I feel that all of the questions that I asked concerning the statements you 
made in your lecture could have been answered without the use of any of your scriptures, so I am left with the impression that you didn't address my questions because you can't.  You simply grabbed hold of the request I made at the end of my letter, and used that as a mechanism to question me.  A strategy I am very familiar with.

First, I will address your question concerning which Bible I deem "inerrant".  I would say any of the ones you suggested with the exception of the Jerusalem Bible that I believe contains the Apocrypha.  You named several different translations and claimed that they are all different.  I agree.  Do they all contain the same truths?  Yes.  How many languages is the Book of Mormon translated into?  Would you agree that they are all different?  Even though I believe that the Book of Mormon is a story told by someone who just made it up, I have no doubt that it is the same story regardless of what "translation" it is.

Your comment concerning the King James Bible is especially interesting.  I am well aware that there were changes made to the King James translation.  For you to know the number of changes would imply that you have access to a copy of one of the original.  By comparing these you should be able to give me examples of changes that altered the messaage.  I'm sure you must recall the changes that I quoted in my letter to you concerning the improper addition of the letter "s" to the word seriphim, and also to the word cherubim.  What did the removal of the letter "S", in later publications, do to change the truth contained in the passages?  Perhaps, since I was able to give you some examples of changes that were made in the Book of Mormon that DID change the 
story, you could do the same for me and provide the changes to the King James translation that had the same effect.  Maybe the name of the king was changed because early critics noticed that the king in question was already dead.  You asked me about the 5,000 plus extant manuscripts.  You claim that every one is different.  Have you studied them all?  How are they different?  I know that there are few complete manuscripts.  Some partial manuscripts have some segments of a book, while another partial manuscript will have the rest of the book.  In many cases the two (or more) will have overlapping segments that appear identical.  Some are written in different styles according to the time they were written.  Some have passages that don't appear in others (I will address this later).  Some have subtle changes in the spelling of a city name, or an alternate name that would have been understood by the reader.  Some, like the Samaritan Scriptures, have been changed to accommodate their personal biases, like changing Mt. Gerizim for Mt. Ebal in the book of 
Joshua.

Through the labors of textual critics we have a Bible that reflects 999 out 
of 1000 words as they probably were written in the original.

You claim that we don't have any original manuscripts.  I agree.  Your 
assumption that the message has changed through copying cannot be supported without the originals.  By the way, you claim that the changes to the Book of Mormon occurred because Joseph Smith would not let the original out of his hands and Oliver's copying resulted in the errors.  It is a shame that that important document was apparently lost forever or you could use it to support your claim huh? 

I Quote: 

"We turn to the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament.  These manuscripts are all dated, even by the critics themselves, in the first century.  There was a time when the liberal school of criticism held that the New Testament manuscripts were written in the second century.  But when an early fragment of the Gospel according to John was found, and experts proved by it that the New Testament was written in the first century, the critical school had to discard its theory.  In our investigation into the character of Jesus of Nazareth, we are now using New Testament manuscripts, having treated the secular documents of the same date of writing.  Since we regard the latter as dependable sources, is it too much to ask that we accord the same character to the former?  Is there any reason that has to do with literary criticism, that would cause us to question their trustworthiness?  Suppose we should find upon investigation that we have more reason to trust the authenticity of the New Testament records than those of classical Greece.  Would that encourage you to accept these New Testament records at their face value? 

Professor John A. Scott says in his book, Luke, Greek Physician and 
Historian, "There is one great advantage which the New Testament can claim over all the writings of classical Greece, and that is the age and excellent condition of its manuscripts.  Homer probably lived not far from 1000 B.C., yet the oldest manuscripts now extant containing the Iliad and the Odyssey are hardly older than the tenth century of the Christian era.  Hence we see that almost two thousand years intervene between Homer and the oldest complete manuscript of his works which we possess.  Most of the poetry of Pindar, who died about 450 B.C., has been lost, but the oldest manuscript of the poetry which has survived was written very near the year 1150 A.D.  In other words, there is an interval of about 1600 years between Pindar and the date of his oldest manuscript.  Demosthenes died in 322 B.C., while the oldest manuscript of any complete oration which we have is hardly earlier than 900 A.D.  Those selected are the ones of which we have especially old and reliable 
manuscripts.  With the New Testament we are in another world, for we have two manuscripts which were certainly written before 340, perhaps as early as 325 A.D.  The New Testament probably received its final form about 100 A.D.  Hence we have manuscripts of the New Testament which are removed from the compilation of that book by little more than two centuries, while in the case of the greatest writers of Greece the average interval is more than eight times as great, or sixteen centuries....  Well-meaning Christians often say that we must take the Gospels on faith.  It takes about as much faith for me to believe the Gospels as it does for me to believe the binomial theorem or the multiplication table.  Where knowledge enters, agnosticism flees.  Indeed, the very word 'agnostic' is simple Greek for 'one who has no knowledge.'  The word may be prophetic, or only an accident, but if an accident "tis an accident that heaven provides.' " 

But we can push our research further back than this.  In recent times, the 
Chester Beatty Manuscripts have been discovered, which are dated between A.D., 200- 300.  The original manuscripts of the New Testament were still in existence A.D. 200, according to Tertullian, one of the Church Fathers.  But we can go still further back and forge an unbroken chain to the original documents which left the pens of the Bible writers, in the Writings of the Apostolic and Church Fathers, which are commentaries based upon the New Testament manuscripts, and which contain the entire New Testament in quotations, with the exception of John 8:1-ll which was stricken out of some early texts because of a mistaken fear that its contents would encourage adultery.  Thus, we have an unbroken link between our present day Greek printed texts and the original hand written manuscripts.  The errors which crept in during l500 years of copying by hand have been eliminated and a correct text formed, so that scholars tell us that 999 words out of every thousand in our present Greek text are the same as those of the original autographs, and that the thousandth word concerning which there may be some difference of opinion is of so little consequence, that it does not affect any historical fact or doctrine.  We have as available source material 8,000 hand written copies of the Latin Vulgate, 2,000 manuscripts of the New Testament in other languages, and 4,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, 14,000 available sources, as against a mere handful of manuscripts of the classical writers.  With this preponderance of evidence for the historical trustworthiness and accuracy of the New Testament manuscripts, no informed person will doubt their authenticity upon the basis of literary criticism." 

WORD STUDIES IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT By KENNETH S. WUEST 

You asked me why I included a quote by Metzger stating that a part of Marks gospel is not authentic.  As I stated above, there are some passages in the manuscript evidence that do not appear in all the manuscripts.  When this happens it is noted because there is some question regarding their authenticity.  In fact, some translations such as the NIV will not include some of these.  Most will include them with a footnote explaining that the passage does not appear in all the manuscripts.  Most people taking care to evaluate the whole counsel of the Bible will not base a point of doctrine on a questionable passage if it does not agree with other verses that address the issue in question.  Jesus said that it is wrong to put the LORD your God to the test.  Isn't that what I would be doing if I handled deadly snakes or drank poison? 

Your comment that the Bible doesn't state that it is inerrant is correct.  The word inerrant doesn't appear. 

I quote: 

"As long as inerrancy is not understood in the sense of scientific exactness, it can be a useful term.  While the Bible does not err, the really important fact about the Bible is that it does teach truth.  Furthermore, inerrancy should not be understood as meaning that the Bible tells us everything possible on a given subject.  The treatment is not exhaustive, only sufficient to accomplish the intended ends. 

2. We must define what we mean by error.  If this is not done, if we do 
not have some fixed limits which clearly separate truthful statements from false propositions, the meaning of inerrancy will be lost.  If there is an "infinite coefficient of elasticity of language," so that the word truthtful 
can simply be stretched a bit more, and a bit more, and a bit more, 
eventually it comes to include everything, and therefore nothing.  If a belief is to have any meaning (in this case, belief in the inerrancy of the Bible), we must be prepared to state what would cause us to give it up.  We must be prepared, then, to indicate what would be considered an error.  Statements in Scripture which plainly contradict the facts (or are contradicted by them) must be considered errors.  If Jesus did not die on the cross, if he did not still the storm on the sea, if the walls of Jericho did not fall, if the people of Israel did not leave their bondage in Egypt and depart for the Promised Land, then the Bible is in error.  In all of this we see a modified form of the verifiability principle at work, but without the extreme dimensions which prove to be the undoing of that criterion as it is applied by logical positivism, for in the present case the means of verification are not limited to sense data. 

3. The doctrine of inerrancy applies in the strict sense only to the 
originals, but in a derivative sense to copies and translations, that is, to 
the extent that they reflect the original.  This view is often ridiculed as a 
subterfuge, and it is pointed out that no one has seen the inerrant 
autographs.  Yet, as Carl Henry has pointed out, no one has seen the errant originals either.  To be sure, the concept that only the originals are 
inerrant can be used as an evasion.  One might suggest that all seeming errors are merely copying errors; they were not present in the originals but subsequently crept in.  In actuality, the concept that inerrancy applies only to the originals is seldom put to this use.  Textual criticism is a sufficiently developed science that the number of passages in the Bible where the reading is in doubt is relatively small; as a matter of fact, in many of the problem passages there really is no question of the reading.  Thus we have a very good idea of the exact wording of the originals.  Rather, what is being affirmed by the concept that only the originals are inerrant is that inspiration did not extend to copyists and translators.  While divine providence was doubtless operative, there was not the same type of action of the Holy Spirit as was involved in the original writing of the text. 

Nonetheless, we must reaffirm that the copies and the translations are 
also the Word of God, to the degree that they preserve the original message.  When we say they are the Word of God, we do not have in mind, of course, the original process of the inspiration of the biblical writer.  Rather, they are the Word of God in a derivative sense which attaches to the product.  So it was possible for Paul to write to Timothy that all Scripture is inspired, although undoubtedly the Scripture that he was referring to was a copy and probably also a translation (the Septuagint) as well." 

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY by MILLARD J. ERICKSON 

The Bible does claim to be inerrant i.e. truth. 
Ps. 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 
Ps.119:140 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it. 
Pr. 30: 5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. 
Jn.10:35If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken 
And infallible. 
2Tim.3:16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for 
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. 


My position regarding the Bible is NOT "The result from the Protestant 
Reformation".  The Catholic church came into being long after the events in Acts 2 took place. 
My position is based on the clear teaching of the Bible, something the 
reformers recognized to be truth. 

Ps.19: 7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. 
8 The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. 
9 The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the 
LORD are true and righteous altogether. 

Pr. 30: 5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. 
6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a 
liar. 


You state, and I quote, "In your letter you misrepresented my position and that of the Church regarding the Bible.  You think that because I don't believe that it is inerrant, that it is "fallible and errant".  Please explain to me what the opposite of inerrant is.  The rules of logic dictate that A doesn't equal non A.  If it is not inerrant then it must be errant.  If it is errant then it is fallible.  Also, A doesn't equal B.  It cannot be inerrant and errant at the same time.  So I believe my assertion is valid, what the Bible claims is irrelevant if you believe it is errant, or if you don't believe it is inerrant. 

I do hope you will answer some of the questions I posed with regard to your presentation.  I think I posed some valid questions. 
Thanks for your time.                                                Gary Wilson