Steven Avery

Conceptually I agree with your point. If the Bible is Ivory Soap 99 44/100% pure, that still represents a real problem. I dialog this point with the texual liberals frequently .. how many errors do you think are in your Bible version.

Not too long ago, many Christians raised the Bible in their hands and proclaimed that this Bible, in their hands, is the inerrant, preserved Word of God. Today, some do. (None of the modernversionists do, afaik). The belief in full inspiration and preservation and perfection of the Word of God is one realm of 'apologetics' that is fully consistent and represents the clear alternative to humanism, skepticism, atheism and a host of other isms.

Now I will step aside, its not really my thread, and I don't want to get too much in the way of the dialog, perhaps the folks who are defending 98.5% Bibles want to respond, and can offer a real defence of that view. Just wanted to make a bit of counterpoint.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Julian

Well, I think we need to distinguish between errors and alterations. In terms of errors, no one knows. It has been estimated that they run into the hundreds of thousands between all the various manuscripts. This, however, is of little consequence since, in almost every case, reconstruction is easy. It is generally a scribe, half asleep, who has mispelled a word, transposed some letters or some such.

Alterations are impossible to know. Many alterations came before the first examplars that we have available, but we see the evidence left behind. We also see alterations continue throughout the centuries as the various stemma manifest themselves repeatedly.

The only way to solve this mess is to continue to improve in the field of textual criticism and also hope for more papyri discoveries, or to simply pick a version and claim divine inspiration. One is science and the other is faith and those two 'disciplines' have nothing to do with each other.

Julian

Steven Avery

I know my Bible, inspired and preserved, has zero errors.

This figure means next to nothing, since the vast majority of these errors is simply from a few ultra-corrupt manuscripts, most especially Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, however you can add in Bezae and a few more. These manuscripts don't match anything and give many thousands of variants and oodles of obvious errors.

This makes no sense. THe textual theories popular today are impoverished and break down right and left.

There are variants like that, but they really have little to do with this discussion.

The word exemplar is charged on dubious, reminding me how Westcott & Hott used a very corrupt old manuscript as a "proof-text" for their corrupt attempts to rewrite the Bible.

Actually in the Byzantine line, the great majority of the manuscripts, we have comparitively little alterations. It is a homogeneous line. Of course there are some variants, but nothing close to the order of what you have been talking about.

There is no mess if you unravel from the false theories of 'modern scientific textual criticism', believe God, and use the historic Bible.

which is a complete disaster, has gone nowhere, and is going nowhere.

Which are of little import. They are basically from one backwater gnostic-influenced geographical region, and have very much mixed texts themselves. To the chagrin of the modern textual theories, they actually give a lot more Byzantine support than was thought possible, but all-in-all they give us little.

As I've explained, it was a careful examination of the textual world that moved me toward understanding God's inspiration and preservation. And let's be clear about one thing, really nobody claimes perfection and inerrancy for any Bible versions other than the King James Bible and/or the underlying Received Texts.

Modern textual criticism is far from being a real 'science'. It was developed in a way that was guarenteed to create an error-laden text, and ongoing professional confusions, and lucre and for its proponents, and in those endeavors it truly succeeded.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Ahab

All the fundamentalist Christian writings I've read regarding inerrancy indicate it only refers to the original manuscript of each biblical book. And they deny that any translation (including KJV) is inerrant.
Are you alone in your belief regarding this or is there actually a denomination that thinks the KJV is inerrant?
Also, do you realize that there have been printing errors in various editions of the KJV?

Terrible Heresy

Yeah, this kind of made me look at the screen with a:wide::worried: look.

I have seen more then one apologists website that says stuff like "Yeah, atheists just loooove the King James Version" when dealing with contradictions.

Mars Man

Some interesting statements have been made, hummm...I'll back Ahab up on that statement about there being a large number of Christians who would vouch for only the original autographs' having been 'inspired'--whatever that may technically involve.

At the same time, is it not true that the original KJV of 1611 has been edited in order to bring it up to the level of present textual understanding? The ABS edition I have seems to argue for that, when compared to one supposedly original 1611 copy my uncle had.

Perhaps, if the WH recension is not trusted, NA 27th would be better to use; I would say it carries better citing.

Steven Avery

You should read wider. That is actually a modernist view that became normative only in the last decades and back maybe a hundred years, largely as a negative apologetic since the modern version Bibles were indefensible as the inerrant Word of God

Again a moderist view. It is helpful to read the Reformation writings on this topic. In those times it is well neigh impossible to find people (perhaps a few catholics) talking about 'inerrancy in the original autographs'. And there was a direct acceptance of the Bible in "translation" languages as the inerrant Word of God.

Alone maybe on this errantist forum, but not at all IRW. And demoninations vary in viewpoints, there are elements of a 'tangible hold-in-your-hand perfect Word of God' view in various Baptist demonations, also some Pentecostal, historic Adventist, and Reformation groups, among others. And there is a wealth of good literature on the topic. I put together a post with a number of the resources on the web from various writers.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messia.../message/10909
[Messianic_Apologetic] resources on Bible versions, inspiration and preservation

Most assuredly. If there weren't, in the early days of printing, it would have been quite miraculous

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

ISVfan

Yes there is a sect of Christianity known as the Independent Fundamental Curch or sometimes they misuse the word Baptist,ie. IFBC these churches hold to the false notion that the KJV is inspired and innerant. Only the underlying Greek texts are. Not that actual translations.

Steven Avery

Yes.. what does it technically involve, good question ?

Say a Christian says
"I believe in FULL INERRANCY -- in the original autographs"

Then Garell Pill or Rich Carryon asks him -
"well, what is the text of this original Bible ? is there any text at all, in any language that you accept and defend as matching this original autographs - what text are you defending
-- specifically what does inerrancy MEAN if it does not apply to anything tangible ?"

Christian..
"urrr.. uhhh... hand-wave.. original autographs ... mumble jumbo"

It is not true. You are probably thinking of Revised Versions, (RV, NAS, etc) that are meant to sound like they are related to the King James, but they are not, or to a limited extent the "New King James". Any real King James Bible you get today basically differs on font and spelling and some punctuation and little else from...
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti...PagePosition=1
The Holy Bible, conteyning the Old Testament, and the New. Imprinted at London : By Robert Barker ... 1611.

Essentially it is the same alexandrian text, with two corrupt manuscripts being the core texts.


Proverbs 30:5 -
Every word of God is pure:
he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

ISVfan

That's a good point. But my point was the fact that even though 1.5% of the text is in question we have several readings one of which has to be right. And I assume you know not one single doctine of the Church is affected by that 1.5% I will give you an example Luke 17:36 is only in 10 mss the other 5490 leave this verse out. Now there is only two readings there so we know one is right. And obviously in this case we know which one is the original reading. If you ask for proof if the text was not changed before it was cannonized then I can only say I have faith God preserved it until then.