How does this jive with those who hold the 'innerrant' Bible idea?

Scholars chase Bible鈥檚 changes, one verse at a time



Working in a cluster of offices above a LifeWay Christian Bookstore, Bible scholars are buried in a 20-year project to codify the thousands of changes, verse by verse, word by word鈥攅ven letter by letter鈥攖hat crept into the early New Testament during hundreds of years of laborious hand-copying.



Their goal: to log them into the world鈥檚 first searchable online database for serious Bible students and professional scholars who want to see how the document changed over time.



http://www.religionnews.com/index.php?/r鈥?/a>How does this jive with those who hold the 'innerrant' Bible idea?
The words change everytime a different translation is made. That is part of the definition of 'translation'. Those scholars could save 20 years of their life since everyone with an ounce of common sense already knows that.
its needless. i study from a website that bears every rendering of the word and i also have manual resources for study. aside from the fact that the manuscripts rendered a 99 percent accuracy rating in old english, a hebrew and greek dictionary take you back to the unaltered wording. any moron who knows what a synonym is can read and understand God's word in almost any edition.How does this jive with those who hold the 'innerrant' Bible idea?
The original documents we claim are inerrant, and that these inerrant passages are still with us today and we use them daily, God's Word is inerrant and perfect free from error.
What is a serious bible student?How does this jive with those who hold the 'innerrant' Bible idea?
As far as I am concerned, it changes nothing. God's Word, will always be God's Word. God Bless.
Jive?



You are such a Christian it hurts :)
Sounds like a useful resource, but it's being oversold a couple ways.



While we can track changes among manuscripts we have, the assumption that we can somehow derive the originals is flawed. I heard a major scholar on New Testament editions speak on this recently. The manuscripts we have are copies of copies, and assumptions about which variants are errors and which are corrections from comparison with other copies are highly doubtful.



The fact that the "Pericope Adulterae" is apparently not originally part of the Gospel of John doesn't mean it isn't foundational Gospel material. We've got allusions to it from much earlier than its first appearance in that book. It seems likely that it was earlier somewhere else, and suppressed for a while (probably in the second century) because church leaders were worried about the appearance of promoting adultery. So it is more likely resurrected from suppression--and, unfortunately, inserted in the wrong place--rather than invented in the fourth century.



The copies with that passage in Luke are probably oversold as evidence. They turn out to be medieval rather than ancient.