the Error in the "Error" of saying there is an Error in Gods word
- Thread starter CS1
- 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.
A
?????
the difficulties are not due to God's perfect revelation, but to our imperfect understanding of it. The history of Bible criticism reveals that the Bible has no errors, but the critics do.
****
hmmm.... wondering why everyone isn't agreeing with the above statement and what is so unclear about it.....
the difficulties are not due to God's perfect revelation, but to our imperfect understanding of it. The history of Bible criticism reveals that the Bible has no errors, but the critics do.
****
hmmm.... wondering why everyone isn't agreeing with the above statement and what is so unclear about it.....
Well, yes, a mistake can be seen as just a watered down Word for an "error" - depends on how you define it.
But having said that I stick by this statement: The Word of God does not have errors, but all of the major translations (KJV, NIV, ESV, etc.) are very trustworthy, but have errors (or mistakes if that is a better word! LOL!)
But having said that I stick by this statement: The Word of God does not have errors, but all of the major translations (KJV, NIV, ESV, etc.) are very trustworthy, but have errors (or mistakes if that is a better word! LOL!)
A
do you believe they have enough "errors" to agree with any of these statements?
EXAMPLES of what "Liberal Christian theology" defines as "errors":
2) The virgin birth of Christ is a mythological false teaching.
3) Jesus did not rise again from the grave in bodily form.
4) Jesus was a good moral teacher, but His followers and their followers have taken liberties with the history of His life (there were no “supernatural” miracles), with the Gospels having been written many years later and merely ascribed to the early disciples in order to give greater weight to their teachings. This contradicts the 2 Timothy passage and the doctrine of the supernatural preservation of the Scriptures by God.
5) Hell is not real.
6) Most of the human authors of the Bible are not who they are traditionally believed to be.
- The Bible is not “God-breathed” and has errors.
EXAMPLES of what "Liberal Christian theology" defines as "errors":
2) The virgin birth of Christ is a mythological false teaching.
3) Jesus did not rise again from the grave in bodily form.
4) Jesus was a good moral teacher, but His followers and their followers have taken liberties with the history of His life (there were no “supernatural” miracles), with the Gospels having been written many years later and merely ascribed to the early disciples in order to give greater weight to their teachings. This contradicts the 2 Timothy passage and the doctrine of the supernatural preservation of the Scriptures by God.
5) Hell is not real.
6) Most of the human authors of the Bible are not who they are traditionally believed to be.
Last edited by a moderator:
I absolutely do not even to begin to believe in any of those six points. And all of the Bible (in the original manuscripts) is God-breathed and without error - Period!
It is when human man translates that there can be errors. Inspiration does not cover the mistakes of human translators. The gravest mistake of the KJV only movement is teaching that the translators of the KJV were as inspired (or more inspired!) as were the original writers of Scripture.
It is when human man translates that there can be errors. Inspiration does not cover the mistakes of human translators. The gravest mistake of the KJV only movement is teaching that the translators of the KJV were as inspired (or more inspired!) as were the original writers of Scripture.
So, then, are you saying theological mistakes? Or ignoring that there are in fact traceable copyists errors, either of omission or commission, parts of the Bible have been lost (Where is the original ending to Mark 16?) In fact, the longer ending of Mark was added quite early, probably the end of the 2nd century. But, for many reasons, it is known it is an addition and Mark did not write it.
The fact is, there are many errors, both in the extant manuscripts, and in the various translations. But, God still uses the Bible and speaks to us through it, because most of the errors do not affect doctrine. Well, except that lost sigma in Luke 2:14, which changed the word from the dative to the nominative, and promotes universalism in version like the KJV which allowed the dropped sigma.
Perhaps I need to do a little piece on the longer ending of Mark? After supper.
The fact is, God doesn’t err! I am in 100% agreement with that. And he has preserved the Bible in an amazing way! We can rely on it. That is what really matters. No such thing as a “pure” or “perfect” text, once people get their hands on it. But, we do have a perfect and holy God and he will make sure we know and follow him, in the right way!
PS I am not a liberal in any way, shape of form. I believe all the Bible, and orthodox Christian doctrine.
The fact is, there are many errors, both in the extant manuscripts, and in the various translations. But, God still uses the Bible and speaks to us through it, because most of the errors do not affect doctrine. Well, except that lost sigma in Luke 2:14, which changed the word from the dative to the nominative, and promotes universalism in version like the KJV which allowed the dropped sigma.
Perhaps I need to do a little piece on the longer ending of Mark? After supper.
The fact is, God doesn’t err! I am in 100% agreement with that. And he has preserved the Bible in an amazing way! We can rely on it. That is what really matters. No such thing as a “pure” or “perfect” text, once people get their hands on it. But, we do have a perfect and holy God and he will make sure we know and follow him, in the right way!
PS I am not a liberal in any way, shape of form. I believe all the Bible, and orthodox Christian doctrine.
CS1, what is the key issue you are addressing in this thread? Are you primarily dealing with ideas of liberal re-interpreters of Scripture, or the people on this forum who disagree over issues of translation (for example)? Your posts seem to weave these two subjects (at least) together, whereas I see them as very different and only distantly related. Further, are you addressing this issue as a moderator, or as a contributor who happens to be a moderator?
FYI I'm also member 
It has been a tactic of this kind of thinking to discredit the Word of God KJV,NIV Pre 1984, and other. why>? because most look for ways to justify perverted lifestyles.
Now When we defend the word many well intended Christians said many thing to to explain what they did not know or the Bible does not give enough to establish a Normative in the text , passage, verse, chapter or Book or bile. This is "Man's Error" it has nothing to do with the word of God. If you can trust part of the KJV and not other parts then the bible is not to be trusted fully. That is error in Biblical understanding . You cant have it both ways. Most think they have to solely because of intellectual mindsets that mock, ridicule , and scoff at our inability yo fully know all . HELLO they don't know all. BUT you will see many today who try. 35 years ago the integrity of Biblical study did not have this argument because the biblical illiteracy was not an epidemic as it is today. This kind of Liberal theology was in the minority, Not so to day.
We have to stand by faith and hold to our testimony and the Word that has illuminated us from our salvation. the Sower sowed the seed we should not focus on the rocky, way side or thrones . BUT the Good Ground.
Thanks for clarifying.
I agree with regard to people trying to reinterpret the Bible to support blatantly anti-Christian beliefs and practices.
I'm not sure I agree with regard to finer points of specific translations, which is why I don't hold to a single translation. I think that it's fine to be firm on issues where the major translations agree... and cautious where they don't agree. Being dogmatic over the wording of a particular verse in one translation, when other translations say it differently, is closer to causing division than bringing unity and understanding. I have seen people coming close to calling others "heretics" over that type of dogmatism... as I'm sure you have.
I think we get into a gray area when we start equivocating the translation of the Bible with the word of God. Trofimus makes a good point in differentiating (though I don't fully agree with him either on this). If we hold a specific translation as inerrant, by default we call all others "erroneous". This is logically indefensible. It's better, in my view, to hold the word of God as inerrant, and translations subject to human error, weakness, and fallibility. As I wrote in another thread recently, God theoretically "can" translate perfectly across languages, but that is no guarantee that He has done so in any particular case. I think it is better to lean on the Holy Spirit, Who will lead us into all truth, than to lean on either the translators (to have gotten it "just right" in every case), or ourselves (to interpret properly what they have given us).
Of course, nobody is obligated to agree with me either.
I agree with regard to people trying to reinterpret the Bible to support blatantly anti-Christian beliefs and practices.
I'm not sure I agree with regard to finer points of specific translations, which is why I don't hold to a single translation. I think that it's fine to be firm on issues where the major translations agree... and cautious where they don't agree. Being dogmatic over the wording of a particular verse in one translation, when other translations say it differently, is closer to causing division than bringing unity and understanding. I have seen people coming close to calling others "heretics" over that type of dogmatism... as I'm sure you have.
I think we get into a gray area when we start equivocating the translation of the Bible with the word of God. Trofimus makes a good point in differentiating (though I don't fully agree with him either on this). If we hold a specific translation as inerrant, by default we call all others "erroneous". This is logically indefensible. It's better, in my view, to hold the word of God as inerrant, and translations subject to human error, weakness, and fallibility. As I wrote in another thread recently, God theoretically "can" translate perfectly across languages, but that is no guarantee that He has done so in any particular case. I think it is better to lean on the Holy Spirit, Who will lead us into all truth, than to lean on either the translators (to have gotten it "just right" in every case), or ourselves (to interpret properly what they have given us).
Of course, nobody is obligated to agree with me either.
What constitutes a writing to be Scripture (specially inspired) or deuterocanonical (also inspired? just useful to read?) or apocrapha (not useful to read?) or just "normal" writing (maybe useful to read?) is a good question.
Also, must whole book be inspired? Can some sentences be inspired and not the rest? How to recognize that?
I am in a work now, I will try to think about it and respond later.
Also, must whole book be inspired? Can some sentences be inspired and not the rest? How to recognize that?
I am in a work now, I will try to think about it and respond later.
Last edited:
Footnote
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(12) As in Hebrews 3:12 the warning against the "evil heart of unbelief" is solemnly enforced by the mention of the "Living God," so here, in pointing to the peril of disobedience, it is to the living power of the word of God that the writer makes appeal. But in what sense? Does he bring before us again the word of Scripture, or the divine Word Himself? Outside the writings of St. John there is no passage in the New Testament in which the word of God is as clearly invested with personal attributes as here. The word is "quick" (that is, living), "powerful" (or, active--mighty in operation, as most of our versions render the word), "able to discern the thoughts of the heart." Philo, whose writings are pervaded by the doctrine of the divine Word (see the Note appended to St. John's Gospel in Vol. I. of this Commentary, p. 553), in certain passages makes use of expressions so remarkably resembling some that are before us in this verse that we cannot suppose the coincidence accidental. Thus, in an allegorical explanation of Genesis 15:10, he speaks of the sacred and divine Word as cutting through all things, dividing all perceptible objects, and penetrating even to those called indivisible, separating the different parts of the soul. But though these and the many other resemblances that are adduced may prove the writer's familiarity with the Alexandrian philosophy, they are wholly insufficient to show an adoption of Philo's doctrinal system (if system it could be called) in regard to the divine Word, or to rule the interpretation of the single passage in this Epistle in which an allusion to that system could be traced. Nor is the first-mentioned argument conclusive. There certainly is personification here, and in part the language used would, if it stood alone, even suggest the presence of a divine Person; but it is not easy to believe that in the New Testament the words "sharper than a two-edged sword" would be directly applied to the Son of God. In this Epistle, moreover (and even in this context, Hebrews 4:2), reference is repeatedly made to the word of God in revelation, without a trace of any other meaning. The key to the language of this verse, so far as it is exceptional, is found in that characteristic of the Epistle to which reference has been already made--the habitual thought of Scripture as a direct divine utterance. The transition from such a conception to those of this verse was very easy; and we need not feel surprise if with expressions which are naturally applied to the utterance are joined others which lead the thought to God as Speaker. It is, therefore, the whole word of God that is brought before us--mainly the word of threatening and judgment, but also (comp. Hebrews 4:2 and the last member of this verse) the word of promise.
Piercing even to the dividing asunder . . .--Rather, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, both joints and marrow. For the comparison of God's word to a sword see Isaiah 49:2; Ephesians 6:17; (Revelation 1:16); comp. also Wisdom Of Solomon 18:15-16, "Thine Almighty word leapt down from heaven out of Thy royal throne . . . and brought Thine unfeigned commandment as a sharp sword, and standing up filled all things with death." The keen two-edged sword penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit (not soul from spirit), with unfailing stroke severing bone from bone and piercing the very marrow. The latter words, by a very natural metaphor, are transferred from the material frame to the soul and spirit.
And is a discerner . . .--Is quick to discern, able to judge, the thoughts (reflections, conceptions, intents) of the heart. Man's word may be lifeless, without power to discriminate, to adapt itself to a changed state or varying circumstances, to enforce itself: the Spirit of God is never absent from His word.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
For the word of God is quick and powerful,.... This is to be understood of Christ, the essential Word of God; for the Word of God was a known name of the Messiah among the Jews; See Gill on John 1:1 and therefore the apostle makes use of it when writing to them: and the words are introduced as a reason why care should be taken, that men fall not off from the Gospel, because Christ, the author, sum, and substance of it, is the living God, omnipotent and omniscient; for not a thing, but a person is spoken of, who is a Judge, and a critical discerner of the secrets of men's hearts: and certain it is, that this Word is spoken of as a person, and is said to be a priest in the following verses; to which may be added, that the several things said of the Word exactly agree with Christ: he is "the Word of God"; as the word is the birth of the mind, he is the only begotten of the Father; he is the Word that spoke for the elect in the council and covenant of grace, and that spoke all things out of nothing in creation; he is the Word that has been promised, and spoken of by the prophets from the beginning of the world; and is the interpreter of his Father's mind, and our Advocate with the Father: he is
quick, or, as it may be better rendered, "living"; he has life in himself as God, he is the living God; he is the living Redeemer and Mediator, and he lives for ever as man; he is the author and giver of life, natural, spiritual, and eternal: and he is powerful, as he appears to be in the creation and sustaining of all things; in his miracles and ministrations; in the work of man's redemption; in the preservation of his people, and in his advocacy and intercession:
and sharper than any twoedged sword; or "more cutting than one", by the words of his mouth, by the power of his Spirit, and the efficacy of his grace; for his mouth itself is as a sharp sword, and out of it comes forth one, Isaiah 49:2 by which he pierces the hearts of men, cuts them to the quick, and lays them open. Jehovah is called a twoedged sword with the Jews (m); and Philo the Jew speaks of the flaming sword of the Logos.
Piercing even to the dividing asunder soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow; the like property Philo the Jew ascribes to the "Logos", or Word; he calls him "a cutter", and says he cuts and divides all things, even all sensible things, yea, atoms, and things indivisible (o); the apostle seems here to have respect to the several names with which the soul of man is called by the Jews, , "soul, spirit, and breath" (p); the latter of these, they say, dwells between the other two. Some by the soul understand the natural and unregenerate part in man, and by the spirit the renewed and regenerate part, which though sometimes are not so easily distinguished by men, yet they are by Christ; others think the soul designs the inferior faculties, the affections; and the spirit the superior ones, the mind and understanding; but the apostle's meaning seems to be this, that whereas the soul and spirit are invisible, and the joints and marrow are covered and hid; so sharp and quick sighted, and so penetrating is the divine Word, that it reaches the most secret and hidden things of men: and this sense is confirmed by what follows,
and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart; Christ knows what is in man; he is the searcher of the hearts, and the trier of the reins of the children of men; and this will be more apparent at the last day, when he will make manifest the counsels of the heart, and will critically inquire, and accurately judge of them.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(12) As in Hebrews 3:12 the warning against the "evil heart of unbelief" is solemnly enforced by the mention of the "Living God," so here, in pointing to the peril of disobedience, it is to the living power of the word of God that the writer makes appeal. But in what sense? Does he bring before us again the word of Scripture, or the divine Word Himself? Outside the writings of St. John there is no passage in the New Testament in which the word of God is as clearly invested with personal attributes as here. The word is "quick" (that is, living), "powerful" (or, active--mighty in operation, as most of our versions render the word), "able to discern the thoughts of the heart." Philo, whose writings are pervaded by the doctrine of the divine Word (see the Note appended to St. John's Gospel in Vol. I. of this Commentary, p. 553), in certain passages makes use of expressions so remarkably resembling some that are before us in this verse that we cannot suppose the coincidence accidental. Thus, in an allegorical explanation of Genesis 15:10, he speaks of the sacred and divine Word as cutting through all things, dividing all perceptible objects, and penetrating even to those called indivisible, separating the different parts of the soul. But though these and the many other resemblances that are adduced may prove the writer's familiarity with the Alexandrian philosophy, they are wholly insufficient to show an adoption of Philo's doctrinal system (if system it could be called) in regard to the divine Word, or to rule the interpretation of the single passage in this Epistle in which an allusion to that system could be traced. Nor is the first-mentioned argument conclusive. There certainly is personification here, and in part the language used would, if it stood alone, even suggest the presence of a divine Person; but it is not easy to believe that in the New Testament the words "sharper than a two-edged sword" would be directly applied to the Son of God. In this Epistle, moreover (and even in this context, Hebrews 4:2), reference is repeatedly made to the word of God in revelation, without a trace of any other meaning. The key to the language of this verse, so far as it is exceptional, is found in that characteristic of the Epistle to which reference has been already made--the habitual thought of Scripture as a direct divine utterance. The transition from such a conception to those of this verse was very easy; and we need not feel surprise if with expressions which are naturally applied to the utterance are joined others which lead the thought to God as Speaker. It is, therefore, the whole word of God that is brought before us--mainly the word of threatening and judgment, but also (comp. Hebrews 4:2 and the last member of this verse) the word of promise.
Piercing even to the dividing asunder . . .--Rather, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, both joints and marrow. For the comparison of God's word to a sword see Isaiah 49:2; Ephesians 6:17; (Revelation 1:16); comp. also Wisdom Of Solomon 18:15-16, "Thine Almighty word leapt down from heaven out of Thy royal throne . . . and brought Thine unfeigned commandment as a sharp sword, and standing up filled all things with death." The keen two-edged sword penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit (not soul from spirit), with unfailing stroke severing bone from bone and piercing the very marrow. The latter words, by a very natural metaphor, are transferred from the material frame to the soul and spirit.
And is a discerner . . .--Is quick to discern, able to judge, the thoughts (reflections, conceptions, intents) of the heart. Man's word may be lifeless, without power to discriminate, to adapt itself to a changed state or varying circumstances, to enforce itself: the Spirit of God is never absent from His word.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
For the word of God is quick and powerful,.... This is to be understood of Christ, the essential Word of God; for the Word of God was a known name of the Messiah among the Jews; See Gill on John 1:1 and therefore the apostle makes use of it when writing to them: and the words are introduced as a reason why care should be taken, that men fall not off from the Gospel, because Christ, the author, sum, and substance of it, is the living God, omnipotent and omniscient; for not a thing, but a person is spoken of, who is a Judge, and a critical discerner of the secrets of men's hearts: and certain it is, that this Word is spoken of as a person, and is said to be a priest in the following verses; to which may be added, that the several things said of the Word exactly agree with Christ: he is "the Word of God"; as the word is the birth of the mind, he is the only begotten of the Father; he is the Word that spoke for the elect in the council and covenant of grace, and that spoke all things out of nothing in creation; he is the Word that has been promised, and spoken of by the prophets from the beginning of the world; and is the interpreter of his Father's mind, and our Advocate with the Father: he is
quick, or, as it may be better rendered, "living"; he has life in himself as God, he is the living God; he is the living Redeemer and Mediator, and he lives for ever as man; he is the author and giver of life, natural, spiritual, and eternal: and he is powerful, as he appears to be in the creation and sustaining of all things; in his miracles and ministrations; in the work of man's redemption; in the preservation of his people, and in his advocacy and intercession:
and sharper than any twoedged sword; or "more cutting than one", by the words of his mouth, by the power of his Spirit, and the efficacy of his grace; for his mouth itself is as a sharp sword, and out of it comes forth one, Isaiah 49:2 by which he pierces the hearts of men, cuts them to the quick, and lays them open. Jehovah is called a twoedged sword with the Jews (m); and Philo the Jew speaks of the flaming sword of the Logos
. Piercing even to the dividing asunder soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow; the like property Philo the Jew ascribes to the "Logos", or Word; he calls him "a cutter", and says he cuts and divides all things, even all sensible things, yea, atoms, and things indivisible (o); the apostle seems here to have respect to the several names with which the soul of man is called by the Jews, , "soul, spirit, and breath" (p); the latter of these, they say, dwells between the other two. Some by the soul understand the natural and unregenerate part in man, and by the spirit the renewed and regenerate part, which though sometimes are not so easily distinguished by men, yet they are by Christ; others think the soul designs the inferior faculties, the affections; and the spirit the superior ones, the mind and understanding; but the apostle's meaning seems to be this, that whereas the soul and spirit are invisible, and the joints and marrow are covered and hid; so sharp and quick sighted, and so penetrating is the divine Word, that it reaches the most secret and hidden things of men: and this sense is confirmed by what follows,
and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart; Christ knows what is in man; he is the searcher of the hearts, and the trier of the reins of the children of men; and this will be more apparent at the last day, when he will make manifest the counsels of the heart, and will critically inquire, and accurately judge of them.
That's not a footnote (IMO), it's a commentary. This is a footnote:
[a]
a. Isaiah 19:18 Some manuscripts of the Masoretic Text, Dead Sea Scrolls, Symmachus and Vulgate; most manuscripts of the Masoretic Text City of Destruction
Last edited:
A
I just had some insight into your question CS1 about FOOTNOTES....
I know that there are two manuscripts that the current Bibles are translated from. The KJV, NKJV and others use one that include as part of Scripture words about "fasting" and "those who walk in the Spirit"
While the newer versions use what they claim is an older manuscript that has those words as "FOOTNOTES" and don't count them scripture.
Personally, I haven't read any of the more modern versions all the way through but have seen how theology can differ depending on which version of the Bible your church uses of you read.
I guess it's something to pray about.
However I wanted to ask if you agree or disagree with those who say the first manuscript is filled with human errors?
Personally I believe either can be used by God but He wouldn't have let the first version survive if it wasn't His will for us to have those notes to help us from going off the deep end with strange doctrines like the Word of Faith movement.
I know that there are two manuscripts that the current Bibles are translated from. The KJV, NKJV and others use one that include as part of Scripture words about "fasting" and "those who walk in the Spirit"
While the newer versions use what they claim is an older manuscript that has those words as "FOOTNOTES" and don't count them scripture.
Personally, I haven't read any of the more modern versions all the way through but have seen how theology can differ depending on which version of the Bible your church uses of you read.
I guess it's something to pray about.
However I wanted to ask if you agree or disagree with those who say the first manuscript is filled with human errors?
Personally I believe either can be used by God but He wouldn't have let the first version survive if it wasn't His will for us to have those notes to help us from going off the deep end with strange doctrines like the Word of Faith movement.
A
Thanks for clarifying.
I agree with regard to people trying to reinterpret the Bible to support blatantly anti-Christian beliefs and practices.
I'm not sure I agree with regard to finer points of specific translations, which is why I don't hold to a single translation. I think that it's fine to be firm on issues where the major translations agree... and cautious where they don't agree. Being dogmatic over the wording of a particular verse in one translation, when other translations say it differently, is closer to causing division than bringing unity and understanding. I have seen people coming close to calling others "heretics" over that type of dogmatism... as I'm sure you have.
I think we get into a gray area when we start equivocating the translation of the Bible with the word of God. Trofimus makes a good point in differentiating (though I don't fully agree with him either on this). If we hold a specific translation as inerrant, by default we call all others "erroneous". This is logically indefensible. It's better, in my view, to hold the word of God as inerrant, and translations subject to human error, weakness, and fallibility. As I wrote in another thread recently, God theoretically "can" translate perfectly across languages, but that is no guarantee that He has done so in any particular case. I think it is better to lean on the Holy Spirit, Who will lead us into all truth, than to lean on either the translators (to have gotten it "just right" in every case), or ourselves (to interpret properly what they have given us).
Of course, nobody is obligated to agree with me either.
I agree with regard to people trying to reinterpret the Bible to support blatantly anti-Christian beliefs and practices.
I'm not sure I agree with regard to finer points of specific translations, which is why I don't hold to a single translation. I think that it's fine to be firm on issues where the major translations agree... and cautious where they don't agree. Being dogmatic over the wording of a particular verse in one translation, when other translations say it differently, is closer to causing division than bringing unity and understanding. I have seen people coming close to calling others "heretics" over that type of dogmatism... as I'm sure you have.
I think we get into a gray area when we start equivocating the translation of the Bible with the word of God. Trofimus makes a good point in differentiating (though I don't fully agree with him either on this). If we hold a specific translation as inerrant, by default we call all others "erroneous". This is logically indefensible. It's better, in my view, to hold the word of God as inerrant, and translations subject to human error, weakness, and fallibility. As I wrote in another thread recently, God theoretically "can" translate perfectly across languages, but that is no guarantee that He has done so in any particular case. I think it is better to lean on the Holy Spirit, Who will lead us into all truth, than to lean on either the translators (to have gotten it "just right" in every case), or ourselves (to interpret properly what they have given us).
Of course, nobody is obligated to agree with me either.
"I think that it's fine to be firm on issues where the major translations agree... and cautious where they don't agree. "
I think it wise to ask ourselves WHY various translation differ and most often I found its because their version supports their theology and already established doctrines better.
However we should acknowledge and focus on what the bibles have in COMMON because it's through those passages that God changes hearts and minds and lives for His glory.
A
foot·note
ˈfo͝otˌnōt/Submit
noun
plural noun: footnotes
1.
an ancillary piece of information printed at the bottom of a page.
*****
Sometimes commentaries are printed as footnotes because they are on the bottom of the page...really doesn't matter what you want to call them long as you don't call them Scripture and give them the same authority as God's revealed words to us.
ˈfo͝otˌnōt/Submit
noun
plural noun: footnotes
1.
an ancillary piece of information printed at the bottom of a page.
*****
Sometimes commentaries are printed as footnotes because they are on the bottom of the page...really doesn't matter what you want to call them long as you don't call them Scripture and give them the same authority as God's revealed words to us.