[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

In PM I told Ohio about my cousin here. For decades he was a deacon in a very conservative -- no pants, wine only, KJV only -- Southern Baptist church.

So he was so gung ho about the Bible he took Koine Greek classes to read it in "the original" Greek.

After learning Greek we were talking one day and he told me he could no longer say that the Bible is inerrant.

But one day, in Sunday School class, there was asked for all hands that believed the Bible is inerrant, and he raised his hand, along with everyone else.

He lied. Cuz there's social pressure in his church to hold to inerrancy.

Ohio responded with a question. He asked what my cousin meant by inerrancy.

So this morning I called my cousin to ask him.

In a nutshell he said : Is the Bible inerrant? Yes. Is the Bible we have today inerrant? No.

He went on to say that, he believed that the autograph copies were inspired by the Holy Spirit. And that they were inerrant. But the second copy of the autograph, was not inspired of Spirit and wasn't inerrant ... and so on down the line, thru all the manuscript copies, up to today.

In other words, the scribes that copied from copy to copy were not inspired of the Holy Spirit, and therefore the copies weren't inspired, so the Bible we have today is not inerrant.

He used to be a KJV, Textus Receptus, only believer. But after being able to read it in Greek he thinks the KJV is a bad translation.

But he did say that in spite of the errancy, the message from God still comes thru.

And he told me he didn't lie in that Sunday School class. Because he does believe the Bible is inerrant. He just didn't tell them that the Bible they did have, in their hands, is errant.

Interesting post awar. So your cousin has decided where to put his faith and that is on the original Bible manuscripts. Or, at least the Bible is an item in the sphere of his faith. I imagine there are some here who see things much like your cousin.