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.
I said we would be in an impossible situation if our salvation depended on our knowledge of the Greek. You disagreed. Why?
Either you trust in the Bible we have 100% or you do not. As soon as you say it is mistranslated, then you open the door wide to every wind of doctrine. I don't believe there can be an in between. You can't pick or choose which verses YOU think may be mistranslated.
I trust that God has given us an accurate translation of His word in English. I trust it 100%. It has not been mistranslated. Just as the Holy Spirit guided Peter, Paul, James, etc., He guided those who copied and translated.
Everything I need to know for salvation and how to live a christian life pleasing to Him is written within. (2 Tim 3:16-17)
I believe and accept it as is! I trust that the Holy Spirit will keep His promise to guide me into all truth.
I said we would be in an impossible situation if our salvation depended on our knowledge of the Greek. You disagreed. Why?
Either you trust in the Bible we have 100% or you do not. As soon as you say it is mistranslated, then you open the door wide to every wind of doctrine. I don't believe there can be an in between. You can't pick or choose which verses YOU think may be mistranslated.
I trust that God has given us an accurate translation of His word in English. I trust it 100%. It has not been mistranslated. Just as the Holy Spirit guided Peter, Paul, James, etc., He guided those who copied and translated.
Everything I need to know for salvation and how to live a christian life pleasing to Him is written within. (2 Tim 3:16-17)
I believe and accept it as is! I trust that the Holy Spirit will keep His promise to guide me into all truth.
Katie
Then you're sticking your head in the sand to hold onto something that is factually not true. No different then believing the sun revolves around the Earth or the Earth is flat (both supported by the Bible).
God never authorized the Bible to be translated in English. He doesn't commission Bible publishers seeking to make a profit to produce thousands of English translations.
Excellent example. Of course, Bible inerrantists will say that, while one of them would have to be wrong, it doesn't really matter since our salvation doesn't hinge on how many stalls Solomon had for his horses. And they would be right; it doesn't. But, your example does illustrate a very good point. Furthermore, it's not an isolated example, and while this one particular "contradition" may not be significant, how do we know for sure what other similar errors may exist and which of those may truly be important?
One other thought. John said that if everything Jesus had said and done throughout His three-year ministry, these things would more than fill all of the books in the world. When you stop and think how little we actually have, it makes you wonder what wasn't written down. It's hard for me to imagine that Jesus would have spent 98% of his time during His ministry just making small talk or teaching things that didn't really matter. The Bible we have today (regardless of the translation) is God's word and should be a guide for our lives. The fact that none of the translations are 100% perfect should not be a reason for us to simply throw the whole thing in the trash. On the other hand, it's really very naive for us to just put on our rose-colored glasses and pretend that the Bible is something it never even claims to be.
Sorry Katz, but your thinking is what led to mormonism. (I am not attacking your religion). Everything we needed to know about Jesus is written. Of course, He did many other things, but apparently, the Holy Spirit didn't think it was necessary for it to be written down. Personally, I never wonder about what was not written. There is enough so that I was able to have faith by hearing and reading about it.
Can you show me any contradiction in doctrine in the Bible?
This kind of thinking is what leads to opening the door for every wind of doctrine to come down the pike. This is how new religions, and new denominations begin.
If you can't trust the Bible 100%, then you can't trust it at all. There is no in between. If there was, then who decides which is wrong is and which is right?
Our modern day Bible is not questionable in the least. There are some translations which are not as good as others, but there are very good translations. And there are some which cannot really be called translations, but rather interpretations. Some translations attempt a literal word for word translation, and others aim to present the literal meaning which often requires adding words in the English in order to bring the meaning from the Greek into the English.
The doctrine of inspiration applies only to the original autographs of the Bible. Yet, God has preserved His word despite the fact that probably every manuscript copy varies in some way from every other manuscript copy. The variations are mostly minor. Differences in word order. Spelling differences. The omission of words or sentences. Some things such as the Johanine coma, that portion of 1 John 5:7-8 which reads 'For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.' is generally thought by scholars to be an insertion. Whether it is are not is irrelevant because it does not change the fact that the Bible teaches that God is triune. The doctrine of the trinity does not depend on that passage.
What about John 1:1 which says 'The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.' Many manuscripts do not contain the words 'the Son of God'. But whether the original autograph included those words, or didn't, again is irrelevant, since it doesn't change any point of doctrine. The Bible teaches elsewhere the Jesus is the Son of God.
What about Mark 9, verses 44 and 46, both of which are identical with verse 48 which reads 'where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED. Some of the best manuscripts do not include verses 44 and 46. And again, it is irrevelant. Whether verses 44 and 46 were in the original autograph changes nothing. Verse 48 does belong.
What about Mark 10:7 which reads 'For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother. Some manuscripts add 'and shall cleave to his wife'. The King James which is based on Textus Receptus includes 'and shall cleave to his wife.' The NASB which is based on earlier manuscripts doe not include those words. Once again, the presence of absence of those words does not change any point of doctrine. The following verse makes it clear that the two shall be one flesh. Mark 10:7 is a quotation of Gen 2:24.
Those are just a few examples of how variations, and insertions do not affect God's recorded message to man. God has preserved His word by insuring that there are thousands of manuscript copies (in various degrees of completion, some only fragments) which despite the errors and variations do not alter God's recorded word. The science of textual criticism compares the available manuscripts and such comparisons can see which manuscripts greatly differ from the others.
By having thousands of manuscript copies available, this insures that no one person or group could have gotten their hands on all of them in order to change and obscure God's word. Manuscript copy can be compared with manuscript copy, and thus, despite the variations and errors, we can be sure that we have God's preserved word.
We don't agree often, but on this we agree 100%. Thank you for your post.
If we can't trust our Bible 100%, then we can't trust it at all. There is no in between. When we say the Bible has error, we open the door wide to any wind of doctrine.
Then you're sticking your head in the sand to hold onto something that is factually not true. No different then believing the sun revolves around the Earth or the Earth is flat (both supported by the Bible).
God never authorized the Bible to be translated in English. He doesn't commission Bible publishers seeking to make a profit to produce thousands of English translations.
Then exactly what do you put your faith in? And please don't tell me Jesus Christ, because you wouldn't know about Him if He wasn't written about in the Bible. Are you a Greek language expert? Are you able to read the original manuscripts?
If you don't believe the Bible is 100% unerring, then what do you believe? That it is only part unerring? Who decided for you which parts are erring and which parts are not?
I disagree with you that God never authorized the Bible to be translated into English. Look what happened on the day of Pentecost. The Holy Spirit empowered the apostles to speak God's word in every language of the people present, which was many. God absolutely wants His word written in every language, and that includes English.
Then exactly what do you put your faith in? And please don't tell me Jesus Christ, because you wouldn't know about Him if He wasn't written about in the Bible.
Katie
Yes you would, all the early believers, believed through the glad tidings (the living word of God)brought to them, before the New Testament was ever compiled.
The same LIFE that raised Jesus Christ from the dead dwells in us, and it's that same life that speaks to the hearts of men,that opens the hearts of men, and causes a man to put his faith in that Life.
If you've seen the life in me you have seen the life of the Father,this should not be a mystery to the believing Christian .John 14:9
One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message.Acts 16:14. She responded to something SAID. Do you not have faith that God can preserve the spoken inerrant living word of God through the ages ?
Sorry Katz, but your thinking is what led to mormonism. (I am not attacking your religion).
Actually, you're wrong. The idea that the Bible possibly contained translation errors had absolutely nothing to do with the establishment of Mormonism. Absolutely nothign.
Quote:
Everything we needed to know about Jesus is written.
And you know this how? The Bible certainly doesn't say this.
Quote:
Of course, He did many other things, but apparently, the Holy Spirit didn't think it was necessary for it to be written down.
What about the things that were written down but didn't end up in the Bible? What about Paul's other epistles -- you know, the ones that are mentioned in the epistles we have, but are missing if you go to find them?
Quote:
Personally, I never wonder about what was not written. There is enough so that I was able to have faith by hearing and reading about it.
I'm sure you haven't. What does that tell us?
Quote:
Can you show me any contradiction in doctrine in the Bible?
I'm sure I could. Do you want me to do so? I'm sure it would be a whole lot easier than you finding any contraditions in doctrine between the Bible and the Book of Mormon, actually.
Quote:
This kind of thinking is what leads to opening the door for every wind of doctrine to come down the pike. This is how new religions, and new denominations begin.
Yes... thousands of them managed to come into existence when the only translation we had was the 100% perfect King James Version. How do you explain that?
Quote:
If you can't trust the Bible 100%, then you can't trust it at all. There is no in between.
Oh, Katie, come on. Look at the results of your poll. I'm not the only person who thinks "the Bible" (as if there was just one translation) likely contains errors here and there. Don't you think the other 20+ people who voted the same way I did trust the Bible? Of course they do.
Quote:
If there was, then who decides which is wrong is and which is right?
Well, Paul gave us the answer to that question. It would be those individuals Jesus ordained to be prophets and apostles. He said this organization was supposed to exist until we all came into the unity of our faith in Christ, and he told us what would happen without them. Evidently, he knew what he was talking about. For the sake of argument, how about if I say the Bible was 100% perfect, right down to the last letter, ever single translation you would personally approve of. You'd still be denying the necessity of the organizational structure Paul said was essential, because you'd be interpreting his words in such a way that they would fit in with the conclusion you've already come to.
Either we trust what we have 100%, or we do not. There is no in between. As soon as you say the Bible is mistranslated, then you leave the door wide open to any wind of doctrine that comes down the pike.
Either we bury our heads in the sand 100% of the time or not.....I choose not to. The bible says to search the "scriptures" not the "translations" of those scriptures.
Quote:
We have to trust in God's promise to keep His word pure. Our English translations are all we have. We are not Greek experts. Therefore, we must depend on our English translations.
"Our English Translations" are NOT all we have, nor must we "depend" exclusively on them. God didn't create us as idiots you know...He wants us to search out the truth in all things. It's hard for me to believe you say the things you do here, kmg.
And, you do not need to be an expert in either Hebrew or Greek to study the scriptures. You simply need a desire to research it, compare your own findings to what you've been told and draw your own conclusions. If you're really too lazy to do that, that's your excuse, not mine...lol.
Moreover, we do not need to be dependent on any one particular English translation, no more so than we would have to depend on a bible commentary, a particular church creed or any other such denominational teaching.
You need to take a moment to actually think about what you're advocating regarding our English bible translations. Exactly who's particular translation is "unerring" and should be accepted as such? Is it the KJV, or perhaps the ASV? What about the NASB, the NIV, or the YLT? Each one differs from the other. Which particular translation is "unerring"? The only people I know who believe a particular translation is "unerring" are the 1611 KJV ONLY advocates. You can google them for more information.
Even translators themselves do not believe any one particular translation is "unerring", let alone their own translations being so. So, why should we believe something about a translators work that they themselves don't believe in?
The very best and brightest translators and textual critics do not always agree on either the underlying critical text to be used for translation or even the proper English word to be used translating that text. If you stop and think about it, the Nestle-Aland Greek text (often used by most translators today) was created (if memory serves), by taking the foremost textual critics of their day (Tischendorf, H-W, and Weymouth) and trying to form a consensus between their texts. But even that eclectic text is revised, updated and "improved"...lol...from time to time by the UBS!
So you tell us. Which one of these critical Greek texts is "unerring"? If you know, let the UBS guys know too, because that would save them a lot of time trying to figure it out...LOL
Quote:
Most of all, we must trust in the Holy Spirit. He will guide us to truth. I truly believe that we need to spend a lot more time studying God's word, and little to no time reading the opinions of men.
Katie
This part I agree with! We do need to study God's word. And, part of that study is verifying that the translations we read from accurately reflect the manuscripts they're being translated from. The reality is that all translations have their strength and weaknesses. None of them are "unerring".
Either we bury our heads in the sand 100% of the time or not.....I choose not to. The bible says to search the "scriptures" not the "translations" of those scriptures.
"Our English Translations" are NOT all we have, nor must we "depend" exclusively on them. God didn't create us as idiots you know...He wants us to search out the truth in all things. It's hard for me to believe you say the things you do here, kmg.
And, you do not need to be an expert in either Hebrew or Greek to study the scriptures. You simply need a desire to research it, compare your own findings to what you've been told and draw your own conclusions. If you're really too lazy to do that, that's your excuse, not mine...lol.
Moreover, we do not need to be dependent on any one particular English translation, no more so than we would have to depend on a bible commentary, a particular church creed or any other such denominational teaching.
You need to take a moment to actually think about what you're advocating regarding our English bible translations. Exactly who's particular translation is "unerring" and should be accepted as such? Is it the KJV, or perhaps the ASV? What about the NASB, the NIV, or the YLT? Each one differs from the other. Which particular translation is "unerring"? The only people I know who believe a particular translation is "unerring" are the 1611 KJV ONLY advocates. You can google them for more information.
Even translators themselves do not believe any one particular translation is "unerring", let alone their own translations being so. So, why should we believe something about a translators work that they themselves don't believe in?
The very best and brightest translators and textual critics do not always agree on either the underlying critical text to be used for translation or even the proper English word to be used translating that text. If you stop and think about it, the Nestle-Aland Greek text (often used by most translators today) was created (if memory serves), by taking the foremost textual critics of their day (Tischendorf, H-W, and Weymouth) and trying to form a consensus between their texts. But even that eclectic text is revised, updated and "improved"...lol...from time to time by the UBS!
So you tell us. Which one of these critical Greek texts is "unerring"? If you know, let the UBS guys know too, because that would save them a lot of time trying to figure it out...LOL
This part I agree with! We do need to study God's word. And, part of that study is verifying that the translations we read from accurately reflect the manuscripts they're being translated from. The reality is that all translations have their strength and weaknesses. None of them are "unerring".
Acuteness of judgment and understanding called Discernment.
After reading the "discussion" about wether or not the bible has errors or not i checked out the preface to the bible i use, it is published by:
Zondervan it is the NIV/KJV Parallel Bible, Copywrighted 2002.
In the second paragraph down this is the quote:
"No two early printings of the KJV were identical-not even the two printingss of 1611- and no two modern settings are identical, either. These differences are due to accidental human error as well as to intentional changes by printers and editors, who sought to eliminate what they judged to be the errors of others and to conform the text to their standards of english usage."
i have heard that there has been thousands of corrections since the first printings, so that leaves the question which one is the correct one?
Also later in the preface it says that when italics are used it is a word that was not in the original text, it was put in because it fit, I believe, the slant of the publishers ideology.
For me it boils down to the Holy Spirit to guide
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.
