Why don't we have a perfect bible today?

[BlackPlatypus]

Guy, for your own peace of mind, consider the old axiom. Repeating the same behavior expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.

If this guy ca make you that upset (see below) and he clearly knows it because 99 times before he hasn't yet answered that first simple question, quit!
It, he's , not worth it (HUG)

For the 100th time:

What do you mean by perfect?

What do you mean by perfect?

What do you mean by perfect?

What do you mean by perfect?

What do you mean by perfect?

What do you mean by perfect?

What do you mean by perfect?

What do you mean by perfect?

What do you mean by perfect?

What do you mean by perfect?

What do you mean by perfect?

What do you mean by perfect?

What do you mean by perfect?

What do you mean by perfect?

What do you mean by perfect?

What do you mean by perfect?

 

[oldhermit]

Yes, the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. There are also many quality translations that are available. All valid translations are the Word of God. The originals are the very best resource but translations do a very good job communicating God's message to those who need it. Please don't call me a politician, I hate politics.

There is not even an extant ancient text that we can confirm to be perfect because all are mere copies. I really doubt we have anything closer than a third generation copy.

 

[Tintin]

Of course the Bible is errant. God didn't write it with his own finger. Men compiled it with their council authority. And scribes and translators made due with what they knew in taking manuscripts, epistles, etc... from one language and translated them into the next. Plus there was the added interjection of the politics of the time.

For instance King James, a pervert, a queer, a man who was said to sex his own mother, and who literally bathed in the blood of his enemies, authorized the first printing of the Bible in England. The Authorized King James Version 1611.
But King James, known as queen james by many because he was gay and would sometimes dress as a woman, was also paranoid of the pagans in his realm. Namely those he called witches.

He therefore authorized the Exodus 22:18 scripture to be changed. From, thou shalt not allow a poisoner to live, unto thou shalt not let a witch to live.
So that the persecution and prosecution and execution of those deemed witches could commence under the authority of the church.
Yes, the Bible is errant. And often contradictory. As we see here from one verse unto the other.

Proverbs 26:4-5
[SUP]4 [/SUP]Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
or you yourself will be just like him.
[SUP]5 [/SUP]Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes.

But Christians don't worship the Bible.That would be biblioidolatry, a sin. Rather, they glean their relationship from Christ from within themselves.

The ego's of men sought to rule the world for eternity proclaiming God's word was contained in 66 books. But if so, when there is but one God, how did the Bible come to be through the exercise of over 40 different authors and numerous councils that compiled what ultimately became their decree as a closed canon?

God didn't write the Bible. Therefore, it is no surprise when there are contradictions and errors.
For instance, God would know the mustard seed is not the smallest seed on earth. Mark 4:31. But men did.
God knows the smallest seed on earth is that which is almost microscopic and belongs to the epiphytic orchid.

Don't find your faith depends on page after page of scripture. Our faith is to come from the divine revelations and relationship with have with God through Jesus Christ.
You're arguing about man made things. The Bible. Of course there are errors.

You have a seriously messed up understanding of the Word of God. The Bible is inerrant. The Holy Spirit (one of the persons of God) inspired men of God to write all of the words within it. They wrote using their own style, their own character, their own culture, but the messages they communicated were from God himself.

 

[Tintin]

There is not even an extant ancient text that we can confirm to be perfect because all are mere copies. I really doubt we have anything closer than a third generation copy.

This is true, but it's still pretty close.

 

[oldhermit]

This is true, but it's still pretty close.

Yes and the inconsistencies that do exist, even among the ancient MSS, are relatively minor and most have little or no real impact on the meaning of the text.

 

[Last]

Which one is the perfect translation?

There is no such thing as perfect translations. That's not how languages work. A translation conveys the MEANING of something and there are different ways something can be worded.

I went to the store and then I bought some ice cream
After going to the store, I purchased some ice cream

 

[KJV1611]

Guy, for your own peace of mind, consider the old axiom. Repeating the same behavior expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.

If this guy ca make you that upset (see below) and he clearly knows it because 99 times before he hasn't yet answered that first simple question, quit!
It, he's , not worth it (HUG)

I'm not trying to upset anyone.... why is this so hard to understand. A perfect bible means I can pick up the bible and believe every word written in it to the exact word that God intended to be there.

 

[Tintin]

I'm not trying to upset anyone.... why is this so hard to understand. A perfect bible means I can pick up the bible and believe every word written in it to the exact word that God intended to be there.

Yes, the Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek.

 

[oldhermit]

I'm not trying to upset anyone.... why is this so hard to understand. A perfect bible means I can pick up the bible and believe every word written in it to the exact word that God intended to be there.

Yes, Let me recommend a few. NASV, ASV, NKJV, ESV, DRB, MOFFIT, MCCORD, ERV....

 

[Last]

I'm not trying to upset anyone.... why is this so hard to understand. A perfect bible means I can pick up the bible and believe every word written in it to the exact word that God intended to be there.

It's not about the words. The words are there to convey a message. It's the message, the meaning, that is important. For example, "sick" and "ill" mean the same thing - it does not matter which word you use.

 

[Tintin]

It's not about the words. The words are there to convey a message. It's the message, the meaning, that is important. For example, "sick" and "ill" mean the same thing - it does not matter which word you use.

This. Very, yes! Amen.

 

[BlackPlatypus]

I'm not trying to upset anyone.... why is this so hard to understand. A perfect bible means I can pick up the bible and believe every word written in it to the exact word that God intended to be there.

Ask yourself if God wrote the Bible why sin filled men would deem themselves entitled by their authority to act as his editors and chief?
If God wrote the Bible there wouldn't be one error in it. Not one. Not one contradiction. Not one inconsistency with nature itself, like the mustard seed passage.
Men authored the Bible claiming they received the inspiration of God to do it.
While lay people, not so appointed, when they claimed they heard God speaking to them, were burned at the stake, guillotined, or hanged, because that same scripture derived from men claiming they heard a voice telling them what to write and how to compile the scripts, said those other people were possessed by the devil and should die for hearing that voice.

What's your point really? You want to believe every single word in scripture? Why? Do you need to read it on the page that what other men claimed God spoke to their hearts? Why not tune in to the Kingdom within you? And listen to the communications of the Holy Spirit?
Praise God it's the 21st century. If you do that and even if you say what you've heard aloud to people, today you won't be murdered by the church for it because some patriarchal authority said you were in communion with God's adversary. Take advantage of that. God writes his laws on our hearts so we'll not be separated from it. Scripture says that too. How then do you imagine God doesn't speak to your heart today?

"Closed Canon", meant to tell people that compiled 66 books was the last time God would ever speak his word to the human race. That in itself should tell you it was mortal egoistic politics that bound the Bible in the name of God. Because that canon edict, along with the apostles creed, or the Nicene creed as its known, sought to bind believers minds.

Why are you hoping to be convinced to do that?

 

[Tintin]

Yes, Let me recommend a few. NASV, ASV, NKJV, ESV, DRB, MOFFIT, MCCORD, ERV....

I haven't heard of some of them (those in bold), but I also recommend the NRSV, NLT and HCSB. Really most translations are good to great. And it's always a good idea to collaborate a few different translations. Also, it makes reading the Bible more interesting if you don't have to read the same translation every time.

 

[oldhermit]

I haven't hear of some of those, but I also recommend the NRSV, NLT and HCSB. Really most translations are good to great. And it's always a good idea to collaborate a few different translations. Also, it makes reading the Bible more interesting if you don't have to read the same translation every time.

Have you heard of Moffit and Mccord?

 

[Tintin]

Have you heard of Moffit and Mccord?

No, sorry, I haven't. Ooh, I forgot one, the NET Bible. The translation is quite good but the notes are fantastic! I really need to get myself one in the future (the free version can be accessed online).

 

[oldhermit]

No, sorry, I haven't.

I generally tend to steer away from one man translations like the Berkley and Phylips, not that they are poor translations. I have nothing against either of them. It is just that with a one man translation i cannot help but to suspect bias in translation. Having said this I have found that both the Mccord and the Moffit translations are quite good.

 

[Tintin]

I generally tend to steer away from one man translations like the Berkley and Phylips, not that they are poor translations. I have nothing against either of them. It is just that with a one man translation i cannot help but to suspect bias in translation. Having said this I have found that both the Mccord and the Moffit translations are quite good.

Cheers. I don't know if I'll look into them, but I might do a little research via Google. I'm content for now to read my NLT and NRSV. Once I've finished the NRSV, I'll get the HCSB and later, the NET Bible. Perhaps I'll even get an ESV at some point.

 

[oldhermit]

Cheers. I don't know if I'll look into them, but I might do a little research via Google. I'm content for now to read my NLT and NRSV. Then I'll get the HCSB and the NET Bible and perhaps an ESV at some point.

I generally teach either from the NASV or the NKJV but I also like the RSV although many do not. You may have trouble finding a copy of the Moffit translation. It was a popular translation around the turn of the 20th century when about the only choices for English translations were the KJV and Moffit. Not many people even of my generation are familiar with this translation. It was more from my grandfather's era.

 

[Nick01]

If you are taking the all-our-nothing approach to inerrancy, and believe that inerrancy necessarily subsists in every and all words in Scripture, you can't possibly allow translations to exist, unless you hold to seperate inspiration in the text of the translations themselves as distinct from the originals. That's a position I believe you actually hold, KJV1611, about the King James, but not one that all people that hold a KJV-Only position would agree with. Certainly no one who is not KJVO would.

If we require each and every word to be correct in place, and if we assume inspiration subsists in the autographs, then no translation can possibly provide 100% trust on a word by word basis, because no translation, even the KJV, translates word for word. The best you can get is a 'high degree of similarity', but then that is less than 'every word'.

While the question of translation is different to the text critical question, the reality is that your position doesn't even make the first hurdle (translation). For something to be inerrant on a word for word basis, it must either be the originals from the hands of the prophets and apostles, or it must indisputably be subject to some other divine revelation. That by definition excludes translations of inspired words. Therefore, your definition is untenable.

I'd much rather take the position of the translators of the KJV. Inspiration and kingly authority ultimately resides not in the individual words, but in the full sense of the text. The King's speech translated is still the king's speech, even when the translation errs slightly or does not (or cannot) render the full sense of the original.

 

[JackH]

If you are taking the all-our-nothing approach to inerrancy, and believe that inerrancy necessarily subsists in every and all words in Scripture, you can't possibly allow translations to exist, unless you hold to seperate inspiration in the text of the translations themselves as distinct from the originals. That's a position I believe you actually hold, KJV1611, about the King James, but not one that all people that hold a KJV-Only position would agree with. Certainly no one who is not KJVO would.

If we require each and every word to be correct in place, and if we assume inspiration subsists in the autographs, then no translation can possibly provide 100% trust on a word by word basis, because no translation, even the KJV, translates word for word. The best you can get is a 'high degree of similarity', but then that is less than 'every word'.

While the question of translation is different to the text critical question, the reality is that your position doesn't even make the first hurdle (translation). For something to be inerrant on a word for word basis, it must either be the originals from the hands of the prophets and apostles, or it must indisputably be subject to some other divine revelation. That by definition excludes translations of inspired words. Therefore, your definition is untenable.

I'd much rather take the position of the translators of the KJV. Inspiration and kingly authority ultimately resides not in the individual words, but in the full sense of the text. The King's speech translated is still the king's speech, even when the translation errs slightly or does not (or cannot) render the full sense of the original.

I can not understand what part of this KJV1611 (the person not the book) and Jason0047 do not understand.