Bibles

  • 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.
GWH said:
After dealing with the KJ English as a teen in twelfth grade, I requested a modern English version for Christmas and was given the NEB, which was the first Bible I read from cover to cover--one and a half times, because the binding failed halfway through reading the first copy.
My favorite is my NIV ordination gift, but I have never read a translation that I did not enjoy/appreciate, making notes connecting Scriptures/dots in the margins.
Before receiving the NIV I tried to memorize the TEV for awhile, but my first KJV wording usually comes to mind for many passages now.
📖
Click to expand...
The NIV failed my personal "version" test.
I couldn't find anything on a TEV version.
 
Freed18 said:
The NIV failed my personal "version" test.
I couldn't find anything on a TEV version.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure about modern NIV translations....several new additions I've never used.
I do know about the original though from the 1960's.

It actually was fairly standardized when it came to translation....you could tell what the original language words were behind the translation due to the standard way they translated the language.

But....
Like most things....been bought and sold. The original work and label swallowed and forgotten by an ever growing publishing conglomerate that only believes in profits. Literally.

The HCSB is another good one. But be careful...there are levels of translation bibles out there. And it's somewhat confusing. I've seen copies that get into breaking down the various manuscripts in the footnotes of the page the scriptures are printed on....as well as other notes on the bottom too discussing various aspects of the scriptures above. (Study Bible stuff)

And unless you really want to dive into the middle of manuscript reliability while studying 4,000 year old scriptures....maybe the most detailed is not a good one to use.
 
JohnDB said:
I'm not sure about modern NIV translations....several new additions I've never used.
I do know about the original though from the 1960's.

It actually was fairly standardized when it came to translation....you could tell what the original language words were behind the translation due to the standard way they translated the language.

But....
Like most things....been bought and sold. The original work and label swallowed and forgotten by an ever growing publishing conglomerate that only believes in profits. Literally.

The HCSB is another good one. But be careful...there are levels of translation bibles out there. And it's somewhat confusing. I've seen copies that get into breaking down the various manuscripts in the footnotes of the page the scriptures are printed on....as well as other notes on the bottom too discussing various aspects of the scriptures above. (Study Bible stuff)

And unless you really want to dive into the middle of manuscript reliability while studying 4,000 year old scriptures....maybe the most detailed is not a good one to use.
Click to expand...
I prefer bibles without any of man's interpretations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OMC
rewriter said:
One big problem is that grammar in the original languages is far too often guesswork. Punctuation was not common, especially in the Greek. Some verses can be translated with completely different meanings depending on how one assigns the grammar, while staying consistent with the known rules. Hebrews also has issues in that the vowel points were non-existent until the Masoretic text, which was late in the first millennium, and the exact vowels applied could change meanings. In short, we cannot get away from the opinions of the translators, whether we like it or not.
Click to expand...
textual‑skeptical linguistics, a modern framework that treats biblical grammar, punctuation, and manuscript transmission as so uncertain that no translation can ever be objectively accurate. It argues that because early Greek lacked punctuation, Hebrew lacked vowel points, and scribes made choices, “grammar is guesswork,” meaning all translation becomes subjective opinion. This system is not based on Scripture’s own doctrine of preservation or on historical Hebrew/Greek linguistics; instead, it reflects post‑Enlightenment textual skepticism, higher‑critical uncertainty, and modern fallibilist epistemology — the belief that humans cannot reliably know divine meaning even if the original text were in hand. In short, it is a modern skeptical system, not the biblical or historical view of how God preserves meaning through language. Textual‑skeptical linguistics, and MFW come from the same modern fallibilist system that elevates human limitation and uncertainty above Scripture’s own claims. MFW argues that humans possess innate moral ability to choose God because human fallibility supposedly prevents God from decisively determining the will; the textual‑skeptical entry argues that human fallibility in grammar, punctuation, and manuscript transmission prevents Scripture from being objectively knowable. In both cases, human fallibility becomes the controlling doctrine, not divine revelation. MFW denies the biblical doctrine of moral inability (John 6:44; 1 Cor 2:14), while textual skepticism denies the biblical doctrine of preservation and clarity (Ps 119:89; Matt 24:35). Both systems ultimately claim: “We cannot know for sure,” making human opinion the final authority rather than the inspired text or the Spirit’s work. This would be one of the most dangerous doctrines out there today, Question everything.
 
OMC said:
Brother, your concern is legitimate: the absence of punctuation in Greek manuscripts, the fluidity of case endings, the ambiguity of participles, and the late addition of Hebrew vowel points all mean that translation requires judgment — but that does not make grammar “guesswork,” nor does it leave us at the mercy of translator opinion; rather, it means the interpreter must rely on contextual anchoring, syntactical patterns, and canonical consistency to constrain meaning. Greek may lack punctuation, but it has rigid verbal aspect, predictable word order tendencies, and clear case functions; Hebrew may have late vowel pointing, but the consonantal text overwhelmingly determines meaning, and the Masoretic vocalization aligns with ancient versions like the LXX and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Yes, translators make interpretive decisions, but those decisions are not arbitrary — they are governed by grammar, context, and the witness of the broader canon. So while we cannot eliminate human judgment, we are not left with uncertainty so great that Scripture becomes unstable; the text is clear where salvation, doctrine, and kerygma are concerned, and the areas where grammar allows multiple renderings almost never affect the core proclamation of the Gospel.
Click to expand...
What's your opinion on the Vulgate?
 
Inquisitor said:
What's your opinion on the Vulgate?
Click to expand...
The Vulgate is historically invaluable, linguistically uneven, and theologically influential in ways that sometimes help and sometimes distort Scripture. The Vulgate is a monumental translation for church history, giving Latin‑speaking Christians a unified Bible for over a millennium, but it is not a linguistically precise witness to the Hebrew or Greek texts. Jerome did admirable work for his era, especially in returning to Hebrew sources rather than relying solely on the Septuagint, yet his Latin renderings often reflect the limitations of Latin vocabulary, Greco‑Roman theological assumptions, and the interpretive traditions of his time. As a result, the Vulgate preserves valuable ancient readings and sometimes clarifies textual history, but it also introduces mistranslations, doctrinally colored choices, and semantic flattening that make it unreliable for establishing original meaning. In short: historically essential, philologically imperfect, and never a substitute for the Hebrew and Greek themselves.
 
The B-I-B-L-E,
Yes, that's the book for me;
I stand alone on the Word of God--
The B-I-B-L-E!
(Psa. 119:105)
[Any/every translation.]
GWH 📖
 
  • Like
Reactions: Churchgoer
I'd like proof that people on CC actually read their Bibles

REAL Bibles not just look online and copy verses.

Please post on my judging a book thread.

Nobody has so far, so it might confirm my worst fears.
 
Lanolin said:
I'd like proof that people on CC actually read their Bibles

REAL Bibles not just look online and copy verses.

Please post on my judging a book thread.

Nobody has so far, so it might confirm my worst fears.
Click to expand...

My evidence is/are my CC threads. 📖
I am pleased when I see evidence people read those! 🧵🧵🧵
 
OMC said:
The Vulgate is historically invaluable, linguistically uneven, and theologically influential in ways that sometimes help and sometimes distort Scripture. The Vulgate is a monumental translation for church history, giving Latin‑speaking Christians a unified Bible for over a millennium, but it is not a linguistically precise witness to the Hebrew or Greek texts. Jerome did admirable work for his era, especially in returning to Hebrew sources rather than relying solely on the Septuagint, yet his Latin renderings often reflect the limitations of Latin vocabulary, Greco‑Roman theological assumptions, and the interpretive traditions of his time. As a result, the Vulgate preserves valuable ancient readings and sometimes clarifies textual history, but it also introduces mistranslations, doctrinally colored choices, and semantic flattening that make it unreliable for establishing original meaning. In short: historically essential, philologically imperfect, and never a substitute for the Hebrew and Greek themselves.
Click to expand...
I will let AI have a shot at your reply.


I think the passage is substantially correct, but I would qualify a few statements if the goal is historical and philological precision.


What it gets right​


1. “Historically invaluable” — absolutely.
The Vulgate is enormously important for reconstructing the history of biblical interpretation and transmission in the Latin-speaking church. It became the dominant Latin Bible and profoundly influenced Western Christianity, theology, liturgy, law, literature, and biblical vocabulary.


2. “Linguistically uneven” — fair.
Jerome's work is not one uniform translation. His approach differed between books, and he worked from different textual traditions and sources. Some books received much more careful attention to the Hebrew than others. It is therefore misleading to treat the Vulgate as though it represents one consistently executed translation methodology.


3. Jerome's return to Hebrew is an important point.
Jerome famously pursued the Hebraica veritas—the Hebrew textual tradition—rather than simply revising the Old Latin Bible against the Septuagint. That was a major development for Latin biblical scholarship.


4. “Not a substitute for Hebrew and Greek themselves” — exactly right.
If the question is what did the original biblical author write or mean?, the primary linguistic witnesses are the Hebrew/Aramaic Old Testament and Koine Greek New Testament. The Vulgate is a translation and therefore a secondary witness.


Where I would modify the wording​


The strongest claim is this:


“his Latin renderings often reflect ... Greco-Roman theological assumptions, and the interpretive traditions of his time.”
Click to expand...

I'd be careful with that formulation.


Jerome certainly inherited theological and exegetical traditions, and no translator approaches a text without interpretive decisions. But it would be too broad to imply that Jerome systematically distorted Scripture because of Greco-Roman theology. In many places he was actually remarkably concerned with getting away from inherited Latin renderings and investigating the underlying languages.


Similarly, saying that the Vulgate “introduces mistranslations” is true in the ordinary sense that translations contain errors or debatable renderings, but it would be better to distinguish:


  • genuine translation errors,
  • legitimate alternative translations,
  • textual differences in Jerome's underlying manuscripts,
  • deliberate interpretive translations,
  • and later changes to the Vulgate tradition that cannot necessarily be attributed to Jerome.

That distinction becomes very important.


One particularly important point​


The Vulgate should not be treated merely as a bad translation of the original. It is also an ancient textual witness.


For example, when the Vulgate differs from the Greek New Testament manuscripts we possess today, that difference can sometimes tell us something about the Greek or Latin textual tradition available in Jerome's period.


So there are really two different questions:


Philological question:


“What does the Greek/Hebrew say?”
Click to expand...

Here, the Vulgate is secondary.


Textual-historical question:


“What readings were circulating in the fourth/fifth century?”
Click to expand...

Here, the Vulgate can be extremely valuable.


And there is a third:


History-of-doctrine question:


“How did Latin Christianity understand this passage?”
Click to expand...

Here, the Vulgate is extraordinarily important because its wording itself helped shape Western theological vocabulary.


I would therefore slightly rewrite the conclusion​


Your final sentence is good, but I would make it more precise:


Historically indispensable, philologically valuable but uneven, and theologically influential; the Vulgate is an important ancient witness to the history of the biblical text, but it cannot replace the Hebrew and Greek when determining the original wording and meaning of Scripture.
Click to expand...

That, in my view, is a stronger scholarly formulation.


And given your interest in how particular biblical words have acquired meanings through translation, the Vulgate is especially interesting. A Greek → Latin translation can sometimes create a chain like:


Greek term → Latin equivalent → later theological usage → English translation


At that point, an English reader may inherit a meaning that is several interpretive steps removed from the Greek.


That is precisely why examining the Greek word, its NT usage, the Vulgate rendering, and the later English tradition side-by-side can be very revealing.
 
Inquisitor said:
I will let AI have a shot at your reply.


I think the passage is substantially correct, but I would qualify a few statements if the goal is historical and philological precision.


What it gets right​


1. “Historically invaluable” — absolutely.
The Vulgate is enormously important for reconstructing the history of biblical interpretation and transmission in the Latin-speaking church. It became the dominant Latin Bible and profoundly influenced Western Christianity, theology, liturgy, law, literature, and biblical vocabulary.


2. “Linguistically uneven” — fair.
Jerome's work is not one uniform translation. His approach differed between books, and he worked from different textual traditions and sources. Some books received much more careful attention to the Hebrew than others. It is therefore misleading to treat the Vulgate as though it represents one consistently executed translation methodology.


3. Jerome's return to Hebrew is an important point.
Jerome famously pursued the Hebraica veritas—the Hebrew textual tradition—rather than simply revising the Old Latin Bible against the Septuagint. That was a major development for Latin biblical scholarship.


4. “Not a substitute for Hebrew and Greek themselves” — exactly right.
If the question is what did the original biblical author write or mean?, the primary linguistic witnesses are the Hebrew/Aramaic Old Testament and Koine Greek New Testament. The Vulgate is a translation and therefore a secondary witness.


Where I would modify the wording​


The strongest claim is this:




I'd be careful with that formulation.


Jerome certainly inherited theological and exegetical traditions, and no translator approaches a text without interpretive decisions. But it would be too broad to imply that Jerome systematically distorted Scripture because of Greco-Roman theology. In many places he was actually remarkably concerned with getting away from inherited Latin renderings and investigating the underlying languages.


Similarly, saying that the Vulgate “introduces mistranslations” is true in the ordinary sense that translations contain errors or debatable renderings, but it would be better to distinguish:


  • genuine translation errors,
  • legitimate alternative translations,
  • textual differences in Jerome's underlying manuscripts,
  • deliberate interpretive translations,
  • and later changes to the Vulgate tradition that cannot necessarily be attributed to Jerome.

That distinction becomes very important.


One particularly important point​


The Vulgate should not be treated merely as a bad translation of the original. It is also an ancient textual witness.


For example, when the Vulgate differs from the Greek New Testament manuscripts we possess today, that difference can sometimes tell us something about the Greek or Latin textual tradition available in Jerome's period.


So there are really two different questions:


Philological question:




Here, the Vulgate is secondary.


Textual-historical question:




Here, the Vulgate can be extremely valuable.


And there is a third:


History-of-doctrine question:




Here, the Vulgate is extraordinarily important because its wording itself helped shape Western theological vocabulary.


I would therefore slightly rewrite the conclusion​


Your final sentence is good, but I would make it more precise:




That, in my view, is a stronger scholarly formulation.


And given your interest in how particular biblical words have acquired meanings through translation, the Vulgate is especially interesting. A Greek → Latin translation can sometimes create a chain like:


Greek term → Latin equivalent → later theological usage → English translation


At that point, an English reader may inherit a meaning that is several interpretive steps removed from the Greek.


That is precisely why examining the Greek word, its NT usage, the Vulgate rendering, and the later English tradition side-by-side can be very revealing.
Click to expand...
I appreciate the careful qualifications It's? making, and I agree that any responsible discussion of the Vulgate has to distinguish between its historical importance, its textual value, and its philological limitations.
But none of it's clarifications actually overturn the substance of what I said; they refine it, and I’m happy to affirm those refinements while still holding the central point.

When I say the Vulgate is “linguistically uneven” and “theologically influential in ways that sometimes distort,” I’m not claiming Jerome systematically imposed Greco‑Roman theology onto the text.
I’m saying exactly what it's saying: the Vulgate contains a mixture of translation errors, legitimate alternatives, textual variants, and interpretive renderings, and later scribal adjustments complicate the picture further.
That’s precisely why it cannot function as a primary linguistic witness.
Its value is textual‑historical, not philological‑foundational.

And yes, I agree entirely that the Vulgate is an ancient witness to readings circulating in the fourth and fifth centuries.
That’s why I treat it as indispensable for reconstructing the Latin tradition and occasionally for triangulating Greek variants.
But that textual value doesn’t change the fact that when the question is What did Paul write? What did Moses mean? the Vulgate is secondary. It is a translation, not a source.

Where I differ slightly from it's framing is this: the Vulgate’s theological influence is not merely historical; it is semantic.
Latin renderings created conceptual pathways that shaped Western doctrinal vocabulary for centuries.
That’s not an accusation against Jerome — it’s simply the reality of translation.
A Greek term becomes a Latin equivalent, the Latin equivalent becomes a theological category, and the theological category becomes an English tradition. At that point, the English reader is several interpretive steps removed from the Greek. That’s why I insist the Vulgate is “never a substitute for the Hebrew and Greek themselves.”

So yes — historically indispensable, textually valuable, philologically uneven, and theologically influential. But when the goal is recovering original meaning, I still stand by my original conclusion: the Vulgate is a witness, not an authority. That was creepy but interesting. So you feed it my answer and that's what it came out with? Well, as you all can see, discernment is key.
 
OMC said:
“Our modern Bibles are translated from ancient manuscripts preserved across centuries — Hebrew and Aramaic texts for the Old Testament, and Greek manuscripts for the New Testament.
These manuscripts were copied by Jewish scribes and early Christian communities long before any modern ‘world system’ existed.
The oldest manuscripts we possess — such as the Dead Sea Scrolls for the Old Testament and early papyri like P52, P66, and P75 for the New Testament — predate medieval theology, denominational influence, and modern ideological systems.
These early witnesses form the textual foundation scholars use today, and it is from these historically rooted manuscripts that I share the biblical text with you.”
Dead Sea Scrolls (150 BC–70 AD) — oldest OT witnesses
Masoretic Text (7th–10th century) — stable OT tradition
Greek papyri (2nd–4th century) — earliest NT witnesses
Codex Sinaiticus & Vaticanus (4th century) — complete NT manuscripts
No “world system” influenced these early texts — they predate modern ideologies by centuries

Failing to consult the original text when fact‑checking your Bible is dangerous because it leaves you vulnerable to errors introduced by translation choices, doctrinal bias, and modern assumptions that the ancient writers never intended.
Without checking the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, you can mistake an English rendering for the inspired wording, build doctrines on mistranslations, miss verbal aspect, ignore grammar that changes the meaning, and accept interpretive decisions made by translators rather than the text itself.
This is how people end up defending ideas the apostles never taught, rejecting truths the prophets clearly wrote, or dividing over issues that disappear the moment you look at the original language.
The manuscripts anchor you to what God actually said, not what a committee thought He meant — and without that anchor, you’re trusting a filter instead of the source.

These are the most accurate English Bibles to the original texts.

NASB 1995 —
The gold standard for literal, word‑for‑word translation. Extremely close to Hebrew and Greek syntax. Used in seminaries for exegesis.
NASB 2020 —
Same philosophy as NASB95, slightly smoother English, still highly literal.
ESV —
Essentially literal, based on the best critical texts (BHS, NA28). Strong balance of accuracy and readability.
LSB —
Legacy Standard Bible; extremely literal, restores “Yahweh” in the OT, tight adherence to original grammar.
NKJV —
Uses the Majority Text/TR tradition but updates archaic language. Very stable textual base.
NRSV —
Critical‑text based, academically respected, very close to original languages.
NET Bible —
Noted for 60,000+ translator notes explaining every textual decision. Excellent for checking Hebrew/Greek reasoning.
CSB — “
Optimal equivalence” approach; more readable but still anchored tightly to original grammar.
MEV —
Modern English Version; literal translation from the same textual base as KJV but with modern clarity.

These Use critical editions of the Hebrew and Greek (BHS, BHQ, NA28, UBS5).
Follow formal equivalence (word‑for‑word) rather than paraphrase.
Preserve verb aspect, case, tense, and syntax as closely as English allows.
Avoid doctrinal bias in translation choices.
Provide transparency through footnotes, textual variants, and manuscript evidence.

If it is indeed, accuracy to the original scripture then avoid these,
These are paraphrastic or dynamic‑equivalence and not suitable for textual accuracy or exegesis.
NIV
NLT
The Message
Good News Translation
Passion Translation
Click to expand...

The KJV is a very accurate translation of the original Hebrew and Greek. I'm not kjvo but surely you got to include this.
 
wattie said:
The KJV is a very accurate translation of the original Hebrew and Greek. I'm not kjvo but surely you got to include this.
Click to expand...
I did 😊
MEV —
Modern English Version; literal translation from the same textual base as KJV but with modern clarity
 
OMC said:
textual‑skeptical linguistics, a modern framework that treats biblical grammar, punctuation, and manuscript transmission as so uncertain that no translation can ever be objectively accurate. It argues that because early Greek lacked punctuation, Hebrew lacked vowel points, and scribes made choices, “grammar is guesswork,” meaning all translation becomes subjective opinion. This system is not based on Scripture’s own doctrine of preservation or on historical Hebrew/Greek linguistics; instead, it reflects post‑Enlightenment textual skepticism, higher‑critical uncertainty, and modern fallibilist epistemology — the belief that humans cannot reliably know divine meaning even if the original text were in hand. In short, it is a modern skeptical system, not the biblical or historical view of how God preserves meaning through language. Textual‑skeptical linguistics, and MFW come from the same modern fallibilist system that elevates human limitation and uncertainty above Scripture’s own claims. MFW argues that humans possess innate moral ability to choose God because human fallibility supposedly prevents God from decisively determining the will; the textual‑skeptical entry argues that human fallibility in grammar, punctuation, and manuscript transmission prevents Scripture from being objectively knowable. In both cases, human fallibility becomes the controlling doctrine, not divine revelation. MFW denies the biblical doctrine of moral inability (John 6:44; 1 Cor 2:14), while textual skepticism denies the biblical doctrine of preservation and clarity (Ps 119:89; Matt 24:35). Both systems ultimately claim: “We cannot know for sure,” making human opinion the final authority rather than the inspired text or the Spirit’s work. This would be one of the most dangerous doctrines out there today, Question everything.
Click to expand...
Your argument clearly demonstrates why for just one verse in Isaiah there are three very old variations, the Masoretic, the Septuagint, and two others, also translations from the original Hebrew, all major changes. That is unless you claim that "destruction", "righteousness", a specific city name and "righteousness destined for destruction" all mean the same thing.,

And such is just one example, if one knows the texts, one can in many cases find it very easy to distinguish between a translation from the Septuagint, the Masoretic Text and the Syriac text as they differ so clearly. Clearly the word is being preserved intact. Want to try again?

Or how about NY verses where there is no debate on the words being used, but different translation can come up with totally different meanings depending what word one determines is the subject, and there are multiple eligible choices. Again, it is clear that the word is being preserved.

Or else, perhaps you and those you follow actively chose to deny that God grants humanity free will and thus the ability to tamper with the recorded word. God, and God alone, knows with certainty what His word is and just what He meant when He uttered it, fallible humans do not.
 
rewriter said:
Your argument clearly demonstrates why for just one verse in Isaiah there are three very old variations, the Masoretic, the Septuagint, and two others, also translations from the original Hebrew, all major changes. That is unless you claim that "destruction", "righteousness", a specific city name and "righteousness destined for destruction" all mean the same thing.,

And such is just one example, if one knows the texts, one can in many cases find it very easy to distinguish between a translation from the Septuagint, the Masoretic Text and the Syriac text as they differ so clearly. Clearly the word is being preserved intact. Want to try again?

Or how about NY verses where there is no debate on the words being used, but different translation can come up with totally different meanings depending what word one determines is the subject, and there are multiple eligible choices. Again, it is clear that the word is being preserved.

Or else, perhaps you and those you follow actively chose to deny that God grants humanity free will and thus the ability to tamper with the recorded word. God, and God alone, knows with certainty what His word is and just what He meant when He uttered it, fallible humans do not.
Click to expand...
You’re proving my point without realizing it. The moment you appeal to three ancient witnesses in Isaiah — Masoretic, Septuagint, and Syriac — and then point out that they differ, you are not demonstrating “preservation intact.”
You are demonstrating preservation through multiplicity, which is exactly what Scripture itself teaches and what textual‑skeptical linguistics denies.

The existence of variant readings is not evidence of corruption; it is evidence of God preserving His word across time, geography, languages, and scribal traditions so that no single human community, ideology, or fallible scribe becomes the sole gatekeeper of divine revelation. Variants are not a threat to preservation — they are the mechanism of preservation.
They prevent monopoly, not meaning.

Your argument assumes that differences in wording equal differences in meaning.
That is the core mistake of textual‑skeptical linguistics: it treats language as fragile, unstable, and incapable of carrying stable meaning across time.
But Scripture itself does not share that view.
Jesus and the apostles quoted the Septuagint freely, even when its wording differed from the Hebrew tradition, because the meaning was preserved even when the wording varied.
That alone destroys the claim that “different wording = different meaning.”

You also assume that if humans have free will, then they must have the ability to corrupt Scripture beyond recognition.
But that is not the biblical doctrine of free will — that is MFW, the modern philosophical system that elevates human autonomy above divine sovereignty.
Scripture teaches moral responsibility, not autonomous moral ability.
And Scripture teaches preservation, not textual fragility.
God does not hand His word to humanity and hope for the best.
He superintends its transmission, just as He superintends His redemptive plan.

Your final claim — “only God knows with certainty what His word is” — is the very essence of modern fallibilism.
It is the same system behind MFW: human fallibility becomes the controlling doctrine, not divine revelation. But Scripture never teaches that God’s word is ultimately unknowable. It teaches the opposite:
“Thy word is settled in heaven.” (Ps 119:89)
“My words shall not pass away.” (Matt 24:35)
“The Scripture cannot be broken.” (John 10:35)
If your system were true, Jesus could not say those things.
If your system were true, the apostles could not preach with certainty.
If your system were true, the prophets could not say, “Thus saith the LORD.”

Your position collapses into the very skepticism you deny: “We cannot know for sure.”
But the biblical position is the opposite: “We can know because God preserves.”

The variants you cite do not undermine preservation — they prove it.
The multiplicity of witnesses is how God prevents any one fallible human from controlling the text.
The stability of meaning across those witnesses is how God preserves revelation.
And the clarity of Scripture is how God ensures His people can know His word without bowing to modern fallibilism.

Your system elevates human uncertainty.
Scripture elevates divine preservation.

Those are not compatible.
 
OMC said:
You’re proving my point without realizing it. The moment you appeal to three ancient witnesses in Isaiah — Masoretic, Septuagint, and Syriac — and then point out that they differ, you are not demonstrating “preservation intact.”
You are demonstrating preservation through multiplicity, which is exactly what Scripture itself teaches and what textual‑skeptical linguistics denies.

The existence of variant readings is not evidence of corruption; it is evidence of God preserving His word across time, geography, languages, and scribal traditions so that no single human community, ideology, or fallible scribe becomes the sole gatekeeper of divine revelation. Variants are not a threat to preservation — they are the mechanism of preservation.
They prevent monopoly, not meaning.

Your argument assumes that differences in wording equal differences in meaning.
That is the core mistake of textual‑skeptical linguistics: it treats language as fragile, unstable, and incapable of carrying stable meaning across time.
But Scripture itself does not share that view.
Jesus and the apostles quoted the Septuagint freely, even when its wording differed from the Hebrew tradition, because the meaning was preserved even when the wording varied.
That alone destroys the claim that “different wording = different meaning.”

You also assume that if humans have free will, then they must have the ability to corrupt Scripture beyond recognition.
But that is not the biblical doctrine of free will — that is MFW, the modern philosophical system that elevates human autonomy above divine sovereignty.
Scripture teaches moral responsibility, not autonomous moral ability.
And Scripture teaches preservation, not textual fragility.
God does not hand His word to humanity and hope for the best.
He superintends its transmission, just as He superintends His redemptive plan.

Your final claim — “only God knows with certainty what His word is” — is the very essence of modern fallibilism.
It is the same system behind MFW: human fallibility becomes the controlling doctrine, not divine revelation. But Scripture never teaches that God’s word is ultimately unknowable. It teaches the opposite:
“Thy word is settled in heaven.” (Ps 119:89)
“My words shall not pass away.” (Matt 24:35)
“The Scripture cannot be broken.” (John 10:35)
If your system were true, Jesus could not say those things.
If your system were true, the apostles could not preach with certainty.
If your system were true, the prophets could not say, “Thus saith the LORD.”

Your position collapses into the very skepticism you deny: “We cannot know for sure.”
But the biblical position is the opposite: “We can know because God preserves.”

The variants you cite do not undermine preservation — they prove it.
The multiplicity of witnesses is how God prevents any one fallible human from controlling the text.
The stability of meaning across those witnesses is how God preserves revelation.
And the clarity of Scripture is how God ensures His people can know His word without bowing to modern fallibilism.

Your system elevates human uncertainty.
Scripture elevates divine preservation.

Those are not compatible.
Click to expand...
Actually, the meaning in the OT is often subjected to the concept of "pesher" when it gets cited in the NT. That is meaning/understanding is read into or inspired by the cited passage. Perhaps you have heard of the "Habakkuk Pesher" which has no clear connection to the OT book, unless you find references to Romans and Parthians present in the OT work. The virgin birth is another example. The term for "virgin" is possible to find in the Hebrew, but not necessary, and other surrounding details are clearly not met in the NT account, but ignoring such details and applying the concept of "pesher", it works beautifully.

The sometimes contradictory variations, only "prove" preservation of God's word if one assumes the preservation to begin with. Without that initial assumption, the contradictions indicate that humans chose to preserve things, but only as long as the preservation fit with their desires. That the scriptures reference as important specific lost works that could have been referenced at one time. is an indication that some things have clearly been lost.
 
GWH said:
My evidence is/are my CC threads. 📖
I am pleased when I see evidence people read those! 🧵🧵🧵
Click to expand...
I need photos of your actual Bible.
You know, the one you read in it's entirety and take to church.
 
OMC posted his.

Or hers (sorry I don't know your gender)

BTW what does OMC stand for

Or GWH for that matter.

OMC in NZ stands for 'Otara Millionaire's Club'
 
rewriter said:
Actually, the meaning in the OT is often subjected to the concept of "pesher" when it gets cited in the NT. That is meaning/understanding is read into or inspired by the cited passage. Perhaps you have heard of the "Habakkuk Pesher" which has no clear connection to the OT book, unless you find references to Romans and Parthians present in the OT work. The virgin birth is another example. The term for "virgin" is possible to find in the Hebrew, but not necessary, and other surrounding details are clearly not met in the NT account, but ignoring such details and applying the concept of "pesher", it works beautifully.

The sometimes contradictory variations, only "prove" preservation of God's word if one assumes the preservation to begin with. Without that initial assumption, the contradictions indicate that humans chose to preserve things, but only as long as the preservation fit with their desires. That the scriptures reference as important specific lost works that could have been referenced at one time. is an indication that some things have clearly been lost.
Click to expand...
Invoking “pesher” does not rescue your argument; it actually exposes its flaw.
Pesher is not a license to invent meaning — it is a Second‑Temple Jewish method of applying earlier Scripture to present circumstances, and the NT writers use it precisely because they believe the OT meaning is stable enough to be applied.
Your examples misunderstand both the method and the text.
The Habakkuk Pesher does not prove the OT is unclear; it proves that later communities saw the OT as authoritative and meaningful, not malleable. Likewise, the Isaiah 7:14 citation does not depend on forcing “virgin” into the Hebrew — Matthew quotes the Septuagint, which already uses parthenos, showing that preserved meaning across languages is sufficient for inspired application. Your claim that contradictions only “prove preservation if one assumes preservation” ignores the actual data: the NT authors freely quote the LXX, the MT, and Aramaic forms because the semantic core remains intact across witnesses.
That is preservation.
And your appeal to “lost works” misunderstands the difference between non‑canonical historical sources and preserved revelation. The existence of uninspired lost texts does not imply Scripture was lost; it simply shows that God preserved what He intended to preserve.
Your system assumes human fallibility is the controlling factor, so you conclude that meaning is unknowable unless God re‑reveals it. But Scripture itself teaches the opposite: God preserves His word through multiplicity, clarity, and inspired application — not through a single perfect manuscript line and not through the modern fallibilism you are importing into the discussion.
 
I know there are no perfect english written bibles but I use many of them when I study. Was raised on RSV version and still prefer it.

I would like to note that I have no problem with the 66 books but I know it is incomplete as 66 tells me it's a man's number, not a number God would chosen. IMO
 
  • Like
Reactions: rewriter
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back