Is all 66 Books Bible the infallible, inerrant Word of God?

[KJV1611]

Didn't answer the question. What are ouches of gold?

My smartphone is my Bible. I have biblegateway.com on the chrome web browser. I select book and chapter and then can switch translations easily.

In modern English the spelling is different for the part of the word shown. ooches, it starts with br.

1. a clasp, buckle, or brooch, especially oneworn for ornament.

 

[Endoscopy]

1. a clasp, buckle, or brooch, especially oneworn for ornament.

When it is gold a buckle is most likely not to be an ouches. Hard metal most likely. A clasp possibly but more likely a brooch.

 

[Endoscopy]

5 minute rule again!!! Takes longer with my smart phone!
Or an alloy of gold!

 

[YehovaYeshua]

The Bible is infallible but it is not inerrant. The word "inerrant" means "being without errors" and the truth is that there are a few insignificant scribal-copying mistakes and acccidental inserts of a marginal note into the main Bible verse so that the Bible that we have today is no longer without errrors.

But what it says in the Bible iS infallible, which means that what it says in there "will not fail to occur".

So the Bible is errant with some scribal mistakes, but it IS infallible.

YehovaYeshua

 

[Endoscopy]

1. a clasp, buckle, or brooch, especially oneworn for ornament.

It is obvious that you had to look it up. Why is that. The Bible is supposed to be translated into the modern language of the people. Oops KJV fails in this regard. Then there are the nonexistent animals in it. Oops KJV fails again. The flaws of language changing over time and scientific advances in nature have made KJV flawed. This is why there are a couple of updated KJV versions. I prefer modern translations since they don't have these flaws created by 400 years of language changes plus more knowledge of nature.

 

[Endoscopy]

The Bible is infallible but it is not inerrant. The word "inerrant" means "being without errors" and the truth is that there are a few insignificant scribal-copying mistakes and acccidental inserts of a marginal note into the main Bible verse so that the Bible that we have today is no longer without errrors.

But what it says in the Bible iS infallible, which means that what it says in there "will not fail to occur".

So the Bible is errant with some scribal mistakes, but it IS infallible.

YehovaYeshua

Only the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and koine Judeo Greek. Judeo Greek is Greek with Hebrew concepts forced in it. When Jews use a language they force Hebrew concepts into it. Thus modifying the language. Yiddish is a modern Jewish language. It is Judeo German. English is so convoluted because it is a mixture of Celtic, Latin, German, and French. This made it easy for the Jews to just use it as is. Nothing needed to be forced into English.

 

[Absolutely]

Your post is replete with hogwash and codswollop. Translation is IMPOSSIBLE without interpretation.


An absolute lie! The Tyndale, Bishop's, Coverdale, Geneva, Matthews, and Great Bibles were published in English before the KJV... and still exist!


The Masoretic text is from about the 900s AD. Lots of time for things to get mis-copied. The term "Textus Receptus" was an advertising gimmick from AFTER the KJV's original publication.


Another lie, because such is impossible! Greek and Hebrew cannot be translated word-for-word into English because the grammatical structures are too different. Plus, it is easy to demonstrate that certain words are NOT accurate translations (yam suph in Hebrew means reed sea in English, not Red Sea). Further, some words are transliterations, not translations.



The Latin Vulgate "stood the test of time" for over 1100 years! The KJV is a mere pup in comparison.



Irrelevant.



This statement itself is nothing but propaganda.



Also irrelevant. The language of the KJV has no spiritual power; such a view is idolatry. The word of God has spiritual power... in any translation, as the KJV translators themselves implicitly acknowledged.

Such a disdain for the bible's accuracy.
To read all that ,one concludes that we have no idea what God has said in his word. No inspiration,help or guidance from the Holy Spirit speaking through the copiers of the rextus receptus or the board of king james translators.

This type of approach strikes at the heart of the believer who ,like the bereans,insists on the pure word illuminated by the Holy Spirit.

Who seeks to unsettle the textus receptus???????
In favor of what???????
What is the "NEW" standard.
For my 40 years of study I have relied on the textus receptus which you call a gimmick.
I don't think i have ever seen such a vile attitude against God's word.
Your post could be powerful fodder for an atheist platform against God's people and their gimmick they call the bible

The only encounter i have ever experienced similar to your disdain is the watchtower adherants,who favor the Alexandrian text which is useful in disenfranchising Jesus the creator and God,or 2nd person of the Godhead.

It could be that your kjv attack is predicted on a attempt to disenfranchise the textus receptus.
That kjv is extremely close and that seems to bother you somehow.

 

[Absolutely]

The only reason i support kjv is its closenes to the recieved text.

 

[Absolutely]

ROFL
KJV is 400 years old and the language has changed plus the animal kingdom is much better understood!!

Problems with KJV!!

For example, because of the changes in the English language, a number of words occur in the King James that make zero sense to most people today. These include the following nuggets that you will find scattered here and there:

Almug
Algum
Charashim
Chode
Cracknels
Gat
Habergeon
Hosen
Kab
Ligure
Neesed
Nusings
Ouches
ring-straked
sycamyne
trow
wimples, ….
The King James translators also translated some animal names into animals that in fact we now have pretty good reason for thinking don’t actually exist:

unicorn (Deut. 33:17)
satyr (Isa 13:21);
dragon (Deut 32:33) (for serpent)
cockatrice (Iswa 11:8),
arrowsnake (Gen 49:11, in the margin).
Moreover,, there are phrases that simply don’t make sense any more to modern readers: Phrases that no longer make sense:

ouches of gold (Exod. 28:11);
collops of fat (Job 15:25);
naughty figs (Jer 24:2);
ien with (Jer. 3:2);
the ground is chapt (Jer 14:4);
brazen wall” (Jer 15:20);
rentest thy face (Jer. 4:30);
urrain of the cattle (Exod. 9:2);
And there are whole sentences that are confusing at best, virtually indecipherable (or humorous)

And Jacob sod pottage (Gen 25:29)
And Mt. Sinai was altogether on a smoke (Exoc. 19:18)
Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing (Ps. 5:6)
I trow not (Luke 17:9)
We do you to wit of the grace of God (2 Cor. 8:1)
Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels (2 Cor. 6:12)
He who letteth will let (2 Thes 2:7)
The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd (Eccles. 12:11)


Other sentences make sense, but would today be considered somewhat problematic – at least for the sacred Scripture. My favorite is the one that refers to a man who: “Pisseth against the wall:…. 1 Sam 25:22, 34, I Kings 14:10!

What are ouches of gold?

And what,pray tell,do you recommend?

 

[Endoscopy]

And what,pray tell,do you recommend?

What I use as my Bible is my smartphone with my browser set for biblegateway.com. I select book and chapter then can select translations. I go between NIV, ESV, AMPC, and KJV. Each has its plusses and minuses.

 

[memyselfi]

I'm just wondering…
If modern translations are not infallible, inerrant Word of G-d why believe the Bible at all?

The is a scarlet thread that runs thru all of Scripture... Gen to Rev. That is MESSIAH.... But if ALL of Scripture is not accurate how or why do you believe the parts about Jesus is G-d, died on a cross, rose from the dead and coming back a gain, and by "faith" you will not GO to hell... is true… Or even a heaven or Hell... Or even the silliness about some man Jesus...
Out of 66 Books... THAT IS CAZY... UNLESS ALL OF IT TRUE!?! HOW DO YOU PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT TO BELEAVE AS THE INFALLABLE, INEREENT WORD OF G-D?

 

[Endoscopy]

I'm just wondering…
If modern translations are not infallible, inerrant Word of G-d why believe the Bible at all?

The is a scarlet thread that runs thru all of Scripture... Gen to Rev. That is MESSIAH.... But if ALL of Scripture is not accurate how or why do you believe the parts about Jesus is G-d, died on a cross, rose from the dead and coming back a gain, and by "faith" you will not GO to hell... is true… Or even a heaven or Hell... Or even the silliness about some man Jesus...
Out of 66 Books... THAT IS CAZY... UNLESS ALL OF IT TRUE!?! HOW DO YOU PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT TO BELEAVE AS THE INFALLABLE, INEREENT WORD OF G-D?

The inerrant word of God is the original language documents. Committees are created when a translation of the Bible is done. Having a committee do the work makes the product be more accurate. Since people are fallible the more eyes on the work the smaller the chance of error.

 

[lightbearer]

It is obvious that you had to look it up. Why is that. The Bible is supposed to be translated into the modern language of the people. Oops KJV fails in this regard. Then there are the nonexistent animals in it. Oops KJV fails again. The flaws of language changing over time and scientific advances in nature have made KJV flawed. This is why there are a couple of updated KJV versions. I prefer modern translations since they don't have these flaws created by 400 years of language changes plus more knowledge of nature.

No they have other flaws. Regardless what translation one reads they should have dictionary, a concordance, and a lexicon. And at the very least a sincere discerning heart through GOD's Spirit.

 

[Endoscopy]

No they have other flaws. Regardless what translation one reads they should have dictionary, a concordance, and a lexicon. And at the very least a sincere discerning heart through GOD's Spirit.

The issue is they do not have the flaws of 400 years of language changes and environmental science to deal with. Modern translations do not have words that are no longer in the English language. They do not use names of nonexistent animals. Etc.

 

[lightbearer]

The issue is they do not have the flaws of 400 years of language changes and environmental science to deal with. Modern translations do not have words that are no longer in the English language. They do not use names of nonexistent animals. Etc.

That is your issue. ALL translations have translation issues and words that need looked up. Through GOD's Spirit almost all translations can be seen in the truth that GOD intended.

 

[Endoscopy]

That is your issue. ALL translations have translation issues and words that need looked up. Through GOD's Spirit almost all translations can be seen in the truth that GOD intended.

So you think reading a translation that has words no longer in the English language and having non existent animals along with the normal translation issues is just fine and dandy!!!

I prefer modern translations that do not have those problems!!!

 

[lightbearer]

So you think reading a translation that has words no longer in the English language and having non existent animals along with the normal translation issues is just fine and dandy!!!

I prefer modern translations that do not have those problems!!!

No they have other issues; some far worse. However None of the issues in the KJV or any other translation is an issue through GOD's Spirit which gives us discernment.

 

[Endoscopy]

No they have other issues; some far worse. However None of the issues in the KJV or any other translation is an issue through GOD's Spirit which gives us discernment.

Even with the erroneous information in the KJV? I disagree about worse. Blanket assertions don't work. Specifics required. I use the KJV but understand its flaws.

 

[John146]

Even with the erroneous information in the KJV? I disagree about worse. Blanket assertions don't work. Specifics required. I use the KJV but understand its flaws.

Personal opinions do make the KJV false.

 

[Endoscopy]

Personal opinions do make the KJV false.

While 400 years of language and environmental science has the translation with words that don't exist and animals that don't exist doesn't mean it is without value. In many places the wording is more consise and to the point than more modern translations. My favorite example is "the carnal mind is enmity against God". Modern translations use several more words that are not as memorable as this is.