MiddleMan

I have often heard believers in biblical inerrancy claim that inerrancy applies only to the "originals" and not to our subsequent copies.

I got to wondering this morning: what "originals"?

They are obviously referring to "originals" that no longer exist and so the claim is non-falsifiable.

However, there certainly was indeed at one point in time, "originals" of the books of Genesis, Kings, Samuel, etc. upon which the copies were based. But what originals? Do they mean the "original" copy of the Bible as we have it today, complete with all the books? If so, are they not aware that these "originals" are based upon earlier copies?

If they mean the "original" instance of each book, for example the "original" fully penned copy of Genesis, are they not aware that a great deal of these works are based upon multiple copies? (Documentary Hypothesis)

And what about the oral tradition that preceeded even the various forms of the written copies? Even these came in various traditions, so to which "original" do they refer?

It is difficult, I would assume, to defend something that doesn't exist, wouldn't you agree?

Jon Promnitz

Very true. Countless believers still claim the 'originals' were perfect. Some even claim they still exist today (somewhere hidden). Gastrich says the KJV itself is inerrant!

The fact is that believers hate plain 'faith.' They try making a case for their beliefs by resorting to countless claims:
-The originals were perfect (it's man's fault for losing and miscopying them)
-The KJV is inerrant
-Hidden codes can be found in the Bible
-Look at all that OT messianic prophecy!
-Countless prophecy is being fulfilled today! (Jack Van Impe)
-etc.

Anything that is a step beyond just believing.