Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You don't have to compare it to another translation, but to another verse talking about the same topic. Take the topic of salvation for exmaple,- there are some 200 verses in the NT which say that those who believe are saved, so you can verify your understanding against those verses. If 199 of them say one thing, but you think one verse says something different, then you better believe it that you misunderstood that one verse.
Thank you for being honest. Many will claim it is unerring, but turn right around and tell you a certain verse is mistranslated. Guess it's really not unerring to them afterall.
Just curious, how can you place your trust in a book that isn't without flaws?
For the record, I do believe it is unerring. I have faith in the verse I quoted in the OP. There are many other similar verses. God promised us that He would keep His word pure and preserved for us forever.
Katie
Because the Bible isn't a single book, it's several dozen from different time periods, cultures, and authors. I need not reject the entire thing just because certain verses were altered.
I can read through a biology textbook and glean a great deal about biology from it. Doesn't mean science won't uncover that some things in that book are outdated and inaccurate as new evidence is discovered, nor does it mean everything I've learned is false.
And God never said he promised the Bible would remain pure and untampered with (and 2 Timothy 3:16 does not support that he did). Show me where God ever authorized King James or a Bible publishing house to convert scripture into modern day English? If God wanted the Bible to be perfect, he never would have let humanity touch it. King James himself, for example, admitted to ordering his translators to alter the Bible to conform to Church of England teaching and become more "Christianized". God never stopped them from doing it.
You don't have to compare it to another translation, but to another verse talking about the same topic. Take the topic of salvation for exmaple,- there are some 200 verses in the NT which say that those who believe are saved, so you can verify your understanding against those verses. If 199 of them say one thing, but you think one verse says something different, then you better believe it that you misunderstood that one verse.
1 Kings 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
2 Chron 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen
Excerpt:
The phrase, "The Bible's been translated and recopied so many times..." introduces one of the most frequent canards tossed at Christians quoting the Bible. Can we know for certain that the New Testament has been handed down accurately? Yes, we can. Stand to Reason: Is the New Testament Text Reliable?
I'm not sure about the accuracy of the following claim however.
Excerpt:
'There are enough quotations from the early church fathers that even if we did not have a single copy of the Bible, scholars could still reconstruct all but 11 verses of the entire New Testament from material written within 150 to 200 years from the time of Christ.' Manuscript Evidence for the Bible (by Ron Rhodes)
translation? and you never even mentioned "transcription"?
or who did you think was copying all those bibles during the dark ages.
historic bibles can be traced directly back through no just their translation (source) but also who transcribed them (the monastery and sometimes even the monk himself).
The Spanish Bibles have a 500 year history of water down the fear of God is all their Bible and just now finding a Bible today that is closer to the old texts ...... English Bibles are close to the original but customs of the old World of Israel and interpretation of scripture were unbelief is more important than the honor of believing scripture that the Lord has and God cannot give us a new Bible . so we are stuck with what we have like or not......I have no problem with the scripture , apart from the fact that some of the men who wrote in the Bible were not even Born again and some were proud and some were barbaric , But though Jesus spirit giving me ideas of understanding I can weed out the useless and find the correct and promises that are true and will bring the Life from the Lord ......
[It] is a book of parables, metaphors or figures of speech and examples that allow for interpretation, not of a private nature; belonging to one group or that of another. It's a book, which is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, every individual. However, man cannot comprehend the existence of his error, when too deeply immersed in it. He continues to follow a particular group on the basis of peer pressure. A translational error that appears to justify a particular sect of people, but not the whole of humanity is a deliberate mistranslation of men, adding to, or taking away from the truth. The first clue should be common sense, followed by that of a loving heart, but never on which scholar you prefer, unless it lines up with the Spirit of Life; not that of death.
"Study to show yourself approved, not to disapprove of others."
I find that there are many differences between translations.
For instance: Some translations are dynamic (thought for thought), but who's thought's are being translated?
Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
lol...other Bibles use the "formal" equivalence mode of translation (word for word), but what is formal about it? The translators themselves often cannot decide within their own committees what words to use in the translation. Often times using the margins when in doubt or when various alternate readings may be important.
Take the ASV 1901 edition vs the British ERV edition of 1885, itself a revision of the KJV. Many of the preferred readings of the American translators simply did not make the cut required to supplant the KJV text, or for that matter the British edition. Even if a particular reading was held by the majority of the American translators. Read the preface to the ASV 1901, here:
Idiomatic (paraphrased) versions of the bible are even more troublesome. Who's idiom is actually being expressed? The original authors (ie: Paul, Luke, Mark, John, etc.) or that of the translator? I suppose there are as many ideas on this method of translation as there are people on the earth.
Then, you have the go-for-broke literal translations such as the YLT or the LITV. Young's version has a very informative preface to his translation that is worth reading, here:
There are also excellent interlinears available that try and get the English language as close to the original languages as possible.
And, the issue surrounding textual criticism is also important. What manuscripts should be used during the translation? Take the NT manuscripts for example. Should it be one that favors the Alexandrian manuscripts, or of the Byzantine group, or should it be an eclectic text?
There are many differences of opinion on all of this. I really don't think the OP question can be given a simple yes or no answer.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
