Biblical inerrancy: Difference between revisions

For hundreds of years, biblical and textual scholars have examined the manuscripts extensively. Since the eighteenth century, they have employed the techniques of [[textual criticism]] to reconstruct how the extant manuscripts of the New Testament texts might have descended, and to recover earlier [[recension]]s of the texts. However, [[Authorized King James Version|King James Version (KJV)]]-only inerrantists often prefer the traditional texts (i.e., [[''Textus Receptus]]'', which is the basis of KJV) used in their churches to modern attempts of reconstruction (i.e., [[Novum Testamentum Graece|Nestle-Aland Greek Text]], which is the basis of modern translations), arguing that the [[Holy Spirit]] is just as active in the preservation of the scriptures as in their creation.<ref>White, JR., ''The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations?'', Baker Books, 2009, p. 24.</ref>

KJV-only inerrantist Jack Moorman says that at least 356 doctrinal passages are affected by the differences between the ''Textus Receptus'' and the Nestle-Aland Greek Text.<ref>Moorman, Jack, ''Missing In Modern Bibles – Is the Full Story Being Told?'', Bible for Today, 1989, 83 pages</ref>

Some familiar examples of Gospel passages in the ''Textus Receptus'' thought to have been added by later interpolaters and omitted in the Nestle Aland Greek Text include the ''[[Pericope Adulteræ]]'',{{Bibleref2c|Jn|7:53–8:11}} the [[Comma Johanneum]],{{Bibleref2c|1Jn|5:7–8|NIV|1 Jn 5:7–8}} and the longer ending in [[Mark 16]].{{Bibleref2c|Mk|16:9–20}}

| editor-last = Mays

| editor-first = James

| title = Harper Collins Bible Commentary

| publisher = Harper Collins

| edition =Revised

| year =2000

| isbn=0-06-065548-8 }}</ref>

The "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" says, "We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture". However, it also reads: "We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.churchcouncil.org/ICCP_org/Documents_ICCP/English/01_Biblical_Inerrancy_A&D.pdf |title=Chicago Statement on Biblical Innerancy |access-date=2010-11-15 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130826055225/http://churchcouncil.org/ICCP_org/Documents_ICCP/English/01_Biblical_Inerrancy_A%26D.pdf |archive-date=2013-08-26 |url-status=dead}}</ref>

==== ''Textus Receptus'' ====

A minority of biblical inerrantists go further than the Chicago Statement, arguing that the original text has been perfectly preserved and passed down through time. This is sometimes called [[`''Textus Receptus]]'' Onlyism`, as it is believed the Greek text by this name (Latin for received text) is a perfect and inspired copy of the original and supersedes earlier manuscript copies. This position is based on the idea that only the original language God spoke in is inspired, and that God was pleased to preserve that text throughout history by the hands of various scribes and copyists. Thus the ''Textus Receptus'' acts as the inerrant source text for translations to modern languages. For example, in Spanish-speaking cultures the commonly accepted "KJV-equivalent" is the [[Reina-Valera]] 1909 revision (with different groups accepting, in addition to the 1909 or in its place, the revisions of 1862 or 1960). The [[New King James Version]] was also translated from the ''Textus Receptus''.