Redefining Inerrancy to allow for errors

[praise_yeshua]

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

He did.

Are you really that disconnected from reality? You admit that errors existed in printing the KJV and now you say they didn't.

Which one is it?

Or are you just playing word games?

 

[bgwilkinson]

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

He did.

Are you really that disconnected from reality? You admit that errors existed in printing the KJV and now you say they didn't.

Which one is it?

Or are you just playing word games?

Yes.

Always double meanings and and the master of prevarication.

 

[FSSL]

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/

Who do you think is an AV defender?

F. David Farnell ?
Craig, Gundry, Bird, Blomberg (critiqued by Farnell)

Having a hard time following the discussion?

 

[Steven Avery]

Having a hard time following the discussion?

I'm just curious how you pull the AV position into the competing proclaimed evangelicals who have a debate on the inerrancy issue. However, I am never surprised when you refuse to give a straight answer.

Steven

 

[FSSL]

Bibleprotector redefines inerrancy and the word "error." Same argument as the modernists. Opposite conclusions. Bothe are just as nefarious.

 

[bibleprotector]

Are you really that disconnected from reality? You admit that errors existed in printing the KJV and now you say they didn't.

Which one is it?

That's a false dilemma. Printing errors existed (past tense) but have been removed. Therefore, God has been able to keep the KJB from printing errors, i.e. there are none today in one particular representation of an edition.

 

[Ransom]

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

And now is the time on the FFF when we juxtapose . . .

He did.

and

There is no error in the Scripture, both the 1611 edition of the KJB and the Pure Cambridge Edition are Scripture. . . .

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

So did God providentially protect the Bible from printing mistakes, or do they still exist, such that a well-formed doctrine of inerrancy has to account for them?

Double-minded men speak in doublespeak, BP.

The content of Scripture is inerrant.

Except for the readings, the translation, and the presentation.

LOL! What a steaming pile of intellectual dishonesty.

You sound exactly like one of Gail Riplinger's moronic sycophants who tell us that we have to take her conclusions seriously, even when none of the premises that supposedly support the conclusion are even vaguely valid. You expect your broad claims to hold water when all the individual details cannot. What insanity.

 

[Ransom]

Who do you think is an AV defender?

F. David Farnell ?
Craig, Gundry, Bird, Blomberg (critiqued by Farnell)

What an interesting collection of names. Did you get them from Google yourself, or did your mom help?

 

[Ransom]

Once again, we juxtapose . . .

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.

versus

Printing errors existed (past tense) but have been removed.

Removed from what? Why, "the 1611 edition of the KJB," of course, though it was "without error."

The easiest way to recognize a consummate liar is when he can't keep his lies straight anymore.

 

[bibleprotector]

So did God providentially protect the Bible from printing mistakes

Yes, though they have and do occur.

or do they still exist

Yes, but they have been fixed in one edition.

such that a well-formed doctrine of inerrancy has to account for them?

Inerrancy has nothing to do with it. The Bible was inerrant in inspiration. Printing errors is a separate issue. Although, obviously I believe that there were not mistakes in even the writing of the Autographs.

]Except for the readings, the translation, and the presentation.

Inerrancy is not used to describe a perfect text, a perfect translation or a perfect presentation. Your accusations seem to indicate that you think that inerrancy does require such things, or that such things should be termed "inerrant".

Note, by the way, that the Autographs were obviously a correct TEXT (set of readings), and a correct PRESENTATION (set of letters).

 

[bibleprotector]

Removed from what? Why, "the 1611 edition of the KJB," of course, though it was "without error."

1. The Scripture has no errors.

2. The version and translation of 1611 was perfect.

3. We have a perfect edition called the PCE.

Now let's take number 1.

Is the 1611 edition of the KJB Scripture? Yes. Since Scripture is inerrant and has no errors, therefore the 1611 edition is inerrant.

You can apply that to the Vulgate if you like.

Is the Vulgate Scripture? Yes. Therefore, seeing that the Scripture is inerrant, and without error, therefore the Vulgate is Scripture that is inerrant and without error.

Is the Vulgate a perfect text and/or a perfect translation? No.

Is there a perfect edition of it, that is edited to precision? No.

So, logically, the inerrant Scripture is a different concept to having a perfect text and a perfect translation, and is a different concept to having a pure (precise, accurately printed) edition.

 

[bibleprotector]

Modern versionists seem to have departed far from traditional Protestant beliefs now, considering how they are attacking me for believing that the Scripture is without error.

 

[Ransom]

2. The version and translation of 1611 was perfect.

Except for the printing errors that were removed, right?

Can you just go one post without contradicting yourself?

Is the 1611 edition of the KJB Scripture? Yes. Since Scripture is inerrant and has no errors, therefore the 1611 edition is inerrant.

Great! Let's try this.

Is the NIV Scripture? Yes. Since Scripture is inerrant and has no errors, therefore the NIV is inerrant.

Is the NASB Scripture? Yes. Since Scripture is inerrant and has no errors, therefore the NASB is inerrant.

Is the ESV Scripture? Yes. Since Scripture is inerrant and has no errors, therefore the ESV is inerrant.

Amen! Isn't it wonderful that God has providentially preserved his Scriptures in so many different copies and translations?

 

[Ransom]

Modern versionists seem to have departed far from traditional Protestant beliefs now, considering how they are attacking me for believing that the Scripture is without error.

Now, if the Scripture happens to be in, say, an edition of the NIV, well, that's just fine, right?

Your panties are only in a wad because it's your ox being gored and your double standard being exposed.

 

[bibleprotector]

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.

You are deliberately confusing the concept of the inerrancy of Scripture with the concepts of having a perfect text, translation and presentation.

Seeing that the KJB is Scripture, and that the Scripture is inerrant, therefore the KJB must be inerrant.

However, where there is an attack on Scripture, that is bad. And modern versions, through their flawed textual critical, translational and human-based presentational work, are obviously imperfect.

Modern versions still contain Scripture, and Scripture is inerrant, but they are doing despite to it and are not acting in line with its inerrancy.

 

[bibleprotector]

Except for the printing errors that were removed, right?

Wrong.

Version readings and translation are an entirely separate issue to printwork.

The version readings and translation of 1611 is here today, regardless of where typographical errors were made in printing.

 

[Ransom]

Wrong.

So, contra your earlier assertion, the 1611's printing errors weren't removed?

 

[bibleprotector]

Now, if the Scripture happens to be in, say, an edition of the NIV, well, that's just fine, right?

The Scripture is inerrant. The NIV is an imperfect version, and imperfect translation and somewhat imperfect in presentation.

Why would a person use the NIV, which is imperfectly conveying the inerrant Scripture, when you could have one which as maximum perspicuity, the KJB.

 

[bibleprotector]

So, contra your earlier assertion, the 1611's printing errors weren't removed?

Some have not been removed in some editions, and new typos are made in new editions.

However, there is one presentation of one edition where all the ones from all the past editions have been removed, and which has none itself.

 

[Ransom]

The Scripture is inerrant. The NIV is an imperfect version,

Now you're weaselling. I said the NIV was Scripture, not that it was an "imperfect version." You moved the goalposts. That wasn't very honest.