“Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (2 Tim 3:7)

WHY DOES “THEOLOGY” DENY BIBLICAL INERRANCY?

or

WHY DO THEOLOGIANS RELY ON SO MANY OTHER BOOKS?

Theology has always relied on Reason, and Reason utilizes worldly tools such as history, archeology, and science. Because theologians had no worldly evidence to directly prove the existence of men like Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and Solomon, most of them declared those men never existed!

Why would theologians, who are Christians, do such a thing? Because we sinners will go to extreme measures to rationalize the fact that we do not want to submit to the dictatorial authority of the written word of Almighty God – by which He is going to judge us. The best way to escape the authority of the Bible is to allegorize what it says, that is, to do anything to avoid submitting to what it literally says.

David and Solomon, theologians claimed, never existed: they were allegorical figures invented by ancient Hebrews, and it is therefore up to us to decide what those mythological men represented.

Theologians have long claimed (based on the best findings of worldly wisdom) Jerusalem at the time of David and Solomon was “no more than a poor village”, “a rural backwater”. However, recent (2010) archeological digs unearthed evidence that Jerusalem at that time was, in fact, as sophisticated, wealthy, and powerful as the Bible portrays it. These findings are despised by liberal Christians because this evidence tends to support a literal interpretation of the Bible.

And that is why liberal Christians love the modern Bible versions such as the NAS, NIV, NKJV, RSV, etc: They all have provable errors that tend to discredit the Bible as the “word of God” as defined by God – inspired inerrancy preserved by Him for us. Therefore, again, it is (they claim) up to us to “correct” and “properly interpret” the “allegorical people and stories” in the Bible using the never-ending tools of theology such as concordances, Greek and Hebrew dictionaries, science, Reason, etc.

And that is why liberal Christians hate the KJV: Every single place in the modern versions that contains provable errors, is in the KJV worded differently. Why is that a problem for liberals? Because what the KJV says literally cannot be proven to be erroneous like the modern versions. In other words, the true problem theologians have with the KJV is it tends to support inerrancy and a literal interpretation of the Bible – which validates good old-fashioned, trust-in-God Bible study, and invalidates the modern trust-in-flesh-and-blood worldly methods of gathering “knowledge” (such as rabbits don’t chew their cuds) via theology.

In sum, the KJV is the only Bible version in existence in which theologians have been unable to find provable errors. Back when modern science thought rabbits did not chew their cud, theologians used that “fact” as a “provable error” that discredited the KJV…along with all other versions. But when they discovered that God was right (!) about rabbits chewing their cuds (see CUD), the KJV became unique among Bible versions because all of the modern versions contain provable errors such as Elhanan killed Goliath, Christ was a liar, etc.

I say again: The KJV alone supports a literal reliance on the accuracy and authority of the word of God – it’s called Bible study. The modern versions support the need to strive to figure out all the errors and allegories in the error-filled Bible manuscripts that God failed to preserve as His inspired and inerrant words. It’s called theology.

Bible study is based on faith, and it relies on God.

Theology is based on skepticism, and it relies on man.

If you want to view the chapter on the KJV issue, click KJV.

Let men of faith that have ears that hear, hear.