Redefining Inerrancy to allow for errors

FSSL

FSSL

Well-known member
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
7,771
Reaction score
622
Points
113
Location
Gulf Shores, Alabama
Sound familiar? The KJVOs have once again stumbled into the land of liberalism.

Quote: "They are trying to redefine inerrancy to inerrancy that allows for errors."

Source: http://defendinginerrancy.com/responding-new-attacks-scripture/
 
Isn't it John MacArthur who is leading the attack on infallibly and inerrancy among the saints themselves, by stating very clearly that only the originals were exactly perfect?

“The original autographs (the absolutely first copies) were without error. Copiers have made minor mistakes over the centuries, but none of these are serious enough to challenge the Bible’s infallibility.” (J. MacArthur, 1980, Take God’s Word For It, Regal, pg 7).

Surely, any true believer should be discerning the taint of liberalism with that attempt to excuse why there is apparently no perfect scripture today.
 
Inerrancy always resided in the originals.

Perhaps you can tell us how you think the 1611 edition is just as inerrant as your 2007 edition.
 
You have redefined "inerrancy".

If you mean perfection of the truth of Scripture, then I affirm that the Scripture was perfectly true in the Autographs, in originals, in the KJB in 1611 and today.

If you mean the perfection of the text (readings), then I will affirm that the version of 1611 is perfect (which is here today).

So likewise the conceptual accuracy in translation, which means that the truth of the originals words is fully being communicated by English words in the 1611 translation (which is here today, having come forth in many editions).

And if you mean having word-perfect perfection without errors and variations, well, only the Autographs could be so, and not even the first copies, but yet we have an edition of the KJB, which you can easily obtain online, which is exactly perfect in this way.

Clearly, you are tainted by liberalism, in upholding "inerrancy" only to the autographs which we cannot see, and not allowing inerrancy to persist or reappear (by whatever stipulation you define the perfection, whether by readings, whether by concepts, or whether by presentational format).

But I suspect you actually believe that there were blemishes vellum used in the autographic writing, and that the writers did not use mathmatically (i.e. vector) precise calligraphy in their handwriting.
 
Inerrancy is a simple word - "without error."

Things that contain errors... and undergo corrections represented by multiple editions are not considered "without error" by any logical, grammatical or meaningful standard.
 
FSSL said:
Inerrancy is a simple word - "without error."

Things that contain errors... and undergo corrections represented by multiple editions are not considered "without error" by any logical, grammatical or meaningful standard.
Click to expand...

So, you are basically saying we have no ultimately genuinely true Bible Scripture today. Your position is not unlike Bart Ehrman's, except you believe that there was a perfect Scripture once, long ago, in each autograph.
 
FSSL said:
Perhaps you can tell us how you think the 1611 edition is just as inerrant as your 2007 edition.
Click to expand...

We all saw your inability to give a cogent answer.
 
FSSL said:
FSSL said:
Perhaps you can tell us how you think the 1611 edition is just as inerrant as your 2007 edition.
Click to expand...

We all saw your inability to give a cogent answer.
Click to expand...

There is no error in the Scripture, both the 1611 edition of the KJB and the Pure Cambridge Edition are Scripture, therefore are both without error.

Both are the same version and translation.

So, unless you count freedom from printing mistakes as a defining attribute of inerrancy, then clearly it is you who is playing semantic games.
 
Freedom from error. EVERY kind of error.

We know there were/are much more than printing mistakes. But those must be counted as errors as well.
 
KJVo-ism: defining error to mean any mistake in translation or printing except for mistakes in translation or printing in the King Jimmy.
 
FSSL said:
Freedom from error. EVERY kind of error.

We know there were/are much more than printing mistakes. But those must be counted as errors as well.
Click to expand...

Must they? The true definition of inerrancy is of the Scripture itself, not its readings, translation or presentation. Your definition and application is a complete double standard.
 
bibleprotector said:
So, unless you count freedom from printing mistakes as a defining attribute of inerrancy, then clearly it is you who is playing semantic games.
Click to expand...

How come God didn't providentially protect his word from printing mistakes?

You do realize that to the end reader, an error is an error regardless of its reason, right?

bibleprotector said:
Must they? The true definition of inerrancy is of the Scripture itself, not its readings, translation or presentation. Your definition and application is a complete double standard.
Click to expand...

Translation: Scripture is inerrant. What Scripture says is not inerrant.

*snort*
 
bibleprotector said:
FSSL said:
Freedom from error. EVERY kind of error.

We know there were/are much more than printing mistakes. But those must be counted as errors as well.
Click to expand...

Must they? The true definition of inerrancy is of the Scripture itself, not its readings, translation or presentation. Your definition and application is a complete double standard.
Click to expand...
Double-talking modernist

Redefining an error is redefining inerrancy... and it is just liberal semantics.
 
Bibleprotector is trying to redefine inerrancy to inerrancy that allows for errors.

My OP stands.
 
Ransom said:
How come God didn't providentially protect his word from printing mistakes?
Click to expand...

He did.

Ransom said:
You do realize that to the end reader, an error is an error regardless of its reason, right?
Click to expand...

There were no errors in inspiration, so there are no errors today. We haven't actually lost what was inspired.

Ransom said:
Translation: Scripture is inerrant. What Scripture says is not inerrant.
Click to expand...

The content of Scripture is inerrant.
 
FSSL said:
Double-talking modernist
Click to expand...

You are the modernist, saying that all Bibles today are with error because they don't match the original autographs which were inerrant. That's not the traditional Protestant belief, that's not what the WCF stated.

FSSL said:
Redefining an error is redefining inerrancy... and it is just liberal semantics.
Click to expand...

That's actually an illogical statement, but it is you who redefines error. You are saying you don't have the inerrant Scripture because only the autographs were inerrant. That's actually a heresy, because all of evangelical Christianity is about having true Scripture, i.e. believing that it is not lost, tainted or hopelessly corrupted.
 
FSSL said:
Bibleprotector is trying to redefine inerrancy to inerrancy that allows for errors.
Click to expand...

No I'm not. I've made it very clear that there are three classes of inquiry:

1. Scripture itself, which is inerrant.

2. Text and translation, which we have many good examples of, and which I think the KJB is a perfect manifestation of.

3. Presentation.

Classes 2 and 3 are not inerrancy issues. Inerrancy requires that what was first written is 100% true, and that those truths, (the concepts) have not been lost in time.
 
That works for the KJVO.

One standard for the Authorized Version another for the rest.

It's a true double standard.
 
If the text and presentation of the text are not subject to inerrancy... you have shown us that KJVOism is NOT really about the text after all.

It is a myth that requires its own loopholes and redefinitions of a simple word the rest of us can easily define as "error."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top