INERRANCY

Do you believe the Bible is totally infallible and inerrant containing no errors whatsoever in ALL matters that it speaks of?

Or do you believe there are a few errors here and there that we should not be concerned about because they are trivial and may be due to things like a lack of knowledge in that day etc?

Do you believe that Bible you read is mistake free from cover to cover in all things it states or is the reality otherwise but what you have is good enough to get you by?

2 Peter 1:20-21 KJV
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. [21] For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Proverbs 30:5-6 KJV
Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. [6] Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

-----------

2 Timothy 2:23 KJV
But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

There are 2 kinds of errors. Factual error and spiritual errors. Factual error is one in which certain facts can go wrong. There can be factual errors in the Bible, for example the name of the Prophet is mentioned wrong in NT while referring to the Prophesy. Some might argue that the original script just had prophet in it; but I have checked the earliest manuscripts available and the names are wrong in them. Again it does not bother me 1 bit to accept factual errors.

Spiritually with respect to the nature of God, I believe Bible is consistent. There is not a single place where God hates man etc. God is always a loving God. There is not a single place where God tolerates sin, he is always against sin consistently in the Bible.

I believe the original manuscripts were likely error free (but I think Paul may have had a "slip of the pen” in 1 Cor. 14).

There may have been some copying errors, especially in some of the battle numbers in the OT historical books.

I don’t think there are any errors of substantial importance that effect doctrine etc with the possible exception in 1 Cor 14 mentioned above, but even that is not a huge deal.

If you see what you think is an error, keep studying and you will find you, in fact, are the one with the misconception. Remember Jesus quoted from the Old Testament. He wouldn't quote a book with errors.

/There can be factual errors in the Bible, for example the name of the Prophet is mentioned wrong in NT while referring to the Prophesy./

Where might there be an example of that? I'm sincerely asking.

Nigel-

Maybe he quoted the parts without any mistakes.

2 Kings 8:26 vs. 2 Chronicles 22:2 (KJV)

Todd, here is the answer to this supposed contradiction.

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/genealogy/two-ages-at-once/

"Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and taught. And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?" John 7:14,15

Probably because He was the one who wrote the Bible... I don't think He needed to consult textual critics for an accurate translation.

Nah- it was a copyist error. It’s no big deal. I couldn’t care less how old he was but 22 makes more sense.

This contradiction only appears in the KJV and NKJV so that makes it even more likely it was a copyist error in source documents used for the KJV.

No it was not a copyist error.

Then why don’t other versions have different numbers?

Todd, I'm not a Bible translation expert. Obviously some versions are superior to others; some have errors and some don't.

What do you make of this?

How many chariot horses did Solomon have, 40,000 (I Kings 4:26) or 4,000 (II Chron. 9:25)?I Kings 4:26 "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen."II Chron. 9:25 "And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen;"

Copyist error- as I said before there are several in the historical books particularly regarding numbers like these.

I know that some would come up with convoluted explanations that create more problems than they solve.(eg- in Kings they were actually counting horse legs not horses). I really don’t see the issue with a copyist error here and there. It doesn’t really matter how many horses and stalls Solomon had, but doesn’t 4000 horses and chariots seem more probable than 40,000? 40,000 horses would consume 600,000 pounds (300 tons) of food per day. If chariots were 6 ft wide, 40,000 lined up side by side would stretch over 45 miles. Whoa!

It's interesting how you jumped to that conclusion without looking for an explanation other than "It was a copyist error".

Here is the actual explanation:

"Read the verses carefully and you will see that there is no contradiction. They had chariot teams with ten horses and ten men per chariot in case you got a flat tire! If he had "four thousand stalls for horses and chariots" he would need forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots." (Borrowed from Kent Hovind)

Yeah but the explanation is ridiculous.

To you maybe.

The explanation seems plausible to me.

I've been hashing and looking around on this subject and man have I uncovered view and thoughts on the subject of inerrancy I really didn't know existed. I perhaps thought they existed outside of the church but not within the church. But because they exist should I automatically dismiss them? I've tried to take a look at some of them and it's pretty amazing but is that because they go against what I have been taught about the infallibility and inerrancy of scripture? Some of these views by very famous theologian s grind against my insides but it is good to have to take a a look again at one's basic beliefs and determine again if they are right or at least trying to be right.

1) What is inerrancy of the scriptures? Why is it or why should it be important to a Christian? What result good or bad can it have in their walk?

2) What is one's doctrine of inspiration? What does all scripture is given by "inspiration" of God mean? (II Timothy 3:16)

3)Where does one go for the answer?

4) If inerrancy and infallibility of the scriptures is true can its neglect have negative effects on the church at large? I'm personally still stumped a bit at the emergence of what appears to be a truly apostate church in the world. Does its emergence have anything to do with its view of scripture and its inspiration?

To shortly summarize what I have determined is that those who are against inerrancy believe to a degree that the Bible was "inspired" and written under this inspiration but still all men all prone to err and this they did in ways as they were used by God to write. So look for a inspired set of writings in scripture but don't look for INERRANCY and INFALLIBILITY. It just ain't so they say. So one's view of inspiration may influence how one really sees the scriptures. God inspired they say the writing but men prone to err did so in places as they wrote.

Also, one famous theologian that is a household name believed the the Bible contained the "word of God" and not the actual "words of God." Scriptures bear witness to revelation but don't really become the words of God until the Holy Spirit moves and enlightens us and brings us to salvation as seen in the word. Then it is in actuality the word of God.

Bottom line: How can a infallible God inspire men to produce somethings containing errors? The original manuscripts etc. are of course no longer with us but did the original "autographs" down to the jot and tittle contain any error of any kind since they were inspired by a God who is TRUTH and perfect cannot make mistakes? Can our view of this one way or the other effect our walk today?

I remain unconvinced that there are errors of any kind in the Bible.

"Therefore we have to resist and reject the 17th century doctrine of inspiration as false doctrine. . . . In it the Word of God could no longer be the Word of God and therefore it was no longer recognised as such. The Bible was now grounded upon itself apart from the mystery of Christ and the Holy Ghost. It became a "paper Pope," and unlike the living Pope in Rome it was wholly given up into the hands of its interpreters. It was no longer a free and spiritual force, but an instrument of human power. And in this form the Bible became so like the holy books of other religions, for which something similar had always been claimed, that the superiority of its claim could not be asserted in relation to them or to the many achievements of the human spirit generally. What product of human inventiveness does not ultimately rest on the same claim of infallibility? . . . In content the 17th century doctrine of inspiration asserted things which cannot be maintained in face of a serious reading and exposition of what the Bible itself says about itself, and in the face of an honest appreciation of the facts of its origin and tradition. Therefore the postulate on which 17th century man staked everything proved incapable of fulfillment. . . . that once the doctrine arose it was . . . a kind of theological bogeyman."

(Karl Barth (1886 1968) - From "Church Dogmatics" Volume 1.2 - "Doctrine of the Word of God")

A Question to Barth

"In this connection how does Dr. Barth harmonize his appeal to Scripture, as the objective Word of God, with his admission that Scripture is, indeed, sullied by errors, theological as well as historical or factual?"

Barth responds:

"The Bible has proved and will prove itself to be a true and fitting instrument to point man to God and his work and his words, to God who alone is infallible. Since the Bible is a human instrument and document, bound and conditioned by the temporal views of nature, of history, of ideas, of values, it to that extent is not sinless, like Jesus Christ himself, and thus not infallible, like God. No wonder that seen from the perspective of the worldviews and the concepts of other ages; the question may arise whether we have to conclude that the Bible is not solid. I should never say such a thing, but would admit rather the occurrence of certain, let us say, tensions, contradictions, and maybe if you prefer, "errors,” in its time-bound human statements." (END)

C.H. Dodd (1884-1973) critique of Plenary Verbal Inspiration in "The Authority of the Bible:"

"We have already used the term "inspiration". This concept has had so prominent a place in the traditional doctrine of the Scriptures that we must now examine it with some care. The authority of the Bible is in fact often treated as the simple correlate of its inspiration. The question "whether the Bible is inspired" figured largely in the controversies of the last generation. For us, it is difficult to give any precise meaning to the question, so vague and fluctuating is the usage of the word "inspiration" itself, and so uncertain its implications. The theory which is commonly described as that of "verbal inspiration" is fairly precise. It maintains that the entire corpus of Scripture consists of writings every word of which (presumably in the original autographs, for ever inaccessible to us) was directly "dictated" by the Deity, in a sense not applicable to any other known writings. They consequently convey absolute truth with no trace of error or relativity. What such a process of "dictation" might be, it is naturally impossible to say, since ex hypothesis no living man has experience of it, though some advocates of the theory have incautiously adduced as a parallel the phenomena of "control" in the practice of spiritualists. Any attempt to confront this theory of inspiration with the actual facts which meet us in the study of the biblical documents leads at once to such patent confusions and contradictions that it is unprofitable to discuss it."
(
(From C.H. Dodd's (1884-1973) critique of Plenary Verbal Inspiration in "The Authority of the Bible:")

doc: I never knew before that such game changing theological heavyweights maintained these type of views. There are more out there also. I'm not agreeing with them but just quoting them and wondering if their influence is still alive and well in the church. I suppose basically they are saying when God inspired the scriptures He really did not overcome the human limitations of the man he had chosen to pen the scriptures at the time.

Can such a view of inspiration and inerrancy be the cause of some of the major theological problems in the church today? It seems to be a subject worth examining again.

Thank you. Blessings.

"Can such a view of inspiration and inerrancy be the cause of some of the major theological problems in the church today?"

Absolutely. I feel sorry for people that attend most seminaries being taught this kind of theological rubbish. I wonder if men like Karl Barth have any experiential relationship with God or if it's all in their heads. (Some of his personal letters seem to suggest he was living in adultery.)

"The theory which is commonly described as that of "verbal inspiration" is fairly precise. It maintains that the entire corpus of Scripture consists of writings every word of which (presumably in the original autographs, for ever inaccessible to us) was directly "dictated" by the Deity, in a sense not applicable to any other known writings. They consequently convey absolute truth with no trace of error or relativity. What such a process of "dictation" might be, it is naturally impossible to say."

I have personally heard God's still, small voice in my heart (and I think this is normative for all christians) and He has told me things that have come to pass. I can't imagine what it would have been like when the Spirit of the Lord filled men like Isaiah, Ezekiel, Paul etc. and inspired them to write scripture.

"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." Proverbs 30:5,6

The dispute about verbal plenary inspiration does not apply to the original autographs (ie the piece of parchment that the authors originally wrote on).

I certainly believe these were error free.

The issue is whether the copies of these were always error free. Even conservative apologists like Matt Slick believe there are copying errors; however these are so few and pertain to such unimportant details (like Solomon’s horses and stalls) that for all practical purpose the copied manuscripts are inspired.

Under the leadership of R. C. Sproul and Geisler and others, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy was formulated by more than 200 evangelical leaders at a conference convened by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy and held in Chicago in October 1978. The statement was designed to defend the position of biblical inerrancy against a trend toward liberal conceptions of Scripture. These notable men and brethren saw a growing trend toward rejection of the doctrine of inerrancy and it concerned them as they believed it had been one of the essential doctrines of the Church from its inception.

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

Preface

The authority of Scripture is a key issue for the Christian Church in this and every age. Those who profess faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior are called to show the reality of their discipleship by humbly and faithfully obeying God's written Word. To stray from Scripture in faith or conduct is disloyalty to our Master. Recognition of the total truth and trustworthiness of Holy Scripture is essential to a full grasp and adequate confession of its authority.

The following Statement affirms this inerrancy of Scripture afresh, making clear our understanding of it and warning against its denial. We are persuaded that to deny it is to set aside the witness of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit and to refuse that submission to the claims of God's own Word which marks true Christian faith. We see it as our timely duty to make this affirmation in the face of current lapses from the truth of inerrancy among our fellow Christians and misunderstanding of this doctrine in the world at large.

This Statement consists of three parts: a Summary Statement, Articles of Affirmation and Denial, and an Exposition. It has been prepared in the course of a three-day consultation in Chicago. Those who have signed the Summary Statement and the Articles wish to affirm their own conviction as to the inerrancy of Scripture and to encourage and challenge one another and all Christians to growing appreciation and understanding of this doctrine. We acknowledge the limitations of a document prepared in a brief, intensive conference and do not propose that this Statement be given creedal weight. Yet we rejoice in the deepening of our own convictions through our discussions together, and we pray that the Statement we have signed may be used to the glory of our God toward a new reformation of the Church in its faith, life, and mission.

We offer this Statement in a spirit, not of contention, but of humility and love, which we purpose by God's grace to maintain in any future dialogue arising out of what we have said. We gladly acknowledge that many who deny the inerrancy of Scripture do not display the consequences of this denial in the rest of their belief and behavior, and we are conscious that we who confess this doctrine often deny it in life by failing to bring our thoughts and deeds, our traditions and habits, into true subjection to the divine Word.

We invite response to this statement from any who see reason to amend its affirmations about Scripture by the light of Scripture itself, under whose infallible authority we stand as we speak. We claim no personal infallibility for the witness we bear, and for any help which enables us to strengthen this testimony to God's Word we shall be grateful.

A Short Statement

1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God's witness to Himself.

2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms; obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.

3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.

4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.

5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.

Articles of Affirmation and Denial

Article I
We affirm that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God.
We deny that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church, tradition, or any other human source.

Article II
We affirm that the Scriptures are the supreme written norm by which God binds the conscience, and that the authority of the Church is subordinate to that of Scripture.
We deny that Church creeds, councils, or declarations have authority greater than or equal to the authority of the Bible.

Article III
We affirm that the written Word in its entirety is revelation given by God.
We deny that the Bible is merely a witness to revelation, or only becomes revelation in encounter, or depends on the responses of men for its validity.

Article IV
We affirm that God who made mankind in His image has used language as a means of revelation.
We deny that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted God's work of inspiration.

Article V
We affirm that God's revelation in the Holy Scriptures was progressive.
We deny that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it. We further deny that any normative revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament writings.

Article VI
We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration.
We deny that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without the parts, or of some parts but not the whole.

Article VII
We affirm that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us.
We deny that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind.

Article VIII
We affirm that God in His Work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared.
We deny that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities.

Article IX
We affirm that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write.
We deny that the finitude or fallenness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God's Word.

Article X
We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.
We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

Article XI
We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.
We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.

Article XII
We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.
We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

Article XIII
We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.
We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

Article XIV
We affirm the unity and internal consistency of Scripture.
We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved vitiate the truth claims of the Bible.

Article XV
We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy is grounded in the teaching of the Bible about inspiration.
We deny that Jesus' teaching about Scripture may be dismissed by appeals to accommodation or to any natural limitation of His humanity.

Article XVI
We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Church's faith throughout its history.
We deny that inerrancy is a doctrine invented by Scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism.

Article XVII
We affirm that the Holy Spirit bears witness to the Scriptures, assuring believers of the truthfulness of God's written Word.
We deny that this witness of the Holy Spirit operates in isolation from or against Scripture.

Article XVIII
We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatical-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.
We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship.

Article XIX
We affirm that a confession of the full authority, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith. We further affirm that such confession should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ.
We deny that such confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences, both to the individual and to the Church.

doc: Any comments, thoughts, quibbles on this? Did any Articles caught your attention more than others? Anything that might need rethinking in your opinion?

How important is this issue in your opinion? What is strenghtened if it is believed and acknowledged? What do you think the grave consequences can be if it is rejected?

SUPREMACY OF KJV?

The original books of the Greek New Testament no longer exist.

The KJV(NT) was developed from the Greek text called the Textus Receptus (or Received Text). The Textus Receptus was produced by Erasmus in the 16th century who obtained his text from a handful of LATE MIDDLE AGES Greek manuscripts (12th Century or later) which were the only manuscripts available to him then.

What PROOF AND EVIDENCE (no opinion please) is there that these LATE MIDDLE AGES Greek manuscripts on which the Textus Receptus is based and on which the KJV(NT) is based are superior and reliable and not error-riddled?

I bet God has been watching this thread, I wonder what he's thinking?

The mustard seed is not the smallest of all the seeds.

The sun does not go down.

Thoughts?

TEXTUS RECEPTUS - AGAINST THE DEFENSE

…………apostolic origins……

Comment:
Every copy of the Greek New Testament had "apostolic origin”. It was only in copying and re-copying that errors and discrepancies stealthily crept in. The manuscripts Erasmus used were late Middle Ages copies and were certainly not immune from copying errors.

………he argued that the first editors of the printed Greek New Testament intentionally selected the texts they did because of their superiority and disregarded other texts, which represented other text-types because of their inferiority.

Comment:
The selection criterion remains "of man” based on their own understanding and judgement and wisdom.

Regarding Erasmus, Nolan stated:
………With respect to Manuscripts, it is indisputable that he was acquainted with every variety which is known to us………

Comment:

The manuscripts Erasmus used were late Middle Ages manuscripts. Before the 19th century, not many manuscripts were available. There was, however, existing at that time, an old 4th century manuscript known as the Codex Vaticanus, which has been kept in the Vatican Library since the 15th century. Erasmus was acquainted with it but the Vaticanus text differs significantly from the Textus Receptus.

In 1859, another old 4th century manuscript known as the Sinaiticus was found in a monastery at Mt Sinai.

The Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus are the earliest complete copies of the New Testament.

Thousands of ancient Greek manuscripts have since been found over the last 100 years.

In the 20th century, manuscripts written on papyrus dating well before the 4th century were found. These earlier papyrus manuscripts have contributed to establish that the text of the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are to a large extent reliable.

Hills argues that the principle that God provides truth through scriptural revelation, necessarily also implies that God must ensure a preserved transmission of the correct revealed text, continuing into the Reformation era of biblical translation and printing. For Hills, the task of biblical scholarship is to identify the particular line of preserved transmission through which God is acting; a line which he sees in the specific succession of manuscript copying, textual correction and printing, which culminated in the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible. Hills argues that the principle of providentially preserved transmission guarantees that the printed Textus Receptus must be the closest text to the Greek autographs; and consequently he rejects readings in the Byzantine Majority Text where these are not maintained in the Textus Receptus. He goes so far as to conclude that Erasmus must have been providentially guided when he introduced Latin Vulgate readings into his Greek text……Hence the true text is found not only in the text of the majority of the New Testament manuscripts but more especially in the Textus Receptus and in faithful translations of the Textus Receptus, such as the King James Version. In short, the Textus Receptus represents the God-guided revision of the majority text.

Comment:

That is HIS OPINION.

This is MY OPINION:
God has allowed copyist errors because only those led by the Holy Spirit, and not by the venerated KJV (or any other esteemed translation), will know the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth. And it is NOT the most accurate written translation produced by exalted Bible scholars BUT the supreme Living Word in the mighty power of God’s Holy Spirit that is the True Bread from Heaven.

ADDITIONAL COMMENT:

The Bible has an internal self-checking capability. Scripture validates scripture. Truth is constantly being repeated within scripture. Truth lost in a particular passage may be recovered in another. The translation that is strongly supported by other scripture is a most reliable translation.

We should be seeking Jesus and NOT the most accurate translation. The Scribes had the best Hebrew text and still missed Jesus and were rejected.

/Is the mustard seed the smallest of all seeds?/

Matthew 13:31; Mark 4:30; and Luke 13:19

"The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field; and this is smaller than all other seeds; but when it is full grown, it is larger than the garden plants, and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches,” (Matt. 13:31; see also Mark 4:30; Luke 13:19).

No, the mustard seed is not the smallest of all seeds. Jesus was speaking proverbially. That is, he wasn't making a statement of absolute fact but using a proverbial style of communication.

There are different kinds of mustard trees in Israel and the mustard seed was the smallest of all the seeds known there and used by those in Israel. Also, notice that Jesus says that when it is full grown it is larger than the garden plants and becomes a tree so that the birds nest in it. There were many gardens in Israel with many types of plants, many of which were larger than the mustard plant. The olive tree for example, can grow to 20 feet or more. The mustard tree known as Salvadora persica has extremely small seeds and grows into a small bush. Brassica nigra is a mustard plant that grows to about 8 to 10 feet when mature and is probably the one Jesus was using for his illustration. Jesus would have known that it wasn't the largest of garden plants because of the prevalence of larger plants. Therefore, he was not making a botanical statement of fact. Instead, he was drawing attention to the comparison of the "smallest" to the "largest" and using it to illustrate how the Kingdom of heaven will expand in the world from a very small beginning to a huge presence.

Also, Jesus used the mustard seed elsewhere in a proverbial sense.

"And He said to them, "Because of the littleness of your faith; for truly I say to you, if you have faith as a mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it shall move; and nothing shall be impossible to you," (Matt. 17:20; see also Luke 17:6).

So, we see that Jesus used the mustard seed in illustrations in the style of proverbs to illustrate a point and that he was not speaking in a scientifically accurate sense. (CARM.org)

/The sun does not go down./

Article XIII
We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.
We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, OBSERVATIONAL DESCRIPTIONS OF NATURE, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

I found this delightful 43 minute video of R. C. Sproul defending inerrancy. He sure was a champion of the scriptures and them being God breathed inspired and therefore inerrant. It's really fascinating how he makes his case here.

Ultimately, Sproul ties inerrancy to the high view of scripture that Jesus had and taught. Also, he makes the case that Jesus didn't present Himself as someone who was going to talk about truth or carried the truth and was going to teach it but that Jesus presented Himself as the TRUTH who spoke only words from the TRUE God. So if Jesus knowingly or unknowingly taught a falsehood then He would be guilty of a sin and could not be our Savior. Therefore the inerrancy of scripture can be tied to the SINLESSNESS of Jesus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n_cWZZzzec.

The happiest man in the world is a young preacher, before he's met to many Bible scholars ~ Vance Havner.

I suppose we could all park and remain babes in our understanding all our Christian lives. I mean one's understanding and view of the inspiratipn of scripture. How could that be important? Right?

I think you missed Brother Vance’s message. He’s talking about the confusion one might get after he’s met to many know it all’s, this thread is a perfect example of what he was talking about.

How does trying to know the details of what one believes and why they believe it make one a "know it all?" Some of the church would rather have and practice a studied indifference to some of the more important foundations and doctrines that have made up the history of the church. Meanwhile, Dr. Sproul and others don't strike me as know it alls. They love their faith and have tried to make some sense out of it. I say good for them.

David, there's 5 or 6 here that just take over these forums with their debates, that "maybe" some newcomers or new in Christ, might like to be involved. These debates, get so technical, most here can't even get involved, we're not all Bible scholars. Seems a little selfish to me, but you carry on with these debates, maybe someday you will be able to tell us all where God come from, or what he's about to do next. Hopefully your spending most of your time seeking God, and not trying to figure out every single word of his word, or find error in it.

Biblical inerrancy is the belief that the Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching"; or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact", and we want to debate this? This looks really good to someone that just come to Christ, Christians trying to debate to find error in his word? Carry on soldier....

Who is looking for error in the word? I just innocently asked a few questions to begin with because I have recently reviewed the subject and found that many famous names in the church believe there were errors in the original writings. Plus I'm a bit baffled by the emergence of a truly apostate church during these times and am wondering if their view of scripture and its inspiration can be connected to their obvious departure from the faith.I was curious as to how others saw this so I voiced some questions and thoughts about it.

/Seems a little selfish to me, but you carry on with these debates, maybe someday you will be able to tell us all where God come from, or what he's about to do next. Hopefully your spending most of your time seeking God, and not trying to figure out every single word of his word, or find error in it./

That's just a sarcastic projection of some sort coming from you and is without foundation. I guess some type of nerve may have been touched in you for some reason. I don't know what it is but I won't concern myself with it as I have affirmed the inerrancy of scripture as originally written along with its divine inspiration. There are likely many who would respond affirmatively when asked about their belief in the inerrancy of scripture but may not know entirely why they should believe in it. I'm interested in the why also. If that's a fault then there's nothing I can say.

Thank you.

I think that we can all agree that Scripture is inerrant -- God-breathed and perfectly inspired. After all, Jesus is the Word of God.

The problem, of course, comes with translations.

Wycliffe states that all or parts of the Bible have been translated into over 3,350 languages. Within each of those languages have been many different attempts at translation. There have been more than 450 different English translations over the last 700 years.

Is there an inerrant translation of the Bible? This is difficult because each translation is the work of imperfect men. Unfortunately, we do not have the original texts -- written by the apostles' and prophets' own hands. Our earliest Greek manuscripts are still copies.

The great news is that flaws in translation (or apparent flaws) are few in number and really do not change the essence of the text.

A few years ago, a missionary on SermonIndex asked for volunteers to translate something into Spanish. I asked my wife and her sister. They both hold post-graduate degrees and engaged in translating the same document. Yet, there were notable differences in phrasing, grammar and even phonics. Yet, in essence, they were saying the same thing in slightly different ways.

When it comes to the many, MANY arguments and debates over the years over Bible translations, versions, etc., I tend to remember that the Bible (as a whole) did not exist for many centuries after our Lord's resurrection. There were no Bible bookstores to pick up a freshly-printed Bible.

What did believers in 400 A.D. do? How did they walk with the Lord without a Bible on their shelf? Most of them went to meet with other believers and heard the Word of God as it was read to them. This was referred to as "communal reading."

Today, we have access to literally thousands in different languages at the click of a mouse. Yet, this isn't true of many people in third world nations. There are places in the world where there are no Bibles. There are places where people would be killed if they had one or gave one away.

I think that we should obviously do our due diligence when studying these matters. However, I also fear that we miss the mark when it comes to the inerrancy of God's Word. I think that the biggest problem isn't trying to figure out which version, translation or sets of source texts is the most accurate -- but in what we do with what is indisputable truth regardless of the translation.

I think back to the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30). We have been given more today than most believers before us. Most of us don't suffer for our faith. We have Bibles available at a click of a button. We have concordances, Bible dictionaries, books, commentary, worship music, etc. What are we doing with this "talent?"

For me, that is the most pressing issue in my own life. Do I spend more time debating the Word than spreading it?

God help me to do more with what He has given me!

I think those are good and wise comments chris. Thank you for them.

Chris Said: For me, that is the most pressing issue in my own life. Do I spend more time debating the Word than spreading it?

God help me to do more with what He has given me!

Thanks for your post Chris, I agree 100%. SI should have a sticky note at the top of this forum with your quote above, it was perfect, and perfect timing.

Thanks again Chris. I wanted to add a bit more to your comments when I made my last post but was a bit pressed for time.

Your sharing about those translation efforts you asked your family to undertake and the differences between the two was insightful in my opinion.

You also wrote,

/I think that we should obviously do our due diligence when studying these matters. However, I also fear that we miss the mark when it comes to the inerrancy of God's Word. I think that the biggest problem isn't trying to figure out which version, translation or sets of source texts is the most accurate -- but in what we do with what is indisputable truth regardless of the translation.

I think back to the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30). We have been given more today than most believers before us. Most of us don't suffer for our faith. We have Bibles available at a click of a button. We have concordances, Bible dictionaries, books, commentary, worship music, etc. What are we doing with this "talent?"/

In particular,

/but in what we do with what is indisputable truth regardless of the translation./

and,

/We have Bibles available at a click of a button. We have concordances, Bible dictionaries, books, commentary, worship music, etc. What are we doing with this "talent?"/

One good reminder I have tried to take away from your comments might be expressed by the following someone wrote,

"Discussion of inerrancy is merely an academic exercise unless it concerned the Christian on the level of growth in God. But this is precisely what it does. Confession to the full authority and inerrancy of Scripture should lead us to increasing conformity to the image of Christ, which is the God-ordained goal of every Christian. A strong belief in the authority of Scripture should, when properly implemented, lead a person to a greater degree of conformity to that Word he espouses as true."

That isn't preaching at you but more myself than anyone. Thanks again bro.

//Confession to the full authority and inerrancy of Scripture should lead us to increasing conformity to the image of Christ, which is the God-ordained goal of every Christian. A strong belief in the authority of Scripture should, when properly implemented, lead a person to a greater degree of conformity to that Word he espouses as true."//

There is a slight but important distinction between inerrancy and authority of scripture. Just because the scriptures we have today likely have minor copyist errors, it does not undermine the AUTHORITY or even the confidence of scripture.

Today in my daily Bible reading I was in I Samuel 13, and came across this verse:

"Then the Philistines gathered together to fight with Israel, thirty thousand chariots and six thousand horsemen"

The 30,000 number struck me as odd; I did some quick checking and found that chariots were around 4.6 ft wide, which when multiplied out by 30,000 chariots and converted to miles comes to 26.5 miles of chariots if they were side by side.

Of course other versions than the NKJV read **3000** chariots which makes a lot more sense- to me at least.

So while the NKJV may have a copyist error in the number (i.e. it's not inerrant) this has nothing to do with the fact that scripture is the final authority regarding the truths it teaches. For example, in that same chapter, Saul was disobedient for not following Samuel's instruction to wait for him to offer the sacrifice. It seemed pragmatic for Saul to do so- Samuel was late, the enemy was set to attack, Saul's men were deserting, etc. However the truth is that obedience to God always trumps pragmatism.

Then, there are differences in the interpretation and understanding of scripture.

For example, Todd wrote:

For example, in that same chapter, Saul was disobedient for not following Samuel's instruction to wait for him to offer the sacrifice. It seemed pragmatic for Saul to do so- Samuel was late, the enemy was set to attack, Saul's men were deserting, etc. However the truth is that obedience to God always trumps pragmatism.

What exactly was Saul’s disobedience? Or, what really is the obedience that is vitally needed for our salvation and sanctification and glorification?

(Edited to correct error)

Confession to the full authority and inerrancy of Scripture should lead us to increasing conformity to the image of Christ, which is the God-ordained goal of every Christian. A strong belief in the authority of Scripture should, when properly implemented, lead a person to a greater degree of conformity to that Word he espouses as true.

Scripture tells of a different way:

2 Cor. 3:18 -- But we all, with unveiled face beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.

Not only are there copyist errors. There are also translation errors.

For example, both the KJV and Young’s Literal Translation (YLT) were based on the Textus Receptus.

KJV translates Heb. 1:2 as:

"Hath in these last days spoken unto us *** BY *** his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;”

YLT translates the same verse as:

"in these last days did speak to us *** IN *** a Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He did make the ages;”

/Scripture tells of a different way:/

"SCRIPTURE tells of..."

That is what strikes me.

Please explain?

God Himself will lead us into all Truth.

The Lord Jesus says:

John 16:13-15 ”“
But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.
He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.
All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.

The Truth the Holy Spirit leads us to is JESUS HIMSELF.

JESUS HIMSELF is the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE (John 14:6).

JESUS HIMSELF is the yardstick for all Divine Truth

1 Cor. 2:9-11 ”“
but just as it is written,
"THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD, AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN, ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM."
For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.
For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.

ADD:
====

"………great, good, and divine is he, who is always teaching within you, ever standing and knocking at the door of your heart, with the words of eternal life.

"You perhaps may ask, why I go on writing books myself, if there is but one true, and divine teacher? I answer, though there is but one bridegroom, that can furnish the blessing of the marriage feast, yet his servants are sent out to invite the guests. This is the unalterable difference between Christ's teaching, and the teaching of those, who only publish the glad tidings of him. They are not the bridegroom, and therefore have not the bridegroom's voice. They are not the light, but only sent to bear witness of it. And as the Baptist said, "He must increase, but I must decrease"; so every faithful teacher saith of his doctrine, it must decrease, and end, as soon as it has led to the true teacher.

"All that I have written for near thirty years, has been only to show, that we have no master but Christ, nor can have any living divine knowledge, but from his holy nature born and revealed in us.”

----- William Law, 1753

/God Himself will lead us into all Truth.

The Lord Jesus says:

John 16:13-15 ”“
But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.
He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.
All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.

The Truth the Holy Spirit leads us to is JESUS HIMSELF.

JESUS HIMSELF is the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE (John 14:6).

JESUS HIMSELF is the yardstick for all Divine Truth

1 Cor. 2:9-11 ”“
but just as it is written,
"THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD, AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN, ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM."
For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.
For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God./

I assume you believe all those things because of what you have read and believed in SCRIPTURE. What have you stated that scripture does not state?

Creeds and confessions and statements are not part of or equal to the authority of scripture but committed and concerned brethren did come together and try and address some of the issues attached to and surrounding the belief in inerrancy and released their Chicago Statement part of which follows.

Article XVII Witness of the Spirit
We affirm that the Holy Spirit bears witness to the Scriptures, assuring believers of the truthfulness of God's written Word.
We deny that this witness of the Holy Spirit operates in isolation from or against Scripture.

"Article XVII attests to the doctrine of the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. That is to say, our personal conviction of the truth of Scripture rests not on the external evidences to the Scriptures truthfulness in and of themselves, but those evidences are confirmed in our hearts by the special work of God the Holy Spirit. The Spirit bears witness to our human spirit that the Scriptures are indeed the Word of God."

"The denial guards against substituting a reliance upon the immediate guidance of the Holy Spirit for the content of Scripture itself. The thought behind the denial is that the Holy Spirit normally works in conjunction with the Scripture and speaks to us through the Scripture, not against the Scripture or apart from the Scripture. Word and Spirit are to be viewed together. Word bearing witness to the Spirit and being the means by which we test the spirits to see if they be of God (I John 4:1)and the Spirit working within our hearts to confirm the Word of God to ourselves. Thus, there is reciprocity between Word and Spirit, and they are never to be set over against each other."(END)

I find that to be sound wisdom and advice.

Thank you.

Jade wrote: What exactly was Saul’s disobedience?

Don’t want to get off topic but to quickly answer your question, Saul was instructed by Samuel to wait until he arrived and he (Samuel) would offer the sacrifice. Saul seemed to have a good excuse but only in our eyes, not God’s.

I assume you believe all those things because of what you have read and believed in SCRIPTURE. What have you stated that scripture does not state?

Definitely. I do not reject scripture.

But, undeniably ”“ copyist, translation and other human errors exist in our present-day bibles.

And, certainly! The Holy Spirit is fully able to lead us out of all errors into all truth.

The Spirit bears witness to our human spirit that the Scriptures are indeed the Word of God.

The Spirit bears witness of Christ.

John 15:23 ”“
When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me

1 John 5:9-12 ”“
If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for the testimony of God is this, that He has testified concerning His Son.
The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son.
And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.
He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.

/Definitely. I do not reject scripture.

But, undeniably ”“ copyist, translation and other human errors exist in our present-day bibles.

And, certainly! The Holy Spirit is fully able to lead us out of all errors into all truth./

Yet these errors in copying and translation are miniscule in comparison to what has been copied and translated correctly. There is no overwhelming amount of errors so as to render the Scriptures unreliable.

Quoting from others,

"Since we do not have the original manuscripts, some have urged that an appeal to the lost originals renders the whole case for the inspiration of the Scripture irrelevant. To reason in this manner is to do despite to the very serious work that has been done in the field of textual criticism. Textual criticism is the science which seeks to reconstruct an original text by a careful analysis and evaluation of the manuscripts we presently possess. This task has to be accomplished with respect to all documents from antiquity which have reached us through manuscript copies. The Old and New Testament Scriptures are probably those which have reached us with the most extensive and reliable attestation. FOR MORE THAN NINETY-NINE PERCENT OF THE CASES (emphasis mine), the original text can be reconstructed to a practical certainty. EVEN IN THE FEW CASES WHERE PERPLEXITY REMAINS (emphasis mine), this does not impinge on the meaning of Scripture to the point of clouding a tenet of the faith or a mandate of life. Thus, in the Bible as we have it 9and as it is conveyed to us through faithful translations), we do have for practical purposes the very word of God, inasmuch as the transcripts do convey to us the complete vital truth of the originals"

"In those minuscule segments of existing manuscripts where textual criticism has not been able to ascertain with absolute certainty what the original reading was, NO ESSENTIAL ARTICLE OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH IS AFFECTED."

/The Spirit bears witness of Christ.

John 15:23 ”“
When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me

1 John 5:9-12 ”“
If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for the testimony of God is this, that He has testified concerning His Son.
The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son.
And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.
He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life./

Yes the Holy Spirit bears witness of Christ. But I don't believe it is apart from what the Holy Spirit inspired to be recorded in Scripture concerning Christ.

"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; (John 5:39)

The Spirit and the Word work together. I believe we can rejoice in this along with the fact that our translations are for the most part highly reliable versions that don't pour out large bits of error. It's a PTL!

Far from saying that the Bible is unreliable, brother David, I am saying that the reliability of the Bible is UNBREAKABLE because God has given us the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth.

How do we know that we are led by the Holy Spirit and not other spirits? We know when we are led to Christ (John 16:13-15; John 6:37).

How do we know that we have ALL Truth? We know when Jesus is our ALL because Jesus alone is Truth.

Paul declared, so simply and straight to the point, and so do I:

1 Cor. 2:2,5 ”“
For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified………that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.

Blessings

Also, David, you said:

The Spirit and the Word work together. I believe we can rejoice in this along with the fact that our translations are for the most part highly reliable versions that don't pour out large bits of error. It's a PTL!

/Far from saying that the Bible is unreliable, brother David, I am saying that the reliability of the Bible is UNBREAKABLE because God has given us the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth./

A big AMEN to that!

/How do we know that we are led by the Holy Spirit and not other spirits? We know when we are led to Christ (John 16:13-15; John 6:37)./

And you use two Scriptures to make your point. The Spirit and the Word work together. One can be led closer to Christ through what they read about Him in the Word.

/Paul declared, so simply and straight to the point, and so do I:

1 Cor. 2:2,5 ”“
For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified………that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God./

And a big Amen to that! I was allowed to lead a group in the church here not so long ago and we studied the atonement in as many of its aspects as we could. "For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified..." is in my opinion the key to the revival the Church is seeking.

Blessings.

/I ask: Why then is the NIV, for example, much maligned?/

I'm not that familiar with the issues surrounding the NIV. I've never used it but one is under no obligation to use the NIV if they think using another would be more useful and edifying. Several men in our men's group at church use different translations and none of these men are steeped in error in any way. No problem.

Thanks.

I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought.
1 Corinthians 1:10

Skepticism and Criticism

Since the Renaissance, and more particularly since the Enlightenment, worldviews have been developed which involve skepticism about basic Christian tenets. Such are the agnosticism which denies that God is knowable, the rationalism which denies that He is incomprehensible, the idealism which denies He is transcendent, and the existentialism which denies rationality in His relationships with us. When these un- and antibilical principles seep into men's theologies at a presuppositional level, as today they frequently do, faithful interpretation of Holy Scripture becomes impossible.

Transmission and Translation

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 transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that the Hebrew and Greek texts 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.

Similarly, no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the "autogrqapha." Yet the verdict of linguistic science is that English-speaking Christians, at least, are exceedingly well served in these days with a host of excellent translations and have no cause for hesitating to conclude that the true word of God is within their reach. Indeed, in view of frequent repetition in Scripture of the main matters in which it deals and also of the Holy Spirit's constant witness to and through the Word, no serious translation of Holy Scripture will destroy its meaning so as to make its reader "wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (II Timothy 3:15)

Inerrancy and Authority

In our affirmation of the authority of Scripture as involving its total truth, we are consciously standing with Christ and His apostles, indeed with the whole Bible and with the main stream of church history from the first days until very recently. We are concerned at the casual, inadvertent, and seemingly thoughtless way in which a belief of such far-reaching importance has been given up by many in our day.

We are conscious too, that great and grave confusion results from ceasing to maintain the total truth of the Bible whose authority one professes to acknowledge. The result of taking this step is that the Bible which God gave loses its authority, and what has authority instead is a Bible reduced in content according to the demands of one's critical reasonings and in principle reducible further once one has started. This means that at bottom independent reason now has its authority, as opposed to Scriptural teaching. If this is not seen and if for time being basic evangelical doctrines are still held, persons denying the full truth of Scripture may claim an evangelical identity while methodologically they have moved away from the evangelical principle of knowledge to an unstable subjectivism, and will find it hard to not move further.

We affirm that what Scripture says, God says. May He be glorified. Amen and amen.

(R. C. Sproul - from "Explaining Inerrancy" - p72-74 - copyright 1980)

doc: I was at ease before in believing the words in the Bible were really God's words. But recently having looked into the issue of inerrancy again, I am now at ease more than I have ever been. Christ Himself is of greatest value to the Christian but we have so great a salvation in that it includes His trustworthy word! I just wanted to throw a little encouragement and edification your way. What you read is the real deal.

Thank you.

When comparing manuscripts of scripture to other manuscripts from history- such as for Classical Greek writings- the number and quality for scripture is far far superior. There really is no comparison.

And I certainly agree with RC that a minor copyist error does not undermine the authority or reliability of scripture.

Some people might say "but if you concede there is a copyist error then you are opening the door for saying none of it is reliable.”

I personally think that is a foolish and unnecessary position.

I can agree TMK. This is why my recent look into the subject one more time has encouraged me and set me even more at ease regarding the reliability of Scripture.

Thanks.