Why I support the inerrancy of Scripture!

[OzSpen]

How are the Christian Scriptures divinely authoritative? Evangelicals like myself have come to the conclusion that both Old and New Testaments are inerrant (without error) in the original manuscripts. How have I reached that decision? It did not come from an a priori assumption. I had to examine the Scriptures carefully and examine the teaching of the church throughout its history.

An example of a statement on inerrancy, representing many in the evangelical church, is The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978), Section VI, which states:

“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”.

Why is it necessary to include “down to the very words of the original”? Why include the original manuscripts (called the autographa) in a statement on inerrancy? Why is this important? Is there a chapter and verse in the Bible that states that “the originals” must by in an orthodox doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture? Why aren’t the various Bible translations authoritative and inerrant?

Are these translations inerrant? – The King James Version (KJV), New King James Version (NKJV), Jerusalem Bible (JB), New Jerusalem Bible (NJB), Revised Standard Version (RSV), New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), English Standard Version (ESV), Good News Bible (GNB), New American Bible (NAB), The Message (TM), New International Version (NIV), Today’s New International Version (TNIV), New English Bible (NEB), Revised English Bible (REB), J. B. Phillips translation (JBP), Living Bible (LB), New Living Translation (NLT), Douay-Rheims Bible, Contemporary English Version (CEV), the Revised Version (RV), the American Standard Version (ASV), and the New American Standard Bible (NASB).

These are but examples of some contemporary English Bible translations. Are the translations inerrant or does this status belong only to the originals (autographa)?

I was responding on a Christian forum on the www and came across this post. AVBunyan asked and commented:

“Who Says Only the Originals Are Inspired?
“The issue seems to be inspiration – can a translation be inspired?
“Where in any Bible does it say ‘only the originals’ are inspired? Who invented this doctrine and ‘made it a fundamental of the faith’? Some folks are really hung up on this ‘original’ issue. There is no verse in any Bible that say ‘only the originals are inspired” – someone dreamed that one up – sounds really good – just not scriptural” (Christian Forums, Christian Apologetics, “All Scripture God breathed“, #11).

These are good questions that deserve biblical answers. Back in 1881, scholar C. A. Briggs, had similar questions about making the autographa (the original writings of Scripture) inerrant. He wrote:

“We will never be able to attain the sacred writings as they gladdened the eyes of those who first saw them, and rejoiced the hearts of those who first heard them. If the external words of the original were inspired, it does not profit us. We are cut off from them forever” (Briggs 1881:573-74).​

In a summary of his chapter addressing the topic of the inerrancy of the original documents, Greg Bahnsen wrote: “While the Bible teaches its own inerrancy, the inscripturation and copying of God’s Word require us to identify the specific and proper object of inerrancy as the text of the original autographa” (Bahnsen 1979:150).

Yet Bahnsen also stated that “there is, as one would expect, no explicit biblical teaching regarding the autographa and copies of them (1979:161). Therefore, how can the doctrine of inerrancy in the autographa have any meaning without the original manuscripts? Is what we have in translations less reliable than the original manuscripts? How can we have an authoritative Bible when we only have copies and these could be centuries after the originals?

In about the year A.D. 180, church father, Tertullian, wrote that originals of the New Testament manuscripts (NT Scripture) could be inspected in churches of his day. These were his words:

“Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places,[1] are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally” (Tertullian n.d.)

Do we have any hints or direct statements in the Old and New Testaments of the original texts being authoritative or even inerrant? While the evidence is not extensive, “Scripture has scattered indications of interest in or recognition of copies and translations of God’s Word in distinction from the autographical manuscripts” (Bahnsen 1979:159).[2]

My own view is summarised in this article, ‘The Bible’s support for inerrancy of the originals‘.

Oz

Bahnsen, G. L. 1979, “The inerrancy of the autographa” in N. L. Geisler (ed.) 1979. Inerrancy. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 150-193.

Briggs, C. A. 1881. “Critical theories of the sacred Scriptures in relation to their inspiration”. The Presbyterian Review, vol. 2, 573-74.

 

[quietthinker]

How are the Christian Scriptures divinely authoritative? Evangelicals like myself have come to the conclusion that both Old and New Testaments are inerrant (without error) in the original manuscripts. How have I reached that decision? It did not come from an a priori assumption. I had to examine the Scriptures carefully and examine the teaching of the church throughout its history.

An example of a statement on inerrancy, representing many in the evangelical church, is The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978), Section VI, which states:

“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”.

Why is it necessary to include “down to the very words of the original”? Why include the original manuscripts (called the autographa) in a statement on inerrancy? Why is this important? Is there a chapter and verse in the Bible that states that “the originals” must by in an orthodox doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture? Why aren’t the various Bible translations authoritative and inerrant?

Are these translations inerrant? – The King James Version (KJV), New King James Version (NKJV), Jerusalem Bible (JB), New Jerusalem Bible (NJB), Revised Standard Version (RSV), New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), English Standard Version (ESV), Good News Bible (GNB), New American Bible (NAB), The Message (TM), New International Version (NIV), Today’s New International Version (TNIV), New English Bible (NEB), Revised English Bible (REB), J. B. Phillips translation (JBP), Living Bible (LB), New Living Translation (NLT), Douay-Rheims Bible, Contemporary English Version (CEV), the Revised Version (RV), the American Standard Version (ASV), and the New American Standard Bible (NASB).

These are but examples of some contemporary English Bible translations. Are the translations inerrant or does this status belong only to the originals (autographa)?

I was responding on a Christian forum on the www and came across this post. AVBunyan asked and commented:

“Who Says Only the Originals Are Inspired?
“The issue seems to be inspiration – can a translation be inspired?
“Where in any Bible does it say ‘only the originals’ are inspired? Who invented this doctrine and ‘made it a fundamental of the faith’? Some folks are really hung up on this ‘original’ issue. There is no verse in any Bible that say ‘only the originals are inspired” – someone dreamed that one up – sounds really good – just not scriptural” (Christian Forums, Christian Apologetics, “All Scripture God breathed“, #11).

These are good questions that deserve biblical answers. Back in 1881, scholar C. A. Briggs, had similar questions about making the autographa (the original writings of Scripture) inerrant. He wrote:

“We will never be able to attain the sacred writings as they gladdened the eyes of those who first saw them, and rejoiced the hearts of those who first heard them. If the external words of the original were inspired, it does not profit us. We are cut off from them forever” (Briggs 1881:573-74).​

In a summary of his chapter addressing the topic of the inerrancy of the original documents, Greg Bahnsen wrote: “While the Bible teaches its own inerrancy, the inscripturation and copying of God’s Word require us to identify the specific and proper object of inerrancy as the text of the original autographa” (Bahnsen 1979:150).

Yet Bahnsen also stated that “there is, as one would expect, no explicit biblical teaching regarding the autographa and copies of them (1979:161). Therefore, how can the doctrine of inerrancy in the autographa have any meaning without the original manuscripts? Is what we have in translations less reliable than the original manuscripts? How can we have an authoritative Bible when we only have copies and these could be centuries after the originals?

In about the year A.D. 180, church father, Tertullian, wrote that originals of the New Testament manuscripts (NT Scripture) could be inspected in churches of his day. These were his words:

“Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places,[1] are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally” (Tertullian n.d.)

Do we have any hints or direct statements in the Old and New Testaments of the original texts being authoritative or even inerrant? While the evidence is not extensive, “Scripture has scattered indications of interest in or recognition of copies and translations of God’s Word in distinction from the autographical manuscripts” (Bahnsen 1979:159).[2]

Oz

Bahnsen, G. L. 1979, “The inerrancy of the autographa” in N. L. Geisler (ed.) 1979. Inerrancy. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 150-193.

Briggs, C. A. 1881. “Critical theories of the sacred Scriptures in relation to their inspiration”. The Presbyterian Review, vol. 2, 573-74.

Were you inspired to write this thread?....I guess so. Where do you think that inspiration came from? Was your pen held and each word dictated? Wasn't it written from a collection of your own thoughts cradled in a western mindset? (maybe Grecian)
Does the western mindset (culture) have all its ducks in a row? Can you conclude it is flawless?

All these questions and more must also be applied to what we today deem as scripture. We are challenged to not only understand the words written but also the culture which spawned the ideas which their premises were based on.

Without having a reasonable handle on this it is easy to spin off in a multitude of directions in understanding.

Would it be true to say that learning is primarily a process of unlearning flawed assumptions?

 

[michaelvpardo]

That's a lot of information.
Before receiving His Spirit, I saw lots of biblical contradictions. After being born again and reading scripture for spiritual understanding, the contradictions simply disappeared with a new perspective.

Before I believed I asked a born again coworker about some of those things that my carnal mind couldn't reconcile and he always gave adequate explanations. That helped me to see scripture as agreeing with itself. Later he confessed that he didn't always have the answers, but the Lord gave them.

We serve an awesome God who is able to teach us and wants to fellowship with us in His word. Some of us need to prove things to ourselves, but all things considered, I wish that I'd just believed the scriptures completely as a child. It would have saved me a lot of wandering and a lot of grief.

 

[OzSpen]

Were you inspired to write this thread?....I guess so. Where do you think that inspiration came from? Was your pen held and each word dictated? Wasn't it written from a collection of your own thoughts cradled in a western mindset? (maybe Grecian)
Does the western mindset (culture) have all its ducks in a row? Can you conclude it is flawless?

All these questions and more must also be applied to what we today deem as scripture. We are challenged to not only understand the words written but also the culture which spawned the ideas which their premises were based on.

Without having a reasonable handle on this it is easy to spin off in a multitude of directions in understanding.

Would it be true to say that learning is primarily a process of unlearning flawed assumptions?

QT,

I would need you to define what you means by "inspiration" before I could attempt an answer to your question.

In a summary of his chapter addressing the topic of the inerrancy of the original documents, Greg Bahnsen wrote: “While the Bible teaches its own inerrancy, the inscripturation and copying of God’s Word require us to identify the specific and proper object of inerrancy as the text of the original autographa” (Bahnsen 1979:150).

Yet Bahnsen also stated that “there is, as one would expect, no explicit biblical teaching regarding the autographa and copies of them (1979:161). Therefore, how can the doctrine of inerrancy in the autographa have any meaning without the original manuscripts? Is what we have in translations less reliable than the original manuscripts? How can we have an authoritative Bible when we only have copies and these could be centuries after the originals?

In about the year A.D. 180, church father, Tertullian, wrote that originals of the New Testament manuscripts (NT Scripture) could be inspected in churches of his day. These were his words:

“Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places,[1] are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally” (Tertullian n.d.)​

Do we have any hints or direct statements in the Old and New Testaments of the original texts being authoritative or even inerrant? While the evidence is not extensive, “Scripture has scattered indications of interest in or recognition of copies and translations of God’s Word in distinction from the autographical manuscripts” (Bahnsen 1979:159).[2]

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

That's a lot of information.
Before receiving His Spirit, I saw lots of biblical contradictions. After being born again and reading scripture for spiritual understanding, the contradictions simply disappeared with a new perspective.

Before I believed I asked a born again coworker about some of those things that my carnal mind couldn't reconcile and he always gave adequate explanations. That helped me to see scripture as agreeing with itself. Later he confessed that he didn't always have the answers, but the Lord gave them.

We serve an awesome God who is able to teach us and wants to fellowship with us in His word. Some of us need to prove things to ourselves, but all things considered, I wish that I'd just believed the scriptures completely as a child. It would have saved me a lot of wandering and a lot of grief.

Michael,

OT scholar, Gleason L Archer, stated he would not accept the inerrancy of Scripture until he had a solution to the apparent contradictions. His book, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Zondervan), grew out of his grappling with the difficulties.

This link takes you to the public domain of this book, where it is available free of charge.

Oz

 

[quietthinker]

I would need you to define what you means by "inspiration" before I could attempt an answer to your question.

re the dictionary...
the process of being mentally stimulated to do or feel something, especially to do something creative: Helen had one of her flashes of inspiration | the Malvern Hills have provided inspiration for many artists. • the quality of being inspired: a rare moment of inspiration in an otherwise dull display.

 

[OzSpen]

re the dictionary...
the process of being mentally stimulated to do or feel something, especially to do something creative: Helen had one of her flashes of inspiration | the Malvern Hills have provided inspiration for many artists. • the quality of being inspired: a rare moment of inspiration in an otherwise dull display.

QT,

I don't use the term "inspiration" when discussing the inerrancy/infallibility of the original MSS.

For the purposes of this discussion, Scripture is GOD-BREATHED (Gk theopneustos) (2 Tim 3:16). In practical terms it means that every word in the 66 canonical books of the Bible’s original manuscripts (Hebrew and Greek) is a word of God, and a word from God. That ensures perfection. God not only inspired His Word, but He also preserved it in the multitude (and majority) of manuscripts. The thousands of variations come from a handful of corrupted manuscripts.​

Oz

 

[Jim B]

Michael,

OT scholar, Gleason L Archer, stated he would not accept the inerrancy of Scripture until he had a solution to the apparent contradictions. His book, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Zondervan), grew out of his grappling with the difficulties.

Oz

There are no contradictions in Scripture! It may seem so but that is due to misunderstanding of what Scripture is saying. God cannot be wrong.

 

[farouk]

Yes, by God's grace the inerrancy of Scripture seems indeed to be correct approach.

What we have in extreme conservative circles today sometimes is the idea that, just as ppl sit around in a conversational Bible study saying subjectively 'This is what it means to me', so also what every apparent nuance and phrase in English seems to say must supposedly 'correct' the underlying Biblical languages. These approaches can become as subjective and vague as outright liberal denial.

Whereas the ultimate reference point must be what was originally given in Scripture.

 

[Jim B]

Yes, by God's grace the inerrancy of Scripture seems indeed to be correct approach.

What we have in extreme conservative circles today sometimes is the idea that, just as ppl sit around in a conversational Bible study saying subjectively 'This is what it means to me', so also what every apparent nuance and phrase in English seems to say must supposedly 'correct' the underlying Biblical languages. These approaches can become as subjective and vague as outright liberal denial.

Whereas the ultimate reference point must be what was originally given in Scripture.

a) We don't have the originals of Scripture.
b) Since it is impossible to translate the earliest copies of Scripture into modern languages word-for-word, including English, many decisions have to be made regarding what meaning is best. Qualified translators do what they feel is best.
c) Your statement that "these approaches can become as subjective and vague as outright liberal denial" is nonsense.

 

[farouk]

a) We don't have the originals of Scripture.
b) Since it is impossible to translate the earliest copies of Scripture into modern languages word-for-word, including English, many decisions have to be made regarding what meaning is best. Qualified translators do what they feel is best.
c) Your statement that "these approaches can become as subjective and vague as outright liberal denial" is nonsense.

Yes, the Holy Spirit does indeed graciously lead His people in personal and collective Bible study and such study is very profitable indeed.

I guess my point is, it's not our enthusiastic deliberations that ultimately infuse meaning into the text, neither does the English 'correct' the underlying Biblical languages.

 

[Jim B]

Yes, the Holy Spirit does indeed graciously lead His people in personal and collective Bible study and such study is very profitable indeed.

I guess my point is, it's not our enthusiastic deliberations that ultimately infuse meaning into the text, neither does the English 'correct' the underlying Biblical languages.

What does "neither does the English 'correct' the underlying Biblical languages" mean? Perhaps you don't understand what "translation" means. If we had the original texts and we understood exactly what they meant and we could convey that meaning in perfect English ... but that is impossible!

 

[farouk]

What does "neither does the English 'correct' the underlying Biblical languages" mean? Perhaps you don't understand what "translation" means. If we had the original texts and we understood exactly what they meant and we could convey that meaning in perfect English ... but that is impossible!

Which takes precedence? what the English says or what the original languages say?

That is the question.

When ppl answer, The English, then this to me seems cultish.

 

[Jim B]

Which takes precedence? what the English says or what the original languages say?

That is the question.

When ppl answer, The English, then this to me seems cultish.

If you are fluent in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek and clearly understand what those languages mean without translating them in your own mind into English (or another modern language), congratulations! (Of course that implies that we have the original source documents, which we don't.)

Since you communicate on this forum in English I assume that you aren't capable of the above. Correct?

 

[farouk]

If you are fluent in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek and clearly understand what those languages mean without translating them in your own mind into English (or another modern language), congratulations! (Of course that implies that we have the original source documents, which we don't.)

Since you communicate on this forum in English I assume that you aren't capable of the above. Correct?

How about the intermediate stage? helpful commentaries, lexicons and the wise obligation to study a passage?

To proclaim by God's grace what a passage means, is more blessed than 'This is what it means to me'.

 

[Jim B]

How about the intermediate stage? helpful commentaries, lexicons and the wise obligation to study a passage?

To proclaim by God's grace what a passage means, is more blessed than 'This is what it means to me'.

Lame! Are the helpful commentaries and lexicons written by the original authors in the original languages? No? They're not? They're peoples' ideas written in English.

"To proclaim by God's grace what a passage means, is more blessed than 'This is what it means to me' " Is that a quote from an author of the references that you cite?

 

[farouk]

Lame! Are the helpful commentaries and lexicons written by the original authors in the original languages? No? They're not? They're peoples' ideas written in English.

"To proclaim by God's grace what a passage means, is more blessed than 'This is what it means to me' " Is that a quote from an author of the references that you cite?

Let me put it this way:

To get the meaning out of the passage is exegsis.

To put meaning into the passage is eisegeis.

 

[Jim B]

Let me put it this way:

To get the meaning out of the passage is exegsis.

To put meaning into the passage is eisegeis.

Okay, we agree on these definitions. Now what?

 

[Jay Ross]

Good communication can be defined as the transmission of a message where the intended message within the author's words is received by the listener or reader who then comes to the same understanding as the author of the content of the message that the author intended within the transmission of the message sent.

When we consider the inerrancy of the scriptures that we use today, we have to ask ourselves if the various translations that many hold as being "infallible" are indeed, "infallible" or do our various "translations" transmit a very different message and context from the message and context of the original source texts? From my study of the translations with respect to the available original source text or accurate copies of those texts, I have come to the understanding that our various "translations'" accuracy of the original message and context is sadly lacking.

Let me give an example. H:5769, with the Strong definition of: -



is usually translated as "forever" where "forever" suggests and infinite time period which has no end, where as the understanding of H:5769 suggests a finite period of time where there is an end point for that time period which man is not able to comprehend.

Let me show an example of this which is in Genesis 13: - 14-17 where I show my paraphrasing of the paragraph where the Hebrew Root word H:5760 is found embedded within a Hebrew word: -



Please note that the time period ended in AD 70 when the Roman Empire sacked Jerusalem, destroyed the Temple and caused the Israelites to be scattered to the four corners of the earth and Israel no longer had possession of any part of that land.

The message context of the available Hebrew texts has be considerably altered to convey a very different meaning that had become the traditional understanding of the Israelites, even right up to this present time period.

The message given in the translations was that Abraham also received this entity of the earth that he had seen as a possession as well, but Stephen in Acts 7 said that Abraham had not received are portion of the "promised" land as a possession on which he could rest his feet. The Sanhedrin that were judging Stephen for his "crime" of Preaching Jesus, did not disagree with him on this point.

The translations that we rely on today are not a faithful transcribing of the Hebrew or Greek texts into our English translations that we rely on to give us the full picture of God's words to us today.

Shalom

 

[marks]

Please note that the time period ended in AD 70 when the Roman Empire sacked Jerusalem, destroyed the Temple and caused the Israelites to be scattered to the four corners of the earth and Israel no longer had possession of any part of that land.

The message context of the available Hebrew texts has be considerably altered to convey a very different meaning that had become the traditional understanding of the Israelites, even right up to this present time period.

God's promise to Israel was that they would be scattered for their disobedience, but that they would be restored when they returned to God in their hearts, in the tribulation of the latter days.

The gift and calling of God is without repentance.

Much love!