Through time and different versions of the bible how accuate is the bible? and through the church have they switch the words around so that we follow the things they want us to follow?
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
How accuate is the modern bible?
- Thread starter shye
- Start date
- Status
cyberlizard
the electric lizard returns
- Jul 5, 2007
- 6,268
- 569
- 56
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Married
if your concerned about accuracy....
are you concerned about translation issues or manuscript issues.
if the former, download http://www.scripture4all.org and download some free searchable (and reasonably easy to use) interlinear software.
are you concerned about translation issues or manuscript issues.
if the former, download http://www.scripture4all.org and download some free searchable (and reasonably easy to use) interlinear software.
Upvote
0
CShephard53
Somebody shut me up so I can live out loud!
Less that .02% margin for error. We've got plenty of manuscripts. By the way, the figure came from a quote Lee Strobel did of a mathematician. It's in Case for Christ. By the way, just because Lee Strobel doesn't make logical arguments doesn't mean the facts he cites are invalid.
Upvote
0
TexasSky
Senior Veteran
You must define "modern bible" to get an honest answer to this.
Certainly the King James and the NIV stay very close to the scrolls that we have to look at now. I believe them both to be accurate.
I was a strong believer in the King James only until I learned how the NIV was created. Unlike many bibles, it was not a translation of a translation. 100 scholars went back to the oldest available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts to translate them. Protestants and Catholics from many denominations were included in the research. The scholars came from colleges, universities and seminaries all over the world. Every book of the bible was assisgned to a team of scholars. After they translated the book, it went to an editorial committee who went over it in detail, comparing it to other translations and to the original documents. The results of that committee went to a 3rd committe, called the Committee on Bible Translation, to do a final editing of it.
They focused on accuracy, and when there were ever questions as to how an idiomatic expression was translated, they included the possible answers in the footnotes of the bible.
Upvote
0
We really only know of one insertion that would be something like you ask about and that didn't change any doctrine. It would be the Johannine Comma in 1 John 5:6-7.
In that case, many Latin manuscripts had the insertion, evidently from a latin lextionary. But no Greek manuscripts had it. When Erasmus made his Greek text, many people complained for it was a well known "proof" of the trinity. Erasmus said he did not include it for the simple reason no Greek manuscript had it.
Well, in time for I think it was his third edition, here came a manuscript, manuscript 60 with the insertion, evidently made just for the situation. And Erasmus inserted it along with a very long footnote.
So we see it show up in many of the translations of the Textus Receptus family of which Erasmus' text is the base text. I say many because Martin Luther never added it to his. But we see it in such translations as the KJV the Bishop's Bible and so on.
Other than that, there are little things, especially in the Byzantine family of manuscripts where you might see Jesus turn into Jesus Christ and some transcriptionists didn't seem to like the reference to Joseph as Jesus' father and such, but really no meaning added or lost.
A lot of people have come up with theories of wholesale changes and such over the years, Muslims, Mormons and so on, major problem is no one can produce the evidence of such ever having taken place. The manuscript evidence is in agreement with the quotes in the Patristics and there were early translations such as some of the Old Latin and so on. When you consider the multiple sources of the texts spread out both geographically and over time, there isn't even someone in a position to have captured the whole tradition and have changed it. Who was in such control that he could have taken scripture out of people's hands, destroyed the originals and given them back changed texts without people noticing or mentioning it?
Really at this point in history, I can't see how anyone can reasonably make a case for wholesale changes in the text.
Marv
In that case, many Latin manuscripts had the insertion, evidently from a latin lextionary. But no Greek manuscripts had it. When Erasmus made his Greek text, many people complained for it was a well known "proof" of the trinity. Erasmus said he did not include it for the simple reason no Greek manuscript had it.
Well, in time for I think it was his third edition, here came a manuscript, manuscript 60 with the insertion, evidently made just for the situation. And Erasmus inserted it along with a very long footnote.
So we see it show up in many of the translations of the Textus Receptus family of which Erasmus' text is the base text. I say many because Martin Luther never added it to his. But we see it in such translations as the KJV the Bishop's Bible and so on.
Other than that, there are little things, especially in the Byzantine family of manuscripts where you might see Jesus turn into Jesus Christ and some transcriptionists didn't seem to like the reference to Joseph as Jesus' father and such, but really no meaning added or lost.
A lot of people have come up with theories of wholesale changes and such over the years, Muslims, Mormons and so on, major problem is no one can produce the evidence of such ever having taken place. The manuscript evidence is in agreement with the quotes in the Patristics and there were early translations such as some of the Old Latin and so on. When you consider the multiple sources of the texts spread out both geographically and over time, there isn't even someone in a position to have captured the whole tradition and have changed it. Who was in such control that he could have taken scripture out of people's hands, destroyed the originals and given them back changed texts without people noticing or mentioning it?
Really at this point in history, I can't see how anyone can reasonably make a case for wholesale changes in the text.
Marv
Upvote
0
scriptures
Regular Member
I use that very much...
Who ever are behind that work they are really doing a good service to all christians...
I think it will expose any mistranslation of any religious group.
Upvote
0
whitedove7
Senior Member
- Dec 21, 2004
- 833
- 71
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
Most of the time I stick with the KJV because many of the modern-day versions eliminated important scripture or the scripture has a total different meaning. I do when I read the KJV use other translations to help me when I'm not for sure but also look up Hebrew or Greek depending if in Old or New. I know we all have different ways to understand the bible. Blessings!
Upvote
0
I use ESV (English Standard Version), it's a word for word translation
of the Bible. And if you're not content with that, you can download
e-sword and compare it with other translations.
"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof,
for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent,
equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
http://www.e-sword.net/
of the Bible. And if you're not content with that, you can download
e-sword and compare it with other translations.
"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof,
for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent,
equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
http://www.e-sword.net/
Upvote
0
The message is still there for those with the wisdom to see and understand it.
Most people are clueless to the message.
I would assume that is why the ruling elites did not totally destroy the Bible.
Most people are clueless to the message.
I would assume that is why the ruling elites did not totally destroy the Bible.
Upvote
0
scriptures
Regular Member
I agree....
'Good news about Christ can be easily understood....
But I think the problem is with the doctrinal differences of many christian sect.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
