Is the Case of all pronouns in the KJV correct standard English?

[praise_yeshua]

The word inerrant means "without error" and only refer to documents with direct inspiration.

Many others who use and support modern versions do not agree. They think it means the Scripture itself, not its written form. You are essentially taking a more liberal approach than your compatriots on this issue.

You cannot have inerrancy without direct inspiration.

Exactly!!!!

 

[bibleprotector]

Many people, just like yourself, do not understand the historical application and theological basis of imerrancy.

You cannot have inerrancy without direct inspiration.

So, are you saying that you disagree with what others are saying, and narrowing "inerrancy" to a specific meaning of having a writing with no error in the written form, so that even the writing must be without a spelling mistake?

I believe that there were no writing or spelling mistakes in the original autographs.

 

[FSSL]

Great!

Now please explain how you claim your particular KJV is inerrant. When was it directly inspired?

 

[bibleprotector]

Great!

Your definition is wrong: inerrancy means the content, as does infallibility. In regards to the form, the doctrine of inspiration itself implicitly requires no mistakes in the writing of it in its autographical form.

Now please explain how you claim your particular KJV is inerrant. When was it directly inspired?

Because of your wrong definition of the word "inerrant", you are implying that the KJB cannot be inerrant, because according to what you are saying, there is no inerrant Scripture and no inerrant Bible today.

Whereas, my view is to accept the use of the word "inerrant" and "infallible" in regards to the content or nature of Scripture, and to use the word "inspiration" in regards to Scripture in its two ways: first, the process of getting the Scripture and the result of having an immaculate master copy; and second, that the nature of the words are themselves inspired, i.e. spiritual words, which endures through copying and translating of those words.

I expect that many modern versionists would fully agree with what I have stated here.

 

[FSSL]

Whereas, my view is to accept the use of the word "inerrant" and "infallible" in regards to the content or nature of Scripture, and to use the word "inspiration" in regards to Scripture in its two ways: first, the process of getting the Scripture and the result of having an immaculate master copy;

Ahhh! Are seeing the onion peel away again once more? Inspiration does not result, in any way, shape or form, in a so-called "immaculate master copy." Or are you using the word "copy" to refer to the original?

I expect that many modern versionists would fully agree with what I have stated here.

Anyone nonKJVOs agree with what he said?

Avery has a better understanding of "inerrancy" than you. He doesn't like to use the "modernist" term developed by Warfield.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I'd say the Chicago statement on inerrancy pretty much settles modern scholarly opinion on the issue.


  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 transmis- sion. 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

 

[bibleprotector]

Ahhh! Are seeing the onion peel away again once more? Inspiration does not result, in any way, shape or form, in a so-called "immaculate master copy." Or are you using the word "copy" to refer to the original?

Why are you throwing in contentions? Clearly the word "immaculate master copy" means the written form on earth that was first to be written on earth. Clearly I was not using the word to mean "duplicate", except that obviously, God had it all along, and there is reason to think that there is a perfect exemplar of the Bible in Heaven from creation.

Anyone nonKJVOs agree with what he said?

When I asked the question of modern versionists in a Facebook Group, they agreed that Scripture itself is inerrant and infallible not limited to the original autograph.

 

[bibleprotector]

I'd say the Chicago statement on inerrancy pretty much settles modern scholarly opinion on the issue.

I agree with the traditional view, that Scripture itself is inerrant and infallible. Those Chicago Statements are very modern indeed!

 

[FSSL]

When I asked the question of modern versionists in a Facebook Group, they agreed that Scripture itself is inerrant and infallible not limited to the original autograph.

Well... I would like you to show us some peer-reviewed, theologies that use "inerrancy" to refer to copies/translations.

"Infallibility" is used in various ways,,but I have yet to see "inerrancy" mean less than "without error."

 

[bibleprotector]

When I asked the question of modern versionists in a Facebook Group, they agreed that Scripture itself is inerrant and infallible not limited to the original autograph.

Well... I would like you to show us some peer-reviewed, theologies that use "inerrancy" to refer to copies/translations.

"Infallibility" is used in various ways,,but I have yet to see "inerrancy" mean less than "without error."

You are asking a loaded question. Of course, the Scripture is inerrant, and of course the Scripture comes in copies, but you are falsely asserting that a copy has to be without a written or printing error in order to be considered "inerrant", which in turn would actually imply that there is no Scripture today.

In reality, inerrancy is in regards to the content or substance, being Scripture, not whether or not the ink ran or something.

 

[FSSL]

If asking for reputable quotes is a loaded question, then....

 

[bibleprotector]

If asking for reputable quotes is a loaded question, then....

It is common knowledge that Christianity proper believes that the Scripture is true without error.

 

[FSSL]

Then why have you taken great pains to suggest that your edition of the KJV is the only pure one if they are all inerrant?

 

[bibleprotector]

Then why have you taken great pains to suggest that your edition of the KJV is the only pure one if they are all inerrant?

You are deliberately confusing things. The use and measure of what is purity is relative in these different aspects:

God's Word is pure, and God's Word is in many copies, versions and translations.

The KJB is pure, because it is an accurate text and an exact translation.

And third, the Pure Cambridge Edition is pure, because it is free from typographical errors and so on.

We find the terminology “pure” or “purity” used in this way by the Select Committees investigating the accuracy of printing the KJB in the 19th century. The following are fragments of largely uncorrected OCR scans from official British Parliament documents. In these various minutes of meetings, there are various examples of using the word “pure” or “purity” in regard to accuracy of typography and editing in the KJB.

You think nothing would be gained, in point of accuracy and purity of the text, by any appointment of that nature?

Have you any further observations to make with regard to securing the purity of the text?

I conceive that the British and Foreign Bible Society, the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, and the Religious Tract Society, would be a sufficient guarantee to persons of all denominations, saving those who claim a version for themselves, to sell them entirely of the purity of the text.

Are you of opinion that the appointment of a censor, or any other regulations, might be attended with advantage in preserving the purity of the text of the Scriptures?

It is alleged that a pure and strictly accurate text can only he secured by the continuance of the monopoly; that if the trade were free, Bibles would be printed in a slovenly manner; that the text would be corrupted; and that the niceties of typography, now sedulously maintained, would not be adhered to.

secondly, whether in case the Bible printing patents are discontinued, there are any securities sufficient for maintaining the authorized version of the Bible in its purity and correctness.

Seventhly, the daily and weekly newspaper press, both in London and in the country, would doubtless lend its aid to secure our Bible pure and correct, as it does our civil and religious liberties.

There is nothing which refers to the question of the accuracy, or to the necessity of having a pure copy of the Scriptures?

preserving the purity of the text of the Scriptures

* * * * *

Inerrancy is not used to describe accuracy of printing, but the truth of Scripture itself.

 

[FSSL]

The confusion comes through your many different usages of the same word.

 

[bibleprotector]

The confusion comes through your many different usages of the same word.

Then you would be confused by a dictionary. And the Bible itself, for that matter.

 

[FSSL]

I know a dictionary and you are no dictionary.