 |
| Image credit:www.genwhymovement.com |
Right now is a great time to be an apologist. We are living in a period of time where apologetics is booming, both in academic and everyday life. It’s never been easier to get your hands on material that can strengthen your faith and empower your evangelism, and the time to utilize these resources has never been more urgent. With the rise of the current missions movement abroad, religious persecution in the Middle East, and increasing secularization in America and Europe, being equipped to give a defense of the Gospel wherever it is challenged is no longer optional; it is required if you are to be a witness in today’s world.
Every movement has it’s obstacles to overcome, and the apologetics movement is no different. Right now we are living in what one apologist has described as “the anti-intellectual age of the church”, and we are seeing the fruit of this anti-intellectualism wreck havoc on churches and Christians, many whom end up leaving the church when they arrive at college. Another consequence of this anti-intellectualism is the rise of apathy – Christians just do not seem to care about defending their faith or developing a solid worldview.
I’ve been pondering what the biggest hindrance to this movement is. Is it the problem of the anti-intellectual church? Is it the apathetic indifference of the average Christian? Is it the lack of funding, or publicity, or accessibility? What is holding this movement back from accelerating a full speed?
My personal opinion: apologists are the biggest hindrance of the apologetics movement.
Hear me out: I don’t believe apologists *in and of themselves* are the biggest hindrance. Obviously the work of diligent apologists, both professional and layperson, has born much fruit already! I also don’t believe that the problems listed above aren’t considerable challenges for us to face; indeed, they are tall, looming obstacles to overcome. When I say that apologists are the biggest hindrances, I am talking about a specific type of apologist: the unloving apologist.
The problem with the unloving apologist is that they are everywhere. They may not have the audience of William Lane Craig or Lee Strobel, yet they have a bigger influence in the lives of their congregation than the heavyweights do. They may not travel the nation on speaking tours at sold out college lecture halls, yet collectively they can impact numerous churches every week. The problem is not that they have tense moments or occasionally lose their cool; we have all had encounters where we failed to love others. The problem is that these apologists routinely show a lack of love for others; they are unloving people in general. They are not what Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 13: “4 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant 5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful…” (1 Cor 13:4-5 ESV).
The main thrust of 1 Cor 13 is that love makes or breaks us. Without love, all of our efforts, publishing, researching, debating, evangelizing, studying, sharing – it all goes down the drain (vv 2-3). It doesn’t take a moral failing of a big-name apologist to turn off the Church from taking apologetics seriously – all it takes is hundreds of average Joe apologists in congregations across the country who are rude, disrespectful, arrogant, and condescending to convince Christians that apologetics isn’t worth it.
There are Christians who won’t consider apologetics even if their fellow apologist gives the shirt off their back and sells their house for the Kingdom. That problem is in their heads. However, where we see an apologist live without the love of Christ, we must admonish them to show love rather than win every argument at any cost. If that apologist is ourselves – if we are the ones who are not living a life of love – then we must repent immediately and drink deeply of the sacrificial love of Christ. We should keep in mind, as apologist Jim Spiegel wrote, “When it comes to proving religious truth, an ounce of love is worth a ton of argument.” (1)
———————————————-
1: Spiegel, James (2010-01-21). The Making of an Atheist: How Immorality Leads to Unbelief (Kindle Location 1191). Moody Publishers. Kindle Edition.
Very thought-provoking Austin.
Around the “atheosphere” however, there arent anywhere near enough
apologists. And so it’s kind of difficult to contemplate the idea that the unloving ”Boanerges apologists” should stand down and leave it
to their more ”loving” counterparts.
I think there is also a need to consider that in cultural apologetics, there is an element of “speaking in tongues” whereby the (deliberate) tone and force of language used in some situations is not the same as one might hear from the same person elsewhere in different apologetic evangelism.
Hello Austin. I do not know why the Bible argument has to come up here. That should not even be an issue in the context of your article. That argument has been around for years. If God can use a donkey to get a person back on track i am sure He can use any version He wants, but enough of that. The keystone is that we need to show Christian love if we cannot do that with other Christians then what chance does our apologetic have with the unbeliever?
Hi Don, you say ” I do not know why the Bible argument has to come up here. ” Well, the simply reason as to why it comes up here is because the question was asked What is the biggest obstacle to the Apologetics ministry? and I and others believe it is due to the FACT that most Christians today do NOT believe in the inerrancy of the Bible (any Bible in any language). So when the Christian apologist starts referring to “the unchanging and infallible word of God” as the basis of all his beliefs, it rings hollow and hypocritical to anyone who has a minimal knowledge of the hundreds of very real textual and meaning differences that exist out there among all the different bible versions.
And it is a documented fact that most of todays professing Christians simply do NOT believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. So your whole foundation of absolute truth is crumbling before your very eyes and you have nothing to stand on except “ballpark approximations of what God may or may not have said” and you have no absolute standard of written truth. THAT is why the bible version issue was brought up.
Are you aware that the polls show that American Christians are for the most part Biblically illiterate? Have you seen the recent Gallup poll?
This is not a KJB only site.
The Scandal of Biblical Illiteracy: It’s Our Problem
http://www.religiontoday.com/columnists/al-mohler/the-scandal-of-biblical-illiteracy-its-our-problem-1270946.html
Here are some direct quotes:
“While America’s evangelical Christians are rightly concerned about the secular worldview’s rejection of biblical Christianity, we ought to give some urgent attention to a problem much closer to home–biblical illiteracy in the church. This scandalous problem is our own, and it’s up to us to fix it.
Researchers George Gallup and Jim Castelli put the problem squarely: “Americans revere the Bible–but, by and large, they don’t read it. And because they don’t read it, they have become a nation of biblical illiterates.” How bad is it? Researchers tell us that it’s worse than most could imagine.
Fewer than half of all adults can name the four gospels. Many Christians cannot identify more than two or three of the disciples. According to data from the Barna Research Group, 60 percent of Americans can’t name even five of the Ten Commandments. “No wonder people break the Ten Commandments all the time. They don’t know what they are,” said George Barna, president of the firm. The bottom line? “Increasingly, America is biblically illiterate.” [see Barna Group’s web site]
Multiple surveys reveal the problem in stark terms. According to 82 percent of Americans, “God helps those who help themselves,” is a Bible verse. Those identified as born-again Christians did better–by one percent. A majority of adults think the Bible teaches that the most important purpose in life is taking care of one’s family.
Some of the statistics are enough to perplex even those aware of the problem. A Barna poll indicated that at least 12 percent of adults believe that Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife. Another survey of graduating high school seniors revealed that over 50 percent thought that Sodom and Gomorrah were husband and wife. A considerable number of respondents to one poll indicated that the Sermon on the Mount was preached by Billy Graham. We are in big trouble.
Secularized Americans should not be expected to be knowledgeable about the Bible. As the nation’s civic conversation is stripped of all biblical references and content, Americans increasingly live in a Scripture-free public space. Confusion and ignorance of the Bible’s content should be assumed in post-Christian America.
The larger scandal is biblical ignorance among Christians. Choose whichever statistic or survey you like, the general pattern is the same. America’s Christians know less and less about the Bible. It shows.”
“it rings hollow and hypocritical to anyone who has a minimal knowledge of the hundreds of very real textual and meaning differences that exist out there among all the different bible versions.” Well said. It does ring hollow–to those who have a minimal knowledge. Those who are actual scholars in the field? That’s a different story.
Randy Everist posts: “Your claim that I do not believe in the existence of an inerrant book simply does not follow, given the collection of texts. That any one of them has an error does not mean that the appropriate collection of those texts has an error, nor does it follow that there never has been such a text (given that the originals are there). I just point you to the Greek and Hebrew texts, the collection together of which renders little doubt of what the originals actually contained.”
Randy, there is no such thing as “the” original Greek and Hebrew texts. They do not exist and you apparently have bought into the lie that the Vatican texts are the best. This would be the ever changing Nestle-Aland, UBS/ Vatican critical Greek texts.
To do this, you have to reject the Majority text as well as the Traditional Reformation text of the Textus Receptus. All of these texts differ among themselves by literally thousands of words.
You cannot show us an inerrant Bible in any language, and you know you can’t. By the way, the agreement among the various texts out there is no where close to being 99% as many who have opted for the critical texts try to tell us.
Would you perhaps believe Dr. Kurt Aland of the Nestle-Aland fame? He collated 7 different Greek texts out there and didn’t even include the Majority text or the TR in his research. Guess what the percentage of agreement among these 7 texts is. About 62% and he thought this was “more than expected.”
Are all bible versions 99.5% the same?
http://brandplucked.webs.com/arebibles995same.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Testamentum_Graece
In The Text of the New Testament, Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland compare the total number of variant-free verses, and the number of variants per page (excluding orthographic errors), among the seven major editions of the Greek NT (Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort, von Soden, Vogels, Merk, Bover, and Nestle-Aland) concluding 62.9%, or 4999/7947, agreement.[10] They concluded, “Thus in nearly two-thirds of the New Testament text, the seven editions of the Greek New Testament which we have reviewed are in complete accord, with no differences other than in orthographical details (e.g., the spelling of names, etc.). Verses in which any one of the seven editions differs by a single word are not counted. This result is quite amazing, demonstrating a far greater agreement among the Greek texts of the New Testament during the past century than textual scholars would have suspected […]. In the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation the agreement is less, while in the letters it is much greater”[10]
Book
Total Number Of Verses
Variant-Free Verses-Total
Percentage
Variants per page
Matthew
1071
642
59.9 %
6.8
__________
Mark
678
306
45.1 %
10.3
__________
Luke
1151
658
57.2 %
6.9
____________
John
869
450
51.8 %
8.5
____________
Acts
1006
677
67.3 %
4.2
_____________
Romans
433
327
75.5 %
2.9
_____________
1 Corinthians
437
331
75.7 %
3.5
_____________
2 Corinthians
256
200
78.1 %
2.8
_____________
Galatians
149
114
76.5 %
3.3
_____________
Ephesians
155
118
76.1 %
2.9
_____________
Philippians
104
73
70.2 %
2.5
_____________
Colossians
95
69
72.6 %
3.4
______________
1 Thessalonians
89
61
68.5 %
4.1
_______________
2 Thessalonians
47
34
72.3 %
3.1
_______________
1 Timothy
113
92
81.4 %
2.9
_______________
2 Timothy
83
66
79.5 %
2.8
_______________
Titus
46
33
71.7 %
2.3
________________
Philemon
25
19
76.0 %
5.1
_______________
Hebrews
303
234
77.2 %
2.9
_______________
James
108
66
61.6 %
5.6
_______________
1 Peter
105
70
66.6 %
5.7
_______________
2 Peter
61
32
52.5 %
6.5
_______________
1 John
105
76
72.4 %
2.8
_______________
2 John
13
8
61.5 %
4.5
_______________
3 John
15
11
73.3 %
3.2
_______________
Jude
25
18
72.0 %
4.2
________________
Revelation
405
214
52.8 %
5.1
________________
Total
7947
4999
62.9 %
In “The Text Of The New Testament”, Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland compare the total number of variant-free verses, and the number of variants per page (excluding orthographic errors), among the seven major editions of the Greek NT (Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort, von Soden, Vogels, Merk, Bover and Nestle-Aland) concluding 62.9% agreement.” – K. Aland and B. Aland, “The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions & to the Theory & Practice of Modern Textual Criticism”, 1995, op. cit., p. 29-30.
(My note: And then they call this 62.9% “an amazing agreement among the Greek texts, greater than the textual scholars would have suspected.”!!! And even then the Alands did not include the Traditional Greek Texts or the Trinitarian Bible Society Greek text by Scrivener that shows the basic Greek text that underlies the vast majority of all Reformation Bibles, whether in English, French, German, Spanish, Italian or Portuguese, and of course the King James Bible. If they had included it in their comparison study, the textual agreement would have been far, far less than their 62.9%.)
Hi Randy. Which of these is the reading in your 99% inerrant “bible”? Do you know?
The following short list is just a sampling of the divergent and confusing readings found among the contradictory modern bible versions. There are numerous other examples, but these are just a few to make you aware of what is going on here with “the late$t in $cholar$hip Finding$”.
Among these “historic details” are whether Jeremiah 27:1 reads Jehoiakim (Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, NKJV, KJB, ISV, Douay-Rheims, St. Joseph New American Bible 1970) or Zedekiah (RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman, Catholic New Jerusalem 1985)
1 Samuel 13:1 Here we read: “Saul reigned ONE year; and when he had reigned TWO years over Israel, Saul chose him three thousand men of Israel.” reading – ONE/TWO years (NKJV, KJB, Geneva, Judaica Press Tanach, Orthodox Jewish Bible), or 40/32 (NASB 1972-77) or 30/42 (NASB 1995, NIV), OR 30 years/ 40 years (NET) or _____years and______and two years (RSV, NRSV, ESV 2001 edition, St. Joseph New American Bible 1970, Catholic New Jerusalem 1985), or “was 40 years old…and when he had reigned 2 years” (ASV 1901, Amplified bible 1987) or “____years old and reigned 2 years” (Complete Jewish bible, Knox bible) or “was 30 years old…ruled for 42 years” (ISV, Common English Bible) or “32 years old…reigned for 22 years” in the 1989 Revised English Bible, or as the Jehovah Witness New World Translation has it – I Samuel 13:1 – “Saul was . . .* years old when he became king, and for two years he reigned over Israel. “ Footnote: The number is missing in the Hebrew text.” or even “was 50 years old and reigned 22 years.” in the New English Bible of 1970!
But wait. There’s even more. The ESV 2001 edition had “Saul was________years old when he began to reign, and he reigned____and two years over Israel.” But now the 2011 edition of the ESV has come out (I have a hard copy right here in front of me) and it now has the perhaps even more ridiculous reading of “Saul LIVED FOR ONE YEAR AND THEN BECAME KING, and when he had reigned FOR TWO YEARS over Israel, Saul chose 3000 men of Israel…”. Think about it. “Saul lived for one year and then became king”. They just get loopier and loopier, don’t they?
whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads Michal (Hebrew texts, KJB, NKJV, RV 1881, ASV 1901, Douay-Rheims) or Merab (RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman, ISV, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)
or 70 (NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, Holman, ISV, KJB) being sent out by the Lord Jesus in Luke 10:1 and 17 or 72 (NIV, ESV, NET, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)
or in Matthew 18:22 does the Lord say to forgive your brother not “until 7 times, but unto 70 times 7 times” (= 490 times – KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, RSV, ESV 2001, 2007 editions, ISV, Douay-Rheims, St. Joseph NAB, ALL Greek texts) or 77 times (NRSV, NIV, ESV 2011 edition, Catholic New Jerusalem, Jehovah Witness New World Translation)
or the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, Douay-Rheims) or the 4th day (RSV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NET, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem, Jehovah Witness NWT) or “the NEXT day” ISV (they just made this up!)
Or Hannah taking young Samuel to the house of the LORD with THREE bullocks in 1 Samuel 1:24 (KJB, Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, JPS 1917, NKJV, Youngs, NET, Douay-Rheims) or “A THREE YEAR OLD BULL: (LXX, Syriac RSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, ISV, Holman, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem, Jehovah Witness NWT)
or God smiting 50,070 men in 1 Samuel 6:19 (KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, NET, ISV, Douay-Rheims) or 70 men slain (RSV, NIV, NRSV, ESV, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem), or “70 men- 50 chief men” (Young’s), or “70 MEN OUT OF 50,000 Holman Standard
or there being 30,000 chariots in 1 Samuel 13:5 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, ISV, Douay-Rheims) or only 3000 (NIV, NET, Holman, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)
2 Samuel 15:7 “forty years” (KJB, Hebrew, Geneva, NKJV, NASB, RV, ASV, Douay-Rheims) OR “four years” (NIV, RSV, ESV, NET, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem, Jehovah Witness NWT). The ISV ADDS words to the Hebrew text to make it say what they think it means, saying: “And so it was that forty years after Israel had demanded a king, Absalom asked the king…”
or whether both 2 Samuel 23:18 and 1 Chronicles 11:20 read “chief of the THREE” (KJB, Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, NKJV, NRSV, Holman, NIV, NET, Holman, NET, Douay-Rheims) or THIRTY from the Syriac (NASB, RSV, ESV, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem) The ISV completely omits any number and just makes up their own text saying: “in charge of the platoons”
or 2 Samuel 24:13 reading SEVEN years (KJB, Hebrew, ASV, NASB, NKJV, NET, ISV, Douay-Rheims) or THREE years (LXX, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)
or whether 1 Kings 4:26 reads 40,000 stalls of horses (Hebrew, KJB, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, NASB, ESV, NKJV, ISV, Douay-Rheims, Jehovah Witness NWT 1961 edition) or 4,000 stalls (SOME LXX copies, NIV, NET, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem, NWT 2013 edition)
JWRMWT 2013 edition – “And Sol′o·mon had 4,000 stalls of horses for his chariots and 12,000 horses.” This is one of the places where the new Revised NWT changes the Hebrew reading of 40,000 for the reading found in SOME Greek LXX copies of 4,000.
or whether 1 Kings 5:11 reads 20 measures of pure oil (Hebrew texts, Geneva, KJB, ASV, RV, NASB, NRSV, ISV, Douay-Rheims) or 20,000 (RSV, NIV, ESV, NET, LXX and Syriac, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)
or in 2 Chronicles 31:16 we read “males from THREE years old” (Hebrew texts, KJB, Geneva Bible, Wycliffe, LXX, Syriac, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, NKJV, Holman, NET, Douay-Rheims) or “males from THIRTY years old” (NASB – ft. Hebrew “three”, ISV -“every male 30 years old and older”, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)
or where 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign (Hebrew texts, KJB, NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, KJB, RSV, NRSV, ESV 2001 edition, ISV, Douay-Rheims) or he was 18 years old (NIV, Holman, NET, ESV 2007 edition!!! and once again the Catholic St. Joseph NAB and the New Jerusalem and the Jehovah Witness NWT)
or that when God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead it is stated in Acts 13:33 “this day have I begotten thee” (KJB, NASB, NKJV, RV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Douay-Rheims, St. Joseph NAB) or “today I have become your Father” (NIV, Holman, NET, ISV, Catholic New Jerusalem, Jehovah Witness NWT).
If you go back and read through this list of just some of the numerous very real differences that exist among these Bible of the Month Club versions, ask yourself which (if any) are the 100% historically true words of God. IF “the Bible” is not 100% historically true in the events it narrates, then when does God start to tell us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
As for the ESV, you can see a lot more examples of how this revamped RSV version often rejects the clear Hebrew readings and has changed over 300 verses from the 2001 to the 2007 editions –
http://brandplucked.webs.com/theesv.htm
Remember, God said that no man should add to or take away from His words.
Or how about these, Randy. Which is the reading and meaning found in your 99% inerrant bible?
Genesis 27:39-40
KJB thy dwelling SHALL BE the fatness of the earth
NIV Your dwelling will be AWAY FROM the earth’s richness
NASB, ESV – AWAY FROM the fertility of the earth shall be your dwelling
2 Samuel 14:14
KJB – “NEITHER DOTH GOD RESPECT ANY PERSON”
ESV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NET – “BUT GOD WILL NOT TAKE AWAY LIFE”
Job 16:20
KJB My friends SCORN me: but mine eye poureth out tears unto God.
NIV My intercessor IS MY FRIEND as my eyes pour out tears to God.
Psalm 10:4, 5
KJB wicked…..His ways are always GRIEVOUS
NIV wicked…..His ways are always prosperous
NKJV wicked…..His ways are always prospering
ESV wicked…..His ways prosper at all times
HCSB wicked…..His ways are always secure
Psalm 29:9
KJB The voice of the LORD maketh the HINDS TO CALVE
NIV The voice of the LORD TWISTS THE OAKS
Proverbs 7:22 KJB – “He goeth after her straightway, as an ox goeth to the slaughter, OR AS A FOOL TO THE CORRECTION OF THE STOCKS.”
NIV – ” LIKE A DEER STEPPING INTO A NOOSE.”
ESV – AS A STAG IS CAUGHT FAST.”
NASB – “OR AS ONE IN FETTERS TO THE DISCIPLINE OF A FOOL.”
Catholic Public Domain Version 2009 – ” LIKE A LAMB ACTING LASCIVIOUSLY, AND NOT KNOWING THAT HE IS BEING DRAWN FOOLISHLY INTO CHAINS.”
Lamsa’s 1933 – “AS A DOG TO BE MUZZLED.”
Greek Septuagint – “AS A DOG TO BONDS, OR AS A HART SHOT IN THE LIVER WITH AN ARROW.”
Proverbs 18:24
KJB A man that hath friends must shew himself friendly
NASB A man of many friends COMES TO RUIN
NIV A man of many companions MAY COME TO RUIN
ESV A man of many companions MAY COME TO RUIN
HCSB A man with many friends MAY BE HARMED
Proverbs 22:20 “excellent things”, “three times” or “thirty sayings”?
KJB (RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV) -Have not I written unto thee EXCELLENT THINGS
NIV, ESV – Have I not written for you THIRTY SAYINGS of counsel and knowledge
Young’s – “Have I not written to thee THREE TIMES with counsels and knowledge?
Proverbs 25:23
KJB The north wind DRIVETH AWAY rain
NIV As a north wind BRINGS rain
NASB The north wind BRINGS forth rain
ESV The north wind BRINGS forth rain
Proverbs 26:22
KJB The words of a talebearer are as WOUNDS
NIV The words of a gossip are like choice morsels
NASB The words of a whisperer are like dainty morsels
ESV The words of a whisperer are delicious morsels
HCSB A gossip’s words are like choice food
Ecclesiastes 8:10
KJB wicked…..were FORGOTTEN
NIV wicked…..receive praise
ESV wicked…..were praised
Isaiah 9:1
KJB afterward did more GRIEVOUSLY AFFLICT …….Galilee
NASB later on He shall make it glorious…….Galilee
NIV in the future he will honor Galilee
ESV in the latter time he has made glorious….Galilee
Isaiah 9:3
KJB NOT increased their joy
NIV, TNIV increased the joy
NKJV increased its joy
ESV increased its joy
NASB increased their gladness
Jeremiah 51:3
KJB LET the archer BEND his bow
ESV Let NOT the archer BEND his bow
NIV Let NOT the archer STRING his bow
NASB Let NOT him who BENDS his bow BEND it
Hosea 10:1
KJB Israel is an EMPTY vine
NASB Israel is a luxuriant vine
ESV Israel is a luxuriant vine
NIV Israel was a spreading vine
Hosea 11:12
KJB Judah yet RULETH WITH God
NIV Judah is UNRULY AGAINST God
NASB Judah is also UNRULY AGAINST God
Hosea 13:9
KJB – “O Israel, THOU HAST DESTROYED THYSELF: BUT IN ME IS THINE HELP.”
ESV – “HE destroys you, O Israel, FOR YOU ARE AGAINST ME, AGAINST YOUR HELPER.”
The Holman Standard – “I WILL DESTROY YOU, Israel; YOU HAVE NO HELP BUT ME.”
Hosea 13:14
KJB – “I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: REPENTANCE SHALL BE HID FROM MINE EYES.”
ESV 2001-2011 – “SHALL I ransom them from the power of Sheol? SHALL I redeem them from Death? O Death, WHERE ARE your plagues? O Sheol, WHERE IS YOUR STING? COMPASSION is hidden from my eyes.”
NET version – “WILL I DELIVER THEM FROM THE POWER OF SHEOL? NO, I WILL NOT! WILL I REDEEM THEM FROM DEATH? NO, I WILL NOT! O DEATH, BRING ON YOUR PLAGUES! O SHEOL, BRING ON YOUR DESTRUCTION! MY EYES WILL NOT SHOW ANY COMPASSION!”
Colossians 2:18
KJB things which he hath NOT seen
NIV, TNIV, ISV what he HAS seen
NASB visions he HAS seen
RSV, ESV, Holman, NET = NASB, NIV.
Colossians 4:8
KJB HE might know YOUR estate
ESV YOU may know how WE ARE
HCSB YOU may know how WE ARE
NIV YOU may know about OUR CIRCUMSTANCES
TNIV YOU may know about OUR CIRCUMSTANCES
Hebrews 3:16
KJB – For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.
NKJV – For who, having heard, rebelled? Indeed, was it not all who came out of Egypt, led by Moses?
ESV -For who were those who heard and yet rebelled? Was it not all those who left Egypt led by Moses?
NIV – Who were they who heard and rebelled? Were they not all those Moses led out of Egypt?
If you want to know the answers, here they are
http://brandplucked.webs.com/biblebabel1.htm
Too bad you didn’t address the actual argument. 🙂
Hi Randy. When I said that for the Apologists today who either in their writings or from the pulpit try to defend the truths of God refer to “the unchanging word of God” or say “I believe the Bible is the infallible word of God”, and yet have NO infallible Bible to believe in and they know it, it rings hollow and hypocritical.
To which you replied “”it rings hollow and hypocritical to anyone who has a minimal knowledge of the hundreds of very real textual and meaning differences that exist out there among all the different bible versions.” Well said. It does ring hollow–to those who have a minimal knowledge. Those who are actual scholars in the field? That’s a different story.”
Well, you are right. It IS a different story and here is that story –
Some critical text scholars are a little more honest about this than others.
Forever Settled – A Survey of the Documents and History of the Bible.
http://www.biblebelievers.net/BibleVersions/kjcforv3.htm
The neutral method of Bible study leads to skepticism concerning the New Testament text. This was true long before the days of Westcott and Hort. As early is 1771 Griesbach wrote, “The New Testament abounds in more losses, additions, and interpolations, PURPOSELY INTRODUCED THAN IN ANY OTHER BOOK.”
As early as 1908 Rendel Harris declared that the New Testament text had not at all been settled but was “MORE THAN EVER, AND PERHAPS FINALLY, UNSETTLED.” (Caps are mine)
Two years later Conybeare gave it as his opinion that “the ultimate (New Testament) text, IF THERE EVER WAS ONE THAT DESERVES TO BE SO CALLED, IS FOR EVER IRRECOVERABLE.” (Caps are mine)
Later (1941) Kirsopp Lake, after a life time spent in the study of the New Testament text, delivered the following, judgment: “In spite of the claims of Westcott and Hort and of von Soden, WE DO NOT KNOW the original form of the Gospels, AND IT IS QUITE LIKELY THAT WE NEVER SHALL.”
H. Greeven (1960) also has acknowledged the uncertainty of the neutral method of New Testament textual criticism. “In general,” he says, “the whole thing is limited to probability judgments; THE ORIGINAL TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, according to its nature, MUST BE AND REMAINS A HYPOTHESIS.”
Robert M. Grant (1963) adopts a still more despairing attitude. “The primary goal of New Testament textual study remains the recovery of what the New Testament writers wrote. We have already suggested that TO ACHIEVE THIS GOAL IS WELL-NIGH IMPOSSIBLE.” Grant also says: “It is generally recognized that THE ORIGINAL TEXT OF THE BIBLE CANNOT BE RECOVERED.”
“WITHIN EVANGELICALISM THERE ARE A GROWING NUMBER WHO ARE MODIFYING THEIR VIEWS ON THE INERRANCY OF THE BIBLE SO THAT THE FULL AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE IS COMPLETELY UNDERCUT. But is happening in very subtle ways. Like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views on biblical authority often seem at first glance not to be very far from what evangelicals, until just recently, have always believed. But also, like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views when followed consistently end up a thousand miles apart. What may seem like a minor difference at first, in the end makes all the difference in the world … compromising the full authority of Scripture eventually affects what it means to be a Christian theologically and how we live in the full spectrum of human life” (Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster, 1983, p. 44).
“As New Testament textual criticism moves into the twenty-first century, it must shed whatever remains of its innocence, for nothing is simple anymore. Modernity may have led many to assume that a straightforward goal of reaching a single original text of the New Testament–or even a text as close as possible to that original–was achievable. Now, however, REALITY AND MATURITY REQUIRE THAT TEXTUAL CRITICISM FACE UNSETTLING FACTS, CHIEF AMONG THEM THAT THE TERM ‘ORIGINAL’ HAS EXPLODED INTO A COMPLEX AND HIGHLY UNMANAGEABLE MULTIVALENT ENTITY. Whatever tidy boundaries textual criticism may have presumed in the past have now been shattered, and its parameters have moved markedly not only to the rear and toward the front, but also sideways, as fresh dimensions of originality emerge from behind the variant readings and from other manuscript phenomena” (E. Jay Epps, “The Multivalence of the Term ‘Original Text’ In New Testament Textual Criticism,” Harvard Theological Review, 1999, Vol. 92, No. 3, pp. 245-281; this article is based on a paper presented at the New Testament Textual Criticism Section, Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, Orlando, Florida, November 1998).
George Barna, president of Barna Research Group, reported that a study exploring the religious beliefs of the 12 largest denominations in America highlights the downward theological drift that has taken place in Christian churches in recent years. The study found that an alarmingly high number of church members have beliefs that fall far short of orthodox Christianity. ONLY 41 PERCENT OF ALL ADULTS SURVEYED BELIEVED IN THE TOTAL ACCURACY OF THE BIBLE. Only 40 percent believed Christ was sinless, and only 27 percent believed Satan to be real.
Of the Baptists surveyed 57 percent said they believed that works are necessary in order to be saved, 45 percent believed Jesus was not sinless, 44 percent did not believe that the Bible is totally accurate, and 66 percent did not believe Satan to be a real being. Barna said, “The Christian body in America is immersed in a crisis of biblical illiteracy.”
Pastor Michael Youseff’s Message on His “Leading The Way” program. The title of todays message was “The Bible, The World’s Most Relevant Book – Part 2. In his message he gave statistics of a poll that was conducted. Here is what the poll revealed:
85% of students at America’s largest Evangelical Seminary don’t believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.
74% of the Clergy in America no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.
Again, too bad you didn’t address my argument. 🙂
Randy, you are dealing with a monologue. This is the kind of stuff that will cause others to walk away and leave the conversation. I have encountered these folks often who claim to be apologists. They have a “one point agenda”. The short answer is to have respect for the other person. I do not know of anyone who wants to be hammered this way. Thank you for your article. I have already expressed mine. God bless your soul.
Thanks Don, and I know Austin did an excellent job on this major article. 🙂 I just wish Will would respond to the argument: “1. All translation involves interpreters.
2. No interpreters are infallible.
3. Therefore, no translation is infallible.
This can be symbolized as follows:
1. All T is I
2. No I is N
3. ∴ No T is N”
Yep, kind of strange. Way too many Christian apologists spend way too much time simply attacking other Christians that are of a different persuasion rather than presenting a comprehensive worldview of Christianity to a lost and dying world. I am in a specific “room” in a house of Christianity but when I do apologetics I must remember that I am in the Christian “hall” that leads to those rooms that contains the basics of our Christian faith.
Hi Austin. I disagree. I think the biggest obstacle to the Apologetics Movement is the fact that they do not have nor do they believe in the existence of a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible. You have nothing to offer either the believing world of Christians or the unbelieving world of the skeptics, atheists or agnostics.
You are quoting here from the ESV, which itself just came out in 2001 and has already been revised two more times in 2007 and again in 2011, and it is, in fact, just one more of the new “Vatican Versions”. It even omits more entire verses from the N.T. than do the NASB, NIV and it adds literally hundreds of words to the Hebrew texts and rejects many Hebrew readings. Nobody seriously believes the ESV, NIV, NASB, NKJV, NET, Holman etc. are the inerrant words of God; not even the people who keep churning out these new versions.
So since you do not have absolute written truth, but a mere ballpark approximation of what God may or may not have said, you have no sure foundation and no Absolute Standard of written Truth.
God is not going to honor or use effectively the perversions of His words.
Don’t believe me? Then please READ
The Ever Changing ESVs = just another Vatican Version
http://brandplucked.webs.com/theesv.htm
“He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” Luke 8:8
There’s a lot here, but a lot of the conclusions you draw don’t even follow on a KJV-Only view. First, it doesn’t follow that those who utilize modern translations have “nothing to offer the believing world of Christians.” William Lane Craig doesn’t use the KJV, yet he has clearly been used to alter the trajectory of my life within the realm of Christian apologetics. Essentially, you’re arguing that no one can learn anything from anyone who doesn’t use the KJV, which is patently false. But I think it might derive from a wedding of KJV-Onlyism with a particular view of epistemology called “Scripturalism.” Scripturalism is the view that the Bible is the only source of knowledge. That’s flatly untrue, and one of the reasons we know this is because the Bible doesn’t even claim that for itself: that is, Scripturalism, if it is to be known to be true, must be known to be true from a source other than Scripture. But in that case, it follows Scripturalism is false. I know you want to have a high view of Scripture, and I do too. But it won’t be God-honoring to say things God himself has not said, will it? More to the point, do you think more people are turning away due to people like Austin not using the KJV? Or do you think it’s because they’re encountering rude and unloving people who claim to be Christians? Just something to think about.
Hi Randy. Perhaps a word of clarification is needed. What I meant by you Christians (and I am not doubting at all your Christian faith) who do not believe that ANY Bible in any language is the complete and inerrant words of God, have nothing to offer in the way of a 100% true and infallible Standard of written truth. I did not mean to imply that you have nothing at all in any way to offer people.
I also agree with you that there can be some things known about the truth of creation apart from the Bible. Romans chapter 1 tells us that from the things that are made we know there is a Creator. But Who this Creator is, what He is like (or even that He is a He), or of our desperate need as fallen sinners, or anything at all about the Son of God and what He had done to redeem His people from our sins and from hell to give us eternal life, we can know absolutely nothing apart from this book we call the Bible. Nothing.
And since Christians who “use” the Vatican Versions like the ever changing ESVs, NIVs, NASBs, etc. do NOT believe that any of these contradictory versions with many different names and numbers, and verses, and hundreds of totally different meanings are the inerrant words of God, then you have NO final authority and no inerrant words of God to believe in.
And the Muslims and many bible agnostics and atheists know this to be true and mock at your empty, pious sounding statements like “I believe the Bible is the infallible words of God.”
Why? Because your really DON’T believe that any Bible in any language on the face of this earth IS in fact the complete, inspired and inerrant words of the living God. And the Christians’s faith is in turned weakened and this is, in large part, why there is such profound ignorance and Biblical illiteracy today. People don’t read these fake bible versions and they don’t believe they are God’s infallible words.
Let’s put my theory to the test, OK? Do YOU believe that ANY Bible in any language IS the complete, inspired and inerrant words of God? Yes or No?
If Yes, then can you show us a copy of this inerrant Bible you say you believe in, or give us a link to where we can see it?
If No, then are you willing to be honest enough to admit it?
Thank you, and God bless.
Hi, and thanks for responding. I’d like to thank you for your clarification, and respond with one point, and then one question (so that I can answer your question). First, you seem to assume (or your argument seems to rely on) the assumption that if something is not 100% infallible, it cannot convey truth (or at least, it does not convey truth). That won’t work; it won’t follow from the purported fact that a document is fallible that it doesn’t convey any truth. It must be that the document is generally unreliable. But two things should be considered: first, that it does not follow from something’s being fallible that it is generally unreliable; and second, it doesn’t even follow that if something is generally unreliable, that it does not contain truth (even a stopped clock is right twice a day, even liars tell some truths, etc.). So we’ll need some other argument to support the idea that even a fallible Bible cannot convey truths about God.
My question is about your question (call it the metaquestion): are you asking if there is any one collection of Scripture such that the documents contained therein are incapable of having error, in addition to containing the complete Word of God, in addition to being free from error, in addition to being inspired directly by God, in one language? If this is your question, I am prepared to answer. If not, can you please clarify?
Hi Randy. Thank you for your answers so far (I look forward to seeing your final answer about whether or not you believe there is such a thing as a complete, inspired and inerrant Book we call the Bible, or not.)
Again, I agree with you that there can be and in fact are many bible versions out there that are not inerrant, but they still have a lot of truth in them. I do not deny this. I believe there is still a lot of truth found in the Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB and other inferior bible versions like the NKJV. They still have much of the true words of God in them and the gospel is found even in the worse of the bible versions out there.
However, even as the recent Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (which is a bunch of Baloney and ends up meaning absolutely nothing) affirms in Article XII – “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.”
Every true Bible believer should agree with this statement. IF the Bible is not 100% historically true, then at what point does God start to tell us the truth? If we cannot trust God’s Book when it comes to specific numbers and names when it comes to past history, then how can we be sure He got the other parts right?
Let me give you some examples. Do you know which of these is the inerrant words of God? I have many more examples, but these three or four should serve to illustrate my point.
1 Samuel 13:1 Here we read: “Saul reigned ONE year; and when he had reigned TWO years over Israel, Saul chose him three thousand men of Israel.” reading – ONE/TWO years (NKJV, KJB, Geneva, Judaica Press Tanach, Orthodox Jewish Bible), or 40/32 (NASB 1972-77) or 30/42 (NASB 1995, NIV), OR 30 years/ 40 years (NET) or _____years and______and two years (RSV, NRSV, ESV 2001 edition, St. Joseph New American Bible 1970, Catholic New Jerusalem 1985), or “was 40 years old…and when he had reigned 2 years” (ASV 1901, Amplified bible 1987) or “____years old and reigned 2 years” (Complete Jewish bible, Knox bible) or “was 30 years old…ruled for 42 years” (ISV, Common English Bible) or “32 years old…reigned for 22 years” in the 1989 Revised English Bible, or as the Jehovah Witness New World Translation has it – I Samuel 13:1 – “Saul was . . .* years old when he became king, and for two years he reigned over Israel. “ Footnote: The number is missing in the Hebrew text.” or even “was 50 years old and reigned 22 years.” in the New English Bible of 1970!
But wait. There’s even more. The ESV 2001 edition had “Saul was________years old when he began to reign, and he reigned____and two years over Israel.” But now the 2011 edition of the ESV has come out (I have a hard copy right here in front of me) and it now has the perhaps even more ridiculous reading of “Saul LIVED FOR ONE YEAR AND THEN BECAME KING, and when he had reigned FOR TWO YEARS over Israel, Saul chose 3000 men of Israel…”. Think about it. “Saul lived for one year and then became king”. They just get loopier and loopier, don’t they?
whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads Michal (Hebrew texts, KJB, NKJV, RV 1881, ASV 1901, Douay-Rheims) or Merab (RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman, ISV, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)
or 70 (NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, Holman, ISV, KJB) being sent out by the Lord Jesus in Luke 10:1 and 17 or 72 (NIV, ESV, NET, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)
or in Matthew 18:22 does the Lord say to forgive your brother not “until 7 times, but unto 70 times 7 times” (= 490 times – KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, RSV, ESV 2001, 2007 editions, ISV, Douay-Rheims, St. Joseph NAB, ALL Greek texts) or 77 times (NRSV, NIV, ESV 2011 edition, Catholic New Jerusalem, Jehovah Witness New World Translation)
Now for your question,which is in reality the question I am asking you. You post: “My question is about your question (call it the metaquestion): are you asking if there is any one collection of Scripture such that the documents contained therein are incapable of having error, in addition to containing the complete Word of God, in addition to being free from error, in addition to being inspired directly by God, in one language? If this is your question, I am prepared to answer. If not, can you please clarify?”
Yes, that is essentially what I am asking you. Do you believe there is such a thing on this earth now, or ever has been such a thing as a complete Bible (66 books in a single volume) in ANY language (including “the originals) that is the infallible, inerrant and 100% true words of the living God and is the Standard of written truth? Yes or No?
If Yes, can you show us a copy or give us a link to where we can see it and compare it to whatever Bible version we are presently using to see the differences and similarities? If No, are you willing to be honest enough to admit it.
Thank you, and God bless.
Hi William, thanks for the discussion so far! Forgive me for misunderstanding your claims, but they seem to follow from some of the things you have said. In truth, I can’t figure out precisely what the claim is supposed to mean (other than Muslims don’t like it and it leads to biblical illiteracy). If that’s all that’s being claimed, I think we can deal with that when it comes. The Chicago Statement you quoted does not mean (nor does it entail) that the truth is inscrutable if it is not infallible. It just means infallibility and inerrancy are not limited to mere matters of faith, but extend to history as well. The way we know something is true does not depend on an infallible source. Since we are not infallible interpreters of literally any information, we would not be able to know anything. But we do know some things. Therefore, it follows fallible sources can give knowledge. You would know it the same way you know anything else! The other thing I am concerned about is that you seem to overstate your case at points. If the Chicago Statement means “absolutely nothing,” then you could have quoted the relevant portion you did quote and insist it meant “aliens are coming from Mars,” or anything you’d like. Which makes it odd that you would then think that every Christian should agree with it! 😉 No, more likely you do recognize the Chicago Statement means something, and you said what you did as a rhetorical flourish. If we can move beyond rhetoric to the key issues, I think we’ll make some real progress.
If the question you asked is as I represented it, it is this: “is [there] any one collection of Scripture such that the documents contained therein are incapable of having error, in addition to containing the complete Word of God, in addition to being free from error, in addition to being inspired directly by God, in one language?” then my answer is no. I’ll give a few reasons why, and I think they’re pretty unassailable. First, let’s discuss the requirements of what it would take for this: The Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek, and so even the originals are not in the same language, but two different ones. So that violates the one language requirement, (even the originals wouldn’t count on your criteria!). Next, translations of Scripture are done by mere men, and so are at least capable of error (even if it were to turn out that there are no such errors). The only way to circumvent this is to posit the inspiration of translators. So that violates the infallibility criterion (though the originals would meet this requirement, literally all others fail it, even copies, without the “second inspiration” postulate). Finally, consider the text in 2 Samuel that states “Elhanan slew the brother of Goliath.” The KJV translators added “the brother of” (correctly, as I happen to think), where no such phrase exists in the Hebrew text (and I mean in both the Masoretic and other texts). They cannot both be right. If the Hebrew text underlying the KJV is right, then the KJV is wrong (and some other answer, like “Elhanan is another name for David” is correct). If the KJV is right and the Hebrew text is wrong, since literally every text in question is not the original, but a copy, and is therefore capable of error, then the text contains an error. This shouldn’t bother you, though, as we can use basic reasoning to deduce some familial relationship to Goliath rather than Goliath himself (commonly expressed in the ancient near east as “brother”). This was simply a copyist error that likely did not exist in the originals (at least, I see no reason to think it did).The point is that either the text or the KJV is actually in error, violating the error criteria in at least one case.
Just consider: if your requirements are too high for God (since even the originals don’t count!), chances are they’re not quite right. 🙂
Hi Randy. Thanks again for your answers. You apparently admit that you do not believe that ANY Bible in any language is the complete, inspired and inerrant words of God. I assume this from your answer of “No”. At least you are an honest bible agnostic (one who does not know for sure what God said regarding many passages of Scripture.)
And again I think you are missing some points here. You tell us: “The Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek, and so even the originals are not in the same language, but two different ones. So that violates the one language requirement, (even the originals wouldn’t count on your criteria!)”
I did not say in “one” language. I said in “any” language. You yourself, along with most Christians today, do not have any single Hebrew mss. for the O.T. and much less any single Greek text for the N.T. that you believe is God’s infallible words. If I am wrong about this, please show us your text, if you can.
However I do believe God has put His inspired and inerrant words into one language- the English text of the King James Bible. There are several reasons for this.
God’s Persistent Witness to the Absolute Standard of Written Truth – The King James Holy Bible
http://brandplucked.webs.com/absolutestandard.htm
Another issue you bring up. You tell us ” translations of Scripture are done by mere men, and so are at least capable of error (even if it were to turn out that there are no such errors). The only way to circumvent this is to posit the inspiration of translators. So that violates the infallibility criterion (though the originals would meet this requirement, literally all others fail it, even copies, without the “second inspiration” postulate).”
I hear this argument all the time but I think it is a false argument. If God cannot work through fallible men to give us His infallible words, then we never would have had the originals to begin with. God used fallible, fallen, sinful and very imperfect men to give us the long lost and never seen originals. He can certainly use the same type of fallible men to preserve His words and give them to us in another language.
As for the example of Who killed Goliath in 2 Samuel 21:19, the KJB and many other versions (the latest NIV now agrees too, though earlier editions did not) got it right. The Hebrew and Greek languages are often elliptical in nature. It is expressly stated in one Scripture, and elliptically in the other.
2 Samuel 21:19 Who killed Goliath?
http://brandplucked.webs.com/2sam2119goliath.htm
By the way, I notice that you failed to address the 3 or 4 examples I brought up where there are completely different names or numbers in the Bible Babble Buffet versions.
My conclusion remains the same. One of the main obstacles to Apologetics is that you are trying to defend the truth from a Book (usually many different and conflicting versions of this Book) that you yourselves do not believe is 100% truthful.
God bless.
Will, I think you’re being a bit unfair at points, and I’ll explain why. 🙂 If you define “Bible agnostic” as “not knowing for sure what God said in many passages,” it doesn’t follow from what I said that this is the case. Especially since you don’t discuss whether what you mean is Cartesian certainty (according to which it isn’t epistemically or logically possible to doubt something–by which criteria we are sure of very little [e.g., I can’t even be sure of the existence of the external world on Cartesian certainty]) or functional certainty (e.g., I’m sure that other minds exist or whatnot) or even certainty at all (I can be sure of some things without at all claiming to be certain of them–I’m sure I will work hard to finish all my coursework, or I am sure that you’re a real person, and not a collection of people with input on the issue).
As to the metaquestion, your answer to that was “yes.” Apparently it should have been “no”! What’s interesting is, then, in order for the originals to count, you must allow the criteria to address multiple languages (otherwise, the shift to “any” doesn’t accomplish anything). Then, so long as we have a complete Bible across languages, it doesn’t matter how it’s put together. As to your quote, “If God cannot work through fallible men to give us His infallible words, then we never would have had the originals to begin with.” That’s just inspiration! So you do adopt the inspiration postulate, or no?
As for an ellipsis, this is just our way in academia of saying *it’s not there at all.* The ellipsis theory is the best explanation of why it says, “Elhanan slew Goliath.”
I did in fact address the examples you gave, because presumably these examples were meant to affirm that unless one has an infallible translation, then one cannot discern the truth of the matter (inscrutability). Frankly, you either did not understand this, or don’t want to. Judging by the immature labeling I’m willing to bet the former. Your conclusion remains the same, but it’s what’s known as a non-sequitur. Here’s the argument I gave before implicitly, that you’ll need to address:
1. All translation involves interpreters.
2. No interpreters are infallible.
3. Therefore, no translation is infallible.
This can be symbolized as follows:
1. All T is I
2. No I is N
3. ∴ No T is N
We see from the rules of categorical syllogisms that this is a valid argument, which means that if the premises are true, then the conclusion is impossible to be false. So the only way out is to deny the conclusion. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but it seems you would deny (2). If so, what support do you have for this that doesn’t entail inspiration, or something very much inspiration-like?
Hi Randy. I think you amply demonstrate the truth of my original statement. The big obstacle to Apologetics is that most of you fellas simply do NOT have nor do you believe that ANY Bible in whatever language or languages you chose to ramble on about, that IS the complete, inspired and inerrant words of God.
You can go on long, circuitous, pseudo-intellectual rabbit trails of thought, but the end result is simply that you do not believe in the existence of an inerrant Book called The Bible.
You have so far utterly failed to show us this inerrant Book and you are simply dancing around the issue and avoiding giving us a clear answer. If you have a complete and inerrant Bible, then show it to us, or give us a link to where we can see it.
If not, then why the pedantic pretense of being a bible believer “sort of”, and yet you cannot tell us exactly where to get one for ourselves or even what it is?
And, Yes,I call this being a bible agnostic. Why? Because you simply do not know ( a=not; gnostic = know) what God said for sure. You avoided the simple 3 or 4 examples I gave you.
I have lots more of them too. Here is a pretty good ongoing list of places where your Vatican Versions reject the clear Hebrew texts.
http://brandplucked.webs.com/nivnasbrejecthebrew.htm
“He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” Luke 8:8
“But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.” 1 Cor. 14:38
Will, now you’re simply being insulting, resorting to large swaths of rhetoric. No one reading this will think you have won the debate (or even avoided losing it), and I think of that you are well aware. I will address only a couple of points of this rhetoric, especially since my argument still stands. Unless or until you address the argument, this will be my final post.
Your claim that I do not believe in the existence of an inerrant book simply does not follow, given the collection of texts. That any one of them has an error does not mean that the appropriate collection of those texts has an error, nor does it follow that there never has been such a text (given that the originals are there). I just point you to the Greek and Hebrew texts, the collection together of which renders little doubt of what the originals actually contained. Since I believe what God wrote is not in error, and since I believe there is less than 1% dispute on what was actually said, then the total collection of manuscripts gives reason to think that there are no errors (for even if we decide that this less than 1% is not authentic, it doesn’t follow that the Bible has errors–it would only follow that these things don’t belong in the text). I suspect you simply don’t comprehend the idea. You’ve even recognized that I’ve attempted to answer your questions as clearly as possible, only later to go back and claim I’m “dancing around” the issue–which one is it? Finally, you’ve failed to define what you mean by “for sure,” and I suspect it’s because you have no idea what I’m talking about. In an ironic way, it is you who are the pseudo-intellectual, pontificating on and on with rhetoric instead of argument. I feel bad for you, because your whole identity is wrapped up in this issue. I don’t believe in God because I believe in the Bible. I believe in the Bible because I believe in God. I suspect your epistemology is in reverse, and that’s a very scary place to be.