Is the Bible faultless?

[mysterious_w]

I'm just wondering if you consider the Bible to be the literal word of God. If you do consider your Bible to be faultless in that way, could you please tell me which Bible you use (King James etc.)?

 

[2 King]

I'm just wondering if you consider the Bible to be the literal word of God. If you do consider your Bible to be faultless in that way, could you please tell me which Bible you use (King James etc.)?

By Literal word of God, do you mean "Jesus written on paper?" or God's written word? I consider the Bible to be faultless because God directed the writters on what to write. And since God is all powerful and all knowing etc. If it came out of his, then no doubt it's faultless.

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,"- 2 Timothy 3:16

I persoanlly Use the NLT, although I have a KJV, NIV, and NKJV

 

[mysterious_w]

I'm asking because a major part of the Christian faith is the idea that no man is without sin, right?

Now, your bible for example, the NLT. The new testament in the NLT is translated from the Novum Testamentum Graece in Greek, and researching the NTG, I cannot tell if it is in the original language that the Apostles wrote in (As in, I don't know if the NTG is in modern Greek or Koine Greek).

So the bible was translated at least once (quite possibly more), by sinful men. How can a man with sin translate the literal word of god, and have every verse keep the same meaning? If he can't, how can you trust your bible to be the true word of God?

 

[2 King]

I'm asking because a major part of the Christian faith is the idea that no man is without sin, right?

Now, your bible for example, the NLT. The new testament in the NLT is translated from the Novum Testamentum Graece in Greek, and researching the NTG, I cannot tell if it is in the original language that the Apostles wrote in (As in, I don't know if the NTG is in modern Greek or Koine Greek).

So the bible was translated at least once (quite possibly more), by sinful men. How can a man with sin translate the literal word of god, and have every verse keep the same meaning? If he can't, how can you trust your bible to be the true word of God?

you're not sure what the Apostles wrote it in, it was written in Greek.

When we translate the Bible, we do not translate from a translation of a translation of a translation. We translate from the original language into our language. It is a one step process and not a series of steps that can lead to corruption. It is one translation step from the original to the English or to whatever language a person needs to read it in. So we translate into Spanish from the same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Likewise we translate into the German from those same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts as well. This is how it is done for each and every language we translate the Bible into. We do not translate from the original languages to the English, to the Spanish, and then to the German. It is from the original languages to the English, or into the Spanish, or into the German. Therefore, the translations are very accurate and trustworthy in regards to what the Bible originally said.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I'm just wondering if you consider the Bible to be the literal word of God.

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,"- 2 Timothy 3:16

All scripture is for our instruction. There are 3 stations of influence recorded...God's/mankind's/satan's.

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
2 Corinthians 2:15

By studying to see what is of God, what has been recorded of manmade laws, and where satan is extending influence is all part of rightly dividing the Word.
It's all for instruction...that doesn't mean that what is manmade law is to be obeyed.
Finding the patterns of earthly things that explain God's lessons of what He has in the heavenlies is another part of it.
Also seeing how He has slowly revealed Himself thru the various ways is pertainent.
So, yae, I consider the whole bible to be the Word of God about Himself/mankind and satan.

 

[freeport]

I'm just wondering if you consider the Bible to be the literal word of God. If you do consider your Bible to be faultless in that way, could you please tell me which Bible you use (King James etc.)?

For absolute accuracy one has to go back to the original Greek and Hebrew. I generally use the NIV as it is a good, modern translation.

The whole idea of "absolute accuracy" however is confusing to the flesh as the Bible is full of deep symbolism -- as is the creation.

People in the flesh don't see through the symbolism to the greater meaning. Instead they bicker over things of the flesh, the symbols, the idols: money and houses and shelter and getting praise for the conceit of their hearts from men and women.

All of which is incredibly shallow.

 

[Stinker]

The advantage that New Testament translators have today is that the Koine Greek language is a dead language and they can trace each word back to it's original meaning. There is an exception though. That being where the Apostle Paul created his own word or he used a Hebrew-Greek word arsenokoite (1Cor.6:9) that modern translators have had trouble dealing with through the years.

 

[ebia]

I'm asking because a major part of the Christian faith is the idea that no man is without sin, right?

Now, your bible for example, the NLT. The new testament in the NLT is translated from the Novum Testamentum Graece in Greek, and researching the NTG, I cannot tell if it is in the original language that the Apostles wrote in (As in, I don't know if the NTG is in modern Greek or Koine Greek).

All reputable modern translations refer back to the original Koine Greek.

So the bible was translated at least once (quite possibly more), by sinful men. How can a man with sin translate the literal word of god, and have every verse keep the same meaning?

Translation is inherently as much art as science. You cannot preserve perfectly every nuance in meaning as you go from one language to another. Nevertheless modern translations do a very good job - as can be seen by comparing different ones. Where there are substantive differences it's worth trying to get ones head around the greek that leads to that. The processes and thinking of modern translation teams, and the tools available to students now makes the whole thing very transparent.

If he can't, how can you trust your bible to be the true word of God?

God doesn't need it to be perfect - that would be a waste of time anyway since we can never understand it perfectly. We need it only to be very good, which it is.

 

[Van]

"Is the Bible faultless?

I'm just wondering if you consider the Bible to be the literal word of God. If you do consider your Bible to be faultless in that way, could you please tell me which Bible you use (King James etc.)? Now, your bible for example, the NLT. The new testament in the NLT is translated from the Novum Testamentum Graece in Greek, and researching the NTG, I cannot tell if it is in the original language that the Apostles wrote in (As in, I don't know if the NTG is in modern Greek or Koine Greek).

So the bible was translated at least once (quite possibly more), by sinful men. How can a man with sin translate the literal word of god, and have every verse keep the same meaning? If he can't, how can you trust your bible to be the true word of God?"

Are our modern translations perfect translations of the original autographs (hand written by the author or his scribe)? NO.

Are our modern translations based on copies in the original language, or copies of early translations? Both.

Can a sinful man accurately translate an inerrant original? Sure. Is it likely that the entirety of the current translations are perfect. No.

A well accepted doctrine of Christianity is that the original autographs were inerrant in content, they said what God had given to the authors to write. This is not a claim that the original autographs did not contain spelling errors or grammar errors, but only that the originals very accurately relayed God's Word. Now as these originals were copied and translated, mistakes were no doubt made and the text corrupted to a degree. But when you compare the dead sea scroll text with a copy made about 1000 years later, you find almost the same text with no significant to doctrine differences.
So the Bible, while not a perfect version of the original, is still a very trustworthy version, and it is that analysis, a trustworthy version, that we, living 2000 or more years after the original autographs, put our trust.

The ideas that God is creator, man is sinful and needs salvation, and Jesus provides that salvation did not creep into the text through the errors of sinful man.

 

[AvgJoe]

If he can't, how can you trust your bible to be the true word of God?

Archeaologists have found many books of the Bible, dating back 100s to 1,000s of years, and they say the same thing that our Bibles say.

What did God give us to prove that the Bible is true?

Prophecy.

The bible is approximately 40% prophecy. There are over 7,000 verses of prophecy in the bible. Of those over 7,000 verses, 90% of them have come to pass with excruciating accuracy. The remaining 10% are either in the works now, or will be coming to pass soon. Only God can tell our entire trajectory of history from the beginning to the end. And God has not been wrong yet. God's prophetic program has proven to be precise and exact.

Following is one of those prophecies that has already come to pass:

The Destruction of Tyre

In the year 595 B.C. a man named Ezekiel was given a prophecy regarding the city of Tyre, a city in the modern day country of Lebanon . At that time this city was a large thriving city and a great enemy of Israel. He was told:


"Thus says the Lord God: 'behold I am against you o Tyre, and will cause many nations to come up against you, as the sea causes its waves to come up. And they shall destroy the walls of Tyre and break down her towers; I will also scrape her dust from her and make her like the top of a rock. It shall be a place for the spreading of nets...it shall become plunder for the nations...behold I will bring against Tare from the north King Nebuchadnezzer, King of Babylon.. he will slay your people by the sword and your strong pillars will fall to the ground. They will plunder your riches and pillage your merchandise; they will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses; they will lay your stones, your timbers, and your soil in the midst of the water...l will make you like the top of a rock; you shall be a place for the spreading of nets, and you shall never be rebuilt, for I the Lord have spoken. Will the coast lands not shake at the sound of your fall.. then all the princes of the sea will come down from their thrones, lay aside their robes, and take off their embroidered garments...and be astonished at you". (Ezekiel 26:3)

These are the very specific prophecies for the city of Tyre made by a Hebrew prophet 2600 years ago.

1. Nebuchadnezzer will destroy the mainland city of Tyre (Ezekiel 26:8)
2. Many nations against Tyre (Ezekiel 26:3).
3. Make her bare rock; flat like the top of a rock (Ezekiel 26:4)
4. Fishermen will spread their nets over the site (Ezekiel 26:5)
5. Throw the stones and timbers into the water (Ezekiel 26:12)
6. Never be rebuilt(Ezekiel 26: 14)
7. Princes of nearby coast lands will be astonished by Tyre's fall and give up their thrones.

Now lets look at what secular history says happened to Tyre.

In the year 586 B.C. Nebuchadnezzer, the King of the Babylonian Empire began to attack the city of Tyre. The Babylonian army was the greatest fighting force up to that time and besieged the city of Tyre for 13 years. When they finally broke down the gates and walls of Tyre he found that the people had moved out to an island 1/2 mile off the coast of Tyre. #l fulfilled. City besieged.

In the year 332 B.C. Alexander the Great laid siege against the island city of Tare because they would not submit to his authority. The Encyclopedia Britannica states that because Alexander the Great had no fleet of ships he demolished old Tyre on the mainland and he threw the debris (stones and timbers and dirt) into the ocean and made a causeway (jetty or wood/stone bridge) connecting the mainland to the newer island city of Tyre.

Secular historian Phillip Myers stated in his textbook of history that:

" Alexander the Great reduced Tare to ruins in 332 B.C. Tyre recovered in a measure from this blow, but never regained the place she had previously held in the world. the larger part of the site of the once great city is now as bare as the top of a rock- a place where the fishermen that still frequent the spot spread their nets to dry" #2,3,4,5 fulfilled.(1)
​

Secular historians have stated that the ruins of Tyre are highly unique. Tare ruins are the only ones in the world that have been completely thrown into the ocean.


After Alexander the Great, the island city persisted in various degrees of strength. during the next 16 centuries. Many kings besieged the city until its final destruction by the Moslems began in 1291 AD

Currently, there is a flat rock area with not one stone upon another. The stones that were thrown into the sea are still there. Other than a few nearby small fishing villages, there is no evidence of the former great city. On the flat former foundation stones you find to the present day fishermen drying their nets. #6 fulfilled.. Never rebuilt.

Secular historians record that when Alexander the Great besieged the city of Tyre that many of the neighboring kings submitted to his authority without a battle. #7 fulfilled. Princes give up their thrones.

How could Ezekiel know these things? Because he served the creator of the universe. i.e. the God of the Bible who told Isaiah, Ezekiel and the other prophets that he would tell them things before they happened so that when they happened the people would know that he was truly God. This is only one of hundreds of Hebrew prophecies that have come true to the very word. God states that he can see the beginning from the end; that he is outside of time; that he can see all the history of man like we would look at the pages of a book. Sounds impossible doesn't it? Well it is if you happen to live in our four dimensional universe.

However, an interesting outcome of Einstein's theory of relativity was the discovery of dimensions of time and space that exist separately and distinct from the four dimensions we experience. In fact, these dimensions may even be in our midst but not visible to us. More recently mathematicians have shown that up to eleven dimensions may exist in the universe. Many physicists believe that there are places in the universe where time ceases to flow. One of these places is in a black hole. Now it is interesting that the Bible tells us that God dwells in a place where time does not flow. For centuries this concept was mocked by scientists. Such a place is now scientific fact.

If one were to be sucked into a black hole, or any other realm where time ceases to flow, we could see the flow of time, in places where there is time, like we were reading the pages of a book. Since we would experience no flow of time, the beginning and the end of time filled dimensions would be present and observable all at once.

These strange facts of physics may be evidence for the truth of what we call the supernatural "spirit realm". However, if these supernatural dimensions can be shown mathematically possible then they are not really supernatural. Rather, they are natural. People believe in a lot of things we can't see ( wind, atoms, heat, electromagnetic radiation, luck). Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not real.

The Skeptics Reply

Now the skeptic immediately says that the book of Ezekiel must have been written after these events took place. However, archaeological finds have produced Ezekiel texts that are dated to as far back as 400-600 B.C. In this century an almost complete Ezekiel text on stone tablets was found. The type of Hebrew on these tablets indicates that it was from the time of Ezekiel i.e. 500-600 B.C. There are many scholars who believe that this stone work may be from the hands of Ezekiel himself. Alexander the Great didn't invade the city until 332 B.C., long after Ezekiel's death. The final fulfillment of the prophecy did not happen until 1291 AD i.e., about 1700 years after Ezekiel's death. The story of Tyre is in the oldest text's known.

Another interesting fact is that these 2500 year old stone tablets contain exactly the same text as the Hebrew Bible you can buy today.(2) So much for text being lost or changed because of faulty translation.. Others might argue luck. Well, the mathematical probability that Ezekiel could have guessed so many unlikely events happening is staggering. But this is only one small prophecy. There are hundreds that have come true. For an extensive treatment of this prophecy see Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell.(3)

God told the prophets that he would tell them things that would happen in advance so they would recognize him as a supremely intelligent all knowing creator that exists outside time and space. This kind of evidence was very impressive to men in those days. However, in today's world most people live with very little awareness of God. We tend to rationalize prophecies like these saying that there must be a "natural explanation". Many people don't want to see this kind of evidence because they are comfortable with their agnostic view that a knowledge of God is not possible; or worse yet, that there is no God. Many people are like the man that says "don't confuse me with facts my mind is made up". However, whether we choose to believe a fact does not alter the truth of it . That is, you can choose to believe that there is no gravity. However, this is not rational since the abundance of evidence seems to point to the truth of gravity. There is at least a 50/50 chance that there is a God.
The more evidence that we find that seems to support this fact the higher the probability that there is a God.

For more fulfilled prophecies click here~~~> BibleProofs .

 

[ephraimanesti]

I'm just wondering if you consider the Bible to be the literal word of God. If you do consider your Bible to be faultless in that way, could you please tell me which Bible you use (King James etc.)?

MY SISTER,

NOTHING touched by man is "faultless." Therefore, ALL Biblical translations have some degree of err built into them due to human errs of one kind or another.

The thing to remember about the Bible is that it is God's Word to us--a "LOVE LETTER" if you will--and He does not allow the human-engendered error to detract or change the meaning of what He wishes to communicate to His children.

You can note, in this regard, that all the passages of Scripture over which there is some controversy regarding meaning are trivial and do not change God's message to us one way or the other. The one exception to this rule is "The New World Translation" which is a deliberate perversion of Scripture rather than a translation, in which Scripture is wrested for the sole and very focused purpose of obscuring basic Christian teachings such as the deity of Jesus Christ.

Some Bible translations are more poetic than others, some are easier to read than others, some approximate the original languages better than others, etc., etc., but ALL will provide you with the TRUTH if that is what you are TRULY seeking.

May God grant that this seeking be YOUR goal!

LOVE IN CHRIST,
ephraim

 

[Criada]

I don't think there is such a thing as a perfect translation.
Nor do I think that that matters... God speaks to us through scripture, the Holy Spirit teaches us through it. And He is perfectly capable of speaking through an imperfect translation, just as he speaks through imperfect humans. It is the Author who matters, not the exact words

 

[ThePastafarian]

you're not sure what the Apostles wrote it in, it was written in Greek.

When we translate the Bible, we do not translate from a translation of a translation of a translation. We translate from the original language into our language. It is a one step process and not a series of steps that can lead to corruption. It is one translation step from the original to the English or to whatever language a person needs to read it in. So we translate into Spanish from the same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Likewise we translate into the German from those same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts as well. This is how it is done for each and every language we translate the Bible into. We do not translate from the original languages to the English, to the Spanish, and then to the German. It is from the original languages to the English, or into the Spanish, or into the German. Therefore, the translations are very accurate and trustworthy in regards to what the Bible originally said.

So where are those original manuscripts??
As far as I know no one has ever found them.
And Bart D Ehrman and Dr Bob Price may disagree your theory.


State some sources for your claim or it will not be taken seriously.

 

[ebia]

So where are those original manuscripts??
As far as I know no one has ever found them.
And Bart D Ehrman and Dr Bob Price may disagree your theory.


State some sources for your claim or it will not be taken seriously.

Eh? What claim are you disputing. You are correct to say that we don't have the original manuscripts of any of the books (though we have some very early fragments of some), but no-one serious disputes that the New Testament books were written originally in Greek with the possible exception of Matthew, which some traditions have thought written in Aramaic or Hebrew originally.

Now, we don't have the original manuscripts, so we also know that our texts are not perfect to the originals, but we do have a huge range of early manuscripts so that we know that what we have is (a) very good and (b) we can be confident we know which passages that we can't be certain about (because there is some variation).

So, we have very good (not perfect) reproductions of the original, in the original languages, from which to translate into English (say).

Should you require citations for the above one could provide numerous, from across the spectrum of New Testament scholarship including not just Christian scholars from the full range of traditions but also Jewish, Muslim and secular scholars.