The Facts on the King James Only Debate (Harvest House, 1996) pp. 32-33
If no translation is 100 percent perfect, how do we know we have an inerrant Bible?
In the last two decades, the topic of biblical inerrancy has separated the evangelical camp into those who are inerrantists and those who are not. Inerrantists believe “that when all facts are known, the Scriptures in their original autographs and properly interpreted will be shown to be wholly true in everything that they affirm, whether that has to do with doctrine or morality or with the social, physical, or life sciences.”*
Those who reject inerrancy believe there are original errors in certain areas the Bible touches outside doctrine and morality, e.g., in science and history. But if Scripture contains errors in those areas we can test on the basis of historical, archaeological, and scientific fact, on what logical basis can we assume it doesn’t contain errors in those areas we cannot test such as theology and ethics (the nature of God, salvation, morality)? The truth is that no error can be proven in the autographs since we don’t have them. In His wisdom God has seen fit not to preserve them. The original God-breathed manuscripts would of certainty have become items of worship, and, as with the Koran of Islam, translations would likely have been prohibited or rejected as causing a “perverting” of the pure Word of God. This eventually might have kept Scripture from all but those studied in Greek and Hebrew.
Regardless, an error can’t logically be suggested in the autographs because our copies strongly support inerrancy. Dr. Gleason L. Archer… [declares]: “In my opinion this charge can be refuted and its falsity exposed by an objective study done in a consistent, evangelical perspective….”*
*For documentation, see The Facts on the King James Only Debate.