Question for Literalist Christians part deux?

Question

In my previous question, I asked why God would allow different English versions of the Bible if the Word is perfect (which doesn't make sense since they can convey different meanings). I was told that man was responsible for the translations and errors.

Was man not responsible for writing , editing, and compiling the bible from the very beginning? If man has the power to be innaccurate of God's word now, what makes you think man didn't back then? Isn't man sinful and selfish? Also the government (the Catholic Church) was in charge of the bible for many centuries, I think over a millenia. Do you think it's impossible they had ulterior motives to control the people and make changes?

Also, I was told the King James Version was the best, but I have also heard criticism that it was not a very good translation.

How would you respond?

** Please note, for sake of argument I'll say God's Word was perfect to begin with before it got to man**

Answer 1

what an interesting and reasonable position! somewhere there must be innaccurate translations, maybe everywhere. anyone who denies this is insane. it's not an insult, just true.

Answer 2

Why would God be against translations in the first place? God has no fixation with the Hebrew or Greek language nor is He limited to knowing those languages, including Aramaic.



Indeed man is responsible for the translation and the copy/translation errors. This is the subject of textual criticism. And it is a good thing that we have a problem of abundance with regards to translations. With many people taking the time to learn Hebrew and Greek and being involved in translation work there are more checks and balances than ever before. So if you avail yourself to a good selection of Bible translations you won't go far off.



The KJV is a good translation based on the Textus Receptus. The only gripe is its antiquated language which can take some time to adjust to. The criticism people have on it is that the KJV is only translated from a dozen of manuscripts that are late. Still, whether using the TR or the critical texts the difference is less than 2%!

Answer 3

The initial incorporation of the Bible into writing was by men under the direct inspiration of God's Holy Spirit [Devine inspiration] . The Bible through time was not to be left untouched by men, as there are some errors, deletions, and some words added to it . Over all though, the Bible remains quite accurate - especially with the advent Dead Sea Scrolls to compare with. The reason for different meanings being conveyed, is attributed to the fact, that the various translations are translated directly from the original Greek in reference to the New Testament. The Greek language has phrases which are very difficult to translate into English; therefore, the meanings are somewhat, vague in places. You are correct in your deduction about man tampering with scripture - especially with Satan around to push their "buttons". Yes; the Catholic Church did have control over the Bible writings, as Monks formed the compiling of the parchments into Books re: Latin Vulgate. Overall, the King James Version offers a more poetic language appeal and is a complete translation but has the Old English approach re: " a woman reaching the flower of her age" for example. This can offer a vagueness to its interpretation. All in all, you can feel assured that the Bible has come out for the most part, very accurate and its contents can be trusted to be employed as a tool to make one "wise unto salvation" .

Answer 4

the KJ version is not a very accurate translation, Gods name has been removed from all but 3 or 4 places it occurs over 7000 times through out the bible, I use the kingdom interlinear bible as well as the new world translation, the good news and the American standard version all are in modern English



the new world translation is a translation from the earliest parchments and as such is a very accurate translation.



as for it being penned by men, yes there were over 40 writers of the bible but these writers were inspired of God the same way a Secretary would type a letter for her employer.



the bible is Gods word not mans and as such is perfect

Answer 5

The King James version is a very beautifully written translation . . . in Middle English . . .not Modern English.



Although people spoke modern English in 1611, and had spoken than language for several hundred years years, poetry and religious works were still written in Middle English.



The Bible is both poetry and a religious work.



Language changes and the newer versions reflect the changes in language. The Bible is the most accurately translated ancient text in the world.

Answer 6

You observations are incorrect. Only the original manuscripts by the authors themselves are the perfect translations of God's revelations.



To learn how the books of the bible came to be assembled as such see: http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/canons.stm



Catholic and Episcopal bibles have the same number of canonical books. The Catholic and Episcopal bible also includes some non-canonical books, grouped as the Apocrypha.



Many versions of the bible existed before the King James and the advent of mass printing.

See: http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/



For an analysis of the various translations of the bible see:

http://faith.propadeutic.com/questions.html



For accurate translations of the bible at the literal level use the NASB or ESV translations.



If you run across what you think is a biblical contradiction, please study the two sites' content below for a comprehensive list of so-called biblical contradictions.



http://kingdavid8.com/Contradictions/Home.html

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm



Accuracy of bible:

http://www.carm.org/questions/trustbible.htm

http://www.carm.org/demo2/bible/reliable.htm

Answer 7

If you look at the message conveyed in all the translations you will find one God, one Jesus, one way of salvation (the Cross), one church, one way to live (obedience) and one consummation of all things. God oversees His Word to get you the message intact so you won't miss heaven. The KJV has one or two minor words that, in our modern understanding of language, might have been translated a little better for modern understanding. But it does not impact the basic meaning. The closer you are to the time of the original language, the more accurate you are in "nuances" of words because of the nature of language being "fluid." For instance, there was a time not so long ago when the word "gay" simply meant happy and had no other meaning associated with it. Not so in our day. Translations try to take those kinds of issues into account with word meanings - while still conveying an undiluted and true message. That is one reason I trust the KJV so much. It was 1611 and the first English translation meant for the masses and carefully "researched" from all available "originals." They were far closer to the "original" word meanings in their day than we are in ours. I think man has a "bent" toward sin (even the "saved") but I believe the majority of them tried very hard to keep the records "pure." I also believe in God's ability to protect His own interests. And His Word is TOP Priority with Him. The Bible is God's Word and will get you to heaven if you let it. Do not underestimate its eternal value. It is out of this Book that all will be judged and it is this Book that you can fully trust and rely upon for all that life holds.

Answer 8

The Bible, in the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic was perfect. The difficulty in translating some of these languages is what seems to make it looks like mistakes have been made. Aramaic is a dead language so it is even harder to get right.



The Bible is still the Bible and is the inspired Word of God

Answer 9

Personally, I like Selar's answer. It doesn't matter what corruptions the written Word of God endures at the hands of men, because God will ensure that the correct message is interpreted by those who are intended to receive it.



Accordingly, it's entirely possible that NO extant translation is even remotely accurate; all are merely forgeries. Doesn't matter, because if you are one of His true children, you can presumably look at chicken entrails and still see the Bible, accurately translated into your own mother tongue. Takes care of a lot of other problems too, doesn't it?

Answer 10

We have ancient manuscripts older than the Roman Catholic Church. They couldn't have altered the manuscripts, fragments and mummy coverings that weren't found yet. Still, there is only a 2% difference from those manuscripts that were used for the King James and the most ancient manuscipts that we have now.

Answer 11

yes, it is a leap of faith to think that the Bible we have today is exactly what God wanted us to have... but isnt it a leap just to think that God wanted to "write" to us, or communicate with us at all? i believe that God working thru men who were filled with the Holy Spirit did indeed wrtie down exactly what he wanted them to write down. As for all the translations we have today...well I'm just glad i dont have to accountableto God for how i translated his words. Translating between languages (let alone between cultures that are 1000s of years apart) is tough work. i think mistakes have likely been made, BUT i also believe that God is powerful enough to make sure that i will get exactly the message he wants me to get from Him. FYI- I consider the NIV and NASB to be more accurate than the King James that was translated 100s of years ago with limited resources and limited research.

Answer 12

The great fall of the offwall entailed as such short notice the pftjschute of Finnegan, erse solid man, that the humptyhillhead of humself prumptly sends an unquiring one to the west in quest of his tumptytumtoes: and their upturnpikepointandplace is at the knock out in the park wher oranges have been laid to rust upon the green since devlinsfirst loved livvy.

Answer 13

Do not be swayed God's word is and always will be perfect. Regardless what bible you read God will make sure His true children will see the point.,