Dealing with a Calvinistic Bible Agnostic and his "the ancient manuscripts" and "inerrant doctrine" position -
Jason S. says: "You are right. Most people don't believe that any bible translation is without error. Men translated God's words. Men make mistakes. Putting blind faith into a 17th century translation makes you the uneducated foolish person. Look at the ancient mss and the doctrine they teach. That is what is without error. Not singular words, the doctrine."
Hi Jason. There are several things wrong with what you say here.
You tell us: "Look at the ancient mss and the doctrine they teach. That is what is without error. Not singular words, the doctrine."
First, you did not tell us WHICH "the ancient manuscripts" you are referring to. There are thousands of them and they are all different from each other, often by hundreds or thousands of words, and they are in languages hardly anyone can read.
Secondly, you have changed the goal posts and have determined for yourself what the "Standard" should be, namely, "doctrine". You have left out of your equation such "minor" things like historical facts that involve different names and numbers of those involved in the historical events God caused to be recorded in His Book.
All the people who put together the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy differ from your point of view in that they include these things - historical facts - as well they should.
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy = just more Evangelical mumbo jumbo signifying nothing
Notice one particular requirement they list for us that defines this non-existent, hypothetical, philosophical, mystical and not yet in print “Inerrant Scripture” they keep wanting us to think they believe in.
It’s found in Article XII - “We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of ASSERTIONS IN THE FIELD OF HISTORY AND SCIENCE."
Well, as a King James Bible believer (with a real Bible to give to anyone who wants to read it for himself) I agree that the true and INFALLIBLE WORDS OF GOD MUST ALSO BE 100% HISTORICALLY TRUE." IF IT IS NOT, THEN WE SHOULD ASK AT WHAT POINT AND WHEN DOES GOD START TO TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT ALL THOSE OTHER THINGS FOUND IN HIS BOOK."
You might want to click on the link and take what I call The Bible Agnostic Test and see if you know which of these recorded historical events are 100% true.
And the last point I want to make regarding your “inerrant doctrine” idea, is that I have found that most of the theological errors and corruptions in the modern versions have to do with the WAY in which they TRANSLATE the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts.
Here, from my own studies, are more than 30 examples of how the modern versions (that nobody seriously believes are inerrant) corrupt sound doctrine.
Are you willing to look at them and see what I am talking about?
Fake Bibles Do Teach False Doctrines
In any event, it is clear from your own words here that you do NOT have any complete and inerrant Bible in any language - including those alluded to but not identified “the ancient manuscripts” - that you honestly believe IS the inerrant Bible both in doctrine and history to believe in yourself or to give to anybody else.
Think about it. Then ask God if perhaps He really DID keep His promises to preserve His words and to put them into “the book of the LORD” that is a present reality and not just some hypothetical “Phantom” bible nobody has ever seen and cannot show to anyone else.
"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Luke 8:8