Why we cannot have innerrant copies of the Bible image - The Debating Society

That, as one writer puts it, inerrancy means that God preserved the text through the ages and through translations inerrantly. This is held by no one I know of other than perhaps the King James Only group.
That "error" is judged based on 21st century standards of what constitutes a mistake - when in fact, we ought to judge by the standards of the day in which the Bible was written. Hence, for example, when a Skeptic criticizes passages in Proverbs as though they were absolute advice, they miss the point; see our essay on Proverbial Literature.)

The question that must be asked is, "Would this be regarded as 'inerrant' by the standards of those who originally wrote the text?" The answer in every case I have found so far is NO -- and the difficulty is increased because inevitably what the ancients regarded as a form of narrative art -- within which precision could acceptably be compromised -- is regarded as an "error" today.

Let's now compose an answer to these presumptions, and make a case for the claim that logically and practically, it would have been impossible to maintain an inerrant text through the ages.

A favorite argument of Skeptics today asks: "If the original manuscripts of the Bible were inerrant, why didn't God preserve their inerrancy through their copying and translation?"

This argument comes in a wide variety of forms. One of my earliest Skeptical opponents made statements such as this:

The language here (in a passage of the Bible) is somewhat murky. You would think an omniscient "God" would not suffer from dyslexia, and instead make things crystal clear to his subjects.

rest of article

Tektonics.org