Are our English translations of the Bible, the inspired and inerrant Word of God?

[St. SteVen]

This strikes at the origins of the Bible, the work of Bible translation, and doctrines about the English translations of the Bible.

- What do the origins of the Bible tell us? See link below.
- What does the work of Bible translation tell us? (Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus)
- Does the number of English translations indicate doctrinal bias?
- Does the history of English translations indicate doctrinal bias?
- Does English translation bias support inspiration? (every word)
- Does English translation bias support inerrancy? (every word)

Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus - Textual Criticism 101 - Berean Patriot

There are three major competing Greek sources to use for translating the New Testament: the Critical Text, the Majority Text, and the Textus Receptus. The science of assembling these manuscripts is called “Textual Criticism”, and you can consider this a complete Textual Criticism 101 article...

www.bereanpatriot.com

 

[HealthyShape]

Today's bibles are translations of compilations of copies. I do not see any need to venture into extremism/fanaticism or to create artificial dogmas.

I believe key Christian places have been preserved well enough in Greek and translated sufficiently in the majority of translations. I do not think all random places you can blindly open in a random Bible translation have been perfectly preserved or translated, though.

 

[St. SteVen]

Here's a recent topic by @Chrysostomos that explores some specific issues.

Most Likely, You’ve Never Read the True Bible in English

Have you ever questioned the accuracy of your English Bible? Most popular translations of the Old Testament, like the King James Version (KJV), New International Version (NIV), and English Standard Version (ESV), are based on the Masoretic Text (MT), a Hebrew version of the Tanakh (the Jewish...

www.christianityboard.com

 

[Jack]

This strikes at the origins of the Bible, the work of Bible translation, and doctrines about the English translations of the Bible.

- What do the origins of the Bible tell us? See link below.
- What does the work of Bible translation tell us? (Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus)
- Does the number of English translations indicate doctrinal bias?
- Does the history of English translations indicate doctrinal bias?
- Does English translation bias support inspiration? (every word)
- Does English translation bias support inerrancy? (every word)

Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus - Textual Criticism 101 - Berean Patriot

There are three major competing Greek sources to use for translating the New Testament: the Critical Text, the Majority Text, and the Textus Receptus. The science of assembling these manuscripts is called “Textual Criticism”, and you can consider this a complete Textual Criticism 101 article...

www.bereanpatriot.com

If STV would look under his nose he would see the Bible coming to pass, despite his constant Bible attacks.

 

[Deborah_]

This strikes at the origins of the Bible, the work of Bible translation, and doctrines about the English translations of the Bible.

- What do the origins of the Bible tell us? See link below.
- What does the work of Bible translation tell us? (Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus)
- Does the number of English translations indicate doctrinal bias?
- Does the history of English translations indicate doctrinal bias?
- Does English translation bias support inspiration? (every word)
- Does English translation bias support inerrancy? (every word)

Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus - Textual Criticism 101 - Berean Patriot

There are three major competing Greek sources to use for translating the New Testament: the Critical Text, the Majority Text, and the Textus Receptus. The science of assembling these manuscripts is called “Textual Criticism”, and you can consider this a complete Textual Criticism 101 article...

www.bereanpatriot.com

Despite the insistence of the KJV-only brigade, there is no doctrinal difference between the various manuscript traditions. Very few churches in the UK still use the KJV or NKJV, but the gospel carries on unchanged.

Does the number of English translations indicate doctrinal bias? Well, some of them may be biased, but most of the differences are in style rather than substance. Some people prefer "literal" translations, others prefer more readable ones. That's purely a matter of taste (or maybe level of education). Personally, I think the number of English translations is more a reflection of the wealth and resources of the English-speaking churches (in the USA, Canada and Australasia, as well as the UK - that's a lot of rich countries). Add to that the habits that our Western culture has developed of expecting limitless choice in everything: we all want a translation that appeals to our own personal preferences, and if a market exists then producers will respond to it.

I'm not sure what you mean by your last two questions. No translation from one language into another can ever be exact, because many words and concepts don't have exact equivalents. One simply endeavours to get as close a correspondence as possible. The interesting thing is that God continues speaking through all translations - even, sometimes, through those that we would consider questionable. (The New World Translation, for example, is downright heretical from an orthodox Christian point of view - yet I've heard of people getting converted through reading it) Don't underestimate the Holy Spirit!

 

[Jack]

I'm a Literalist. Jesus is God and Hell Fire is FOREVER!

 

[St. SteVen]

I'm not sure what you mean by your last two questions. No translation from one language into another can ever be exact, because many words and concepts don't have exact equivalents. One simply endeavours to get as close a correspondence as possible. The interesting thing is that God continues speaking through all translations - even, sometimes, through those that we would consider questionable. (The New World Translation, for example, is downright heretical from an orthodox Christian point of view - yet I've heard of people getting converted through reading it) Don't underestimate the Holy Spirit!

Good post, thanks.
My last two questions challenge the claims many churches make about the Bible.
Claiming that EVERY word of an English translation of the Bible is both inspired and inerrant.

 

[Jack]

Good post, thanks.
My last two questions challenge the claims many churches make about the Bible.
Claiming that EVERY word of an English translation of the Bible is both inspired and inerrant.

Do you believe the Bible is God's Word? No? You will!

Matthew 13:49-50
49 So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come forth, separate the wicked from among the just,
50 and cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth."

 

[Windmill Charge]

Claiming that EVERY word of an English translation of the Bible is both inspired and inerrant.

Do preacher still do that?

I~ can remember preachers brandishing a bible and proclaiming its true every word from cover to cover, God breathed etc etc.

I can also remember the same preacher in a bible study admitting that the forward, notes, chapters and verses were not God breathed.


This boils down to how does one know what Gods word is and how does one trust it ?

You don't like many parts of the bible, based on how you judge them.

You question Gods right as creator to set rules and to judge all of his creation.

 

[St. SteVen]

Do preacher still do that?

I~ can remember preachers brandishing a bible and proclaiming its true every word from cover to cover, God breathed etc etc.

Yes.
Some have backed away from such declarations.

This boils down to how does one know what Gods word is and how does one trust it ?

We need to learn how to hear and discern God's voice.
A printed Bible is a crutch. We make assumptions about it that we shouldn't.
God is always speaking. Sometimes He uses the Bible.

You don't like many parts of the bible, based on how you judge them.

You question Gods right as creator to set rules and to judge all of his creation.

I have questions. That's all.
No, I question what the church claims about God.
What amounts to character assassination to me.

 

[Windmill Charge]

We need to learn how to hear and discern God's voice.
A printed Bible is a crutch. We make assumptions about it that we shouldn't.
God is always speaking. Sometimes He uses the Bible.

Without the bible we have no way of checking who is actually listening to God and who isn't.

 

[St. SteVen]

Without the bible we have no way of checking who is actually listening to God and who isn't.

I know what you mean, but...
This shows how far away we have gone in our relationship with God.
When He speaks we have to check a book for authenticity.

 

[ScottA]

This strikes at the origins of the Bible, the work of Bible translation, and doctrines about the English translations of the Bible.

- What do the origins of the Bible tell us? See link below.
- What does the work of Bible translation tell us? (Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus)
- Does the number of English translations indicate doctrinal bias?
- Does the history of English translations indicate doctrinal bias?
- Does English translation bias support inspiration? (every word)
- Does English translation bias support inerrancy? (every word)

Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus - Textual Criticism 101 - Berean Patriot

There are three major competing Greek sources to use for translating the New Testament: the Critical Text, the Majority Text, and the Textus Receptus. The science of assembling these manuscripts is called “Textual Criticism”, and you can consider this a complete Textual Criticism 101 article...

www.bereanpatriot.com

All good questions, however the Bible in any form or translation should not be considered a literary work.

The word of God is spirit and we get into trouble and loose understanding when we see it as a literary work and try to define what is written on that basis. Translations can certainly make for an even greater lose of understanding--but not always--God is still in control of His word and what men do with it. We need to remember that He "is working all things together for good for those who love Him according to His purpose." "All things." Including the multitude of would-be biblical translations of scripture.

For example: There is a thread now here on the forum burning intensely with oppositions about the recent rebirth of the flat earth theory. That's the kind of mess we make with translations. We. But God is still working it all things for good according to His own purpose. In the ancient world we did not have all the tools to evaluate such a huge matter, or the ability to propagate what is true and what is false. Which men do. But now, so much more is possible, and also going on everyday at that greater level. But it still depends on who and what one believes. God on the other had--with the increase--is not doing the same as during simpler times, but more also. Not that He is not the same--He is--He just has more to work with.​

For instance, the Hebrew word for "sun" is "shemesh" and the Hebrew word for "son" is "ben." While today--today in these crazy complicated times of cinema photography, power point presentations, scholarly science, and dumbing down--in English--English translations, "Sun" and "Son" are nearly the same, so that even a child might look upon or even confuse the center of our solar system with the Center of God's creation. Is that "good?" It is!​

If there were no purpose of God in all things--they would not exist.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

This strikes at the origins of the Bible, the work of Bible translation, and doctrines about the English translations of the Bible.

- What do the origins of the Bible tell us? See link below.
- What does the work of Bible translation tell us? (Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus)
- Does the number of English translations indicate doctrinal bias?
- Does the history of English translations indicate doctrinal bias?
- Does English translation bias support inspiration? (every word)
- Does English translation bias support inerrancy? (every word)

Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus - Textual Criticism 101 - Berean Patriot

There are three major competing Greek sources to use for translating the New Testament: the Critical Text, the Majority Text, and the Textus Receptus. The science of assembling these manuscripts is called “Textual Criticism”, and you can consider this a complete Textual Criticism 101 article...

www.bereanpatriot.com

The only infallible inerrant Scriptures are the original autographs in their original tongues and all faithful copies of them. The errors in modern translation are not doctrinal errors (except for those bibles intentionally heretical) but more how impactful the words are. Anytime you translate from one language to another, things get "waterd down" a bit due to going from one language to another.

 

[St. SteVen]

The only infallible inerrant Scriptures are the original autographs in their original tongues and all faithful copies of them.

Agree, sort of.
You understand that the original autographs no longer exist, correct?
The copies of copies of copies of copies that we do have are full of textual variants.

Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus - Textual Criticism 101 - Berean Patriot

There are three major competing Greek sources to use for translating the New Testament: the Critical Text, the Majority Text, and the Textus Receptus. The science of assembling these manuscripts is called “Textual Criticism”, and you can consider this a complete Textual Criticism 101 article...

www.bereanpatriot.com

 

[Jack]

All these Bible doubters/attackers don't know enough about the Bible to see that Hell Fire is stalking them! Dead ahead!

 

[rvmb]

All these Bible doubters/attackers don't know enough about the Bible to see that Hell Fire is stalking them! Dead ahead!

My preference has and continues to be , the sometimes hard to understand KJV and with good reason :)
These UNIQUE code patterns are found ONLY in the KJV
Here is just a VERY SMALL example :)

KJV Code

kjvcode.com

 

[Chihuahua]

This strikes at the origins of the Bible, the work of Bible translation, and doctrines about the English translations of the Bible.

- What do the origins of the Bible tell us? See link below.
- What does the work of Bible translation tell us? (Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus)
- Does the number of English translations indicate doctrinal bias?
- Does the history of English translations indicate doctrinal bias?
- Does English translation bias support inspiration? (every word)
- Does English translation bias support inerrancy? (every word)

Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus - Textual Criticism 101 - Berean Patriot

There are three major competing Greek sources to use for translating the New Testament: the Critical Text, the Majority Text, and the Textus Receptus. The science of assembling these manuscripts is called “Textual Criticism”, and you can consider this a complete Textual Criticism 101 article...

www.bereanpatriot.com

Bereanpatriot.com - right away you know everything is on the up and up.
"In English the indefinite article “a” gets an “n” added when the next word starts with a vowel. For example:

• “This is a book.”
• “This is an owl.”

Greek applies this rule more frequently, and that’s the most common textual variant. Does it matter much if Paul wrote “a owl” vs “an “owl”? Exactly. It simply doesn’t matter to the meaning. In fact, this Textual Variant (movable Nu) is the single most common Textual Variant."

This guy knows his stuff. I am so stupid I thought Koine Greek lacked indefinite articles.

 

[rvmb]

Despite the insistence of the KJV-only brigade, there is no doctrinal difference between the various manuscript traditions. Very few churches in the UK still use the KJV or NKJV, but the gospel carries on unchanged.

Does the number of English translations indicate doctrinal bias? Well, some of them may be biased, but most of the differences are in style rather than substance. Some people prefer "literal" translations, others prefer more readable ones. That's purely a matter of taste (or maybe level of education). Personally, I think the number of English translations is more a reflection of the wealth and resources of the English-speaking churches (in the USA, Canada and Australasia, as well as the UK - that's a lot of rich countries). Add to that the habits that our Western culture has developed of expecting limitless choice in everything: we all want a translation that appeals to our own personal preferences, and if a market exists then producers will respond to it.

I'm not sure what you mean by your last two questions. No translation from one language into another can ever be exact, because many words and concepts don't have exact equivalents. One simply endeavours to get as close a correspondence as possible. The interesting thing is that God continues speaking through all translations - even, sometimes, through those that we would consider questionable. (The New World Translation, for example, is downright heretical from an orthodox Christian point of view - yet I've heard of people getting converted through reading it) Don't underestimate the Holy Spirit!

but the gospel carries on unchanged.
No attempts by newer Bibles to alter important teachings ?
Compare Gal 2:7 of ALL old Bibles KJV & before to many of the newer translations
What difference do you see ?
Hint OF versus TO & FOR - notice anything wrong ???
.

New Living Translation Instead, they saw that God had given me the responsibility of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as he had given Peter the responsibility of preaching to the Jews. Berean Study Bible On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted to preach the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. New American Standard Bible But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised NASB 1995 But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised NET Bible On the contrary, when they saw that I was entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised just as Peter was to the circumcised Classic Translations King James Bible But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; American King James Version But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to me, as the gospel of the circumcision was to Peter; American Standard Version but contrariwise, when they saw that I had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with the gospel of the circumcision A Faithful Version But on the contrary, after seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, exactly as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel of the circumcision; Darby Bible Translation but, on the contrary, seeing that the glad tidings of the uncircumcision were confided to me, even as to Peter that of the circumcision, English Revised Version but contrariwise, when they saw that I had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with the gospel of the circumcision Webster's Bible Translation But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to me, as the gospel of the circumcision was to Peter; Early Modern Geneva Bible of 1587 But contrariwise, when they saw that ye Gospel ouer ye vncircumcision was comitted vnto me, as the Gospel ouer ye circumcision was vnto Peter: Bishops' Bible of 1568 But contrary wyse, when they sawe that the Gospell of the vncircumcision was committed vnto me, as the Gospel of the circumcision was committed vnto Peter. Coverdale Bible of 1535 but contrary wyse, whan they sawe that the Gospell ouer the vncircumcision was comytted vnto me, as ye Gospell ouer ye circucision was commytted vnto Peter. Tyndale Bible of 1526 But contrary wyse when they sawe that the gospell over the vncircumcision was comitted vnto me as the gospell over ye circucision was vnto Peter: Literal Translations Literal Standard Version but on the contrary, having seen that I have been entrusted with the good news of the uncircumcision, as Peter with [that] of the circumcision, Berean Literal Bible But on the contrary, having seen that I have been entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision just as Peter of the circumcision-- Young's Literal Translation but, on the contrary, having seen that I have been entrusted with the good news of the uncircumcision, as Peter with that of the circumcision, Smith's Literal Translation But on the contrary, having seen that I have been entrusted with the good news of uncircumcision, as Peter of circumcision; Literal Emphasis Translation But rather on the contrary, having seen that I have been entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, just as Peter with that of the circumcision- Catholic Translations Douay-Rheims Bible But contrariwise, when they had seen that to me was committed the gospel of the uncircumcision, as to Peter was that of the circumcision. Catholic Public Domain Version But it was to the contrary, since they had seen that the Gospel to the uncircumcised was entrusted to me, just as the Gospel to the circumcised was entrusted to Peter. Translations from Aramaic Aramaic Bible in Plain English But on the contrary, for they saw that I was entrusted with The Gospel of uncircumcision as Kaypha was entrusted with the circumcision. Lamsa Bible But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was entrusted to me, as the gospel of the circumcision was entrusted to Peter, NT Translations Anderson New Testament but; on the other hand, seeing that I was intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, as Peter was with that of the circumcision, Godbey New Testament but on the contrary, seeing that I am intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, like Peter of the circumcision, Haweis New Testament but contrariwise when they saw that I was entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcision, as Peter was to the circumcision: Mace New Testament on the contrary, when they perceived that I had the province of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, as Peter had that of preaching it to the Jews, Weymouth New Testament Indeed, when they saw that I was entrusted with the preaching of the Good News to the Gentiles as Peter had been with that to the Jews-- Worrell New Testament but, on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the Gospel of the uncircumcision, as Peter was with that of the circumcision; Worsley New Testament But on the contrary, seeing that I was intrusted with the gospel of uncircumcision, as Peter was with that of the circumcision; ​

 

[Chihuahua]

but the gospel carries on unchanged.
No attempts by newer Bibles to alter important teachings ?
Compare Gal 2:7 of ALL old Bibles KJV & before to many of the newer translations
What difference do you see ?
Hint OF versus TO & FOR - notice anything wrong ???
.

​

​ ​

No.
I don't see an issue. No important teaching has changed.
The book is to the boy is the same as the book is of the boy.