The Bible Has Been Translated Too Many Times to be Trusted?
- Thread starter Hyvent
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Hi oldthennew,
Yes I understood what was being said. By no means were we lumping all into the same category but referring to a certain quarter from whom we have both received unjustified attacks and false accusations, which is why it was necessary to discuss it. Prophets need comfort too! Remember that Paul was accused of many of those same things of boasting and being conceited and also had to explain why it was a misinterpretation of events.
I had got miserable about it all and nearly ran away....but found this morning there was more for me to do here, that the Lord wasn't finished, and that all I needed to do was to make straight paths for my feet (to minister) in order to do what He is telling me to do, and not what comes out of my (nevertheless justified) anger and hurt.
Really the best way we can show the love of God to others is to be exactly who God has called us to be, because His love is far greater than any human love we can observe, and He knows exactly who is needful of milk and who is growing fast enough to need meat to sustain them. If you met us in person you would know that we are probably both of a kind and tender disposition but that our writing tends to come to you in power without you knowing us personally....because this is one way the Lord uses us.
Like I said before, we can't boast in something that was not ours in the first place, before we received it. But having received it we must do what the Lord directs, no matter if the whole world appears to disagree with us. And if He directs, we trust that there is someone out there who needs it and is comforted by it.
Yes I understood what was being said. By no means were we lumping all into the same category but referring to a certain quarter from whom we have both received unjustified attacks and false accusations, which is why it was necessary to discuss it. Prophets need comfort too! Remember that Paul was accused of many of those same things of boasting and being conceited and also had to explain why it was a misinterpretation of events.
I had got miserable about it all and nearly ran away....but found this morning there was more for me to do here, that the Lord wasn't finished, and that all I needed to do was to make straight paths for my feet (to minister) in order to do what He is telling me to do, and not what comes out of my (nevertheless justified) anger and hurt.
Really the best way we can show the love of God to others is to be exactly who God has called us to be, because His love is far greater than any human love we can observe, and He knows exactly who is needful of milk and who is growing fast enough to need meat to sustain them. If you met us in person you would know that we are probably both of a kind and tender disposition but that our writing tends to come to you in power without you knowing us personally....because this is one way the Lord uses us.
Like I said before, we can't boast in something that was not ours in the first place, before we received it. But having received it we must do what the Lord directs, no matter if the whole world appears to disagree with us. And if He directs, we trust that there is someone out there who needs it and is comforted by it.
T
I know what you mean. Here is an example
The gates of Jerusalem will be built of Sapphire and of Emerald
and all your walls of precious stone
The towers of Jerusalem will be built of Gold
and their battlements of pure Gold
The streets of Jerusalem will be paved with Ruby and
with stones from Ophir
The gates of Jerusalem will resound from exhultation
and all her houses will say Alleluia! Blessed be the God of Israel
Within you they will bless the Holy Name forever.
Sounds similar to the book of Revelation but actually found in the book of Tobit Chapter 13 verse 17
Taken from the Jerusalem Bible.
The gates of Jerusalem will be built of Sapphire and of Emerald
and all your walls of precious stone
The towers of Jerusalem will be built of Gold
and their battlements of pure Gold
The streets of Jerusalem will be paved with Ruby and
with stones from Ophir
The gates of Jerusalem will resound from exhultation
and all her houses will say Alleluia! Blessed be the God of Israel
Within you they will bless the Holy Name forever.
Sounds similar to the book of Revelation but actually found in the book of Tobit Chapter 13 verse 17
Taken from the Jerusalem Bible.
The "Force" in Star Wars was a great example of the Holy Spirit in power. The Jedi were Righteous Warriors sent to keep peace. Believe it or not but the movie,"Astro Boy" was almost the Gospel told to a "T". If one pays attention many things will stir scripture. There is always a Savior in just about every movie story. It is built into us to know the things of God.
Scriptures are clear. Men can teach men and women. Women can teach women. Women are not to teach or to usurp authority over men. This is what the Scriptures plainly teach, leave it to the last days generation of men and women to CHANGE what the Scriptures clearly teach because the Scriptures does not line up with the thinking of this generation.
Change the way you think to line up with Scriptures. DO not Change the Scriptures to line up with your own belief. Woe to those who interpret that which does not need any interpreting.
^i^ responding to post #93
Change the way you think to line up with Scriptures. DO not Change the Scriptures to line up with your own belief. Woe to those who interpret that which does not need any interpreting.
^i^ responding to post #93
The Written Word is Jesus Christ, for it is written The Word is God.
Reading the Word of God does not kill, but instead feeds the Holy Spirit. Regardless if you understand the Word of God or not, when you read the Word, the Holy Ghost is being fed, when the Holy Ghost has been fed enough, it will have the Strength to reveal to your physical mind knowledge concerning the very Word that you are reading. The more you read the Word, the more the Spirit is being fed, the more the Spirit is being fed, the more the Spirit will reveal to you and open up the understanding of the Scriptures to you. The Word does not kill, the Word feeds the very Holy Spirit.
For an example, you may have read a particular verse 15 times in your life, but the time you read it, and like lightning you UNDERSTAND what the verse is saying, like an epiphany. Like a light bulb being turned on. This is because only at that particular time of reading that particular verse was the Holy Ghost strong enough to reveal that Truth to you. Those who do not read the Word of God much, will have a Holy Spirit that is not very strong at all. Those who read the Word of God much, will have a stronger, well fed Holy Spirit that will reveal much to that person in return.
The Word of God does not kill, it is food for the Holy Ghost.
^i^ responding to post #121
Reading the Word of God does not kill, but instead feeds the Holy Spirit. Regardless if you understand the Word of God or not, when you read the Word, the Holy Ghost is being fed, when the Holy Ghost has been fed enough, it will have the Strength to reveal to your physical mind knowledge concerning the very Word that you are reading. The more you read the Word, the more the Spirit is being fed, the more the Spirit is being fed, the more the Spirit will reveal to you and open up the understanding of the Scriptures to you. The Word does not kill, the Word feeds the very Holy Spirit.
For an example, you may have read a particular verse 15 times in your life, but the time you read it, and like lightning you UNDERSTAND what the verse is saying, like an epiphany. Like a light bulb being turned on. This is because only at that particular time of reading that particular verse was the Holy Ghost strong enough to reveal that Truth to you. Those who do not read the Word of God much, will have a Holy Spirit that is not very strong at all. Those who read the Word of God much, will have a stronger, well fed Holy Spirit that will reveal much to that person in return.
The Word of God does not kill, it is food for the Holy Ghost.
^i^ responding to post #121
That doesn't quite answer the question. I asked, where you got this figure from. What scholars are you referring to? How do they arrive at this number?
In your previous post you said that there were 4,000 "grammatical errors." However, here it seems as if you are suggesting that these 4,000 "errors" are of the scribal variety (hence, you seem to argue that the NT has a higher likelihood of being "tampered with").
It may be argued that there are scribal errors in the manuscripts, but it is wholly misleading and untrue to say that there are an equivalent amount of errors in the text of the New Testament.
Do you know what textual criticism is, and what it involves?
In your previous post you said that there were 4,000 "grammatical errors." However, here it seems as if you are suggesting that these 4,000 "errors" are of the scribal variety (hence, you seem to argue that the NT has a higher likelihood of being "tampered with").
It may be argued that there are scribal errors in the manuscripts, but it is wholly misleading and untrue to say that there are an equivalent amount of errors in the text of the New Testament.
Do you know what textual criticism is, and what it involves?
Ok! I get it! Women are inferior to men and not equal in Christ. They are subservient slaves and will never amount to anything more than their gender, and can never receive direction from the Holy Spirit because they are loathsome creatures that God would not speak too. And Paul that "last generation" lair, saying there is neither male nor female in Christ, what was he thinking. Thanks for straightening me out. Much appreciated! Now I have some things to tell my wife. Or do I?????
With the greatest respect,there is a more accurate understanding of that particular scripture available otherwise we would not have the verse which says that in Christ there is no male or female.
If the Holy Spirit wants to teach you something through a woman, are you saying you would not receive it?
The working of God is not about gender at all, as I see it. If I benefit from another's ministry I benefit through the power of the Holy Spirit, and it is He I want to listen for, and to, and learn from.
If the Holy Spirit wants to teach you something through a woman, are you saying you would not receive it?
The working of God is not about gender at all, as I see it. If I benefit from another's ministry I benefit through the power of the Holy Spirit, and it is He I want to listen for, and to, and learn from.
E
The number of translations is a real issue because we now have bibles in direct contradiction to one other.Some of these new age translations like the NIV have verses that contradict the KJV and only one can be right which makes the other one a lie and from the pit of hell, so the question today is which bible is of God and which is from Satan? they can't all be right.
Well this speaks more to biblical order not the ability of individuals. God establishes things in His order for a reason as He is a God of order. So if God establishes an order for the elders and leadership of a church, they are established for a reason. It's not calling women inferior nor saying they cannot use their gifts for the edification of the body.
E
I'm curious to know why you are asking this question? 
Did you see it asked somewhere else, on another forum or blog or somewhere?
Are you asking because its what you believe yourself?
In answer to your question, just because something has been translated a lot of times, doesn't mean the original source cannot be trusted.
And when it comes to the Bible. The message is pretty plain and clear to all. Holy God created man. Man sinned and seperated from God. God gave His only Son as a sacrifice for our sins so we could be reunited with God again. And that we must all accept that Jesus as our Lord and Saviour and believe on Him that sent Him to be saved.
It doesn't matter how many times you translate that, the basics of that story will always be there. Sure, when words are translated, they can have slightly different meanings in different languages, and sure, that's why there are so many different ways that people interpret scripture. But the underlying message will always get through, and God will always make sure of that.
After all, all scripture is God breathed.
Did you see it asked somewhere else, on another forum or blog or somewhere?
Are you asking because its what you believe yourself?
In answer to your question, just because something has been translated a lot of times, doesn't mean the original source cannot be trusted.
And when it comes to the Bible. The message is pretty plain and clear to all. Holy God created man. Man sinned and seperated from God. God gave His only Son as a sacrifice for our sins so we could be reunited with God again. And that we must all accept that Jesus as our Lord and Saviour and believe on Him that sent Him to be saved.
It doesn't matter how many times you translate that, the basics of that story will always be there. Sure, when words are translated, they can have slightly different meanings in different languages, and sure, that's why there are so many different ways that people interpret scripture. But the underlying message will always get through, and God will always make sure of that.
After all, all scripture is God breathed.
God gave his only begotten son.
This should be pretty basic.
Of the OT?
The Sanhedrin weren't copyists. The Sanhedrin was essentially the supreme court.
It's in the manuscripts. You don't have copies of the original documents so cannot say if Luke himself made a grammatical error. All textual variants and errors are in the manuscripts, which doesn't include the original manuscripts since they don't exist anymore.
And it's not really 4000+ grammatical errors. It's really 4000+ textual variants, which includes, but is not limited to, grammatical error. In any case, the variants occur in various manuscripts.
And now if you can just demonstrate that the copyists were illiterate. You have a statistical problem - you're tying to infer something about a sample (the copyists) from something about the whole (the general population) without considering relevant information (eg, that the copyists knew how to write). You can't infer something about the sample from the population as a whole because your draw from the sample isn't random - you are only drawing out the copyists.
It's called sample bias.
(And this is me ignoring the dictionary definition of illiterate for the sake of argument)
Again, a statistical error. You're inferring something about a sample from the population when your sample isn't random - you're only considering copyists in the early church. It's classic sample bias.
And I doubt Bart Ehrman is guilty of sample bias, it's more likely that you've misunderstood his arguments, but I guess it's possible Ehrman makes statistical mistakes as well.
And by scholars, you mean your single source is:
All well and good, but you don't give specifics and don't consider other relevant sources and arguments. So I'm not sure what you think you've demonstrated.
I understand the point I think you're attempting to make here, but just so I'm clear: is your argument that it wasn't originally written by Matthew or that it wasn't actually uttered by Jesus himself?
We should note that this phrase is also found in Matt 10:8, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23, 14:27 and we find similar reverence and reference to the crucifixion in Paul's writings. So I'm not sure why you would consider this "not-scriptural" when the attestation in the text is about as solid as it gets. It's clearly original to the text according to the evidence at hand.
Of the OT?
The Sanhedrin weren't copyists. The Sanhedrin was essentially the supreme court.
It's in the manuscripts. You don't have copies of the original documents so cannot say if Luke himself made a grammatical error. All textual variants and errors are in the manuscripts, which doesn't include the original manuscripts since they don't exist anymore.
And it's not really 4000+ grammatical errors. It's really 4000+ textual variants, which includes, but is not limited to, grammatical error. In any case, the variants occur in various manuscripts.
And now if you can just demonstrate that the copyists were illiterate. You have a statistical problem - you're tying to infer something about a sample (the copyists) from something about the whole (the general population) without considering relevant information (eg, that the copyists knew how to write). You can't infer something about the sample from the population as a whole because your draw from the sample isn't random - you are only drawing out the copyists.
It's called sample bias.
(And this is me ignoring the dictionary definition of illiterate for the sake of argument)
Again, a statistical error. You're inferring something about a sample from the population when your sample isn't random - you're only considering copyists in the early church. It's classic sample bias.
And I doubt Bart Ehrman is guilty of sample bias, it's more likely that you've misunderstood his arguments, but I guess it's possible Ehrman makes statistical mistakes as well.
And by scholars, you mean your single source is:
All well and good, but you don't give specifics and don't consider other relevant sources and arguments. So I'm not sure what you think you've demonstrated.
I understand the point I think you're attempting to make here, but just so I'm clear: is your argument that it wasn't originally written by Matthew or that it wasn't actually uttered by Jesus himself?
We should note that this phrase is also found in Matt 10:8, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23, 14:27 and we find similar reverence and reference to the crucifixion in Paul's writings. So I'm not sure why you would consider this "not-scriptural" when the attestation in the text is about as solid as it gets. It's clearly original to the text according to the evidence at hand.
Last edited: