When there are so many numerical errors? For example in 2 Samuel 8:4 David captured 700 horsemen and in 1 Chronicles 18:4 it was 7000. Now this is more than likely a copyist's error, but there are a lot of copyist's errors in the Bible. This is just one of many. I can't understand how anyone can say today's bible translations are inerrant when they clearly aren't. I wish I could get pass this, but I can't. These are blatent errors that can't be explained away unless you say it's errors on the copyist. And therefore, an inerrant translation of the word hasn't been divinely preserved.
How can today's translations of the Bible be trusted?
- Thread starter HappySoul
- Start date
Are there any better translations?
Only one can believe that the original transcripts are inerrant. What we have today are full of errors. Anyone who says otherwise aren't being true to themselves. It's 100% fact that the bible has errors. Someone I know says the bible is completely error free. How he can overlook the numerical errors that are clearly present is beyond me. I'm beginning to think he's crazy.
Thiscrosshurts
Active
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2011
- Messages
- 1,630
The answers are available
There are 4 main sources to the Torah
Wiki each one and you will find answers
Elohist
Yahwist
Deuteronomist
Priestly source
The inerrancy is by faith that God is able to preserve his Word.
There are several sources contributing to the New testament,some slightly disagree.
The Torah has not changed since written around 400BC.
The Septuagint was the first book to contain both old and new testament converted from Hebrew,Aramaic and Greek.
In the 4th century the Newly Christianized Roman Empire made a Latin translation called the Latin Vulgate.Most later translations are from the Vulgate.There are differences when you translate a translation of a translation.
You can read the Septuagint online with an interlinear and get pretty close to the original.
Oddly enough it says Saul has slain his thousands and David his ten of thousands.
That's 10:1 ratio.Maybe it's cryptic, 7 with a 10:1 ratio,who knows what that "living Word is up to".
There are 4 main sources to the Torah
Wiki each one and you will find answers
Elohist
Yahwist
Deuteronomist
Priestly source
The inerrancy is by faith that God is able to preserve his Word.
There are several sources contributing to the New testament,some slightly disagree.
The Torah has not changed since written around 400BC.
The Septuagint was the first book to contain both old and new testament converted from Hebrew,Aramaic and Greek.
In the 4th century the Newly Christianized Roman Empire made a Latin translation called the Latin Vulgate.Most later translations are from the Vulgate.There are differences when you translate a translation of a translation.
You can read the Septuagint online with an interlinear and get pretty close to the original.
Oddly enough it says Saul has slain his thousands and David his ten of thousands.
That's 10:1 ratio.Maybe it's cryptic, 7 with a 10:1 ratio,who knows what that "living Word is up to".
Last edited:
Dear Happysoul.
I may have a different view of the innerant nature of scripture.
The scripture reveals Jesus Christ is the creator of Heaven and Earth.
Also the scripture reveals Jesus Christ gave His life so that we may have eternal life.
What else does the scripture hold, the judgement of mankind.
What concerns me the most is that you are looking at the scriptures and worrying about scribal errors that occur when making copies.
A good example of this is the Dead Sea Scrolls. These scrolls contain two Great Isaiah scrolls, dating of these scrolls places them at about 200BC. These Isaiah scrolls are complete.
These Isaiah scrolls are the complete reproduction of our Biblical Isaiah scrolls except for a handful of spelling mistakes. These people that copy these scrolls are incredibly meticulous. A handful of mistakes in 2200 years. I am amazed that we have in our hands a Bible almost free of error.
On matters of doctrine there is no doubt at all that the Bible is inerrant. With matters of revelation and doctrine the vast repetition ensures your looking at the real Jesus.
What happens on Judgement Day when Jesus Christ returns with millions of angels. We Christians are lying in the dirt not looking up until called. In the background i can hear your voice, "excuse me Lord but there was a zero missing of one of the figures in the Old Testament". Please do not stand near me on that day, thanks.
I may have a different view of the innerant nature of scripture.
The scripture reveals Jesus Christ is the creator of Heaven and Earth.
Also the scripture reveals Jesus Christ gave His life so that we may have eternal life.
What else does the scripture hold, the judgement of mankind.
What concerns me the most is that you are looking at the scriptures and worrying about scribal errors that occur when making copies.
A good example of this is the Dead Sea Scrolls. These scrolls contain two Great Isaiah scrolls, dating of these scrolls places them at about 200BC. These Isaiah scrolls are complete.
These Isaiah scrolls are the complete reproduction of our Biblical Isaiah scrolls except for a handful of spelling mistakes. These people that copy these scrolls are incredibly meticulous. A handful of mistakes in 2200 years. I am amazed that we have in our hands a Bible almost free of error.
On matters of doctrine there is no doubt at all that the Bible is inerrant. With matters of revelation and doctrine the vast repetition ensures your looking at the real Jesus.
What happens on Judgement Day when Jesus Christ returns with millions of angels. We Christians are lying in the dirt not looking up until called. In the background i can hear your voice, "excuse me Lord but there was a zero missing of one of the figures in the Old Testament". Please do not stand near me on that day, thanks.
David, as I was reading your reply I was getting behind what you were saying. I was really enjoying it...that is until I got to your last sentence when you came off as being a jerk. It ruined for me everything you said before that. And since when is it a bad thing to question the bible in certain areas? God wants that. That's the only way to grow spiritually. I'm not here to attack the bible. I'm here to ask questions and hopefully gain some insight. I don't need other christians telling me not to stand with them on judgement day. Ask yourself this, would Jesus be happy you feel that way?
Last edited:
happyharold4
Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2009
- Messages
- 168
We just have to be careful not to be straining at gnats and swallowing camels---The fact that there is enough that is correct that will enable us to have faith that brings us into His salvation is enough in itself---And are any of us perfect enough to judge what is imperfect about the Lords ways or His word---The small errors you find in the written Word shouldn't be a stumbling block to you---Your gratefulness for being saved should give you enough encouragement to move on.
Happy
Happy
Bible Versions for Dummies 101<?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /><O
></O>
<O> </O>
One of the most intense ongoing debates between Christians of all levels is which Bible translation is the best. This whole debate is fueled by a number of parties. On the one side are those who wish to sell their “latest and greatest” translation to the public. These people are generally motivated by greed rather than a sincere interest in the spiritual well-being of the believer. Proof for this statement is simply in the stringent copyrights that the publishers enforce. Did you know that most modern translations have very strict rules about how you may and may not use the translation! <O></O>
Then there are those who have a vested interest in a particular translation. Most of the hype surrounding various translations is very emotional, irrational and even fanatical. Then there are the “King James Only” people who regard the King James Version as the only valid and inspired version of the Bible. Although I very much doubt that any translation is inspired by Satan (except the Jehovah’s Witness’, New World Translation), I have no doubt that we have played right into the Devil’s hands as we battle each other about which is the “right” translation in stead of getting on with preaching the gospel. By this I do not mean that there are not “the good, the bad and the ugly” amongst translations. But I am concerned about the intense passion with which folk defend and promote their translation, often with more zeal than they defend and promote the Gospel.<O></O>
The following couple of articles are not intended to be a scholarly and detailed investigation into the subject. There are many books written on this matter by much more qualified people than I. My intent is simply to provide you with a broad background of the issues in order that you may make an informed decision.<O></O>
First we need to look at the matter of manuscripts. We do not have the original documents that were written by the original men like Moses, David and Paul. Also the original books were not written in English but in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. So the translators have to use manuscripts that have been copied by hand many times over. One of the debates is about which is the best manuscript. The short answer is there are no “best” manuscripts, yet every translator will claim to have used the “best manuscripts”. What they mean is they are best in their estimation. So you will find the margins of some translations will say something like “the most early reliable manuscripts do not include verse …” They thus create the impression that earlier is better and therefore such verses must be excluded. In theory earlier may be better because they have been copied less times and are closer (in time) to the original. Earlier manuscripts are not necessarily better, especially when the quality of the workmanship is not the best. Thus some of the most relied on manuscripts come from <?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = ST1 /><ST1LACE w:st="on"><ST1:COUNTRY-REGION w:st="on">Egypt</ST1:COUNTRY-REGION></ST1LACE>. In my view <ST1LACE w:st="on"><ST1:COUNTRY-REGION w:st="on">Egypt</ST1:COUNTRY-REGION></ST1LACE> was theologically suspect as it was Alexandrian Christians who brought much of the Greek philosophy and Gnosticism into the early church. Thus a text from this environment will hold less credibility than another for me.<O></O>
The point is that no single set of manuscripts can be crowned as “the best”. We have more than 4,000 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament and about 300 of each book of the Old Testament. The differences between these texts are small and each has its own strengths and weaknesses. None of the variances between the documents change anything about what we believe. The Christianity and doctrine taught by one is essentially the same as that of another text. We should never build an entire doctrine on one verse only anyway. So if the presence or absence of one verse changes your theology, you have a serious problem. We should and can defend The Faith without relying on any of the verses that are in question. One of the remarkable things about the Bible is just how few and small the differences between the texts are and how many texts we have from many different sources and that they all confirm one another in more than 99% of the words. We can clearly see God’s hand in the preservation of the Bible as we have it today. So the preference for a particular set of manuscripts is a matter of personal preference.<O></O>
Very few of us have the skills to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the different texts and so have to rely on the judgment of scholars. Yet, the scholars are strongly divided in their views. So how do we choose between the scholars? Well that is not too hard. You simply apply the same criteria you would to any Bible teacher. What is his background? Where does he come from? Is he a liberal, modernist, post-modernist? Is he Reformed, Romanist, Orthodox, Evangelical, Charismatic? In other words what are the background, theological, academic and environmental factors that will color his views and work? In fact, the same questions should be asked about translators. You will be surprised to discover to what degree these factors influence the judgment of scholars who evaluate texts and who do translation work. Amazingly, many believers will trust a scholar’s judgment on texts or swear by a translator’s work but would not endure the same men in their pulpit for one moment! <O></O>
I am not trying to confuse you. Most believers do not have the skills even to evaluate the scholars, let alone the texts themselves, yet these same believers will argue emphatically for one text or one translation over the other. So what is my point? Simply this. Don’t let anyone con you into arguing for or against any particular set of manuscripts. Very few people have the skills to do so. And don’t listen to anyone who wants to tell you their translation is based on the best or the only valid manuscripts. Choose a translation based on the criteria I will provide next week and more important; get to know the contents of the Bible. <O></O>
></O><O
> </O>One of the most intense ongoing debates between Christians of all levels is which Bible translation is the best. This whole debate is fueled by a number of parties. On the one side are those who wish to sell their “latest and greatest” translation to the public. These people are generally motivated by greed rather than a sincere interest in the spiritual well-being of the believer. Proof for this statement is simply in the stringent copyrights that the publishers enforce. Did you know that most modern translations have very strict rules about how you may and may not use the translation! <O
></O>Then there are those who have a vested interest in a particular translation. Most of the hype surrounding various translations is very emotional, irrational and even fanatical. Then there are the “King James Only” people who regard the King James Version as the only valid and inspired version of the Bible. Although I very much doubt that any translation is inspired by Satan (except the Jehovah’s Witness’, New World Translation), I have no doubt that we have played right into the Devil’s hands as we battle each other about which is the “right” translation in stead of getting on with preaching the gospel. By this I do not mean that there are not “the good, the bad and the ugly” amongst translations. But I am concerned about the intense passion with which folk defend and promote their translation, often with more zeal than they defend and promote the Gospel.<O
></O>The following couple of articles are not intended to be a scholarly and detailed investigation into the subject. There are many books written on this matter by much more qualified people than I. My intent is simply to provide you with a broad background of the issues in order that you may make an informed decision.<O
></O>First we need to look at the matter of manuscripts. We do not have the original documents that were written by the original men like Moses, David and Paul. Also the original books were not written in English but in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. So the translators have to use manuscripts that have been copied by hand many times over. One of the debates is about which is the best manuscript. The short answer is there are no “best” manuscripts, yet every translator will claim to have used the “best manuscripts”. What they mean is they are best in their estimation. So you will find the margins of some translations will say something like “the most early reliable manuscripts do not include verse …” They thus create the impression that earlier is better and therefore such verses must be excluded. In theory earlier may be better because they have been copied less times and are closer (in time) to the original. Earlier manuscripts are not necessarily better, especially when the quality of the workmanship is not the best. Thus some of the most relied on manuscripts come from <?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = ST1 /><ST1
LACE w:st="on"><ST1:COUNTRY-REGION w:st="on">Egypt</ST1:COUNTRY-REGION></ST1LACE>. In my view <ST1LACE w:st="on"><ST1:COUNTRY-REGION w:st="on">Egypt</ST1:COUNTRY-REGION></ST1LACE> was theologically suspect as it was Alexandrian Christians who brought much of the Greek philosophy and Gnosticism into the early church. Thus a text from this environment will hold less credibility than another for me.<O></O>The point is that no single set of manuscripts can be crowned as “the best”. We have more than 4,000 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament and about 300 of each book of the Old Testament. The differences between these texts are small and each has its own strengths and weaknesses. None of the variances between the documents change anything about what we believe. The Christianity and doctrine taught by one is essentially the same as that of another text. We should never build an entire doctrine on one verse only anyway. So if the presence or absence of one verse changes your theology, you have a serious problem. We should and can defend The Faith without relying on any of the verses that are in question. One of the remarkable things about the Bible is just how few and small the differences between the texts are and how many texts we have from many different sources and that they all confirm one another in more than 99% of the words. We can clearly see God’s hand in the preservation of the Bible as we have it today. So the preference for a particular set of manuscripts is a matter of personal preference.<O
></O>Very few of us have the skills to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the different texts and so have to rely on the judgment of scholars. Yet, the scholars are strongly divided in their views. So how do we choose between the scholars? Well that is not too hard. You simply apply the same criteria you would to any Bible teacher. What is his background? Where does he come from? Is he a liberal, modernist, post-modernist? Is he Reformed, Romanist, Orthodox, Evangelical, Charismatic? In other words what are the background, theological, academic and environmental factors that will color his views and work? In fact, the same questions should be asked about translators. You will be surprised to discover to what degree these factors influence the judgment of scholars who evaluate texts and who do translation work. Amazingly, many believers will trust a scholar’s judgment on texts or swear by a translator’s work but would not endure the same men in their pulpit for one moment! <O
></O>I am not trying to confuse you. Most believers do not have the skills even to evaluate the scholars, let alone the texts themselves, yet these same believers will argue emphatically for one text or one translation over the other. So what is my point? Simply this. Don’t let anyone con you into arguing for or against any particular set of manuscripts. Very few people have the skills to do so. And don’t listen to anyone who wants to tell you their translation is based on the best or the only valid manuscripts. Choose a translation based on the criteria I will provide next week and more important; get to know the contents of the Bible. <O
></O>Hello!
This is something I already posted to make folks aware that despite modern man trying to improve.......the original scripture can be wholly trusted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most groundless of all of the assumptions of the radical critics with regard to the text of the Old Testament Scriptures is that the text, as it emerged into historic times, had already been so changed from its original form as to be utterly unrecognizable by its own composers.
Yet what convincing evidence is there to prove that such radical changes were ever made in the original text of the Old Testament? None whatsoever, except an analogy derived from the Egyptian and Babylonian liturgies and legends.
No trace of any such radical changes can be found in the parallel portions of the Old Testament, nor in any statements of the Scriptures, nor in any tradition of the Jews. On the contrary, so far back as we can go with manuscripts and versions (i.e., to 200 B. C), the evidence is overwhelming and convincing, that in general no changes, even in sporadic cases of consonantal letters, have been made in the text of the Old Testament; except such as might occur in the copying or translating of any document, especially one of a long past age.
The Egyptian papyri, recently discovered and published, some of them more than 2,000 years old, show that some of the fragments of the Classics differ by not a single letter from the texts of the ordinary text-books now used in the preparatory schools
-- Robert **** Wilson (February 4, 1856 - October 11, 1930. American linguist and Presbyterian scholar, who devoted his life to an attempt to prove the reliability of the Hebrew Bible. In his quest to determine the accuracy of the original manuscripts, Wilson learned 45 languages, including Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, as well as all the languages into which the Scriptures had been translated up to 600 AD).
Theologian
Member
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2011
- Messages
- 10
I believe it is not the accuracy of the Book that matters. As long as it promotes the core beliefs of faith, humanity, mercy and justice.
CherryFizzle
Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 27
lol that last sentence actually made me laugh! Sheesh, people don't have to get offended so easily, it was clearly humorous.
I agree though, the doctrine is intact, and we shouldn't quibble on little things like a missing zero. In a strange sense it might be healthy, because if you are studying your Bible properly and paying close attention, you will notice these errors and it gives you a chance to look them up and discover the truth. I think we should all look up the original Hebrew/Greek etc from the Bible, as it helps you get a fuller understanding of the Bible.
Other copies are translations and although they are very close, it is never exactly as clear as the original texts. But it is up to you, how in depth you want to go.
As I say, if you find a "contradiction" in the Bible, or a "mistake", it is glorious, as you are about to clear it up and discover something new in the Bible (if you study it). Hope this makes sense! haha!
People take things differently... because... we're different. Just saying.
Anyway, I think if you seek God's truth, He will teach you even when you don't read every day/regardless of what you do read. I don't read my Bible every single day for 1-2 hours... yet God speaks to me. He knows my heart, knows I seek what HE says and not what anyone else says. Sometimes He straight out puts a thought in my head that answers a question, sometimes He'll tell me to open my Bible and I'll find the answer, sometimes He won't say nothing.
Follow God in your search for truth, and no one else, you'll not be steered wrong.
Love love love love love I wish I could give you all a hug. =) <3 <3
Anyway, I think if you seek God's truth, He will teach you even when you don't read every day/regardless of what you do read. I don't read my Bible every single day for 1-2 hours... yet God speaks to me. He knows my heart, knows I seek what HE says and not what anyone else says. Sometimes He straight out puts a thought in my head that answers a question, sometimes He'll tell me to open my Bible and I'll find the answer, sometimes He won't say nothing.
Follow God in your search for truth, and no one else, you'll not be steered wrong.
Love love love love love I wish I could give you all a hug. =) <3 <3
I believe that small errors like a missing zero in this case
prove even more that the Bible is valid.
If the Bible were completely without blemish, then everyone
would go about saying that it's too perfect and questionable.
Had the Bible been completely perfect in the case of small errors,
then it would have been questionable whether it was a
man made religion. Especially some of the content as well.
Anyone who wanted to make God look good would not have
written about the disciples being imperfect and arguing about
small things all the time. If it were a man made religion it would
have been filled with stories of God giving people what they
deserve, yet we are given stories of grace, something we would
not do for others.
prove even more that the Bible is valid.
If the Bible were completely without blemish, then everyone
would go about saying that it's too perfect and questionable.
Had the Bible been completely perfect in the case of small errors,
then it would have been questionable whether it was a
man made religion. Especially some of the content as well.
Anyone who wanted to make God look good would not have
written about the disciples being imperfect and arguing about
small things all the time. If it were a man made religion it would
have been filled with stories of God giving people what they
deserve, yet we are given stories of grace, something we would
not do for others.
Very well put.
I don't really like making comments like this, because sometimes it may seem that I'm trying to up my posts or something, but I'm not.
That is beautiful, and very sound.
But I would add, if God was not real, or Jesus...
What are the feelings I feel? The love I feel, from someone I can't even see? So many other things unexplained in my life; thoughts I haven't had that entered my mind in a moment of need, friends coming over the moment I feel at my lowest, saddest moment, just to hang out and comfort me... Little things like that, I believe God does them to show me He loves me and is here. He is always here. Always here when I call Him, always here when I'm sad, when I curse Him for causing me pain, when I loathe life itself, when I love everything in life, when everything seems really great........ ALWAYS. I can physically and spiritualy feel His wonderful precense. (I think that's how you spell it... presence... precense... I dunno)
THE perfect Word
I read through some of the post and saw the one in reference to the KJB. Which I believe to be the perfect Bible for the the English language.
(KJB) Psalm 12:6-7
The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. [7] Thou shalt keep them, O Lord , thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Simple reading-6th grade reading level. No need for Greek or Hebrew, I speak & read English as my primary language.
Truly believe that it comes from unpreverted orgin. But most of all because I've spent much time in prayer for understanding & wisdom & feel as the Lord has lead me & my family in this direction.
If you would like I can send you links to acouple sites that offer more on why KJB.
God bless you find your faith in prayer.
Troy
I read through some of the post and saw the one in reference to the KJB. Which I believe to be the perfect Bible for the the English language.
(KJB) Psalm 12:6-7
The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. [7] Thou shalt keep them, O Lord , thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Simple reading-6th grade reading level. No need for Greek or Hebrew, I speak & read English as my primary language.
Truly believe that it comes from unpreverted orgin. But most of all because I've spent much time in prayer for understanding & wisdom & feel as the Lord has lead me & my family in this direction.
If you would like I can send you links to acouple sites that offer more on why KJB.
God bless you find your faith in prayer.
Troy
Dear Dannibear.
Your reply was simple but incredibly good. That is a very interesting point that God does in fact allow these minute non-doctrinal errors. If someone is not serious about our Lord Jesus then they will be mislead by that zero will they not.
Your reply was simple but incredibly good. That is a very interesting point that God does in fact allow these minute non-doctrinal errors. If someone is not serious about our Lord Jesus then they will be mislead by that zero will they not.
errors in the Bible?
There in no way to take something as large as the Bible and translate, for example Hebrew or Greek into English and be exactly word for word. The only way to understand word for word is to be able to read and understand Hebrew and Greed. When translation some words have no exact word to put into English. So what is called Dynamic Equivalent is used. This is a word that come as close as possible. This is not the same as a paraphrase translation.
There are a good number of translations of Scripture. Knowing what the translators purpose and Theological underpinnings are is helpful. Over time translations change, because meanings of the words we use change. The King James version have has many revisions over the years. Originally the 1611 KJV spelling was so different from what is standard English spelling today.
Each Christian really becomes a Theologian, a person who studies Scripture. Some of us have Seminary which has exposed us to more understanding of Scripture and the Doctrines of the denomination or nondenomination understandings of Scripture.
Bible are written to an audienace, be it liberal, evangical, or fundamentalist. Gender-neutral, Dymanic-equaivaent, or literal. There are translations that have these basics for the foundation of writting their translation of Scripture.
I use the New American Standard Bible updated 1995. The NASB is as close to a word for word as possible. I also use a Dynamic Equivalent version, the New International Version. There are other fine Bibles that a Christian Bible Book store could help you with. I would suggest you talk with your Pastor and he should be able to help you.:embarasse
There in no way to take something as large as the Bible and translate, for example Hebrew or Greek into English and be exactly word for word. The only way to understand word for word is to be able to read and understand Hebrew and Greed. When translation some words have no exact word to put into English. So what is called Dynamic Equivalent is used. This is a word that come as close as possible. This is not the same as a paraphrase translation.
There are a good number of translations of Scripture. Knowing what the translators purpose and Theological underpinnings are is helpful. Over time translations change, because meanings of the words we use change. The King James version have has many revisions over the years. Originally the 1611 KJV spelling was so different from what is standard English spelling today.
Each Christian really becomes a Theologian, a person who studies Scripture. Some of us have Seminary which has exposed us to more understanding of Scripture and the Doctrines of the denomination or nondenomination understandings of Scripture.
Bible are written to an audienace, be it liberal, evangical, or fundamentalist. Gender-neutral, Dymanic-equaivaent, or literal. There are translations that have these basics for the foundation of writting their translation of Scripture.
I use the New American Standard Bible updated 1995. The NASB is as close to a word for word as possible. I also use a Dynamic Equivalent version, the New International Version. There are other fine Bibles that a Christian Bible Book store could help you with. I would suggest you talk with your Pastor and he should be able to help you.:embarasse
