"KJV ... Inerrant? Excellent?" (off-shoot from Biology conversation)

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 11:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125383#post125383)
Joe Meert:

JM: NIce try. This says something about interpreting the bible doesn't it? I thought the translations were 'God inspired' and error free. Didn't God know what cud was?

Typical dishonest straw man. Who believes that translations are inspired (apart from KJVO loonies)? All major creationist organizations make it clear that inspiration and inerrancy apply to the original autographs, which is in line with standard documents such as the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (http://www.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/csbe.htm).

But then we should not be surprised at such dishonesty from one who professes to be a Christian but won't come clean on what he really believes, and who yokes with overt (i.e. more honest) infidels to mock the Scriptures which Jesus said "cannot be broken" (John 10:35).

To return to the thread, this means that JP Holding's analysis of the original Hebrew is the right approach. This easily trumps the anti-Christians and their professing Christian allies who whinge about what English translations say.

[Passant]

Typical dishonest straw man. Who believes that translations are inspired (apart from KJVO loonies)? All major creationist organizations make it clear that inspiration and inerrancy apply to the original autographs, which is in line with standard documents such as the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.

KJVO loonies? What about the millions of Chrsitians that have been told the KJV is the true inerrant word of God? They were all lied to?

[Socrates]

Today @ 12:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125962#post125962)
Passant, replying to:


Socrates: Typical dishonest straw man. Who believes that translations are inspired (apart from KJVO loonies)? All major creationist organizations make it clear that inspiration and inerrancy apply to the original autographs, which is in line with standard documents such as the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (http://www.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/csbe.htm).

KJVO loonies? What about the millions of Chrsitians that have been told the KJV is the true inerrant word of God? They were all lied to?

They were certainly told untruths. A lie implies that the untruth was intentional and I don't wish to make such a claim.

So lets deal with the inerrancy as defined in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (http://www.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/csbe.htm). The defenders of inerrancy on TWeb such as JP Holding, Jaltus and myself hold to this, and none of us are KJVOs or even Textus Receptus only.

Also, the statements of faith of ICR and AiG are consistent with the Chicago Statement too. And since Meert by his own claims is very familiar with creationist writings, he must have known that he was setting up a straw man about alleged belief in inerrancy of translations. Therefore I have no hesitation about calling him a liar.

[Roy]

Today @ 02:01 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125960#post125960)
Socrates:

Typical dishonest straw man. Who believes that translations are inspired (apart from KJVO loonies)? All major creationist organizations make it clear that inspiration and inerrancy apply to the original autographs, which is in line with standard documents such as the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (http://www.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/csbe.htm).


Unfortunately, we don't have the originals - only copies of unknown verisimilitude. But your own source says the translations are excellent:

no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the autographa. Yet the verdict of linguistic science is that English-speaking Christians, at least, are exceedingly well served in these days with a host of excellent translations and have no cause for hesitating to conclude that the true Word of God is within their reach.

So unless JPH can come up with any evidence that the translation is wrong in this specific instance, and gerah was in fact also used to mean dungballs, we're back exactly where we started.

Roy

[Sher]

Today @ 09:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125977#post125977)
rthearle:

Unfortunately, we don't have the originals - only copies of unknown verisimilitude. But your own source says the translations are excellent:

Excellent isn't the same thing as inerrant.

But this is a conversation more appropriate for another area of the forum.

[Roy]

Today @ 02:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125980#post125980)
Sher:



Excellent isn't the same thing as inerrant.


Yeah, I know. But I wouldn't expect an excellent translation to include this sort of mistake.

Roy

[Socrates]

Today @ 12:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125977#post125977)
rthearle, replying to:


Socrates: Typical dishonest straw man. Who believes that translations are inspired (apart from KJVO loonies)? All major creationist organizations make it clear that inspiration and inerrancy apply to the original autographs, which is in line with standard documents such as the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (http://www.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/csbe.htm).

Unfortunately, we don't have the originals - only copies of unknown verisimilitude.

Actually the copies are extremely accurate. Westcott estimated that the difference between his critical Greek text of the NT was <2% and affected no essential point. Furthermore, not a single doctrine of Christianity rests on a disputed verse. We have FAR more manuscript support, both in number and in closeness to the originals, for the NT than any other classical document, the authenticity of which is not in the slightest doubt.

As the Statement says:

Article X.

WE AFFIRM that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

WE DENY that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.


But your own source says the translations are excellent:

no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the autographa. Yet the verdict of linguistic science is that English-speaking Christians, at least, are exceedingly well served in these days with a host of excellent translations and have no cause for hesitating to conclude that the true Word of God is within their reach.

As Sher said, this does not equate to inerrancy of translations, as the Chicago Statement makes clear. So any claim of "error" in the Bible must address the originals, not a translation. Before that which Thearle quoted, the Statement sez:

Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that the Hebrew and Greek text appear to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.

And to return to the thread at hand, the Statement has two articles directly relevant:

Article XII.

WE AFFIRM that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.

WE DENY that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

Article XIII.

WE AFFIRM the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.

WE DENY that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

[Socrates]

Today @ 12:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125991#post125991)
rthearle, replying to:


Sher:

Excellent isn't the same thing as inerrant.

Yeah, I know. But I wouldn't expect an excellent translation to include this sort of mistake.

You might, as JPH has pointed out, if the translators were not too familiar with biology. But the main point is, there is no error in the original Hebrew!

[Roy]

Today @ 02:51 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126001#post126001)
Socrates:



Yeah, I know. But I wouldn't expect an excellent translation to include this sort of mistake.

You might, as JPH has pointed out, if the translators were not too familiar with biology. But the main point is, there is no error in the original Hebrew! [/QUOTE]

I'm starting to get dizzy now.

Roy

[Minnesota]

sher
But this is a conversation more appropriate for another area of the forum.

I quite agree, and think it would benefit by putting it in the appropriate area.

[Sher]

Okay .... KJVO conversation is being split to Theology 102