If no Bible translation is perfect then do we really have Gods word?

[DeaconDean]

I think the Bible translators have done an excellent job.

I agree.

Never said anything against the KJV. Some people love it. That is the version I use, study, teach, and preach from.

But, that is also a reason why I took Greek in seminary.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

Did you trust Billy Graham even though he wasn't inerrant? I did.

1 Corinthians 1:13
Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

Or in other words were you baptized in the name of Billy? Not me, we are not to put our trust in men, especially when you dig into their connections. Anyhow off topic.

I for one think the KJV is trustworthy and even more so the Geneva bible.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

Don't trust the Bible - trust the Lord.

How do you know the Lord without the Bible? How did you hear the gospel without the bible? If you are not basing your view of the Lord on the Bible then you are making a god to our liking.

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

The OT canon closed around 400 BC. The Masoretic Text of the scriptures we have now, were issued about AD 600.

The Book of Enoch was "Officially" kept out of the OT Canon at the Council of Jamnia in 90 A.D. by Hebrews who specifically excluded other Hebrews who believed that Yehushua was the Messiah from the Council. Let that sink in.

Council of Jamnia - Wikipedia

 

[Tree of Life]

Can we trust a Bible with mistakes?
Can we trust any Bible 100%?
Which Bible/s can we trust?
What does it mean when God said he will preserve his word?

What are your thoughts?


(no kjv onlyism)

The only infallible source is the text in their original languages of Hebrew and Greek. Every translation seeks to convey those texts but no translation can be perfect.

Reading a translation is like kissing your bride through a veil. You're still kissing your bride and you can be sure that you're having a personal encounter with the word of God. But it's not quite as personal or intimate as encountering it in the original languages.

 

[DeaconDean]

The Book of Enoch was "Officially" kept out of the OT Canon at the Council of Jamnia in 90 A.D. by Hebrews who specifically excluded other Hebrews who believed Yehushua was the Messiah from the Council. Let that sink in.

Council of Jamnia - Wikipedia

Maybe, but there are also some clear contradictions also.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Shempster]

I would suggest that the Torah in the first century was a correct one because Jesus read from it and did not seem to have any issues with it. He did though, warn the people to beware of the SCRIBES, that is the translators. There we have something to consider.
The thing is, even though the Pharisees had the correct Torah and seemed to follow it to a "T", Jesus was saying that even they missed the meaning of the message.
I will also suggest we are in the same boat today. No matter the translation, many people don't understand the deeper meaning behind the NT.
The true message of God is not always on the surface like we think it is. Even scholars miss it. I think the true message of God is present even in bad translations, you just have to know God's language to decipher it.

 

[Rita G.]

@2Timothy2:15
I like that handle.
KJV is the only Bible translation with the word "study" in that verse!
GEE . . I wonder why? ?

 

[TuxAme]

Most translations are fine, and we can indeed say that we have God's Word. It would be wise, though, to learn what you can of the Biblical languages and then compare a modern translation to the ancient manuscripts.

 

[Rita G.]

GEE . . I wonder why? ?

Well, I'm glad you asked.
It's because whoever made those other "translations" DOESN'T WANT YOU TO STUDY!
Get IT?

 

[Sunshine21]

To me, the important messages are there. What God wanted us to know, is there. Reading it and spending time with God will help us absorb what he wants us to. But if you want to get the real understanding, there are pastors who will break it down from the original translation. There are books you can buy that will tell you the exact meaning from the original languages.

 

[Monna]

The Greek and Hebrew.

Which copies of which books in Greek or Hebrew (Aramaic?)? One of the differences between versions today is that there are in fact differences between the "earliest" copies - I believe we have no originals.

 

[dreadnought]

As long as one doesn’t believe the bible, any translstion will do.

God makes sure his word is preserved, and only ONE can be right.

For those who believe the bible, the King James is the ONLY acceptable one.

But the meanings of some of it's words have changed over the centuries. For that matter, what makes you think THAT version is perfect?

 

[dreadnought]

How do you know the Lord without the Bible? How did you hear the gospel without the bible? If you are not basing your view of the Lord on the Bible then you are making a god to our liking.

The purpose of the Bible is to introduce us to the Lord. Once we get to know the Lord, we learn directly from him.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Can we trust a Bible with mistakes?
Can we trust any Bible 100%?
Which Bible/s can we trust?
What does it mean when God said he will preserve his word?

What are your thoughts?

(no kjv onlyism)

This is an area where I refer people to Bible scholars such as Daniel B. Wallace (F.F. Bruce, Bruce Metzger, etc.) because weight should be given to men such as him concerning textual criticism.

 

[Rita G.]

Don't trust the Bible

Which one?

Once we get to know the Lord, we learn directly from him.

Can you please explain this?

 

[Steve Petersen]

The only infallible source is the text in their original languages of Hebrew and Greek. Every translation seeks to convey those texts but no translation can be perfect.

It's pretty convenient that we don't have the originals to test your assertion of inerrancy. We only have copies of copies of copies of copies.... You get the point.

 

[Swan7]

Can we trust a Bible with mistakes?
Can we trust any Bible 100%?
Which Bible/s can we trust?
What does it mean when God said he will preserve his word?

What are your thoughts?


(no kjv onlyism)

You bring up an excellent point and I'm glad someone is asking these questions!
I have seen posts that question Paul was or not an apostle chosen by God - Jesus, and also claiming that Paul was a odds with what Jesus said.

If Jesus was/is the Word made manifest, does that mean Jesus was not perfect and in error? That's actually what is being implied whether or not it was intended. This is why it's SO imperative that we lean on God for understanding rather than our own.

That being said, I used to be among the KJV only groupie. That was thankfully short lived as God showed me that it was Him that gave me this version through someone. A while back ago I asked God what version I should get and read and He answered through someone else, how Awesome!
But I misunderstood that gift and took it as "everyone should be reading this version only". God intended me to have this version because I better understand it. God knows best for His flock.

The whole Bible is actually interwoven together, kind of like the Body of Christ has many parts that are in use in many different ways. On surface level the Bible does seem to have many contradictions, however, isn't that how it was for the Pharisees as well? They were supposed to have all this knowledge, but they had no understanding when it came to the Word made manifest - Jesus. I truly believe this is intentional by God in how it is written. God doesn't want us to be reliant on ourselves, but on Him and Him only. Now I know some will take this as "what is faith if there are no works?" That's not what I'm talking about. I am simply saying that we need His wisdom and knowledge and not from ourselves. We need to see as God sees.

 

[Rita G.]

Don't trust the Bible - trust the Lord

I don’t believe I’ve ever heard this one before. Is this a local cliché, maybe? Can you tell us how you came to this conclusion?

 

[Tree of Life]

It's pretty convenient that we don't have the originals to test your assertion of inerrancy. We only have copies of copies of copies of copies.... You get the point.

While we do not have autographs we have very accurate eclectic texts. Our best hope for infallibility lies in this corpus. If this isn't accepted then we must either abandon the idea of infallibility because the autographs no longer exist. Or we must suppose that God preserved a certain text tradition which would lead us down the road of KJV-onlyism. I think the best position is to trust that God has faithfully preserved his word for us and it can be reliably found in the body of texts that we possess in the original languages. This does not eliminate the need for textual criticism, but shows that textual criticism is a basic discipline for Biblical study.