Biblical Errors - Why Haven't They Been Fixed?

[willfollowsGod]

Proverbs 26:4-5
[SUP]4 [/SUP]Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
[SUP]5 [/SUP]Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Its the only place in the bible where I have ever encountered a 'contradiction' where I didn't think it was because of my own limited understanding.

I wonder if this just requires discernment on when to do what...?

That might seem like a contradiction, but sometimes the thing posted above is not the same thing said in a different way on the bottom. It requires discernment when to not answer a morally deficient person according to their folly, so you also do not become like him and when to answer a morally deficient person according to their folly, so he will not be wise in his own conceit. Examples of this can be seen a lot of times in the Bible: John the Baptist called out Herod about Herodias, Jesus called out the Pharisees, who a lot of Jews thought could do no wrong, etc. So it just requires discernment on when to do what, when these cases appear. Also, keep in mind these are proverbs in Proverbs. God bless, my brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Before you break out the flaming torches and the pitchforks, first I want to clarify something. I believe the God's Word is His ultimate written authority to us. I believe the Bible is perfect. I believe the whole Bible is written FOR us, but that not every part is written TO us. I believe God is absolute truth and His ways don't change with the times. I believe we need to conform to Christ's image and not try and make Him conform to our image (it had to be said!) I believe we need to understand Law to understand Grace and the Old Covenant to understand the New Covenant. I believe we are saved by grace through faith alone. I even believe those wacky first 11 chapters of Genesis are history.

That said, I believe the Bible has errors. I'm not talking about doctrinal issues, I'm talking simple scribal errors. Spelling, grammar, people's names, little inventory details. Like how many chariots went to war or Cainan in the genealogies. Does anyone know why these errors haven't been corrected? The Church has known about them for a long time. Just curious. Thanks.

You would be correct in saying there are errors in the manuscript evidence we have but incorrect to say the Word of God contains errors. There is a distinction.

If we took a book and sat ten people down and asked them to copy the book, because humans are involved we know there would be some errors. But, we could then compare the copies and see what is in agreement and what is not. While it might be possible that a few made errors in the same passage, those errors would not likely be identical (though even this is possible if a popular saying was inserted rather that what was in the original), and it is almost impossible that all ten would make the same error in the same passage.

So when we examine what is identical we can restore the original, even though we don't still have the original manuscripts.

That is what is done with the manuscript evidence we currently have, and with the exception of those who are openly hostile to the Word of God, scholarship agrees in large part that the Bible has been recovered. John MacArthur places states that percentage at 99.99%.

People can read just about any modern translation and they will conclude similar understanding on core doctrinal issues. The scribal errors we might see are insignificant compared to what is generally accepted as the original writing so as to make the issue itself one of little concern to the Bible believing student. Those hostile to the Bible will never produce an "error" that casts doubt on any major Doctrine, and most of the "errors" they present are not scribal, but contextual. And most of those are easily addressed in the context of the passage, or in the overview of Biblical Doctrine.

So nothing wrong with acknowledging scribal errors (which are more prevalent concerning the New Testament than the old, probably due to the meticulous nature of their scribes), its just when that casts doubt on the Word of God itself we should take issue with that assertion.

Is there an "error" that troubles you?


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

That's a good reason we should keep the original manuscript copies as is...sometimes later what was deemed an error turned out not to be.

We don't actually have original manuscripts. We have copies.

God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

I feel sorry for any Christian who believes that God is either a liar, makes mistakes or only half hazardly preserved his word. I for one am blessed to have a Bible that I believe is 100% free from error and therefore infallible, the KJV. Jealous?

While the KJV is my favorite translation I would suggest we have to remember it is a translation and that we need to consult the original languages (not original manuscripts) in order to verify what has been translated.

Here is what I view as a translational error:

[h=1]Romans 8:16King James Version (KJV)[/h]16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:


"Itself" should be translated "Himself."

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G846&t=KJV


But this does not reflect on the Inspiration of Scripture, any more than a poorly delivered sermon does.


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

No. Here is just one of the KJV errors:

“GHOST” INSTEAD OF “SPIRIT” WITH REFERENCE TO JESUS CHRIST AND THE HOLY SPIRIT.

“Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.” (Matt. 27:50 KJV)

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:” (Matt. 28:19 KJV)

GREEK TEXTUS RECEPTUS

Matthew 28:19

poreuqenteV <4198> (5679) {GOING} oun <3767> {THEREFORE} maqhteusate <3100> (5657) {DISCIPLE} panta <3956> {ALL} ta <3588> {THE} eqnh <1484> {NATIONS,} baptizonteV <907> (5723) {BAPTIZING} autouV <846> {THEM} eiV <1519> {TO} to <3588> {THE} onoma <3686> {NAME} tou <3588> {OF THE} patroV <3962> {FATHER} kai <2532> {AND} tou <3588> {OF THE} uiou <5207> {SON} kai <2532> {AND} tou <3588> {OF THE} agiou <40> {HOLY} pneumatoV <4151> {SPIRIT;}

TRANSLATION ERROR

“Ghost” is a mistranslation of the Greek word “pneuma” which means breath or spirit. The KJV inconsistently translated the word pneuma as spirit or ghost, with 91 instances of Ghost or ghost referring to God. The word “Ghost” with reference to God, which is used in all English Bibles predating the King James Version, can be traced to the Wycliffe translation (1395). Although the Wycliffe Bible was translated from the Latin Vulgate, Jerome used the Latin term “Spirtu Sancto” for the Holy Spirit and “spiritum” for Jesus’ spirit. Wycliffe did not actually translate the Bible that bears his name; it was translated by other Lollard scholars at Oxford University while Wycliffe led the Lollard movement politically. (See: Chap. 19 “The Lollards: John Wycliffe”) These scholars would have been familiar with the famous Old English (Anglo-Saxon) epic poem Beowulf, which was based on a Germanic oral tradition; they would therefore have known that the Old English word gást and gaést from the Gothic word usgaisjan were used in the poem to describe monsters, i.e., dragons and devils. The Wycliffe/Lollard translation of Eph. 6:17 is most inappropriate and disturbing: “And take ye the helm of helthe, and the swerd of the Goost, that is, the word of God. That the Lollard scholars were “knights” is evident in their use of the word “knyyt” or “knyytis” 92 times in their translation, e.g., 2 Tim. 2:3: “Trauele thou as a good knyyt of Crist Jhesu.”

http://www.watch.pair.com/TR-kjv-issues.html

I wouldn't view this as a translational error, Ghost is a commonly accepted term for a spirit, just as devil and demon are.

While not a big fan of the new NIV, I think their translation here...


[h=1]Luke 24:36-39New International Version (NIV)[/h][h=3]Jesus Appears to the Disciples[/h]
36 While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them,“Peace be with you.”


37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost.

38 He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds?

39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see;a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”


...will be better understood by the beginning student, because the term is associated with the spirit of one who has died.


God bless.

 

[Andrew1]

No. Here is just one of the KJV errors:

“GHOST” INSTEAD OF “SPIRIT” WITH REFERENCE TO JESUS CHRIST AND THE HOLY SPIRIT.

“Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.” (Matt. 27:50 KJV)

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:” (Matt. 28:19 KJV)

GREEK TEXTUS RECEPTUS

Matthew 28:19

poreuqenteV <4198> (5679) {GOING} oun <3767> {THEREFORE} maqhteusate <3100> (5657) {DISCIPLE} panta <3956> {ALL} ta <3588> {THE} eqnh <1484> {NATIONS,} baptizonteV <907> (5723) {BAPTIZING} autouV <846> {THEM} eiV <1519> {TO} to <3588> {THE} onoma <3686> {NAME} tou <3588> {OF THE} patroV <3962> {FATHER} kai <2532> {AND} tou <3588> {OF THE} uiou <5207> {SON} kai <2532> {AND} tou <3588> {OF THE} agiou <40> {HOLY} pneumatoV <4151> {SPIRIT;}

TRANSLATION ERROR

“Ghost” is a mistranslation of the Greek word “pneuma” which means breath or spirit. The KJV inconsistently translated the word pneuma as spirit or ghost, with 91 instances of Ghost or ghost referring to God. The word “Ghost” with reference to God, which is used in all English Bibles predating the King James Version, can be traced to the Wycliffe translation (1395). Although the Wycliffe Bible was translated from the Latin Vulgate, Jerome used the Latin term “Spirtu Sancto” for the Holy Spirit and “spiritum” for Jesus’ spirit. Wycliffe did not actually translate the Bible that bears his name; it was translated by other Lollard scholars at Oxford University while Wycliffe led the Lollard movement politically. (See: Chap. 19 “The Lollards: John Wycliffe”) These scholars would have been familiar with the famous Old English (Anglo-Saxon) epic poem Beowulf, which was based on a Germanic oral tradition; they would therefore have known that the Old English word gást and gaést from the Gothic word usgaisjan were used in the poem to describe monsters, i.e., dragons and devils. The Wycliffe/Lollard translation of Eph. 6:17 is most inappropriate and disturbing: “And take ye the helm of helthe, and the swerd of the Goost, that is, the word of God. That the Lollard scholars were “knights” is evident in their use of the word “knyyt” or “knyytis” 92 times in their translation, e.g., 2 Tim. 2:3: “Trauele thou as a good knyyt of Crist Jhesu.”

http://www.watch.pair.com/TR-kjv-issues.html

"Ghost" is not a mistranslation of the Greek word "pneuma", If you go to this site: ΛΕΞΙΚΌ - LEXICON: Greek-English-Greek dictionary and type in pnevma (πνεῦμα). in the Greek to English section, one of the words you will get as a definition is "ghost". If you type "ghost" in the English to Greek section one of the words you will get is "pnevma". You are right that the word "Ghost" comes from the old English word "gast" but this word meant "spirit" as did and does the word ghost:

ghost (n.)

Old English gast "breath; good or bad spirit, angel, demon; person, man, human being," in Biblical use "soul, spirit, life,"...

...Ghost is the English representative of the usual West Germanic word for "supernatural being." In Christian writing in Old English it is used to render Latin spiritus (see spirit (n.)), a sense preserved in Holy Ghost.... (etymonline.com)

even today the word "ghost" can simply refer to a spirit:

5.the principle of life; soul; spirit. (dictionary.com)

It seems ridiculous to me to criticize the translators of the wycliff Bible for using the term "ghost" because it supposedly was in reference to dragons and devils. Of course a word that meant "spirit" was used to refer to "spirits" that doesn't mean that the term "ghost" was an exclusively negative term otherwise the translators of the wycliff Bible would obviously not have used that term.

 

[crossnote]

We don't actually have original manuscripts. We have copies.

God bless.

I said 'original manuscript copies' meaning the originals of the manuscript copies...sorry for the imprecise/ambiguous wording.

 

[Zmouth]

Well, I'm pretty sure the rabbit isn't really in the Bible, and yet... it is. There were no rabbits in that part of the world back in those days. There is no reasons from The Law that Jews cannot eat hossenfeffer!

I would think that if the LORD created all the critters on the earth then he would know of their existence even it the weren't seen in that area. Isn't rabbit considered one of the critters to avoid eating...anyways.

 

[Zmouth]

"Ghost" is not a mistranslation of the Greek word "pneuma", If you go to this site: ΛΕΞΙΚΌ - LEXICON: Greek-English-Greek dictionary and type in pnevma (πνεῦμα). in the Greek to English section, one of the words you will get as a definition is "ghost". If you type "ghost" in the English to Greek section one of the words you will get is "pnevma". You are right that the word "Ghost" comes from the old English word "gast" but this word meant "spirit" as did and does the word ghost:

ghost (n.)

Old English gast "breath; good or bad spirit, angel, demon; person, man, human being," in Biblical use "soul, spirit, life,"...

...Ghost is the English representative of the usual West Germanic word for "supernatural being." In Christian writing in Old English it is used to render Latin spiritus (see spirit (n.)), a sense preserved in Holy Ghost.... (etymonline.com)

even today the word "ghost" can simply refer to a spirit:

5.the principle of life; soul; spirit. (dictionary.com)

It seems ridiculous to me to criticize the translators of the wycliff Bible for using the term "ghost" because it supposedly was in reference to dragons and devils. Of course a word that meant "spirit" was used to refer to "spirits" that doesn't mean that the term "ghost" was an exclusively negative term otherwise the translators of the wycliff Bible would obviously not have used that term.

If you check Ghost out in Latin it translates as 'phasma' or ' spectre' like in the new James Bond movie out;
however 'ghost' and 'spirit' mean two different things meanings like corpse and body.
The are both bodies, like they are both spirits but one is expired and the other isn't.

 

[Andrew1]

Oh, go away KJV-Onlyist! I don't think God's a liar, or that He makes mistakes or did a half-assed job of preserving His Word, not at all. But some scribes have been known to bugger up their copies spelling-wise, grammar-wise etc. That doesn't change God's truth. It just means at one point there may be 4,000 chariots going into battle and then in other part of the same story, there may be 40,000 chariots. Again, nothing doctrinal. I mentioned that. So you can get off my back. Please. Also, I believe God's Word is infallible/perfect. I mentioned that in my above post.

the fact is you do believe the Bible is fallible, you may not believe it is doctrinally fallible, but you do believe it has mistakes and is therefore fallible. There is no contradiction between 1Kings 4:26 and 2Chronicles 9:25 in the KJV.

1King 4:26 does not say how many chariots there were just how many stalls Solomon had of horses for his chariots. Solomon had 4000 stalls just for horses and chariots the rest of the stalls were for the rest of the horses he had for those chariots 40 thousand stalls in all.

 

[atwhatcost]

I would think that if the LORD created all the critters on the earth then he would know of their existence even it the weren't seen in that area. Isn't rabbit considered one of the critters to avoid eating...anyways.

Nope, by all the references given under "rabbit", it doesn't fit into any of the above uncleaned foods. I've always known my love of shellfish would have been against the dietary laws, and bacon? Well, lovely meat but also a no-no. Still nothing against rabbit other than when translated into English the English couldn't foresee a rodent in the middle east as the culprit, but they knew rabbits are rodents They took their best educated guess, but it's been proven a poor guess since.

 

[Andrew1]

If you check Ghost out in Latin it translates as 'phasma' or ' spectre' like in the new James Bond movie out;
however 'ghost' and 'spirit' mean two different things meanings like corpse and body.
The are both bodies, like they are both spirits but one is expired and the other isn't.

Ghost:

5. the principle of life; soul; spirit. (dictionary.com)


Ghost:

1: the seat of life or intelligence: soul (Merriam-Websters dictionary)

There is nothing in either of these definitions that refers to an expired spirit. It can refer to an expired spirit but it doesn't necessarily have to refer to an expired spirit.

 

[Zmouth]

Ghost:
5. the principle of life; soul; spirit. (dictionary.com)

Ghost:

1: the seat of life or intelligence: soul (Merriam-Websters dictionary)

There is nothing in either of these definitions that refers to an expired spirit. It can refer to an expired spirit but it doesn't necessarily have to refer to an expired spirit.

Then again maybe that is why the heavenly Father gives the Holy Spirit in Luke 11:13, yet the Holy Ghost is the lamb of Rev 13:8 who is the eternal Son who laid down his eternal crown. Thus in 1 Tim 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Eternal and immortal are two states of nature, Eternal has no beginning nor end. Immortal has either a)a beginning and no end or an end of existence or b) no beginning and an end of existence. Thus the King Eternal we signify we know Him to be, immortal which allows us behold him, invisible because he is the image of the invisible God who is Light and the only wise God because His Word is Spirit and Life.

Nope, by all the references given under "rabbit", it doesn't fit into any of the above uncleaned foods. I've always known my love of shellfish would have been against the dietary laws, and bacon? Well, lovely meat but also a no-no. Still nothing against rabbit other than when translated into English the English couldn't foresee a rodent in the middle east as the culprit, but they knew rabbits are rodents They took their best educated guess, but it's been proven a poor guess since.

Well, I have gotten pretty familar with being wrong, I oughta write a song, and call it the It don't matter if I,m wrong cause the Son is always right....
Lev 11:6
6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

 

[oldhermit]

We know that God knows which is the best. Do you think God has any sway over the translator to pick one or the other?

So you feel that the only evidence that God has preserved his word rest in the KJV translation???

 

[crossnote]

Hmm, I wonder if the Eastern Orthodox Churches were waiting all that time for the King James Version to finally come out?

 

[ray_james]

Hmm, I wonder if the Eastern Orthodox Churches were waiting all that time for the King James Version to finally come out?

No, I believe they had the Antiochian manuscripts.
The overwhelming majority of Bible manuscripts existent throughout history have been the text found in Antioch. They have always been available in some form, either in copies of the original Greek, or the old Latin of 150 AD, or the Syrian Peshetto of 157 AD.
These were scattered throughout however, which was a reason why they had the King James Translation

 

[crossnote]

No, I believe they had the Antiochian manuscripts.
The overwhelming majority of Bible manuscripts existent throughout history have been the text found in Antioch. They have always been available in some form, either in copies of the original Greek, or the old Latin of 150 AD, or the Syrian Peshetto of 157 AD.
These were scattered throughout however, which was a reason why they had the King James Translation

That was my point, and Egypt had theirs's etc.

 

[KJV1611]

So you feel that the only evidence that God has preserved his word rest in the KJV translation???

No way! I think everything about the character of God speaks of preservation. God spoke the world into existence, couldn't he translate his word into English? Of course he can... then the only question left is why wouldn't he do it?. What do you think?

 

[oldhermit]

No way! I think everything about the character of God speaks of preservation. God spoke the world into existence, couldn't he translate his word into English? Of course he can... then the only question left is why wouldn't he do it?. What do you think?

I think any translation, no matter in what language, that strives to maintain the integrity of the best Greek texts is as valid as another. The KJV is simply another valid translation, better than some and inferior to others.

 

[Tintin]

Thank you everyone for your contributions, I'm encouraged by your conversations. Pilgrim, you're right in saying the Word of God contains no errors, but the copies we have do. There's a difference. I should've been more particular. No thank you to the KJV-Onlyists though. You guys need to get a clue. Your nonsense isn't welcome here. Find freedom in Christ, not the KJV-Only.