Redefining Inerrancy to allow for errors

[bibleprotector]

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

The NIV is not inerrant. The Scripture is inerrant.

And, as I said, the NIV is a particularly bad version and bad translation.

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

There is nothing providential about the trend of bad versions, bad translations and bad editions which depart from the proper, providentially appointed standard.

By the way, the nature of God is toward a singular truth, not to perpetuate or multiply diversity, as in all the different modern versions/translations.

 

[Ransom]

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

So, no, the 1611 is not free of errors.

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.

You contradicted yourself on the 1611 edition. Why shouldn't I have faith that you'll eventually contradict yourself on the "Pure" Cambridge Edition, too?

 

[Ransom]

The NIV is not inerrant. The Scripture is inerrant.

Since the NIV is Scripture, your premises contradict, and any conclusion I might draw from them is meaningless.

 

[bibleprotector]

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.

Actually, all through this discussion, you have been dishonest, moving goal posts and playing word games, which forces me to define terms clearly, because you and your friends tend to twist things, try to catch me in your web and/or deliberately misinterpret/misrepresent what I wrote.

 

[Ransom]

Actually, all through this discussion, you have been dishonest, moving goal posts and playing word games, which forces me to define terms clearly, because you and your friends tend to twist things, try to catch me in your web and/or deliberately misinterpret/misrepresent what I wrote.

I haven't been trying to catch you. I've been succeeding.

Since you have done nothing but equivocate and self-contradict, you are the one who has been dishonest here.  Of course, this surprises no one. After all you are a KJV-onlyist.

 

[bibleprotector]

So, no, the 1611 is not free of errors.

There are three fields of inquiry:

1. The Scripture. That has no errors.

2. The version and the translation. That has no errors in the KJB.

3. The editorial presentation. In the case of the 1611 edition, that does have errors.

You are dishonestly trying to make it appear as if what I said about number 3 applies with number 1.

You contradicted yourself on the 1611 edition.

No, I didn't. You are just playing word games trying to confuse the three very different fields of inquiry.

Inerrancy only applies to Scripture itself, it is not used to describe a kind of a version (readings), a translation, or a particular setting forth in an edition.

Since you twisted what I said here, of course you will doubt what I say about anything, such as the Pure Cambridge Edition view.

 

[bibleprotector]

Since the NIV is Scripture, your premises contradict, and any conclusion I might draw from them is meaningless.

Your false assumption is that the NIV's text and translation have no bearing on the Scripture it represents. I agree that inerrant Scripture is in the NIV, but the problem is that it is beset round about.

 

[bgwilkinson]

I just checked the Pure PCE on BP webb site here it is.
Mt 23:24  Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

Previous Bible translations have "straine out a gnat".

Geneva
Mt 23:24  Ye blinde guides, which straine out a gnat, and swallowe a camell.

Bishop's
Mt 23:24  Ye blynde guides, which strayne out a gnat, and swalowe a Camel.

This looks like a printing error "strain at a gnat" instead of "strain out a gnat".

BP you have not corrected your PCE yet.

 

[bibleprotector]

I haven't been trying to catch you. I've been succeeding.

So, you admit to being a tricky spider. So much for honesty about your dishonesty!

Since you have done nothing but equivocate and self-contradict, you are the one who has been dishonest here.  Of course, this surprises no one. After all you are a KJV-onlyist.

It really wouldn't matter what I said, you would seek to do harm anyway. I hold you in very low esteem.

 

[bibleprotector]

BP you have not corrected your PCE yet.

The KJB correctly has "at", and that is the proper translation.

As for me, I did not make the PCE, it was made many decades before I was able to read.

 

[bibleprotector]

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.

So, you don't believe that we have inerrant Scripture. You mean that some of the numbers in the Old Testament are impediments to having inerrant Scripture.

 

[bgwilkinson]

BP you have not corrected your PCE yet.

The KJB correctly has "at", and that is the proper translation.

As for me, I did not make the PCE, it was made many decades before I was able to read.

"At" is an incorrect translation the Greek there speaks of a filtering action thus stain out is correct. As indicated in previous English translations.

 

[Ransom]

Your false assumption is that the NIV's text and translation have no bearing on the Scripture it represents.

No, you are the one foolishly trying to argue that "Scripture" is something other than the aggregation of its reading, translation, and presentation. You are arguing, in very silly fashion, that a forest can exist even if the trees don't.

Premise 1: Scripture has no errors.
Premise 2: The NIV is Scripture.
Conclusion: Therefore, the NIV has no errors.

Valid and sound. You are not arguing against me. You are arguing against logic, common sense, and reality. By all means, please continue to beclown yourself.

 

[bibleprotector]

"At" is an incorrect translation the Greek there speaks of a filtering action thus stain out is correct. As indicated in previous English translations.

Well, it is convenient for you to point to the imprecise translations before the KJB, but the KJB was actually revising the former translations, and is a precise translation of the Greek. I'm sure that you will think that the Greek meant something other than what the KJB accurately communicates. But my faith is in what the Holy Ghost has given, not on your and your friends' opinions against the KJB.

 

[bibleprotector]

Your false assumption is that the NIV's text and translation have no bearing on the Scripture it represents.

Premise 1: Scripture has no errors.
Premise 2: The NIV is Scripture.
Conclusion: Therefore, the NIV has no errors.

That is an illogical syllogism, because even you know that the NIV does not match exactly what the Autographs contained.

 

[Ransom]

That is an illogical syllogism, because even you know that the NIV does not match exactly what the Autographs contained.

I love how your presuppositions won't allow you to affirm one of my premises, but you are making every effort to avoid actually denying it. Please don't let me stop you from playing the fool. Your weasel-like demeanour does your KJV-only comrades proud.

 

[Steven Avery]

"At" is an incorrect translation the Greek there speaks of a filtering action thus stain out is correct.

The Greek speaks of filtering, leaving open contextually issues like off, at, out.
And "strain at" was common English understanding and usage a the time of the AV 1611.

Look, we know there will mistranslation arguments on virtually every verse by those adverse to the pure Bible. 

The big issue here was the bogus misprint canard. 
Which was buried long ago, in terms of the scholarship.

Steven

 

[praise_yeshua]

"At" is an incorrect translation the Greek there speaks of a filtering action thus stain out is correct.

The Greek speaks of filtering, leaving open contextually issues like off, at, out.
And "strain at" was common English understanding and usage a the time of the AV 1611.

Look, we know there will mistranslation arguments on virtually every verse by those adverse to the pure Bible. 

The big issue here was the bogus misprint canard. 
Which was buried long ago, in terms of the scholarship.

Steven

Lets get this straight Avery.... You say that "strain at" was in common use at the time of the 1611.... yet the 1572 revision of the Bishops Bible clearly uses "strain out"? So does the 1560 Geneva. The New Testament of the DRB was printed in 1600, 1621 and 1633...... It also contains the phrase "strain out".

So.... Who should we believe... YOU.... or the evidence?

 

[Steven Avery]

So.... Who should we believe... YOU.... or the evidence?

You clearly have not studied the evidence.

Much is in the Jeffery Nachimson paper.

Matthew 23:34
The Case of the Alleged Perpetual Misprint
Jeffrey D. Nachimson
http://web.archive.org/web/20070825035615/http://www.av1611answers.com/apm.html

One key element was the Constantin Hopf paper.

And much more is on the AV1611 thread.

Straining at or straining out gnats.
http://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=379

Steven

 

[FSSL]

It's better to call this a printer's error than to accuse the KJV translators as having such a poor translation that even Shakespeare didn't understand it.