ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

What Is Inerrant And Inspired

Challenge to all King James Version Onlyists: Please define 'inerrant' and 'inspired' and tell us if you believe any specific book or document we have access to is inerrant, and why. [Finding errors (real or not) in whatever isn't your exact copy of KJV says nothing about why it's any different.]

Join Our Christian Penpals and Take The Wisdom Bible Quiz
 ---danie9374 on 6/26/06
     Helpful Blog Vote (13)

Reply to this BlogPost a New Blog

compare the books in the Bible to each other and see how they match in what is written. For example, in Genesis we read, God is the Creator, now go to another book in the Bible to compare and keep the content in context, you will also find the same thing written, God is the Creator. Thus the books are true, for they all have the same content, inspite of the books being penned over generations at different places and by different people not personally knowing each other nor each others firsthand writings.
---Eloy on 2/16/08

It makes little difference what virsion you have. What does make a difference is how it got into the New Testament in the first place. Read "THE SPIRIT OF THE CHURCH" by Neufeld and Sterling, and "JAMES, THE BROTHER OF JESUS" for heavy duty study into what really happened. You will be totally surprised and probably angry with what you find.
---Dr._Rich on 2/15/08

Since all versions of the bible can't be trusted, including the KJV which was written for the Jews, should we not then use the Book of Mormon which was written in American for the Americans? It appears that it is as inerrant and inspried as any bible. So why argue about which bible to use, and just use the book of Mormon?
---Rev_Herb on 2/15/08

Textual criticism does not invalidate inerrancy, but inerrancy validates textual criticism.

While it is true that we do not have the original manuscripts of Scripture, this does not invalidate the doctrine of inerrancy; it simply makes textual criticism all the more important. Through the science of textual criticism we learn that the Scriptures are preserved with 95 percent accuracy and that we have access to the originals through diligent study and research.
---JohnE on 5/1/07

notlaw99: After using amazon's 'search the book' feature on the 3rd edition of Metzger's book for the words 'bribe/d' and coming up with nothing, plus never hearing back from you, I've reached the point where I think you probably misunderstood something you read. (BTW, you typed the ISBN# wrong; it's actually: 0195072979) I'm still open to the possibility of new evidence, but advise everyone to be more careful about what may only be an opinion vs. the facts.
---danie9374 on 7/10/06

Jack, you are the one who said the Holy Bible wasn't inspired----not me. Prove it.
---shira on 7/9/06


From what sources do you get these ideas: yahuweh (SPELLING?) and PALEO HEBREW? (Never heard of that)

It does not square with what I learned, and what I have read.
---John_T on 7/5/06

notlaw99: First, I apologize for missing THE MEANING of your last statement (to look in Metzger's book), but I guess the reason I did, is that I already have his book (2nd edition) and have read it from cover to cover, but there's nothing about a 'bribe' to Erasmus in it! So, please quote his comment WITH his source (or message me on it).
---danie9374 on 7/3/06

innerancy joke! only innerant scriptures are original Hebrew!!all other versions corrupt! they removed true names of Fatherand Son over 10,000 times!! REPLACED THEM WITH FALSE NAMES AND TITLES! research is totally flawed because using already corrupted sources!! over 60 GREEK DEITIES NAMES USED AS WORDS eg. hades, phobos, iesous,
nike etc. etc. pointless to argue authors or so called experts!! if you want real truth go to yahuweh's PALEO HEBREW. astounding revelations there!!
---dave on 7/3/06

notlaw99: I think the moderator removed your source(s), sorry for not asking you to message me privately with any Net links! I'm well aware of why Froben (the publisher) contracted Erasmus to write the 1st edition, and 'pressue' he got as a Roman Catholic priest to conform his Greek text to the Latin Vulgate; but still want to see docs. for his being 'bribed' as you said, so PLEASE send me a message at 'danie9374'.
---danie9374 on 7/3/06

Inerrant? Man is not inerrant. He may be inspired at times. Let the KJVO people explain 2 Cron. 36:9 and tell us why it says Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign and in 2 Kings 24:8 it says he was eighteen. It's the same Hebrew word in both places but they translated it to eight in one place and eighteen in the other.
---john on 7/3/06

danie9374, Source documentation of information previously provided in this blog topic.

There were critics of the first edition whom wanted the text to reflect specific theological prospectives Erasmus was happy to accommodate them for the proper monetary remuneration in the second through the fourth printings. The whole reason for first edition was to beat the Spanish Polyglot to press.
---notlaw99 on 7/3/06

\2\ And 4) We know none of his mss. even had the book of Revelation, because he wrote a friend asking to borrow his; which he did. But that ms. was missing the last page, so Erasmus 'back-translated' from the Latin Vulgate; at times with his own made-up Greek words. I'll have more to say on such facts later.
---danie9374 on 7/3/06

Moderator: Have you read about the actual historical facts of Textus Receptus, or just other's opinions about it? For starters, it was: 1) Compiled by Erasmus (b.1469-d.1536) in 1515; 1st ed. March, 1516. 2) We're fairly certain which Greek mss. he used (only 2 for the 1st ed.) from letters he wrote; even his handwriting in the margins of the Greek mss. (where he made corrections for the printer!). 3) He did this work hastily and said so himself later on.
---danie9374 on 7/3/06

notlaw99: Although Erasmus didn't do this work for free (nor was he funded by the RCC in this endeavor), I've never heard of any "bribes to change the text" as you wrote! He was already being paid quite well by the publisher for his work. What documentation do you have for this claim? His famous change to 1 John 5:7,8 seems to have been due more to 'pressure' from the RCC (or an ill-conceived promise he made). When was he ever 'bribed'?
---danie9374 on 7/3/06

Metzger wrote:Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, The Bible in Translation: Ancient and English Versions, Oxford Companion to the Bible
All are MAJOR Evangelical works.

Mods are correct about MOST of Princeton. He is the exception.

EVERY KJVO person here should get& READ the books, they are cheap on Amazon
---John_T on 7/1/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Arthritis

Moderator: I can document my information in my first post of 6/30/06. Source: Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament: It's Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration 3rd Ed. ISBN 0-19-507297-7 pages 95 - 118

Dr. Metzger (George L. Collord) was on the editorial committee of the United Bible Society Greek Test 4th ed and he wrote the Greek commentary on UBS4. Professor Emeritus New Testament Language & Literature at Princeton Theological Seminary. And the author of 30+ other works.

Moderator - I am not familar with Dr. Metzger. However, most Princeton Theological professors are extremely liberal, therefore his statement may be highly dubious.
---notlaw99 on 6/30/06

Most of the errors in the New Testament of the KJV can be attributed to the use of Textus Receptus as the Greek source text. The editor Desiderius Erasmus used damaged manuscripts and instead of using other Greek manuscripts to to fill in damaged portions he just translated from the Latin Vulgate. Between the first and fourth printing he took bribes to change the text, deleting some things and adding other. If your source text has errors, left uncorrected your target language product is corrupt.

Moderator - Textus Receptus was the correct source. Your history is backwards.
---notlaw99 on 6/30/06

As to Jack's comment about the 'sackbut' in the book of Daniel, he's correct. That's similar to the many paraphrases found in some Bibles today, since the sackbut wasn't even invented until the Middle Ages in Europe and was like a simple trombone. But they got it wrong! The instrument in DANIEL was similar to a lyre, dulcimer or trigon; not a metal or brass instrument at all, so this is definitely a translation error!
---danie9374 on 6/30/06

As I already said below, Jack's comments on 'bats' and 'rabbits' pertain to the Authority of Scripture in general; not just errors in any translation! EVERYONE should read my posts to Jack in blog: Can We Believe the Whole Bible as 'Daniel 10/19/05'. There's a huge diff. between the facts of Scripture (you can trust what God wrote) and copyist, translation or 'typo' errors.
---danie9374 on 6/30/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Asthma

Shira, the burden of proof rests with you to demonstrate that the KJV IS inspired.

Is the KJV inspired when it said that bats are birds, rabbits chew cud, and the Babylonians played the sackbut (a primitive trombone that hadn't been invented for centuries yet)?

If it is inspired, I would expect it to be inerrant, yet there are THREE factual errors right there.
---Jack on 6/27/06

ONLY THE (nonextant) AUTOGRAPHA is inerrant.

EVERY OTHER MANUSCRIPT is an inexact copy, copied as accurately as possible by fallable humans.

What is so hard about that to understand?
---John_T on 6/27/06

Jack, you show me why the King James bible is "not" divinly inspired.
---shira on 6/27/06

told them it was so. But that's what cults do when there's no Biblical support for their peculiar beliefs. What happens then? People are called names, told they can't be Christians unless they believe ONLY KJV is God's Word! I could say the same thing of any version; where in the Bible does it tell you which one is better than all the others? If anything, there's BIBLICAL support for using more than one version, since Jesus read from both Hebrew texts and the Greek translation of Hebrew Scripture.
---danie9374 on 6/26/06

Send a Free Humor Ecard

true, what did the Spirit guide Ruth's author to write? Only one can be inerrant! That alone should be sufficient to answer those who think the KJV Translators were somehow 'inspired by God' to make a perfect bible translation. For now they must believe editors, such as Blayney in 1769, of differing KJV editions were also 'inspired' in their choices! How do they 'KNOW for sure' what they have today doesn't need more editing? They claim the Spirit (who also lives inside Non-KJVO Christians),... [cont.]
---danie9374 on 6/26/06

(I can show online pictures if message me). The other has "she...", so which is the inerrant reading? The Hebrew Masoretic Text has 'he,' but most other mss. (Vulgate, etc.) have 'she...' (as do modern KJVs). In a sort of ironic twist related to all such questions, the original hand-written 'master copy' of the KJV Translators was destroyed. Two (or more?) different 1st editions exist. Are we to believe perhaps that both 'he' and 'she' went to the city? Even if that were... [cont.]
---danie9374 on 6/26/06

I'll attempt to point out some facts that might mean something to those who merely read this blog without posting: In 1611, there were at least two different editions printed. One of them has "he went into the citie" at Ruth 3:15; [cont.]
---danie9374 on 6/26/06

Jack: I'd prefer you didn't 'cloud the issue' here by introducing questions which have no real bearing on just the KJVO issue. I also believe in the authority of God's Word, and already answered your 'trick questions' here: on '10/19/05' (Daniel).
---danie9374 on 6/26/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Cholesterol

Shira, well, at least you put forth some effort to give the answers: 1) Correct. "God-breathed" is the best way to define 'inspiration' in the Bible. The words written in Scripture are theo (God) - pneustos (breathed); not their human authors. 2) Likewise, 'inerrant' should mean totally free of any kind of error! Not 99.9%, but 100% pure. 3) However, you never told us why you believe 'some KJV' (assuming you mean the one you read) is inerrant! I'll return to this shortly.
---danie9374 on 6/26/06

He who stands for nothing will fall for anything.
That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
---Rev_Herb on 6/26/06

I count it all blessing to defend the KJV bible. To many times something new comes along and we want to jump on the ban wagon.

I use to be a sin for a woman to show her ankles but now they wear dresses so short they show everything and that is ok.

We use to sing about the blood, but many religions has removed the songs that mention the blood from there song books.
---Rev_Herb on 6/26/06

Shira, if the errors in other versions are so many, it shouldn't be hard for you to mention a few of them on these blogs.

And WHERE is it promised that the KJV or any other translation would be divinely inspired?
---Jack on 6/26/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Lasik Surgery

You say the KJV has no errors.

Does this include being inerrant when it says that bats are birds? (Leviticus 11:19) Or where it says hares chew cud, which they don't? (Leviticus 11:6)

How about the mention of the sackbut (a primitive trombone) in Daniel 3, which hadn't been invented for several centuries yet?
---Jack on 6/26/06

If the KJV is the only correct Bible then I feel sorry for all the rest of the people in the world and through the centuries who don't/didn't read English and are/were being taught lies. And all those poor folks before the KJV. Boy, we are so lucky to be English-speaking - guess we're the only ones with truth. (Sorry, I'm a little sarcastic - this KJV argument has become inane!)
---marya4598 on 6/26/06

Herb you state that KJV was written for the Jews. So would that have been for the Jews who lived in the countries of the world that spoke Shakespearean English only then? They would have had great difficulty understanding it if they spoke any other language. I had always thought that it was written for English speaking people who could not understand Latin.
---emg on 6/26/06


EVerything else is a copy of the original, and since no Xeroxes existed then, there are therefore SCRIBAL VARIANCES.

None of those cause ANY "errors" that can not be easilly explained using a Critical Apparatus
---John_T on 6/26/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Bullion

I am a King James onlyist and inerrant means just that, it does not have any errors and inspired means God Breathed. We have been thru this before. I "challenge" you to put King James in your search enjine and you can see for yourself the differences. It is too much and too long for this blog.
---shira on 6/26/06

Show me the errors in the KJV and I will show you, you don't know what you are talking about.
---Rev_Herb on 6/26/06

I have read or tried to read other versions of the bible and it was like reading the Book of Mormon. The KJV really spoke to me spiritually where the others were like reading a novel. The KJV is alive and is a spiritual bible which speaks to the spirit. The others speak to the mind. You have to be spiritual to love the KJV. Another bible, another Jesus.
---Rev_Herb on 6/26/06

Copyright© 2017 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.