Board index ‹ Bible

[Joelly Coelly]

Of all the different bible versions in the world today, do we have one without error?

[jimwalton]

Since we don't have any of the autographs, how would we really know for sure? We trust scholarship to help us know the exact wording of the original text, but there are enough discrepancies to motivate discussion, and choices have to be made. Most of the reliable ones (NIV, KJV, NASB, RSV, ASB, et al.) are very good translations, but in all of them decisions have been made in one direction or the other when the extant manuscripts are dissimilar. We can still be very confident in the Bible we hold in our hands, however. It can be trusted as a reliable and authoritative document. It's right on target and God-breathed."Without error," though, has to be discussed further. What do you mean by "without error"?

[Joelly Coelly]

Jim not sure what you mean by trick question. What I mean by without errors is no errors present! Of course that is in the Greek. God made a promise in Psalm 12:6&7 , so unless he lied where is the error free book.

[Commisso]

The beauty of the many versions is the continuity they create. If you are in a doctrinal study mode, you can read 5-10 versions, get a consensus viewpoint and come away with the correct idea.

[Simple Simon]

No translation is without error. The safest bet is the original language. However, even then, and even among top scholars, there's discrepancy among interpretations. There is no significant doctrinal error in the 'reliable' translations, there are certain grammatical and copyist errors, but nothing to cause alarm, I gather. Like our friend said, it's a trick question, or maybe it's designed for us to identify what errors matter and what doesn't?

[jimwalton]

"inerrant" is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to define, and in my opinion it's the wrong word to try to describe the authority of the Bible.

The Bible is a rich literary collection containing music, poetry, metaphor, allegory, archetypes, parable, hyperbole, metonymy, irony, simile, and many other literary forms, as well as genres such as prayer, prophecy, blessing, covenant language, legal language, etc. "Without error" quickly becomes a phrase with very little meaning or helpfulness. If a poet says the trees of the field will clap their hands and the mountains will jump for joy, can we say there's an error there or not? Of course not, it's poetry. If a man prays, "God, kill all those people", we may all understand that his prayer is inappropriate, and is not blessed by God, but is it an error? Well, how does that word even apply? And how does it apply to archetype, allegory, parable, and all the others? It's a word that should be dropped from the discussion. Maybe it's better to affirm what the Bible itself reveals about its origin, authority, and truthfulness, without trying to box it in with an inadequate term such as "without error", an insufficient phrase to describe the fullness of the Bible's authority.

1. God speaks only truth, and has inspired the Scriptures to reveal Himself.
2. The Bible is of full divine authority.
3. The Holy Spirit superintended its writing and authenticates the text.
4. We cannot reduce the text to a document subject to our human assessments about what in it is worthy vs. what should be disregarded.

We wrestle with words like inerrancy, infallibility, reliability, and accuracy. None of the words rise to meet the true standards of the Bible. We know that God accommodated the inadequacies of language to bring us His Word. "Without error" has an essential role to play, but also has limitations.