Page 35 - Yahwehs Book

The Myth of an Inerrant Text

Biblical inerrancy means different things to different people. To some it means that the Scriptures
as originally written by men inspired of the Holy Spirit were a perfect representation of the words
of God. For some, though not all people, Biblical inerrancy also means that the Bible in its original
form was perfect in all of its statements, whether they relate to history, science, medicine, or any
other field of human study. I am among those who believe the Bible is inerrant in its original
manuscripts, and I clearly believe that Yahweh, being the Creator of all things, has a far better
understanding of history, science, and medicine than any human. I am confident that no original
writing that He inspired men to record contained error.

More extreme views of the Bible inerrancy doctrine declare that there are extant today specific
versions of the Bible that are flawless, not having deviated through the years from the original
autographs. Some people make similar claims of translations of the Bible that have been rendered
into other languages. They insist that the Bible translators were divinely guided to a perfect and
flawless expression of the thoughts and words of God as they labored to translate the Scriptures. One
of the most recognized examples of this radical belief in an inerrant Bible is observed among those
who assert, often with great prejudice and a very contentious spirit, that the King James Version is
a perfect, and flawless, English translation of the Scriptures. Many who hold to such a view
demonize all other English Bible translations, and at times suggest that a person is not truly saved,
nor in right standing before God, if they are using any Bible other than the KJV Bible.

I recently came across the account set forth by Samuel Martin on his blog where he writes of his
uncle Virgil in the 1950s offering reproof to Samuel’s father for speaking about recent scholarly
developments relating to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Bible translations such as the Revised Standard
Version. According to Samuel Martin, Virgil was a Nazarene preacher, honest as the day is long,
very sincere in his beliefs and loyal in his affiliations. He brought short the conversation by stating,
“If the King James Version was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me.”
[Source: http://samuelmartin.blogspot.com/2011/11/if-king-james-version-was-good-enough.html]

This, of course, sounds much like the words attributed to Ma Ferguson of Texas who claimed that
Jesus spoke the King’s English. Such comments are not at all uncommon. There exists a large group
of conservative, fundamentalist Christians who have been raised in denominational churches that
equate the King James Bible with the words of Christ and the apostles. Not all are ignorant of the
fact that Christ and his apostles did not speak English, but a great many have no knowledge of the
history and process of Bible translation.