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

[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.

And how would having the autographs do anything further to "test" my assertion of inerrancy?

 

[Marvin Knox]

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

If it was good enough for Jesus - it's good enough for me.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

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.

Atheists find it convenient they cannot verify the existence of God using empiricist methods as well. If we believe in an inerrant God that revealed Himself to choice people in such a manner that they wrote exactly what He intended, and so we believe in illumination and the inspiration of Scripture, how is it so difficult to believe the originals are inerrant? What does that imply about the original illumination and inspiration of Scripture? What does that imply about God and His ability to communicate?

 

[Rita G.]

Q: Can we trust a Bible with mistakes?
A: NO
Q: Can we trust any Bible 100%?
A: YES
Q: Which Bible/s can we trust?
A: KJV
Q: What does it mean when God said he will preserve his word?
A: It means he will preserve his word.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Q: What does it mean when God said he will preserve his word?
A: It means he will preserve his word.

Where did he say any of that?

 

[Deadworm]

Complete in Thee, I will answer your 4 questions in this sequence:

(1) "What does it mean when God said he will preserve his word?"
It certainly does not mean that an envisaged set canon of Bible texts will be preserved inerrantly preserved; but even if it did, that claim is demonstrably false. See below.

(2) "Can we trust any Bible 100%?"

There are hundreds of thousands of contradictory readings in the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. So it is highly unlikely that all the errors can be identified and weeded out of our texts.​

(3) "Which Bible/s can we trust?"

Which Bible books do you have in mind and why? Do you adopt the pre-Christian Septuagint which includes books from the Catholic apocrypha or the canon apparently accepted by the Pharisaic historian Josephus? And why would you imagine that those are the 2 options for the early church in the New Testament era? In Jude 9 and 14-15, Jude cites the Assumption of Moses and 1 Enoch as authoritative divine revelation. In 1 Corinthians 2:9 Paul quotes the Apocalypse of Elijah as Scripture.

Modern Bible scholars agree that the most corrupt text is that used by the KJV. The KJV translators lacked access to the earliest and most accurate texts, which were preserved long before most of the hundreds of thousands of errors crept into the text. The modern science of Text Criticism was not available to the KJV translators. This science groups Bible manuscripts into families by date, place of origin, and general criteria of reliability. This science allows scholars to determine when, where, and why most textual errors have crept into the text of Scripture. Their judgments can then be validated by comparisons with quotations of the Bible in the early Church Fathers. So the answer to your question is this: Choose a translation (e.g. the NIV (2011 edition) or the NRSV) that takes the essential insights of modern Text Criticism into account.

(4) "Can we trust a Bible with mistakes? What are your thoughts?"

I think in terms of the inspired lives of biblical authors rather than in terms of magically inspired words, and then I take comfort in the thought that the same Holy Spirit who inspired them is available to illumine my mind as I seek God's guidance in Scripture.

But it would be intellectually dishonest for me to affirm an inerrant Bible. Here are just 4 of many additional reasons:
First, the Bible never claims to be inerrant--certainly not in historical and scientific matters. All Scripture is "inspired by God" in the sense that it is "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16)."
Second---and more importantly--the New Testament cannot comment on its own divine inspiration because it did not exist as a canon of sacred books until after 200 AD. Prior to that there were various canons of NT sacred books.
Third, there is a scholarly consensus, both conservative and liberal, that several New Testament books are pseudonymous: e. g. the Pastoral Epistles (1-2 Timothy and Titus; 2 Peter).
Fourth, in the pseudonymous Pastoral Epistles there is the shameless ethnic slur in Titus 12-13: "All Cretans are liars." Then there is the sexist implication that women must be deprived of authority and teaching rights because women were a creative afterthought and Eve, not Adam, "was deceived and became a transgressor (1 Timothy 2:11:14)." Worse, women are saved not by grace through faith, but by fulfilling their role as baby machines: "Yet women will be saved through child-bearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty (2:15)!" Many other examples of biblical errors could be provided here.

 

[dreadnought]

Which one?


Can you please explain this?

First of all, when you quoted me the first time, you left off the second half of the sentence. I said "Don't trust the Bible - trust the Lord." And yes, the purpose of the Bible is to introduce us to the Lord. We get to know him and walk with him. The Bible was not meant to be used as a crutch, and I believe you will find that the Bible can't be used as a crutch.

 

[dreadnought]

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?

The purpose of the Bible is to introduce us to the Lord. We depend less and less on the Bible and more and more on the Lord. The whole point is to develop a personal relationship with him.

 

[PaulCyp1]

If we have an authoritative and infallible source of biblical interpretation, then we have access to the correct meaning of every word of the Bible. Jesus Christ founded ONE Church, said it was to remain ONE, and promised its first leaders, "The Holy Spirit will guide you into ALL truth", and "WHATSOEVER you bind upon Earth is bound in Heaven", and "He who hears you hears Me". Which is why that ONE Church remains ONE in belief, ONE in teaching, ONE in biblical understanding after 2,000 years, while unauthorized manmade religion, having no such divine promises of truth, has fragmented into thousands of conflicting denominations, teaching thousands of false doctrines, in 500 years. You just can't beat God's plan.

 

[DominicBaptiste]

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've seen people who use a few, kind of at the same time. I visited a large Baptist Church recently and asked a middle aged married couple which one they use, and they said NIV. Then a single older lady told me that some are still King James only. The thing I personally like about King James is that I've seen some women talking to each other before who didn't know each other, and because they were all from country Baptist King James churches, they could recite scripture together like well known poetry.

Psalm 23 King James Version (KJV)
23 The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.

2 He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.

3 He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake.

4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

5 Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.

6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever.

My mother has a red leather gold leaf King James Bible that was presented to her in 1976 at a Southern Baptist Church. I ended up in the Methodist Church because my mother left that Baptist Church, and the Methodists gave me a red leather NRSV in the third grade, and I got a black leather NRSV as a gift along with my confirmation class in the 6th grade from a generous family. My mom also has a green Living Bible, which is a paraphrase popular with her generation. The Message is the new paraphrase that people read, but some of the verses seem totally made up to me. I have a German modern translation like the Living Bible called Neues Leben die Bibel, and one German language ministry I watch online uses an Elberfelder and a Schlachter translation, which I think aren't paraphrases.

Psalm 96 ( Neues Leben die Bibel)
1 Singt dem Herrn ein neues Lied! Die ganze Erde singe dem Herrn!
2 Singt dem Herrn und lobt seinen Namen. Verkündet täglich, dass er uns rettet.
3 Erzählt den Völkern von seinen Taten und sagt allen, welche Wunder er tut!
4 Denn der Herr ist groß und sehr zu loben! Mehr als allen anderen Göttern stehen ihm Lob und Ehre zu.
5 Die Götter anderer Völker sind nur Götzen, der Herr aber hat den Himmel gemacht!
6 Ehre und Herrlichkeit umgeben ihn, Stärke und Schönheit erfüllen sein Heiligtum.
7 Ihr Völker der Welt, verneigt euch vor dem Herrn, erkennt, dass der Herr herrlich und stark ist.
8 Gebt dem Herrn die Ehre, die ihm zusteht! Bringt eure Opfer dar und kommt und betet ihn an.
9 Betet den Herrn in seiner heiligen Herrlichkeit an. Die ganze Erde soll vor ihm erbeben.
10 Erzählt allen Völkern, dass der Herr allein König ist. Die Erde ist fest gegründet und kann nicht einstürzen. Er wird alle Völker gerecht richten.
11 Der Himmel freue sich und die Erde juble! Das Meer und alles, was darin ist, soll seinen Ruhm verkünden!
12 Die Felder und alles, was darauf wächst, und auch die Bäume des Waldes sollen sich freuen
13 vor dem Herrn! Denn der Herr kommt! Er kommt, um die Erde zu richten. Er wird die Welt richten mit Gerechtigkeit und alle Völker nach seiner Wahrheit.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

if no one puzzle piece has the whole picture, does the whole picture exist?

 

[kiwimac]

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.

Rot and nonsense. There is NO scriptural support for the heresy of KJV Onlyism.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Don't trust the Bible - trust the Lord.

Jim Jones didn't trust the Bible either, it bothered him not to throw a copy from a pulpit with an audience.

How can one trust the Lord, or know the Lord without the Bible? This is why I mention Jim Jones, his message was similar, as in don't trust the Bible, trust me. While he might have taken it a step further, it is clear the first step which led to the next, and that likely came from a full blown narcissism meets religion perspective. Such a sad state of affairs, if we cannot trust the Bible, we cannot trust the Lord, and if we cannot trust the Lord, we cannot believe in Him, and therefore we cannot justify knowing anything. It's a bankrupt notion friend.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

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

Why?

 

[kiwimac]

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

Because it is a mistranslation of the Greek which was rectified in later versions.

 

[dreadnought]

Jim Jones didn't trust the Bible either, it bothered him not to throw a copy from a pulpit with an audience.

How can one trust the Lord, or know the Lord without the Bible? This is why I mention Jim Jones, his message was similar, as in don't trust the Bible, trust me. While he might have taken it a step further, it is clear the first step which led to the next, and that likely came from a full blown narcissism meets religion perspective. Such a sad state of affairs, if we cannot trust the Bible, we cannot trust the Lord, and if we cannot trust the Lord, we cannot believe in Him, and therefore we cannot justify knowing anything. It's a bankrupt notion friend.

You can trust the Bible to be an accurate account of what happened and what was said.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

You can trust the Bible to be an accurate account of what happened and what was said.

Thank you for clearing that up.

 

[dreadnought]

Thank you for clearing that up.

You're welcome.

 

[kiwimac]

Which conversation are you referring to?

What is being implied here is that because you don't use the KJV you are imagining that God speaks to you because God only uses 17thC English, you see.

 

[dreadnought]

What is being implied here is that because you don't use the KJV you are imagining that God speaks to you because God only uses 17thC English, you see.

I haven't read all the posts, so I don't know who is implying that. I don't use the KJV.