Elijah John wrote:But grant that for the sake of argument. Would the occasional flaw nullify the Bible’s authority? Why should, or why would that be so?
Yes, this is what this thread is about. Seems like people still want to discuss if the Bible has errors in it.
I think it’s safe to acknowledge that any existing copy of the Bible, whether it is a manuscript or a translation can have errors in it. If there’s anyone who is a proponent of Biblical inerrancy, it would be Norman Geisler. Even he acknowledges this fact.
Genuine mistakes have been found-in copies of Bible text made hundreds of years after the autographs. God only uttered the original text of Scripture, not the copies. Therefore, only the original text is without error. Inspiration does not guarantee that every copy is without error, especially in copies made from copies made from copies made from copies. For example, the King James Version (KJV) of 2 Kings 8:26 gives the age of King Ahaziah as 22, whereas 2 Chronicles 22:2 says 42. The later number cannot be correct, or he would have been older than his father. This is obviously a copyist error, but it does not alter the inerrancy of the original.
https://normangeisler.com/are-there-any … the-bible/
Geisler (as well as the vast majority of Christian groups) only claim the autographs are inerrant.
The only Bibles we use are translations. So, it is not necessary for the Bible to be inerrant to be authoritative.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=985319#p985319
Elijah John wrote:If this is the case, must all of our debates on TD&D be about translations? If so, I’m certainly at a disadvantage, because I don’t know either Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek.
We could debate the Hebrew and Greek critical text and manuscripts. But, they would not count either as being inerrant. Only the autographs would be inerrant. Since none exist, it’s impossible to objectively say what it’s in them and to debate them.
Many errors have been demonstrated here on this site. Not all are minutia, some are major and doctrinal. Are all errors, contradictions, and absurdities to be dismissed only because they stem from translations? Isn’t it likely that at least some of them have their origins in the autographs and original manuscripts?
Entirely possible. But I think that is for another thread.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=985328#p985328
JehovahsWitness wrote:JehovahsWitness wrote:
# Could an Almighty omnipotent God conceivably get inerrant thoughts from his perfect mind into the mind of a bible writer as if he heard them and then get that person to put what had been communicated to him into paper, if necessarily controlling his hand writing?Is such a thing theoretically possible?
Elijah John wrote:Of course…. {snip}That Is what “inspired of God” means. It means that God controlled the writers to the extent necessary to get his inerrant thoughts into paper.
- You admit that such a thing as inerrant scripture is possible, that a perfect, inerrant set of writings could in fact exist but only argue that as God in His infinite wisdom has chosen never to bring such a thing into existence!
Correct me if I am wrong but does the above not sum up your position?
Just because something is theoretically possible doesn’t mean it’s a fact, or even probable.
But even granting the autographs are inerrant, I do not see anyone arguing that the translations are also inerrant. Of what practical value is trumpeting the autographs are inerrant, when we don’t have them, and the only Bibles we do use are translations?
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=985334#p985334