Two commentary footnotes by C.I. Scofield—“The writers of Scripture affirm, where the subject is mentioned by them at all, that the words of their writings are divinely taught.  This, of necessity, refers to the original documents, not to translations and versions; but the labors of competent scholars have brought some of our English versions to a remarkable degree of reliability, so that no essential truth of Scripture is ever under any question.   And 1Cor.2:9-14 gives the process by which a truth passes from the mind of God to the mind of people.  …  This implies neither mechanical dictation nor the effacement of the writer’s personality, but only that the Spirit infallibly guides in the choice of words from the writer’s own vocabulary.  …  Because the Scriptures [OT and NT] are inspired [whatever this word is held to mean], they are authoritative and without error in their original words, and constitute the infallible revelation of God to man.”

Another writer puts it this way: “We believe that the books Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, in their original state, as those men first wrote them were inspired by God.  Holy men of God wrote as they were moved by the breath of God."  For that reason, it is suggested, the original documents contain no errors.   But, there are NO original documents!  So, what does it mean to say that the “original documents” contain no error when we have none with which to compare?!  It means nothing and therefore this common statement constitutes simple pious bluster from ignorant individuals.

David Robert Palmer, the person who penned the above testimony, has, like many others, lifted the target passage in Peter out of context and misapplied it to NT infallibility.  How foolish believers can be when blinded by church dogma.

“For when he [Jesus] received honor and glory from God the Father and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,’ we heard this voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.  And we have the prophetic word made more sure.  You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.  First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2Pet.1:17-21) {RSV throughout unless otherwise stated.}  It should be obvious to anyone that the subject of the passage is Old Testament (OT) prophecy, not New Testament (NT) writings.  So this person is basing his conclusion about error-free documents on church dogma, not solid biblical foundations or original documents.  He is only parroting what someone else said.

In spite of varying and sometimes silly and self-serving claims of biblical infallibility, it is (or should be) painfully obvious to diligent readers of English Bible versions (and probably others as well) that translated textual interpretations vary widely between versions and that, remarkably, some Bible versions are more infallible, perfect, and flawless than others.  Thus, even our English language versions have been degraded (perhaps within a range from very flawless to plain flawless) and flawlessly modified to suit someone’s flawless point of view.  These flawless modifications came about, in part, because the underlying flawless original-language text had changed or because of theologically compulsory interpretive changes representing overriding theological pressure for flawless conformity and flawless harmony, and specific flawless church doctrinal requirements.  (Continued)