the pastor had said. He said, “You cannot appeal to the teaching of Jesus Christ, because we do not know what Jesus really taught. The Gospels are contradictory at this point. Each of them has been written to correct the others. So far as Christ’s return is concerned, we have simply got to get it into our heads that Jesus is never coming back and that all things are going to continue on as they have from the beginning.”


Dr. Boice added that it would be nice to think that such views are held only by a few liberals. But he cited a survey of over 7,400 clergymen in five major denominations. One question was, “Do you believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God?” This was not asking whether they believed the Bible to be without any error, but rather only if they believed the Bible to be inspired by God in some undefined sense. But in spite of the level at which the question was asked, 82% of the Methodists, 89% of the Episcopalians, 81% of the United Presbyterians, 57% of the Lutherans, and 57% of the Baptists answered, “No”! Dr. Boice wrote that booklet in 1979. I would guess that things have not improved much, if at all, in the three postmodern decades since then.
~~~~


Can you imagine what it must be like now? Now, 38 years later, what percentage would say no God's word in not inerrant. And what are these pastors teaching their congregation?


The way is narrow indeed and few there will be who find it because these pastors make the way to God wide and broad because they don't believe the Scriptures as absolute truth.


It would be interesting if each one of us asked our pastors/elders if they believe God's word is inerrant.

I believe that the KJV is inerrant word of God as keeping the truth in His words for us to follow Him by and discern good & evil by in these latter days where faith is hard to find rather than by Dr. Boice's definition of what inerrant means as quoted again below.. if that was his actual quoted definition from your OP.

This was not asking whether they believed the Bible to be without any error, but rather only if they believed the Bible to be inspired by God in some undefined sense.

 

[Willie-T]

The context of the passage explains the verse. The need to have the verse explained to you comes from staring too hard at one tree while ignoring the forest.

I believe there are a number of reasons why the verse was translated as it was --- but, I will have to try to explain those later...

In view of those reasons - based on the context of the passage --- there was / is no better way for the verse to be translated!

Just because you don't see it - doesn't automatically mean that it is not 'perfect'.

There is no error in that verse.

When did "hate" stop meaning "hate?" Does "hating sin" mean that we are not to love it and value it as highly as we do God?

 

[sevenseas]

What do you think "inerrant" (without error) means, anyway?

depends on who is asking

when it's you, there could be 3 or 4 answers

thing is, it depends on whose inerrant it is

or whether or not you have decided that it's so



like I said, word games and you usually invent the game

I've had my words twisted by you before.. it's not really clever of you

so, no thanks

 

[BeyondET]

Since you brought this up, please read and study what John Gill has pointed out in his commentary of this verse. That was NOT an error.

"Through the purchasing of the potter's field with the thirty pieces of silver, the price that Christ was valued at, a prophecy in the writings of the Old Testament had its accomplishment: but about this there is some difficulty. The evangelist here says it was spoken by Jeremy the prophet; whereas in his prophecy there is no mention of any such thing.

There is indeed an account of his buying his uncle Hanameel's son's field, in ( Jeremiah 32:7-12 ) , but not a word of a potter, or a potter's field, or of the price of it, thirty pieces of silver; and that as a price at which he, or any other person was valued; but the passage which is manifestly referred to, stands in ( Zechariah 11:12 Zechariah 11:13 ) , where are these words, "and I said unto them, if ye think good, give [me] my price, and if not, forbear; so they weighed for my price thirty [pieces] of silver: and the Lord said unto me, cast it unto the potter, a goodly price that I was prized at of them. And I took the thirty [pieces] of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord":

the removing of this difficulty, it might be observed, that the Syriac and Persic versions make no mention of any prophet's name, only read, "which was spoken by the prophet"; and so may as well be ascribed to Zechariah, as to Jeremy, and better: but it must be owned, that Jeremy is in all the Greek copies, in the Vulgate Latin, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions, and in Munster's Hebrew Gospel.

Various things are said for the reconciling of this matter: some have thought that Zechariah had two names, and that besides Zechariah, he was called Jeremy; but of this there is no proof. Jerom F25 affirms, that in an Hebrew volume, being an apocryphal work of Jeremy, which was shown him by one of the Nazarene sect, he read these words verbatim: so that though they do not stand in the writings of Jeremy, which are canonical Scripture, yet in an apocryphal book of his, and which may as well be referred to, as the book of Maccabees, the traditions of the Jews, the prophecies of Enoch, and the writings of the Heathen poets. Moreover, Mr. Mede F26 has laboured, by various arguments, to prove, that the four last chapters of Zechariah were written by Jeremy, in which this passage stands; and if so, the reason is clear, for the citation in his name.

But what seems best to solve this difficulty, is, that the order of the books of the Old Testament is not the same now, as it was formerly: the sacred writings were divided, by the Jews, into three parts: the first was called the law, which contains the five books of Moses; the second, the prophets, which contains the former and the latter prophets; the former prophets began at Joshua, and the latter at Jeremy; the third was called Cetubim, or the Hagiographa, the holy writings, which began with the book of Psalms: now, as this whole third and last part is called the Psalms, ( Luke 24:44 ) , because it began with that book; so all that part which contained the latter prophets, for the same reason, beginning at Jeremy, might be called by his name; hence a passage, standing in the prophecy of Zechariah, who was one of the latter prophets, might be justly cited, under the name of Jeremy. That such was the order of the books of the Old Testament, is evident from the following passage F1

The commentary isn't saying anything about it not being in error, and in fact he is quoting a different story that isn't the same.

In Jeremiah 32: 7-12 there is no mentioning of thirty pieces of silver it's talking about seventeen pieces of silver in that account is completely different than the other account.

The more proper versions are the ones that use spoken by the prophet, if a translater doesn't have to nerves to fix it, then just use spoken by the prophet there's no need in saying something that wasn't spoken by a person if it wasn't so.

 

[Willie-T]

depends on who is asking

when it's you, there could be 3 or 4 answers

thing is, it depends on whose inerrant it is

or whether or not you have decided that it's so



like I said, word games and you usually invent the game

I've had my words twisted by you before.. it's not really clever of you

so, no thanks

You believe a concept you can't even define?

 

[sevenseas]

looks like somebody does not know the difference between inerrant and inspired

I know what both words mean and I know which one I used

then I get asked if I know that inerrant means perfect and yet I said INSPIRED

guess he lost track of who said what

anyway, not playing those games

 

[Enow]

If God's Word is not inerrant than it is of no value and should be avoided.
I believe it is total arrogance for any person to believe he/she has the intellect to judge what is true and what is not true when it comes to God's Word.
Believe it all or reject it all.

When all modern Bibles and the KJV are not saying the same thing..... then discernment is needed. That means asking Jesus Christ to show which Bible version to rely on for the meat of His words to discern good & evil by in keeping the faith.

The lost books of the Bible were not considered accepted scriptures because it ran against the truth in the accepted scriptures.

So what happens when modern Bibles do not keep the truths in His words while trying to make an easier to read Bible?

If all BIBLES speak one truth in John 16:13 that the Holy Spirit cannot speak for Himself but speak what He hears, but yet only the KJV Bible keeps that truth in Romans 8:26-27 where the intercessions of the Spirit's are unspeakable from which even His groaning CANNOT be uttered....as verse 26 ended in truth... then the Other that searches our hearts Whom is Jesus Christ as per Hebrews 4:12-16, is the "he" that knows also the mind of the Spirit to give the intercessions of the Spirit's for the Spirit to God the Father by that throne of grace where only the man Christ Jesus is at... the only Mediator.

All the truths in scripture lines up in the KJV whereas ALL modern Bibles cannot say the same.

So just as those that agree that the lost books of the Bible are not scripture as no lie can be of the truth, then those same believers should apply that same reasonable & Biblical judgment when not all the scripture lines up with the truths in His words wherein the KJV does.

Is it any wonder why the world and the devil rages against relying only on the KJV? And yet they argue that it doesn't matter which Bible any believer uses... but they act like it is anathema to use the KJV as the final authority.

With such a mentality against relying only on the KJV, is it any wonder why and how Dr. Boice has found a divisive group of pastors? It is no wonderment to me.

 

[Willie-T]

looks like somebody does not know the difference between inerrant and inspired

I know what both words mean and I know which one I used

then I get asked if I know that inerrant means perfect and yet I said INSPIRED

guess he lost track of who said what

anyway, not playing those games

What was the original question in the OP that we are answering?