It cracks me up when people call their Bibles the Inerrant word of god. What exactly is inerrant about it? The word inerrant means: Inerrant - incapable of being wrong, flawless. Currently, there are over 70 different versions of the English Bible, all of which are quite different. Most are based on interpretation of the scholar, while others are based on earlier versions, made by earlier scholars. So what exactly is inerrant? If we are speaking of the poetic writing, yes, one could deem the poetic language as flawless, but not inerrant. For something to be inerrant, every scripture has to agree. For an example, one scripture would not disagree with another. One scripture would not lead one to interpret another scripture differently. The only part of the Bible that is inerrant, is the original Hebrew text of the Old Testament. Even the original Greek version of the New Testament is not inerrant, as there are parts of the texts that are still highly debated by scholars today, as to their accuracy. In order for the New Testament to be inerrant, it must fully agree with the Hebraic text. For an example, Yahweh set out an instruction for us, that was later confirmed by Yahshua, to prove the inerrancy of the Word of Yahweh. De 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. Mt 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. For this reason, Yahweh established a set of rules to test scripture, as even Paul agreed to: 1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which mans wisdom teacheth, but which Separated Spirit teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. Peter later addresses this issue in his letter: 2 Pe 1:20-21 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but separated men of Elohim spake as they were moved by Separated Spirit. Peter testifies that scripture is not up for interpretation, nor can be interpreted. Meaning, that scripture must agree with scripture. Scripture MUST confirm scripture for it to be inerrant. Now since we dont have the original Hebraic writings of the New Testament, a diligent study and comparison must be performed, to understand the New Testament. It MUST agree with the Old Testament. In order for laymen to address this issue, most just make the claim Jesus (His Real Name is Yahshua) fulfilled the Old Testament, so we dont need to learn it. This is a cop out, or a means of interpreting scripture however they choose. As we read earlier, Peter said scripture is not up for private interpretation. In the Greek this means a personal explanation. Example: Minister Jo Blow assumes scripture is saying this. If Minister Jo Blows explanation does not agree with scripture (or can be found elsewhere in scripture), then Jo Blow made up his own private interpretation. Scripturally, Jo Blow was just now deemed a false prophet. A cloud without water scripture says. This means that Jo Blow cannot give water to make you (the seed) grow. Thus, he cannot claim that the Word is inerrant, since he did not search the scripture for inerrancy. For the New Testament to be accurate, and inerrant, it must fully agree with the Old Testament. We find Paul stating this in Acts: Ac 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the Elohim of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets. Ac 28:23 ¶ And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of Elohim, persuading them concerning Yahshua, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening. As you can see, Paul is teaching the people Yahshua from the Law and the Prophets. Now you might claim, But Paul preached against the Law, No he didnt, he taught the law and the prophets. Again, if you are reading a New Testament that does not confirm and agree with the Law and the Prophets, that is an interpreted version, not an actual scriptural version. The New Testament (Textus Receptus) of the KJV was translated into Greek from the Latin Vulgate. For this text to be inerrant, it must have come from the original Hebrew text. But it didnt. Let me explain the Textus Receptus. All of the early church fathers reported that the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew (from the Gospel of the Hebrews). In 200ad, it was then translated to a Greek version (Sinaiticus), which was later translated to Latin (Vulgate). The Textus Receptus was a translation from Latin (Vulgate) back into Greek. Thus cannot be inerrant. The earliest recorded New Testament document is the Sinaiticus (still in existence). A copy of the Sinaiticus is still in use today by the Greek Orthodox church called the Apostolic Polyglot. There are still fragments of this text that clearly show that it was translated from a Hebrew text. And it DOES agree with the Hebraic Old Testament text. Both the Aleppo (Masoretic text) and the Apostolic Polyglot agree textually, and scripturally. However, these two texts do not exist in the same Bible. The Greek Orthodox church uses the Septuagint Old Testament, while the Aleppo version remains alone. You can get both here: theword.net. Shalom.
Posted on: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 08:38:09 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015