Inerrant Word of God

[Lady Macbeth]

This is a question I have had for quite a long time, and despite who I might talk to (Christian or otherwise) I haven't been able to get a real answer without "Um...", "Well..." or "Maybe..." being inserted. :uneasy: My apologies if the phrasing isn't correct, but this is how it's been phrased to me.

I have been told very many times, and I see it repeated often on the Web, that the Bible is considered by many to be 'the inerrant word of God'. However, I have discovered both on the Web and in bookstores that there are a minimum of seven versions of the Bible available for purchase, and on looking through these versions the text is not only different from a literal standpoint (some using Old English, some using modern vernacular, some using various translations of words) but that the way the differences are written could cause a different meaning from one version to the next.

My understanding of "inerrant" is "having no errors" and "being incapable of having errors".

I understand why there are various versions of the Bible - there is usually a note attached to each that explains its origin and why it was created - but what I don't understand is how Christians reconcile the Bible as inerrant, when there are versions that are different enough to leave room for error - if one version is not in error, then the other must be.

Provided that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, how do Christians reconcile the differences in the various Bibles?

A related sub-question to this one is in regard to the apocryphal texts. The Book of Enoch, to my knowledge, is considered canonical text today, yet it was not included in European Bibles until after its rediscovery in Ethiopia in 1773 and the subsequent English translation in 1821. Adding the Book of Enoch to the Bible stirred controversy in many churches. Does this mean that the books considered to be apocryphal today are also likely canonical texts (and thus part of the Inerrant Word of God) but simply not accepted by some or all churches? Or is there a difference that I've overlooked?

Any clarification or ideas on this subject would be appreciated. :)

[Hail Mary]

I have been told very many times, and I see it repeated often on the Web, that the Bible is considered by many to be 'the inerrant word of God'. However, I have discovered both on the Web and in bookstores that there are a minimum of seven versions of the Bible available for purchase, and on looking through these versions the text is not only different from a literal standpoint (some using Old English, some using modern vernacular, some using various translations of words) but that the way the differences are written could cause a different meaning from one version to the next.

My understanding of "inerrant" is "having no errors" and "being incapable of having errors".

I hope its appropriate to respond to your post, I went through an agreement to respond, so I would like to apologize if I'm violating protocol somehow. Anyhoooo....

The Bible as revealed to its human authors is inerrant, which for the most part was in Hebrew and Koine Greek. Its up to us (the People of God) to make sure contemporary translations are as accurate as possible, and, as you've seen, there are varying degrees of success and failure in this effort.

There are some variations on this belief in Christianity, particularly with the King James Version, which some Christians hold to be a uniquely inerrant translation.

I understand why there are various versions of the Bible - there is usually a note attached to each that explains its origin and why it was created - but what I don't understand is how Christians reconcile the Bible as inerrant, when there are versions that are different enough to leave room for error - if one version is not in error, then the other must be.

Provided that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, how do Christians reconcile the differences in the various Bibles?

There is no guarantee that every translation is inerrant. Anyone with minimal knowledge of Greek and Hebrew could make a translation, and some of the translations are horrible.

The contemporary language into which the Bible is translated also changes, so a translation for the 1800's is not going to be the best translation for the 2000's.

And, the Bible is written in the vernacular Greek or Hebrew of its time. Some translations give us a literal translation, and some try to reword it to make it understandable in English (or the target language). For example, how would I translate "Take a hike" to German or Spanish? Well, I could literally translate it, but it would have lost its meaning, so some translations include footnotes explaining it, and others rephrase it as something like "go away" (or whatever).

A related sub-question to this one is in regard to the apocryphal texts. The Book of Enoch, to my knowledge, is considered canonical text today, yet it was not included in European Bibles until after its rediscovery in Ethiopia in 1773 and the subsequent English translation in 1821. Adding the Book of Enoch to the Bible stirred controversy in many churches. Does this mean that the books considered to be apocryphal today are also likely canonical texts (and thus part of the Inerrant Word of God) but simply not accepted by some or all churches? Or is there a difference that I've overlooked?

Any clarification or ideas on this subject would be appreciated. :)

No, no... Changes to the canon were closed in the 16th century. Actually we (as Catholics) thought it was closed in the 5th century, but Protestants removed a few books in the 16th century (they will dispute this). Nothing has been added since the 4th century.

[Shadow Phoenix]

This is a question I have had for quite a long time, and despite who I might talk to (Christian or otherwise) I haven't been able to get a real answer without "Um...", "Well..." or "Maybe..." being inserted. :uneasy: My apologies if the phrasing isn't correct, but this is how it's been phrased to me.

I have been told very many times, and I see it repeated often on the Web, that the Bible is considered by many to be 'the inerrant word of God'. However, I have discovered both on the Web and in bookstores that there are a minimum of seven versions of the Bible available for purchase, and on looking through these versions the text is not only different from a literal standpoint (some using Old English, some using modern vernacular, some using various translations of words) but that the way the differences are written could cause a different meaning from one version to the next.

My understanding of "inerrant" is "having no errors" and "being incapable of having errors".

I understand why there are various versions of the Bible - there is usually a note attached to each that explains its origin and why it was created - but what I don't understand is how Christians reconcile the Bible as inerrant, when there are versions that are different enough to leave room for error - if one version is not in error, then the other must be.

Provided that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, how do Christians reconcile the differences in the various Bibles?

A related sub-question to this one is in regard to the apocryphal texts. The Book of Enoch, to my knowledge, is considered canonical text today, yet it was not included in European Bibles until after its rediscovery in Ethiopia in 1773 and the subsequent English translation in 1821. Adding the Book of Enoch to the Bible stirred controversy in many churches. Does this mean that the books considered to be apocryphal today are also likely canonical texts (and thus part of the Inerrant Word of God) but simply not accepted by some or all churches? Or is there a difference that I've overlooked?

Any clarification or ideas on this subject would be appreciated. :)

Hi Lady MacBeth. Ave Maria got to your question first and I found the answer to be stellar. I will state some points clearly.

Inerrancy does not pertain to the copies of the manuscripts. This has never been the Christian doctrine where we accept one reading and then destory all manuscripts that have a different reading. Instead, we work through to find what the originals said, and having so many manuscripts makes this far easier. I actually prefer this method to having "originals" as it's easier to cross-reference then and this keeps the Scriptures out of just one person's hands.

Also, as to the book of Enoch, a book would be canonical if it was in line with apostolic teaching, had the authority of an apostle, and was received by all the churches. Since none of the canonical books have maintained the last one, then I have no fear in saying the canon has been found and is closed.

If you're interested, the Chicago statement and defense of biblical inerrancy can be found in the book they put forth called "Inerrancy."