Why I support the inerrancy of Scripture!

[quietthinker]

There are no contradictions in Scripture! It may seem so but that is due to misunderstanding of what Scripture is saying. God cannot be wrong.

There are connections made which when it comes to the record we know as the Bible, are stretches....even inaccuracies.

For example;
1...The Word (Jesus) is equated with written text as if the text were God's word.
2...The text is worshiped as did the Jews .....while giving lip service to its substance, dismissing its principle.
3...The cultural paradigm of the Hebrews is assumed to reflect God's paradigm.

The written text requires interpreting in its context. Jesus counselled, 'be careful how you hear' Luke 18:18, Mark 4:24
....otherwise we make every jot and title mean what it does not.....ultimately inventing 'God's word' in our own image.

 

[Jay Ross]

God's promise to Israel was that they would be scattered for their disobedience, but that they would be restored when they returned to God in their hearts, in the tribulation of the latter days.

The gift and calling of God is without repentance.

Much love!

Mark that is another one of the message getting screwed up where the Hebrew word with the embedded Hebrew Root word H:0127 has been wrongly translated as "land" whereas the meaning of the Hebrew word wrongly translated actually means reddish soil. I am reminded that Jesus told the parable of the sower, and that the seed that falls onto good fertile soil will produce much seeds in the heads when it is ripe.

God is going to gather the Israelites to Himself and He will teach them about Christ and His foundation for the Mountain, i.e. religion, where they are scattered throughout the earth. God's gathering to Himself of the Israelites is conditional on Israel's repentance for their continual idolatrous worship of their fathers and their own idolatrous practices even during this present time.

The inerrancy of our translations require many repairs for us to begin to receive the original intended message content that can be found in the original language texts.

Shalom

 

[OzSpen]

re the dictionary...
the process of being mentally stimulated to do or feel something, especially to do something creative: Helen had one of her flashes of inspiration | the Malvern Hills have provided inspiration for many artists. • the quality of being inspired: a rare moment of inspiration in an otherwise dull display.

QT,

That is not what the Scripture means by "inspiration" and that's why I don't use the word in relation to Scripture.

Scripture is GOD-BREATHED (Gk theopneustos) (2 Tim 3:16).

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

There are no contradictions in Scripture! It may seem so but that is due to misunderstanding of what Scripture is saying. God cannot be wrong.

That is true, Jim. But translators are capable of wrongly translating a word, phrase and sentence or adding an incorrect nuance.

Oz

 

[quietthinker]

QT,

That is not what the Scripture means by "inspiration" and that's why I don't use the word in relation to Scripture.

Scripture is GOD-BREATHED (Gk theopneustos) (2 Tim 3:16).

Oz

It may well be yet understanding it with the fallen human mind also requires God breathing as well.....otherwise what is God breathed is turned into man breathed with minimal effort.

 

[Jim B]

Good communication can be defined as the transmission of a message where the intended message within the author's words is received by the listener or reader who then comes to the same understanding as the author of the content of the message that the author intended within the transmission of the message sent.

When we consider the inerrancy of the scriptures that we use today, we have to ask ourselves if the various translations that many hold as being "infallible" are indeed, "infallible" or do our various "translations" transmit a very different message and context from the message and context of the original source texts? From my study of the translations with respect to the available original source text or accurate copies of those texts, I have come to the understanding that our various "translations'" accuracy of the original message and context is sadly lacking.

Let me give an example. H:5769, with the Strong definition of: -

View attachment 21194

is usually translated as "forever" where "forever" suggests and infinite time period which has no end, where as the understanding of H:5769 suggests a finite period of time where there is an end point for that time period which man is not able to comprehend.

Let me show an example of this which is in Genesis 13: - 14-17 where I show my paraphrasing of the paragraph where the Hebrew Root word H:5760 is found embedded within a Hebrew word: -

View attachment 21196

Please note that the time period ended in AD 70 when the Roman Empire sacked Jerusalem, destroyed the Temple and caused the Israelites to be scattered to the four corners of the earth and Israel no longer had possession of any part of that land.

The message context of the available Hebrew texts has be considerably altered to convey a very different meaning that had become the traditional understanding of the Israelites, even right up to this present time period.

The message given in the translations was that Abraham also received this entity of the earth that he had seen as a possession as well, but Stephen in Acts 7 said that Abraham had not received are portion of the "promised" land as a possession on which he could rest his feet. The Sanhedrin that were judging Stephen for his "crime" of Preaching Jesus, did not disagree with him on this point.

The translations that we rely on today are not a faithful transcribing of the Hebrew or Greek texts into our English translations that we rely on to give us the full picture of God's words to us today.

Shalom

What do you suggest as an alternative? Should we all become experts in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek? Even if that was the case, what about the understanding of the culture, folkways, and mores of those ancient societies? Are we to project ourselves thousands of years into the past to understand the mindset of the people who lived during the times (plural) when the Bible "books" were written?

We have a vast array of translations that make bona fide attempts to translate the ancient texts (which differ among themselves) into modern English, giving us the clearest understanding of what those texts both say and mean. So your final statement makes no sense.

 

[theefaith]

Yes the word of God is inerrant

but is it limited to scripture?

God breathed!
The apostles are also without error cos they are God breathed!

do you believe in the virgin birth?
Isa 7:14
How do you explain Jn 1:45?

 

[Jay Ross]

What do you suggest as an alternative? Should we all become experts in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek? Even if that was the case, what about the understanding of the culture, folkways, and mores of those ancient societies? Are we to project ourselves thousands of years into the past to understand the mindset of the people who lived during the times (plural) when the Bible "books" were written?

We have a vast array of translations that make bona fide attempts to translate the ancient texts (which differ among themselves) into modern English, giving us the clearest understanding of what those texts both say and mean. So your final statement makes no sense.

Jim, because we have a vast array of translations which differ among themselves, we should be studying the ancient texts and the message context of the original text to verify for ourselves whether or not the message context of our modern translations is conveying the same message content as the original ancient texts from which they were translated. Blindly accepting that the translator have faithfully translated the original message context of the Hebrew or Greek Text into our English Translations is an error in and of itself.

Even the LXX has context errors in it from the Hebrew texts that it was translated from. That is because all of the "scholars" that worked on the LXX translation had been trained in the same traditional understanding of the Hebrew religious texts, such that even their understanding of the original message context had become corrupted and this corrupt understanding was reflected in the 70 Greek translation that came to be known as the LXX

You have read Chinese English translations in "instruction documentation" for things that have been manufactured in China. They often give us a giggle in the way they have translated their Chinese Language instructions into our English Language. Just consider the English Language, it has many variation in it that create problems between areas where the same objects are given different "names" in separate regions even in the same nation let alone between different nations.

For translations to be effective we have to have consistent Meta Data between the source creators of a text and the readers of the transmitted message between the source creators and the readers such that the reader of the transmitted message come to the same understanding of the created message from God as God intended it to be understood.

I gave a few examples of errors that I have discovered for myself. I am no language expert, but careful consideration of the language of both the original texts and the English translations will reveal those errors.

The biggest problem is that people do not like change and so the owners of the various translators have to slowly introduce the corrections into their later translations. Sadly this slow change of supposed corrections also allow for more errors to be introduced into our "precious" English Translations.

We readily do need the Holy Spirit to prompt us to dig deeper into what is presented as a "faithful translation" to verify that translations has been faithful in the section that the Holy Spirit prompts us to check.

The problem that we have today that there are many counterfeit spirits that prompt us into error.

Shalom

 

[Jim B]

Jim, because we have a vast array of translations which differ among themselves, we should be studying the ancient texts and the message context of the original text to verify for ourselves whether or not the message context of our modern translations is conveying the same message content as the original ancient texts from which they were translated. Blindly accepting that the translator have faithfully translated the original message context of the Hebrew or Greek Text into our English Translations is an error in and of itself.

Even the LXX has context errors in it from the Hebrew texts that it was translated from. That is because all of the "scholars" that worked on the LXX translation had been trained in the same traditional understanding of the Hebrew religious texts, such that even their understanding of the original message context had become corrupted and this corrupt understanding was reflected in the 70 Greek translation that came to be known as the LXX

You have read Chinese English translations in "instruction documentation" for things that have been manufactured in China. They often give us a giggle in the way they have translated their Chinese Language instructions into our English Language. Just consider the English Language, it has many variation in it that create problems between areas where the same objects are given different "names" in separate regions even in the same nation let alone between different nations.

For translations to be effective we have to have consistent Meta Data between the source creators of a text and the readers of the transmitted message between the source creators and the readers such that the reader of the transmitted message come to the same understanding of the created message from God as God intended it to be understood.

I gave a few examples of errors that I have discovered for myself. I am no language expert, but careful consideration of the language of both the original texts and the English translations will reveal those errors.

The biggest problem is that people do not like change and so the owners of the various translators have to slowly introduce the corrections into their later translations. Sadly this slow change of supposed corrections also allow for more errors to be introduced into our "precious" English Translations.

We readily do need the Holy Spirit to prompt us to dig deeper into what is presented as a "faithful translation" to verify that translations has been faithful in the section that the Holy Spirit prompts us to check.

The problem that we have today that there are many counterfeit spirits that prompt us into error.

Shalom

You wrote "I am no language expert", therefore why should I give your opinion more weight than that of professional academic translators and others who are language experts?

When you write the purely subjective opinion that "the biggest problem is that people do not like change and so the owners of the various translators have to slowly introduce the corrections into their later translations. Sadly this slow change of supposed corrections also allow for more errors to be introduced into our "precious" English Translations" with no basis, I can't consider your reasoning as valid. There is no evidence that "this slow change of supposed corrections also allow for more errors to be introduced into our "precious" English Translations" with no basis". None. In fact, quite the contrary is true. As knowledge and technique increase, modifications are made accordingly.

BTW, your obvious sarcasm doesn't do anything to bolster your argument. In fact, it weakens any point you're trying to make.

Your obvious prejudice is apparent.

 

[Enoch111]

Wasn't it written from a collection of your own thoughts cradled in a western mindset? (maybe Grecian)

Since OzSpen is Aussie it could not possibly be Grecian. Maybe Polynesian.

Back to the subject. The original manuscripts were inspired, therefore the Bible is inerrant and infallible. As to English Bible translations, the only faithful and reliable translation today is the King James 1611 Bible (the Authorized Version). All other modern English translations are based upon corrupted Hebrew and Greek texts.

 

[quietthinker]

Since OzSpen is Aussie it could not possibly be Grecian. Maybe Polynesian.

Back to the subject. The original manuscripts were inspired, therefore the Bible is inerrant and infallible. As to English Bible translations, the only faithful and reliable translation today is the King James 1611 Bible (the Authorized Version). All other modern English translations are based upon corrupted Hebrew and Greek texts.

It appears you are not a second language speaker Enoch!

 

[Enoch111]

It appears you are not a second language speaker Enoch!

If you are suggesting that there are no translations in foreign languages equivalent to the King James Bible kindly go to the Trinitarian Bible Society website.

 

[quietthinker]

If you are suggesting that there are no translations in foreign languages equivalent to the King James Bible kindly go to the Trinitarian Bible Society website.

What I said Enoch is a statement. If I am in error re your ability to speak a second language, say so.....don't decoy!

 

[Jay Ross]

You wrote "I am no language expert", therefore why should I give your opinion more weight than that of professional academic translators and others who are language experts?

When you write the purely subjective opinion that "the biggest problem is that people do not like change and so the owners of the various translators have to slowly introduce the corrections into their later translations. Sadly this slow change of supposed corrections also allow for more errors to be introduced into our "precious" English Translations" with no basis, I can't consider your reasoning as valid. There is no evidence that "this slow change of supposed corrections also allow for more errors to be introduced into our "precious" English Translations" with no basis". None. In fact, quite the contrary is true. As knowledge and technique increase, modifications are made accordingly.

BTW, your obvious sarcasm doesn't do anything to bolster your argument. In fact, it weakens any point you're trying to make.

Your obvious prejudice is apparent.

Dear Jim, (sarcasm)

It is obvious that you have a very different Metadata for the "English" you read and speak as shown with your rebuttal of my post from my Metadata of the English Language

Your rebuttal relied on the attacking of the person rather than of the content of what was written by myself. This is a false argument technique as it relies on putting the person down to win the discussion/disagreement.

I have spent many years in designing a system by which data can be transmitted from one system to another and for that to be successful the Metadata in both systems has to be identical with respect to the spelling of words, their precise meanings, the way the words are strung together and the encompassing grammar and punctuation.

Now, there is often miss communication between American and other nations that use the English Language as their main means of communication because the Metadata has not been normalised between the author and the receiver of any communications.

My experience is that unless people are prepared to learn, then their communication with others will be poor, because they end up speaking at, rather than with people. This has certainly been the case with many "missionaries," communicating "cross" culturally.

From what you have said in your last response to my posts, this conversation is ended as it cannot progress beyond your firm opinions on the infallibility of the English Translations that people frequently describe as God's Bible.

Shalom

 

[Jim B]

Dear Jim, (sarcasm)

It is obvious that you have a very different Mata Data for the "English" you read and speak as shown with your rebuttal of my post from my Meta Data of the English Language

Your rebuttal relied on the attacking of the person rather than of the content of what was written by myself. This is a false argument technique as it relies on putting the person down to win the discussion/disagreement.

I have spent many years in designing system by which data can be transmitted from one system to another and for that to be successful the meta data in both systems has to be identical with respect to the spelling of words, their precise meanings, the way the words are strung together and the encompassing grammar and punctuation.

Now, there is often miss communication between American and other nations that use the English Language as their main means of communication because the Meta Data has not been normalised between the author and the receive of any communications.

My experience is that unless people are prepared to learn, then their communication with others will be poor, because they end up speaking at rather than with people. This has certainly been the case with many "missionaries," communicating "cross" culturally.

From what you have said in your last response to my posts, this conversation is ended as it cannot progress beyond your firm opinions on the infallibility of the English Translations that people frequently describe as God's Bible.

Shalom

From what you have said in this response to my posts, this conversation is ended as it cannot progress beyond your firm opinions on the fallibility of the English Translations that people frequently describe as God's Bible.

P.S. There is no such thing as "Mata Data" (your words). The term is "metadata".
P.P.S. "there is often miss communication" is poor English, as is "the receive of any communications"
P.P.S. My experience is that unless people are prepared to learn, then their communication with others will be poor.

I was in data processing for many years, including supervisory work. I would fire you for your carelessness.

 

[Enoch111]

What I said Enoch is a statement. If I am in error re your ability to speak a second language, say so.....don't decoy!

As a matter of fact I speak just English.

 

[quietthinker]

As a matter of fact I speak just English.

I thought so....and its the factor in not understanding how other language structures are formulated......therefore you make a big deal about KJV as if it was the only translation that pursued intent accurately!

 

[Enoch111]

...therefore you make a big deal about KJV as if it was the only translation that pursued intent accurately!

No, that is not the reason I make it a big deal of it. God says "What is the chaff to the wheat?" (Jer 23:28) and it is all about separating the chaff from the wheat, and the uncorrupt from the corrupt.

 

[quietthinker]

No, that is not the reason I make it a big deal of it. God says "What is the chaff to the wheat?" (Jer 23:28) and it is all about separating the chaff from the wheat, and the uncorrupt from the corrupt.

You don't know what you don't know Enoch....yet you speak proudly as if you do!

 

[Enoch111]

You don't know what you don't know Enoch....yet you speak proudly as if you do!

There's a big difference between speaking proudly and speaking knowledgeably. Since I have done my due diligence, I can speak with confidence. And you should appreciate that.