Inerrancy and Autographs

[Dave_Regenerated]

Apologists sometimes say that inerrancy is true even though we don't have the original autographs or scriptures. This, I think, is erroneous for the simple reason that if it is shy of 100% for the transmission of the scriptures, say 99% accurate, then it is not 100% preservation.

You cannot claim 100% inerrancy if you have less than 100% preserved transmissions of the text. Therefore, the argument about the autographs is spurious.

On the other hand, if some claim that inerrancy is not about the accuracy of preserved manuscripts but rather involves only an ARGUMENT for inerrancy, this can be dismissed as a bad argument. For, it is either 100% without error and preserved, or it is not in reality.

It's a debate argument tactic that is not honest enough with the data to submit to what is real and actually true. Something undeniable, something factual, something objective.

 

[EarlyActs]

I hope you will visit https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/three-rational-defenses-of-christian-truth.721/ because of the 1st tem about the in-person founding of Christian teaching. The long form is my book THE ENTHRONED KING at Amazon.

 

[NetChaplain]

Apologists sometimes say that inerrancy is true even though we don't have the original autographs or scriptures. This, I think, is erroneous for the simple reason that if it is shy of 100% for the transmission of the scriptures, say 99% accurate, then it is not 100% preservation.

You cannot claim 100% inerrancy if you have less than 100% preserved transmissions of the text. Therefore, the argument about the autographs is spurious.

It's common knowledge that no translation is totally accurate, but God's Word is in the translation; if it is all demonstrated, which the Critical Text is quite short of, seeing it only contains 10% of manuscript evidence.

 

[TB2]

but God's Word is in the translation; if it is all demonstrated, which the Critical Text is quite short of, seeing it only contains 10% of manuscript evidence.

Can't be too short since still in 98% agreement with "Majority-Text." That's gotta count for something, right?

 

[TB2]

Apologists sometimes say that inerrancy is true even though we don't have the original autographs or scriptures. This, I think, is erroneous for the simple reason that if it is shy of 100% for the transmission of the scriptures, say 99% accurate, then it is not 100% preservation.

You cannot claim 100% inerrancy if you have less than 100% preserved transmissions of the text. Therefore, the argument about the autographs is spurious.

On the other hand, if some claim that inerrancy is not about the accuracy of preserved manuscripts but rather involves only an ARGUMENT for inerrancy, this can be dismissed as a bad argument. For, it is either 100% without error and preserved, or it is not in reality.

It's a debate argument tactic that is not honest enough with the data to submit to what is real and actually true. Something undeniable, something factual, something objective.

I think (?) we're essentially saying the same thing. Maybe a little different though. Not sure. You'll have to let me know what you think of "Academic Inerrancy and Practical Errancy: Does Inerrancy Matter in Practice?"

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

I think (?) we're essentially saying the same thing. Maybe a little different though. Not sure. You'll have to let me know what you think of "Academic Inerrancy and Practical Errancy: Does Inerrancy Matter in Practice?"

Perhaps I'm not fully familiar with the arguments used for inerrancy so I would have to be corrected. I believe the Bible is inspired by God but that it might not be inerrant.

 

[ppierac]

Given that the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece is in it's 27th edition, and The United Bible Society is in it's 4th edition... would say inerrancy is not an issue.... However, translations could be....

Crazy how everyone is concerned about the inerrancy of the text, but not how's it's translated...

KJV Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

ASV Gal 2:16 yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

NIV Gal 2:16 know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.

ESV Gal 2:16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

CLV Gal 2:16 having perceived that a man is not being justified by works of law, except alone through the faith of Christ Jesus, we also believe in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by the faith of Christ and not by works of law, seeing that by works of law shall no flesh at all be justified."

So.... is it Faith OF Christ or Faith IN Christ.... This is just one of so very many translation issues....

Paul

 

[TB2]

It's common knowledge that no translation is totally accurate,

We agree on something!

 

[NetChaplain]

We agree on something!

But don't forget God's Word is plenary only in the correct translation. That eliminates translations from the Critical Text, with their voluminous omissions!

 

[TB2]

But don't forget God's Word is plenary only in the correct translation. That eliminates translations from the Critical Text, with their voluminous omissions!

Verbal plenary only applies to original autographs

No one has a correct translation

Or those "omissions" are original, while Byzantine has later additions that aren't original

 

[NetChaplain]

Verbal plenary only applies to original autographs

No one has a correct translation

Or those "omissions" are original, while Byzantine has later additions that aren't original

The entire Word is in the correct translation; and is what is meant by "All scripture is given by inspiration of God." For "Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

He not only directed the original Bible writers, but also directed the right godly men to translate correctly, or there wouldn't be a plenary inspired Bible. He didn't leave us without the doing of this all important part. One would have to be lost to think there is no true guidance of God via His promise to have a Bible from Him.

 

[TB2]

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God."

2 Tim 3.16-17 is referring to the OT
That's

He not only directed the original Bible writers, but also directed the right godly men to translate correctly

That's an assumption not supported by Scripture. As far as I know, most Protestants don't believe verbal inspiration extends to translations; only the originals. And who would these "right godly men" translators be? And what do you mean by "translate correctly"? Inerrant translation?

or there wouldn't be a plenary inspired Bible.

According to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, plenary inspiration applies to the very words of the original.

Article VI​

We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration. We deny that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without the parts, or of some parts but not the whole.

He didn't leave us without the doing of this all important part.

Assumption. Inspiration and inerrancy are important doctrines but not essential salvation issues; the gospel message that was preached is most important and what is said will be preached to all nations (and predates the Bible).

One would have to be lost to think there is no true guidance of God via His promise

We are the promised the Holy Spirit for guidance.

One would have to be lost to think there is no true guidance of God via His promise to have a Bible from Him.

There is no promise from God (in Scripture) to have a Bible from Him; nor inspired Table of Contents to tell us what belongs in Scripture.

*I appreciate that we want certainty. And I think that's what most Scriptural doctrines are about. We want ironclad assurance and absolute certainty on Scripture, but God does not seem to have given that to us. Perhaps this is by design, so we will trust in God Himself. No one has a perfect inerrant Bible nor are there inerrant translations or inspired translations. No two NT manuscripts are alike. No manuscript is perfect. No translation is perfectly accurate. Yet none of these variants affect the gospel message of salvation. I can't help thinking that the gospel should always be our main focus; the gospel that was preached "once for all" (Jude) before we had the completed Bible. Around eighty or so times in the NT "the Word/the Word of God/the Word of the Lord" means "the gospel" message of Christ's atoning death and resurrection that was proclaimed.

 

[NetChaplain]

2 Tim 3.16-17 is referring to the OT

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God,....' That is, all holy Scripture; for of that only the apostle is speaking; and he means the whole of it; not only the books of the Old Testament, but of the New, the greatest part of which was now written; for this second epistle to Timothy is by some thought to be the last of Paul's epistles; and this also will hold good of what was to be written; for all is inspired by God, or breathed by him: the Scriptures are the breath of God, the word of God and not men; they are "written by the Spirit," as the Syriac version renders it; or "by the Spirit of God," -J Gill

"Biblical inspiration is the doctrine in Christian theology that the human writers and canonizers of the Bible were led by God with the result that their writings may be designated in some sense the word of God.[1] This belief is traditionally associated with concepts of the biblical infallibility and the internal consistency of the Bible.? -Wikipedia



"But holy men of God; such as he sanctified by his Spirit, and separated from the rest of men to such peculiar service; and whom he employed as public ministers of his word: for so this phrase "men," or "man of God," often signifies.

"Spoke, as they were moved by the Holy Ghost; who illuminated their minds, gave them a knowledge of divine things, and a foresight of future ones; dictated to them what they should say or write; and moved upon them strongly, and by a secret and powerful impulse stirred them up to deliver what they did, in the name and fear of God: which shows the authority of the Scriptures, that they are the word of God, and not of men." -J Gill

 

[TB2]

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God,....' That is, all holy Scripture; for of that only the apostle is speaking; and he means the whole of it; not only the books of the Old Testament, but of the New, the greatest part of which was now written; for this second epistle to Timothy is by some thought to be the last of Paul's epistles; and this also will hold good of what was to be written; for all is inspired by God, or breathed by him: the Scriptures are the breath of God, the word of God and not men; they are "written by the Spirit," as the Syriac version renders it; or "by the Spirit of God," -J Gill

"Biblical inspiration is the doctrine in Christian theology that the human writers and canonizers of the Bible were led by God with the result that their writings may be designated in some sense the word of God.[1] This belief is traditionally associated with concepts of the biblical infallibility and the internal consistency of the Bible.? -Wikipedia



"But holy men of God; such as he sanctified by his Spirit, and separated from the rest of men to such peculiar service; and whom he employed as public ministers of his word: for so this phrase "men," or "man of God," often signifies.

"Spoke, as they were moved by the Holy Ghost; who illuminated their minds, gave them a knowledge of divine things, and a foresight of future ones; dictated to them what they should say or write; and moved upon them strongly, and by a secret and powerful impulse stirred them up to deliver what they did, in the name and fear of God: which shows the authority of the Scriptures, that they are the word of God, and not of men." -J Gill

It is the error of anachronism. 2 Tim 3.16-17 can't be a reference to the whole Bible centuries before the Bible existed.

 

[NetChaplain]

It is the error of anachronism. 2 Tim 3.16-17 can't be a reference to the whole Bible centuries before the Bible existed.

By the time Paul was writing to Timothy it involved the First Letter of Paul to Timothy and the Second Letter of Paul to Timothy, which are the 15th and 16th books of the New Testament canon. -Britannica

Don't think there will be much more we can discuss on this issue, seeing you don't seem to think there is a Word of God anywhere (unless I'm misquoting you somewhere).

 

[TB2]

By the time Paul was writing to Timothy it involved the First Letter of Paul to Timothy and the Second Letter of Paul to Timothy, which are the 15th and 16th books of the New Testament canon. -Britannica

Don't think there will be much more we can discuss on this issue, seeing you don't seem to think there is a Word of God anywhere (unless I'm misquoting you somewhere).

I'm simply saying the standard proof texts don't work. 2 Tim 3.16-17 can't be about the whole Bible centuries before the Bible exists. That's not to say the Bible isn't sacred, authoritative. It is. But we must argue for it in other ways. The canonization process isn't something actually outlined for us in Scripture. Scripture does not come with an inspired Table of Contents. This creates a bit of a problem, because Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox will argue that the "their" Bible is true Scripture. The Catholic Bible of course contains the Apocrypha. The Protestant Bible doesn't. If memory serves, the Bible used by the Ethiopic church includes Enoch 1. There were disagreements over whether to include books like The Didache and Shepherd of Hermas. And of course there were great disputes over Hebrews, 2 Peter, James, Jude, and Revelation. Martin Luther wanted to get rid of James, and so on.

Again, none of this affects the gospel message of salvation or any major doctrine. But it makes things a little messier and not as straightforward as we'd like it to be.

 

[NetChaplain]

I'm simply saying the standard proof texts don't work. 2 Tim 3.16-17 can't be about the whole Bible centuries before the Bible exists.

Not sure what you mean by "centuries before the Bible exists."

The canonization process isn't something actually outlined for us in Scripture. Scripture does not come with an inspired Table of Contents.

But there was a God-guided cannon and it's how most Christian scholars for the last 600 years chose which Books are cannon. We can't know for sure about all this without God's guidance, and through His guidance we have a complete and entire Bible: the Traditional Bible which is the Majority Text, Received Text, Byzantine Text and the Antiochian Text all together making up the Word of God.

This is what I want to close with on this subject. Appreciate your replies and comments, and God bless!

 

[TB2]

But there was a God-guided cannon and it's how most Christian scholars for the last 600 years chose which Books are cannon.

We assume so, but not really spelled out in Scripture. This is probably where the Catholic and Orthodox argue about the importance of tradition. Best

 

[ppierac]

The entire Word is in the correct translation; and is what is meant by "All scripture is given by inspiration of God." For "Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

He not only directed the original Bible writers, but also directed the right godly men to translate correctly, or there wouldn't be a plenary inspired Bible. He didn't leave us without the doing of this all important part. One would have to be lost to think there is no true guidance of God via His promise to have a Bible from Him.

So which Text contains the entire Word???

The Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece is in it's 27th edition, and The United Bible Society is in it's 4th edition...

So which Edition is inspired by God???

Paul

 

[NetChaplain]

So which Text contains the entire Word???

The Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece is in it's 27th edition, and The United Bible Society is in it's 4th edition...

So which Edition is inspired by God???

Paul

Hi, and appreciate your reply! The source you mentioned is the corrupted source of translations, because they use the Alexandrian Text codices instead of the Majority Text. The Alexandrian only uses a few ancient manuscripts, which were always rejected by the scribes and is why they are the oldest manuscripts--they didn't were our from copying usage. They were recently discovered and fell into disuse for the last 1500 years.

The Majority Text has thousands of manuscript evidence; the Minority Text , or Alexandrian Text, just have the Vaticanus, the Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus (3) manuscripts).

If 1Jn 5:7, which is the primary Trinity passage is omitted it is from the Minority Text; which has hundreds of complete and partial passages omitted.