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

Rita G. said:

don't get mad . .
read the article over . . and take deep breaths . . and read the article over . . and take deep breaths . .
sit on the floor with your legs crossed . .
and read the article over . . and take deep breaths . .

Click to expand...

Your copy&paste ignores the simple fact that Christian Pascha ("Easter") didn't have a finalized method of calculation until the Council of Nicea in 325.

One of the long running debates in the early Church was when to celebrate Pascha ("Easter"). Eusebius illustrates this debate in his Church History when he, quoting Irenaeus, mentions the meeting between Anicetus and Polycarp, Anicetus of Rome insisted that the Feast was always celebrated on the first day of the week in honor of Christ's resurrection, while Polycarp of Smyrna argued that it should fall on the 14th of Nisan coinciding with the Jewish Pesach. Both men appealed to the apostolic teaching and traditions they had received; with both men having good arguments for both of their cases the conclusion ultimately was that this disagreement wasn't worth breaking communion with one another. And so the issue remained unsettled for another couple hundred years. By the time of Nicea it was decided that a standardized calculation for Pascha was needed, and so the result was a calculation method that was similar to the Roman calculation, thus rejecting the Quartodeciman position (which was at the time already largely fallen out of favor); using the method of calculation which was already established in the Egyptian Church. This is explained in the Council's Epistle to the Church of Alexandria.

Thus the method of calculating Pascha was made entirely independent of the Jewish Pesach, instead of relying on Jewish authorities to calculate the Jewish Pesach and thus calculate the Christian Pascha, the Christian Pascha would be celebrated on the first Sunday following the first full moon on or after the spring equinox. As such Paschal calculation happens independently of the Jewish Pesach.

Further, the dating of Pascha changed in the West with the adoption of the Gregorian Calendar reforms, which is why Gregorian Pascha happens before Julian Pascha, and why Catholics and Protestants celebrate it before the Orthodox do. Since March 21st--the spring equinox--is different on the Gregorian and Julian calendars.

-CryptoLutheran

Rita G. said:

One of the supposed “errors” in the King James Bible is the word “Easter” in Acts 12:4. The problem stems from the translation of a Greek word. The word in Greek is “pascha.” This word is translated every time as “Passover” except in this one location. So, the critics of the KJV say that translating “pascha” as Easter is a translation error.

Click to expand...

It is an error, period.

Thus, the KJV is not "The Perfectly Preserved Word of God" as you said.

Period.

And no matter what you say, you cannot prove me wrong.

God Bless

TIll all are one.

Rita G. said:

The truth of the matter is that the critics are wrong and the King James Bible is right. And you don’t even have to know Greek to see this. If you will check your concordance, you will find that the word “Passover” in the New Testament is always a reference to the night of the 14th day of the first month of the Jewish calendar (Ex. 12:1-8). The seven-day feast that began with the Passover is called “the feast of unleavened bread.”

You will find this first day (Passover) referred to a variety of ways:

• the first day of the feast of unleavened bread, (Mat 26:17)
• the feast of the passover, (Mark 14:1)
• the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, (Mark 14:12)
• the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, … the Passover. (Luke 22:1)
• the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed. (Luke 22:7)

However, when you find a reference to “the DAYS of unleavened bread,” you are clearly reading about the seven-day feast that followed the Passover (Ex. 12:15-16).

Click to expand...

And again, the Greek word is "pasha" "Passover", not easter.

God Bless

Till all are one.

ViaCrucis said:

Your copy&paste ignores the simple fact that Christian Pascha ("Easter") didn't have a finalized method of calculation until the Council of Nicea in 325.

One of the long running debates in the early Church was when to celebrate Pascha ("Easter"). Eusebius illustrates this debate in his Church History when he, quoting Irenaeus, mentions the meeting between Anicetus and Polycarp, Anicetus of Rome insisted that the Feast was always celebrated on the first day of the week in honor of Christ's resurrection, while Polycarp of Smyrna argued that it should fall on the 14th of Nisan coinciding with the Jewish Pesach. Both men appealed to the apostolic teaching and traditions they had received; with both men having good arguments for both of their cases the conclusion ultimately was that this disagreement wasn't worth breaking communion with one another. And so the issue remained unsettled for another couple hundred years. By the time of Nicea it was decided that a standardized calculation for Pascha was needed, and so the result was a calculation method that was similar to the Roman calculation, thus rejecting the Quartodeciman position (which was at the time already largely fallen out of favor); using the method of calculation which was already established in the Egyptian Church. This is explained in the Council's Epistle to the Church of Alexandria.

Thus the method of calculating Pascha was made entirely independent of the Jewish Pesach, instead of relying on Jewish authorities to calculate the Jewish Pesach and thus calculate the Christian Pascha, the Christian Pascha would be celebrated on the first Sunday following the first full moon on or after the spring equinox. As such Paschal calculation happens independently of the Jewish Pesach.

Further, the dating of Pascha changed in the West with the adoption of the Gregorian Calendar reforms, which is why Gregorian Pascha happens before Julian Pascha, and why Catholics and Protestants celebrate it before the Orthodox do. Since March 21st--the spring equinox--is different on the Gregorian and Julian calendars.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

Exactly!

The writing of Acts, pre-dates all of the Gospels except maybe Mark.

Which means, "pasha" as written, "Passover" is correct and "Easter" is incorrect.

God Bless

Till all are one.

And even funnier, is that I pointed out, that the KJ Translators got it wrong in at two places in the Gospels.

There is phrase used for "Holy Ghost". "Ghost" is a completely different word than the word used for Spirit when referencing the Holy Spirit.

"I wonder if she is aware that the phrase "holy ghost" as used in the KJV is incorrect?

And even when the KJ Translators had a chance to render a "word for word" translation, they got it incorrect!

In the KJV, this verse reads:

"But when they saw him walking upon the sea, they supposed it had been a spirit, and cried out:" -Mk. 6:49 (KJV)

Except the Greek word they rendered "spirit" is not correct.

The correct word is "phantasma".

Original Word: φάντασμα, ατος, τό
Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter
Transliteration: phantasma
Phonetic Spelling: (fan'-tas-mah)
Short Definition: an apparition, ghost, spirit
Definition: an apparition, ghost, spirit, phantom.

Source

Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894
οἱ δέ, ἰδόντες αὐτὸν περιπατοῦντα ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης, ἔδοξαν φάντασμά εἶναι, καὶ ἀνέκραξαν· -Mk. 6:49

When the scriptures speak of the Holy Spirit, the correct Greek word is "pneuma".

The KJV got it wrong again in Lk. 4:1.

"And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost"

In the Greek, it reads:

"Ἰησοῦς δὲ Πνεύματος"

-Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894

"Pneumatos" of [the] Spirit

Source

Even here, when the correct Greek word is used, the KJ Translators got it wrong.

So much for "The KJV is god’s perfectly preserved word!"

DeaconDean, Post #157

They (KJ Translators) rendered it wrong!

Period.

And what is worse, to keep insisting, saying: ""The KJV is god’s perfectly preserved word!" when you have been proven wrong, is (insert adjective).

Everybody would, including me, agree that the KJV is somewhere between 97.9 and 99.5% accurate.

But it is not perfect. Fact is, the KJV was the produce of men, well meaning men, but by men. And men are prone to error.

Since AD 30-33, there have been, and never be will any child born of woman, who is perfect.

Your statement: "The KJV is god’s perfectly preserved word!" has been proven to be false.

And nothing you say, can change that fact.

God Bless

Till all are one.

There have many, and I do mean many debates in the Congregational areas over this topic.

Whether you believe me or not, it is true that Erasmus' work is the basis for the Textus Receptus. Even though the words did not appear in any of his works, Stephanos used Erasmus' work as the basis for his work.

The "term" Textus Receptus did not appear until 13 years after the 1611 Authorized edition was published.

It originated through a highly exaggerated statement -- actually a publisher's blurb -- in the preface to the second edition of the Greek New Testament that was published in Holland in 1633 by the Elzevir brothers.

Even though Stephanos used Erasmus' work, even then it differed in some 287 places.

Most of the readings in both of these (Stephanos and the Elzevir brothers) follow the edition of the Greek New Testament prepared by Erasmus, the great enemy of Luther, and published in 1516, the year before the Reformation began.

So, which "edition" of Erasmus' work is the standard to follow? (1516, 1519, 1522, 1527, or 1536)

If the KJV is the "perfectly preserved word of God" as alleged, which "edition" is the "perfect" edition? (1611, 1613, 1629, 1638, 1762, or 1769)

For the record, I believe the language of the KJV is beautiful. Archaic as it may be, it is a beautiful rendering. It is the Bible I was raised on, it is the Bible I read, study, and preach by. All the core doctrines that Christianity stands upon, are in the KJV as well as the Asv, RSV, and other editions.

Of all the "disputed" passages in all versions, Christianity as a whole does not hang, stand, or fall on.

But, the fact remains, as long as renderings are wrong, there cannot be a "perfectly preserved word of God".

The very definition of the word "perfect" precludes it.

And until certain people see that, nothing is going to change except the date.

God Bless

Till all are one.

"Question: "Is it important to know Greek and Hebrew when studying the Bible?"

Answer: Martin Luther, the great Protestant reformer, wrote the following in regard to the importance of understanding Greek and Hebrew when studying the Bible: "The languages are the sheath in which the sword of the Spirit is contained." God sovereignly chose to have His Word written in Hebrew (the Old Testament) and Greek (the New Testament).

Our modern English translations of the Bible are excellent. Most of the major English translations available today are superb renderings of the original Greek and Hebrew. However, in any translation, not everything that was communicated in the original language can be precisely conveyed in another language. Some nuances do not transfer well from one language to another. As a result, a translation rarely is a perfect rendering of the original. (This is one reason why the Amplified Version was published.)

An example of this is the "aspect" of Greek verbs. English verbs have tenses—past, present, and future. Greek verbs have these same tenses, but they also have what is known as "aspect." Present-tense Greek verbs mean more than the action is occurring presently. A Greek verb can also carry the meaning that the action is occurring continually or repeatedly. This is lost in English unless the aspect word "continually" or "repeatedly" is added to the translation along with the verb. A specific example of this is Ephesians 5:18, "...be filled with the Spirit." In the original Greek, this verse is telling us to continually be filled with the Spirit. It is not a one-time event—it is a lifelong process. This "aspect" is lost in the English translation.

With all that said, the Bible also makes it clear that the Spirit is the author of the Bible and that He will help us to understand the His Word (2 Timothy 3:16-17; John 14:26). You do not have to know Hebrew and Greek in order to understand the Bible. God's intended message for us is accurately communicated in English. You can have confidence that God can reveal the meaning of His Word to you without your knowing Greek and Hebrew.

Perhaps this is a good analogy: reading the Bible without knowing Greek and Hebrew is like watching a basic television, while reading the Bible knowing Greek and Hebrew is like watching a curved 80" UHD 4K television with stereo surround sound. You can fully understand what is going on with the basic television, but the curved 80" UHD 4K television with stereo surround sound gives added depth and clarity. With the help of the Holy Spirit, anyone can accurately understand the Bible in English. However, knowing Hebrew and Greek helps to better understand the nuances and richness of the biblical texts."

Source

Now certain people here will tell you that you don't need because we have the KJV.

But they are wrong!

Once I took Greek in seminary, the text just expanded, grew richer, fuller. And there is not one time, I have regretted taking Greek.

God Bless

Till all are one.

To the OP



I have to step out of this argument for now; I have to spend my time working and concentrating on more important things right now.

You’ve read through this thread.

Your choice is to use a perfectly preserved word of God( KJV) or you can follow the advice of people who don’t believe the bible, and want you to waste your time learning unnecessary languages, and looking for faults in the bible like they do. Having a bunch of bibles that are different, and having to constantly compare them is a waste of time and will prevent you from learning God’s word; you’ll be studying to find errors instead of truth. 2 Tim 3:7.

The whole purpose in other counterfeit “bibles” is to confuse you and cause doubt as Satan originated this. Gen 3:1

Stick with the KJV and you won’t have to waste time wondering if you have the right text. If you believe the bible, use the KJV. If you don’t believe it and are looking to discredit it, then any/all will do you just fine. . .and remember, makers of newer “bibles” want a copyright, and are ‘only in it for the money’.

. . and the bible corrector said:
“Yea, hath God said?” Gen 3:1

Have a nice day!

Apologetic_Warrior said:

We have a difficult time relating today, depending on the length of the scroll, a scribe might spend years copying a single scroll. Then take into consideration the differences in periods of time these scrolls come from and the differences in locations of them, amazing is what it is!

Click to expand...

Ecclesiastes 7:25 Who can find it out? 25) I applied my heart to know, To search and seek out wisdom and the reason of things, To know the wickedness of folly, Even of foolishness and madness.
1 Peter 4:10-11 Each of you should use whatever gift you have received to serve others, as faithful stewards of God’s grace in its various forms. If anyone speaks, they should do so as one who speaks the very words of God. If anyone serves, they should do so with the strength God provides, so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ. To him be the glory and the power for ever and ever. Amen.

Rita G. said:

To the OP



I have to step out of this argument for now; I have to spend my time working and concentrating on more important things right now.

You’ve read through this thread.

Your choice is to use a perfectly preserved word of God( KJV) or you can follow the advice of people who don’t believe the bible, and want you to waste your time learning unnecessary languages, and looking for faults in the bible like they do. Having a bunch of bibles that are different, and having to constantly compare them is a waste of time and will prevent you from learning God’s word; you’ll be studying to find errors instead of truth. 2 Tim 3:7.

The whole purpose in other counterfeit “bibles” is to confuse you and cause doubt as Satan originated this. Gen 3:1

Stick with the KJV and you won’t have to waste time wondering if you have the right text. If you believe the bible, use the KJV. If you don’t believe it and are looking to discredit it, then any/all will do you just fine. . .and remember, makers of newer “bibles” want a copyright, and are ‘only in it for the money’.

. . and the bible corrector said:
“Yea, hath God said?” Gen 3:1

Have a nice day!

Click to expand...

Oh my goodness, that is just so funny.

First off, where do you get off saying we (I) "don’t believe the bible"?

Secondly, its never a waste of time to learn Greek or Hebrew.

And, you have been shown, the KJ translators got it wrong. Proven fact.

And when they had a chance to make it right, they didn't. Proven fact.

Before you throw accusations around, perhaps you should read and study.

God Bless

Till all are one.

DeaconDean said:

It has been said (again):



I wonder if she is aware that the phrase "holy ghost" as used in the KJV is incorrect?

And even when the KJ Translators had a chance to render a "word for word" translation, they got it incorrect!

In the KJV, this verse reads:

"But when they saw him walking upon the sea, they supposed it had been a spirit, and cried out:" -Mk. 6:49 (KJV)

Except the Greek word they rendered "spirit" is not correct.

The correct word is "phantasma".

Original Word: φάντασμα, ατος, τό
Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter
Transliteration: phantasma
Phonetic Spelling: (fan'-tas-mah)
Short Definition: an apparition, ghost, spirit
Definition: an apparition, ghost, spirit, phantom.

Source

Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894
οἱ δέ, ἰδόντες αὐτὸν περιπατοῦντα ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης, ἔδοξαν φάντασμά εἶναι, καὶ ἀνέκραξαν· -Mk. 6:49

When the scriptures speak of the Holy Spirit, the correct Greek word is "pneuma".

The KJV got it wrong again in Lk. 4:1.

"And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost"

In the Greek, it reads:

"Ἰησοῦς δὲ Πνεύματος"

-Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894

"Pneumatos" of [the] Spirit

Source

Even here, when the correct Greek word is used, the KJ Translators got it wrong.

So much for "The KJV is god’s perfectly preserved word!"

Here is another:

"And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people." -Acts 12:4 (KJV)

In the Greek:

"ὃν καὶ πιάσας ἔθετο εἰς φυλακήν, παραδοὺς τέσσαρσι τετραδίοις στρατιωτῶν φυλάσσειν αὐτόν, βουλόμενος μετὰ τὸ πάσχα ἀναγαγεῖν αὐτὸν τῷ λαῷ." -Acts 12:4

-Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894

What's funny here, the word rendered "Easter" is not in the text at all!

It is "pascha" and means "Passover".

Another chance the KJV Translators had to get right, and they didn't.

So much for: "The KJV is god’s perfectly preserved word!"

God Bless

Till all are one.

Click to expand...

Beautiful, thank you

he-man said:

Beautiful, thank you

Click to expand...

You know, it really is funny that if we were take only one source of information, where would we be now?

What would it be like if because "X" said tomatoes were poisonous, nobody bothered to try and eat one?

Where would we be if Christopher Columbus had taken one source of information "The world is flat", and not sailed the oceans?

What if we took one single bit of information, like there is no air "X" amount of feet off the ground. Nobody would have invented and flown the first balloon.

What if we took one bit of information, like man can't fly, and ran with it. The Wright Borthers wouldn't have flown.

What if we took one bit of information, like the lights in the night sky are nothing but holes in the black fabric allowing light to shine through. We would not have the telescope to show us just how great the Master's hand was in creation.

It really is sad, when a Christian is beaten down for wanting to learn more about the Book we love so much. To be accused of not believing it. Accused of learning a "useless" language.

Where would we be if it wasn't for Hippocrates?

Where would we be if it wasn't for theologians like Athanasius, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Arminus, Calvin, Luther?

Where would the world's population if it wasn't for Jonas Salk? Or Louis Pasteur?

Where would Christianity be if they took one bit of information, like Koine Greek is a dead language, don't bother learning it, and trashed or burnt every single Greek MSS there was?

And finally, where would we be if Erasmus had not undertaken his study to use the Greek to prove the Latin correct?

Ancient Egyptian was a dead language. Until the day the Rosetta Stone was found.

Why are we to be compelled to stay in the 17th century when it comes to the scriptures?

It staggers the imagination.

Lets go back to "blood-letting". Lets go back to leaches.

Lets stay in the day when leapers were shunned.

Thank God He led me to study the Greek.

God Bless

Till all are one.

I really have no use for the King James only crowd, or for anyone who says that one version of the Bible is the "only true" version. The fact is that no version is perfect.

In answer to the OP, how do we deal with this? Easy--we look to Jesus. Jesus was before the Bible. Jesus will be after the Bible. Jesus is altogether more perfect than the Bible. And if there are differences between what Jesus says and what the Bible tells us, then we must look to Him.

I understand being passionate.

There are some things I am passionate about. My wife, my family, my granddaughter and grandson.

And I can even understand being zealous.

But it does not negate the fact that people who take KJV Onlyism to the extreme, they place scripture above the Savior.

They make that version of the bible, almost, I repeat, almost an idol.

The King James version, has for the last 400 years served the Christian well. And provided the Lord tarries, it will continue to serve the church well.

But is it, or any other version "perfect"?

No.

To those who have posted here, what I present now bears witness that what has gone on previously, is true:

"12. Advocates of the KJV-only doctrine all too commonly exhibit a spiteful and disrespectful attitude toward other Christians.

• 
  Advocates of a hard-line KJV-only position commonly label all other translations (even the NKJV) "per-versions" of the Bible. They typically accuse anyone defending these other translations of lying, denying God's word, calling God a liar, and having no faith. While there are gracious, charitable advocates of the KJV-only doctrine, in general its advocates have earned a reputation for vicious name-calling, condescension, and arrogance. To quote the original 1611 edition of the KJV, these people "strain out a gnat and swallow a camel." While zealous to defend the KJV, they betray its teachings by failing to exhibit love toward fellow believers in Jesus Christ. All too often they imply that to be saved one must not only believe in Christ, but must also adhere to the KJV as the only Bible. A doctrine that fosters such bad fruit must be bad. There is nothing wrong with loving the KJV and believing it to be the best translation of the Bible. There is something very wrong with condemning other Christians for not sharing that opinion."
  

Source

God Bless

Till all are one.

Complete in Thee said:

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)

Click to expand...

There is overwhelming documentary proof for the text of Scripture. In contrast, a lot of the great texts of ancient literature repose on very few manuscripts.

But this is not the issue, in the end. Either people are or are not willing to trust the Word of God.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing with the science of textual criticism.

That is a side project I have been involved with for close to 5 years now.

Let me quote, and highlight some features of "textual criticism".

"Textual Criticism
As I noted above, those who argue for the Byzantine or Received Text say that it is improper to subject the Bible to the scrutiny of textual criticism. The Bible, being the inspired Word of God, is unique. One begins with it as inspired and then accepts what it says.

But those in the Westcott-Hort tradition note that we cannot simply shut our eyes to the fact that there are differences between the various Greek manuscripts, even those in the Byzantine family. Even those who believe in the inerrancy of Scripture recognize that the original writings of the New Testament were inerrant, not the copies. It is our responsibility to apply the most sound principles we know of to determine what the original manuscripts said. This is the aim of textual criticism.

So, how does textual criticism work? Differences between Greek manuscripts are called variants. There are several causes of variants. Some are accidental, such as misspelled words or repeated or reversed words. Some resulted from a scribe not hearing a dictation correctly. Also, deliberate changes seem to have been made to bring passages in different Gospels into harmony or to make a doctrinal point clearer.

What are some examples of differences between the Greek texts which show up in our English Bibles? One example is the Lord's Prayer as it is recorded in Matthew and in Luke. In the KJV the two versions are almost identical, while in the NIV the prayer in Luke 11 is significantly shorter than that in Matthew 6. Most scholars believe that, at some point in history, a scribe added to the text in Luke to make it agree more with Matthew.

The last half of Mark 16 is a lengthy section which is disputed. The KJV retains verses 9 through 20 while the NIV includes the passage with a note saying it is not found in the most reliable early manuscripts. Scholars who believe it should be excluded also note that the style and vocabulary are very different from the rest of Mark.(9)

To add one more, in the KJV, three verses in Mark 9 (44 ,46, and 48) are identical: "Where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched." The NIV puts verses 44 and 46 in footnotes and notes that some manuscripts include the phrase. Since each verse follows a reference to hell, it is very possible that a scribe simply repeated the warning to strengthen the message.

If all this makes you nervous about the accuracy of your Bible, it is important to note that textual criticism is used on all documents for which the originals no longer exist. New Testament scholar J. Harold Greenlee noted that, with respect to the Bible, "No Christian doctrine . . . hangs upon a debatable text."(10) This conflict provides no fodder for critics of Christianity who might ask how we can know what the Bible really says. We can be confident that we have a highly accurate text, especially given the number of New Testament manuscripts available and the antiquity of some of them.(11) As one writer has said, "It is well to remember that the main body of the text and its general sense are left untouched . . . textual criticism engages in turning a magnifying glass upon some of the details."(12)"

9 J. Harold Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), p.133.

10. Ibid., 68.

11. In addition to the Greek manuscripts, also available for study are ancient lectionaries, various translations into other languages, and the writings of the early church fathers. See Greenlee, pp. 44-58.

12. Ibid., 17.

Source

Most of what I have said previously, is stated in one form or another in the above article.

God Bless

Till all are one.

2Timothy2:15 said:

That is what I said.

Click to expand...

Not quite. I believe you said, "And the Lord, the Holy Spirit never contradicts what he has already spoken to us through his word, the bible." And here is what I said, "The Holy Spirit would never contradict something God or Jesus said in the Bible." I added that part about "God or Jesus said." I was referring to direct quotes of God and Jesus.

Steve Petersen said:

Prove it without using circular reasoning.

Click to expand...

The OT/NT went through many many thousands of years and their message is consistent. From that you can see God protects his words.

Complete in Thee said:

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)

Click to expand...

Christ never promised us a book to lead us to salvation. He did promise us a Church.