Posted on 09/24/2018 11:46:46 AM PDT by OddLane
Many people charge the Bible with error. For example, GMS "Hebrew Israelite" leader "Elder" Tahar teaches the Apostle "James went off" in his use of Amos 9 in Acts 15 at the Jerusalem Council. Here are three reasons why Christians should believe Scripture is error free (inerrant).
Every single bible scholar I’ve ever read or listened to will tell you that every english translation of the bible has errors. It’s the lay people that only believe what they learned in VBS as children think they are error free.
And many of those people are small church pastors. I’ve had to deal with quite a few of them here in central KY since joining a southern gospel band that plays at lots of different chruches.
The amount of arrogant ignorance on the history and sources for our English translations is shocking.
When the Bible is in conflict with your teachings, revise the Bible.
When the Bible is in conflict with your teachings, revise the Bible.
There is an awesome podcast series called “The naked bible” with Michael Heis that is an excellent source for clarity.
The first English translation was banned.
The author of the second translation was charged with heresy and executed.
Foxe's Book of Martyrs had more pages than the New Testament.
Dunno man. The whole “Land of Nod” thing seems sketchy to me. If Adam and Eve were it - where did all the people in Nod come from?
Maybe you could explain that to me in understandable words.
How could they compare the English translations to the original manuscripts when the originals are not in existence? Stating it as above is a strawman ... we have thousands of manuscripts which are copies of copies ... but no original manuscripts are in existence.
I think where we differ is on our definition of “originals”.
What I mean by “originals” is what manuscripts were used as source text to translate into English.
The Bible is perfect. Bible translations and versions are not. To wit the KJV still contains Erasmus’ error in Revelation 22:19 (”book of life” instead of “tree of life”), Beza’s rewrite of Revelation 16:5, and depending on which version of the KJV Hebrews 10:23 (”faith” for elpis instead of the correct “hope”).
We know what these minor errors are and can correct them. None of them impact doctrine in any meaningful way (Rev 16:5 cannot be used by post-trib/pre-wrath rapture adherents).
The autographs were perfect. The apographs contain those errors which all textual transmissions are subject to — the human failings of copyists. Translations have both transmission and translation issues to content with. But there is enough “redundancy” in the transmissions to discover what is or is not correct in transmission or translation. There are thousands of ancient witnesses (manuscripts and fragments) which attest to the truth. The number dwarfs any other ancient document (By way of contrast Caesar’s Gallic commentary has only a handle full of witnesses).
It isn’t just ignorance. It is also the desire for certainty which blind men.
I would be interested in your definition for "error" also ...
Who are your list of scholars that claim every English translation has errors compared to the originals? Because at this point, with your own definition of original, your entire premise seems like your own musing.
big error in the KJV version is the sixth commandment, which properly translates to “Thou shalt not murder”, NOT “Thou shalt not kill”.
Hebrew, as English, has two verbs for the two concepts. King James got it wrong...
big error in the KJV version is the sixth commandment, which properly translates to “Thou shalt not murder”, NOT “Thou shalt not kill”.
Hebrew, as English, has two verbs for the two concepts. King James got it wrong...
“The whole ‘Land of Nod’ thing seems sketchy to me. If Adam and Eve were it - where did all the people in Nod come from? Maybe you could explain that to me in understandable words.”
Genesis was written by Moses. He would have referred to many places, bodies of water, etc. by the name they had during his own day.
Cities were often named after their founders. Similarly, patriarch names often became the name of a tribe or nation. So, often nations, cities, places, and people carried the same or similar names.
Adam lived for nearly a thousand years. He had Seth when he was 130. We do not know how old Cain was when he married, had children and grandchildren. We know that all of his posterity (through the male line) were destroyed in the flood. Able did not apparently ever get married and have children.
Cain and Seth married sisters who were “distant” relatives in their time / dispensation. We see, for example, even centuries later, Isaac’s sons were described as two nations. As humanity’s genes deteriorated over time, lifespans decreased and the need for genetic diversity increased. When people who are too closely related have children together, any genetic flaws that the parents share may be worsened or are more likely to be expressed and cause a disease.
Is there something else you are having trouble with?
Land of Nod is not necessarily the proper name of a place. There is a Jewish explanation that it is simply ‘the land of the wanderers’, with ‘the wanderers’ being Adam and Eve after they were expelled from the Garden.
???Where did the sisters come from if Adam and Eve were first issue items?
Waving a hand and saying they came form distant lands is confusing. They married their own sisters?
The Jewish explanation is that they were born with sisters for the purpose. Based on Psalm 89:3 “Forever will it be built with kindness...” referring to permission granted to the children of Adam so that the world become populated.
Traditional Jewish perspective on these kinds of questions can be found at:
http://www.askmoses.com/en/index.html
Not going down that rabbit hole.
As I study the roots of the various English translations and transliterations I’m fascinated by all the information that is out there, and how little of it is exposed to the lay-people. Many think it would just confuse them.
Forgive me for my incorrect use of the word “original” in a post I threw up between line items on a functional requirements document at work. :)
Textus Receptus [Received Text] versus discarded Westcott/Hort.
I have almost zero respect for the TR.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.