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

[dreadnought]

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)

Don't trust the Bible - trust the Lord.

 

[Steve Petersen]

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)

It only needs to be inerrant if you are a Bible worshiper instead of a God worshiper.

 

[mukk_in]

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)

Scholars may point out several inconsistencies. The essence of the Bible is the Lordship of Jesus of Nazareth. That does it for me. Peace in Christ.

 

[Rita G.]

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.

 

[DeaconDean]

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.

Tell me something, how did Christianity survive before the KJV was issued?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[dqhall]

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)

I used to read testimonies about God healing and rescuing people in modern times in Guideposts magazine. There are Bible study guides for those seeking to learn more about Biblical times. One may try to practice Jesus' teachings about non-violence to see if it works. It made me more polite and less likely to offend. Practicing Jesus' teachings against lust is not likely to bring a paternity suit against a man.

 

[Devin P]

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)

There was a bible version prior to the KJV, that the people enjoyed much more. The Geneva bible of 1560. Up until James had the KJV made, this was the preferred version of scripture, and still was for a long time after the KJV. But, it was very much against the catholic church and monarchies. Which is understandable for one of two reasons:


One: because the catholic church in the 1500's, was powerful, and burnt anyone publicly at the stake if they said or did anything to criticize the catholic church.

The Catholic Church had just - in the 1570's - massacred 100,000 people, men women and children for converting from catholicism to protestantism. Because of which, Pope Gregory the XIII was said to be incredibly jubilant (happy and excited, giddy almost) over the news that his attack on the people had succeeded. He made a medal in commemoration, and even had a statue of the "great red dragon" of satan to represent his heraldic symbol. (I'll provide a picture of it below)

And Two:
Because the bible is constantly against kings, and the anglican hierarchy. We are all equal under Jesus Christ, no one man is over another. Not the pope, not the "priests", nothing. We are all equal under Jesus Christ, and all have equal ability to boldly stand before the Throne of God.

But anyway, I digress.

This is a small example of the things catholicism was doing at the time, a tiny fraction of what they were doing. They pushed a doctrine that said that unless you pay us for baptism, you can't be saved. This was fine for the wealthy, but absolutely draining and nearly impossible for the poor. You had to pay for your loved ones to be buried in "holy" ground, I mean the list goes on and on.

But, the point of the KJV was to rewrite a version of the bible that was more friendly to the catholic church, as well as kings. Naturally, the people hated this version, and it took decades to catch on, the printers of the kjv went under frequently due to their poor sales, and it only caught on by James making it illegal to print any other translation. He banned the geneva bible, it's printing, and actually made owning one a felony.

So no, I'm not a big king james only'er. It's definitely a good translation, but there are better translations. Especially since there is many examples of paganism being slipped into the translation. Terms like "hades" and "hell" come from "gods" and "goddesses". Hades is the egyptian ruler of the underworld, a torturer of souls, and "Hel" is the nordic "goddess" of the underworld, a torturer of souls. Angels is another one. It comes from the greek "goddess" angelos, whereas the hebraic term for this is Malakim, and is more indicative of simply a "messenger" of God. Many more words like this have snuck in, but I still think that the KJV is a decent translation to have and use.

I read primarily the halleluyah scriptures though. It replaces the terms "LORD" with what the term LORD is replacing. יהוה. The tetragrammaton, and or, God's name. He gave us this name יהוה, for us to call Him by it for all generations. He actually warns us from using the word "Ba'al" to refer to Him, but possibly the biggest deception of all, is that if you look up the definition of "Ba'al" (a "god" that the Israelites were constantly worshipping, and sacrificing their children to), the definition of "Ba'al" literally means "Lord". So the kjv has replaced God's name, with a name He tells us not to say, and even prophesied in Jeremiah that we would forget His name for the name "Ba'al", which translates again, to "lord".

Jeremiah 23:27 - Which think to cause my people to forget my name by their dreams which they tell every man to his neighbour, as their fathers have forgotten my name for Baal.

Hopefully you made it through this huge post, and enjoyed it. I also included His name יהוה in the paleo hebrew, which is the oldest language in the world, and the oldest form of Hebrew. Actually, in the dead sea scrolls, it's fascinating, because they wrote it all in modern hebrew, but wherever they wrote His name, they kept the paleo hebrew version of it, which is shown in the picture below.

 

[Rita G.]

Tell me something, how did Christianity survive before the KJV was issued?

that's a history study . . . i don't have time to educate you.
google it.

 

[Rita G.]

Tell me something, how did Christianity survive before the KJV was issued?

there's a good video on youtube about the history of it by Dr Ken Connoly.

 

[DeaconDean]

that's a history study . . . i don't have time to educate you.
google it.

First off, leave the snide remarks out of the thread. (Rule states, address the post not the poster)

Secondly, I have been a Christian for over 40 years and was raised on the KJ Bible.

Thirdly, as stated previously, the KJV is not, never has been, and never claimed to be the "preserved word of God."

Fact: As I said before, I have been involved in a very indepth study on "textual criticism" for 5 years, how long have you devoted to it?

Fact: The KJ Bible, still carries to this very day remarks that Erasmus never placed in the text. They were originally written by the publishers.

"Erasmus did not compile his own Greek text from the manuscripts at his disposal, few as they were; instead, Codices 2e and 2ap themselves served as the printer’s copy for all the NT except Revelation. They still contain Erasmus’ corrections written between the lines of the text and occasionally in the margins, which came from the other four manuscripts, though he made little use of some of them.(50) A comparison between the manuscripts used by the printer and the printed text indicates that the printer did not accept every correction that Erasmus proposed, and that the printer made some revisions not authorized by Erasmus.(51)

For the book of Revelation, Erasmus had only one manuscript (1r). Since the text of Revelation was imbedded in a commentary by Andreas of Caesarea and thus difficult for the printer to read, Erasmus had a fresh copy made. The copyist himself misread the original at places, and thus a number of errors were introduced into Erasmus’ printed text.(52) For example, in Revelation 17:4 Codex 1r and all other Greek manuscripts have the word ajkavqarta (“impure”), but Erasmus’ text reads ajkaqavrthto", a word unknown in Greek literature. In a similar fashion, the words kai; parevstai (“and is to come”) in 17:8 were misread as kaivper e[stin (“and yet is”).(53) These and other errors produced by the scribe who made the copy of Revelation for the printer are still to be found in modern editions of the TR, such as the widely used version published by the Trinitarian Bible Society.(54)
"

50) Clark, “Observations on the Erasmian Notes in Codex 2,” p. 751; Bo Reicke, “Erasmus und die neutestamentliche Textgeschichte,” Theologische Zeitschrift 22 (July–August 1966): 259.

51) Clark, “Observations on the Erasmian Notes in Codex 2,” p. 755.

52) Rummel, Erasmus’ Annotations on the New Testament, p. 38. Some of these errors can conveniently be found in Frederick H. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Deighton, Bell, and Co., 1874), pp. 382–83, n. 2.

53) The marginal note in the old Scofield Reference Bible corrects this error (p. 1346).

54) H KAINH DIAQHKH. This version is subtitled The New Testament: The Greek Text Underlying the English Authorised Version of 1611. My copy is not dated, though it was published in 1976. See Andrew J. Brown, The Word of God Among All Nations: A Brief History of the Trinitarian Bible Society, 1831–1981 (London: Trinitarian Bible Society, 1981), p. 130.

Erasmus and the Textus Receptus, William Combs, Detriot Baptist Seminary Journal, Vol. 1, Spring 1996, p.46

So please, do not tell me I need to "educate" myself.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[chilehed]

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?

These are some of the questions that ended up with me abandoning the Reformation and going home to the Catholic Church.

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

The Bible is a collection of Individual Books.

What we have is good, but there are Books that have been Expunged from the canon by "The Authorities" or just lost in general :


* Book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14)

* Book of the Acts of Solomon (1st Kings 11:41)

* Book of Samuel the Seer (1st Chr. 29:29)

* Book of Gad the Seer (1st Chr. 29:29)

* Book of Nathan the Prophet (1st Chr. 29:29)

* Prophecy of Ahijah (2nd Chr. 9:29)

* Visions of Ido the Seer (2nd Chr. 9:29)

* Book of Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12:15)

* Book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20:34)

* Sayings of the Seers (2 Chr. 33:19)

* An Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9)

* An Epistle to the Church at Laodicea (Col 4:16)

* Other prophecies to Enoch (Jude 1:14) -

• Book of Enoch, Especially 1 Enoch

• Book of Jasher

• Book of Jubilees


Also : The Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden - Wikipedia

 

[Rita G.]

I have been involved in a very indepth study on "textual criticism" for 5 years

So, what’s your point?
Which translation do you believe?
Or, do you believe ANY of them?
They’re ALL different, you know and as long as you’re a “scholar”, maybe you could make your own translation.

 

[DeaconDean]

• Book of Enoch, Especially 1 Enoch

• Book of Jasher

• Book of Jubilees

For whatever reason, the canon of scriptures in the OT, never recognized these books.

There is some dispute as to Enoch. If you'll look, there are numerous threads on it. One I even posted in.

As far as what is "quoted" from those books, all that can be said is the Prophets, same as the Apostles, were guided/inspired to quote a passage from them. It says nothing of the book itself.

Also, I wonder if people know that the Hebrew text used for the OT came some 1000 years after the canon of the OT closed?

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

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

So, what’s your point?
Which translation do you believe?
Or, do you believe ANY of them?
They’re ALL different, you know and as long as you’re a “scholar”, maybe you could make your own translation.

I never said anything was wrong with the KJV or any other version.

Only that there are some passages like the last nine verses of Mark 16 that are questionable.

And, need I repeat myself:

"Now, to the heart of the matter.

What we do know for sure is that the "core" doctrines that make up what we call Christianity, can be found in all translations.

They all agree on them."

DeaconDean, post #20

Do you know how it would take to correlate the 5300 known Greek MSS that we have today?

We also know that the KJ translators used Theodore Baeza's Codex D for the book of Acts.

We can also show that:

"Codex Bezae’s textual differences from the majority of MSS cannot help but draw attention. Metzger and Ehrman state, “No known manuscript has so many and such remarkable variations from what is usually taken to be the normal New Testament text.”(*)

One scribe is responsible for the initial text of Codex Bezae. Eighteen other scribes are involved in corrections and/or lectionary notes, ranging in date from the fifth to seventh centuries (and the supplemental material in the ninth century).(**)

(*) Metzger and Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament, 71.

(**) Parker, Codex Bezae, 48-49.

SCRIBAL HABITS IN CODEX SINAITICUS, VATICANUS, EPHRAEMI, BEZAE, AND WASHINGTONIANUS IN THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, By: GREGORY SCOTT PAULSON, Chapter 5, Codex Bezae, 5.1 Introduction, p. 82, n1; 5.1.1. THE SCRIBE, CORRECTORS, AND BEZAE’S PROVENANCE, p. 83, n11


God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[LoveofTruth]

Each and every translation contains a few elements of texts that are disputed. (i.e.: Mk. 16:9-20).

Early Ante Nicene Father (so called) quoted this section in their messages, proving it should have been there. In fact you can find many verses from them that are quoted in their messages proving that the KJV we have today is the right bible. Many New version take out or cast doubt on many verses that the fathers ( so called) quoted and many of those verses are only in the KJV. This shows that the KJV has the oldest evidence to back it up.

Use the KJV it is "the Bible" for today. Don't believe all the textual critics and attackers and those who attack the KJV. Doctrine is affected and majour doctrine at that with the other versions as I Have found in my study.

Or do a study yourself on the early fathers ( so called0 and find verses that are in the KJV and not in the New Versions and see if the early writers quoted them in their sermons. This is the case with many verses and some are way back before the so called "oldest" manuscripts". This show that the verses that are in the KJV are right and justified by very early writers and they were taken out later by men.

One theory I have is that Arius and his other heretical teachers may have edited some text and versions to deny the Deity of Christ and the eternal Sons existance. Strangely many of the verses that show who Jesus Christ is are tampered with. Again this is a long study too much for here.

I know many with scoff at the KJV and many have mockingly attacked it and tried to pull it down. But so far i see it stand true.

 

[gideon123]

There are some very good replies here.

Practically, I find the NIV translation is written well. If you want better depth, try buying a Bible with multiple versions side-by-side. For example, versions from the Greek and Aramaic. That is a worthwhile thing to do.

But if you are asking, why is there not one Perfect Bible? I will reply, why arent we all perfect human beings? Should I stop watching golf, baseball, or football ... because the players are not perfect? Isnt there a higher ideal for these sports, although players may not live up to the ideal?

I think the Bible translators have done an excellent job. Surely if you open your heart, you can see what God is saying to you?

Above all, please read the whole Bible, from Genesis to Revelation. Because there is a greater message that transcends all the minor variations in translation.

Blessings!!

 

[DeaconDean]

Early Ante Nicene Father (so called) quoted this section in their messages, proving it should have been there. In fact you can find many verses from them that are quoted in their messages proving that the KJV we have today is the right bible. Many New version take out or cast doubt on many verses that the fathers ( so called) quoted and many of those verses are only in the KJV. This shows that the KJV has the oldest evidence to back it up.

Use the KJV it is "the Bible" for today. Don't believe all the textually attackers and those who attack the KJV. Doctrine is affected and majour doctrine at that with the other versions as I Have found in my study.

Or do a study yourself on the early fathers ( so called0 and find verses that are in the KJV and not in the New Versions and see if the early writers quoted them in their sermons. This is the case with many verses and some are way back before the so called "oldest" manuscripts". This show that the verses that are in the KJV are right and justified by very early writers and they were taken out later by men.

One theory I have is that Arius and his other herietical teachers may have edited some text and versions to deny the Diety of Christ and the eternal Sons existance. Strangely many of the verses that show who Jesus Christ is are tampered with. Again this is a long study too much for here.

I know many with scoff at the KJV and many have mockingly attacked it and tried to pull it down. But so far i see it stand true.

Fact: The Greek Codex possessed by the Roman Catholic church, the Codex Vaticanus, does not include the last nine verses of Mark 16.

Also, as far as the anti-Nicene church fathers are concerned, all I will say about them is this:

"The habits of the Fathers in quotation were very loose. Having no concordances or indices, or anything resembling the modern apparatus for facilitating reference, and often no manuscript, they were frequently compelled to rely upon memory for their citations. Quoting from memory explains what we so often find, — combinations of different passages, transpositions, and sense-renderings. Though a full summary of the whole gospel life could be composed from the quotations of Justin Martyr, his quotations are careless. He quotes the same passage differently on different occasions. Although he cites written documents, he often quotes from memory, and interweaves words which are given separately by the Synoptists. He condenses, combines, and transposes the language of the Lord as recorded in the Gospel records. Take, for example. Matt. 5:22, 39, 40, 41, and Luke 6:29. In Justin, 1 Apol. XVI, we read τῷ τυπτόντι σοῦ τὴν σιαγόνα πάρεχε καὶ τὴν ἄλλην, καὶ τὸν αἴροντα σοῦ τὸν χιτῶνα ἢ τὸ ἱμάτον μὴ κωλύσῃς. ̔́Ος δὲ ἂν ὀργισθῇ ἐνοχός ἐστιν εἰς τὸ πῦρ, παντὶ δὲ ἀγγαρεύοντί σε μίλιον ἀκολούθησον. Here we have several verses massed, apparently from two Evangelists. Luke is literally followed in the first nine words. The order of the Gospel is not observed, and the sense is changed in the words about the coat and the cloke.

Similarly Matt. 5:46 ; comp. Luke 6:27. Justin, 1 Apol. XV: εἰ ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑμᾶς, τί καινὸν ποιεῖτε; καὶ γὰρ οἱ πόρνοι τοῦτο ποιοῦσιν. Here, instead of "What reward have ye?" Justin has "What new thing do ye do?" For "publicans" he gives "fornicators."

Again, see Clement of Alexandria, Strom. III, 4, 36, where Matt. 5:16 is given τὰ ἀγαθὰ ὑμιν ἔργα λαμψάτω, "Let your good works shine."

The Apostolic Fathers are of little value for patristic quotation, since they do not so much quote as blend the language of the New Testament with their own. Fragments of most of the canonical Epistles are embedded in their writings, and their diction is more or less coloured by that of the apostolic books, and different passages are combined.

It is possible that, in some cases, the writers do not intend to quote, but merely to use the words loosely by way of allusion. But often, even when quotation is intended, the citation is inaccurate. To take a single instance, Clement of Rome was familiar with the Epistle to the Hebrews, and references to it occur frequently in his letter to the Corinthians; but in his citation of Heb. 1:3, 4, in Ch. 36, for δόξης "glory," we have μεγαλωσύνης "majesty"; for κρείττων "better," μείζων "greater"; and παρ ̓ αὐτοὺς "than they" is omitted.

Renderings where the sense is given without strict regard to the text are found frequently in Irenæus, who is usually careful in quotation. He changes the syntax, or uses different words intended as equivalents, as εὐχαρίστησεν for εὐλόγησεν in Luke 2:28; ἀκολουθεῖ μοι for ἔρχεται ὀπίσω μου, in Luke 14:27; πεπλανημένον for ἀπολωλός in Luke 15:4. Similarly Origen, Cont. Cels. 8:43, gives the equivalent of Eph. 2:12 without exact quotation, τοὺς ξένους τῶν διαθηκῶν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἀλλοτρίους τῶν εὐαγγελίων.

It is quite possible that a Father may have shaped a passage to fit his view of a disputed point. Hence, passages which bear upon great doctrinal controversies must be examined to see whether they exhibit traces of intentional alteration in the interest of doctrinal bias. On the whole, there is little of this. The worst that can be charged, in the great majority of cases, is a tendency, where two readings exist, to prefer the one which makes for the writer's view. Some other cases may be set down to ignorance of the principles of textual criticism. Thus Tertullian castigates Marcion for substituting διαμερισμόν "division" for μάχαιραν "a sword," in Luke 12:51. "Marcion," he says, "must needs alter, as if a sword could do anything but divide." But Marcion was right, and Tertullian, quoting from memory, had in mind the parallel passage in Matt. 10:34.

Again, Tertullian stigmatises the Valentinians as adulterators for reading, in John 1:13, οἳ ἐγεννήθησαν, "which were born." The correct reading, he maintains, is ὃς̀ ἐγεννήθη, "where was born," and the reference is to Christ. But the reading of the Valentinians was correct, and Tertullian's reading was absurd, as the context shows.

Similarly, Ambrose charged the Arians with erasing from the text of John 3:6, the words, "because the Spirit is God and is born of God," in order to support their denial of the deity of the Holy Ghost. But Ambrose did not know that these words were a gloss which had been incorporated into the western text, and that therefore the Arians were right in omitting it.

Patristic quotations have a real value in enabling us to fix, at least approximately, the dates at which certain readings are found. Between A.D. 170 and 250 we have a number of voluminous writers; and in the extant remains of Origen alone the greater part of the New Testament is quoted. On the other hand, the dates of the earliest manuscripts and of some of the versions cannot be fixed with absolute certainty, and the dates of the texts which they contain are still more uncertain. Yet it is to be remembered that, in case of a disagreement between patristic evidence and manuscript authority, the early date of a Father is no guarantee for the value of his evidence, because, contemporary with the earliest Fathers, we have a large amount of textual corruption."

A History of Textual Criticism of the New Testament, By: Marvin Vincent, 1899, Part I, Chapter VI, Patristic Quotations

Sorry

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Rita G.]

Only that there are some passages like the last nine verses of Mark 16 that are questionable

Questionable? To who?
Its questionable to those who don’t know WHY it’s there.
What’s “questionable” is if one doesn’t believe the bible, WHY do they even bother reading it? To criticize it? To put doubt in other people’s minds?

 

[DeaconDean]

Questionable? To who?
Its questionable to those who don’t know WHY it’s there.
What’s “questionable” is if one doesn’t believe the bible, WHY do they even bother reading it? To criticize it? To put doubt in other people’s minds?

That one place that adds a "condition" to salvation.

God Bless

Till all are one.