Featured Infallible Word of God?

The Chicago Statment applies to word to the orginals, which we do not have. We do not have a perfect translation that I feel comfortable calling error free. Of course being a translation, even if we had the orginals, we would not have an infallible translation since man is capable of making a mistake. Based on the definition infallible, an infallible translation is impossible do to the imperfection of man.

As far as the voice of God goes, I beleive we have several translations that teach us effectively the doctrines of God and other doctrines, such as eschatology and salvation. While they may all include translation errors, they present the voice of God in a manner that is without error in overall teaching of doctrine.

Every version is fallible. But most of our major ones still are God's word.

No, we should not describe an English Bible as infallible. Except maybe the ESV....since it is the Elect Standard Version. Just kidding.

As far as
"Does the saying "it loses something in translation" apply to the Bible?"

That is the nature of translation. But overall, we have lost no doctrine. And we still have the accurate voice of God, even though we do not have the very words of God (exact words of the original).

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

You seem to contradict yourself. First, you say this is not to be a discussion about King James Bible only. Then you turn around and say "Many versions use different words/phrases. Does that make some version fallible?" Then you say "Open for discussion", but is it really?

How can a person even answer your question without talking about the King James verses the other Bible translations?

 

Okay well whatever it is that you are trying to say just isn't registering with me then.

The NIV Teaches the church was Built on Peter
Matthew 16:18 (NIV), "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church." Then the footnote says, "Peter means rock."
But Jesus sais that Peter was a pebble, and Peter made his great confession about the Deity of Christ (vs. 16), saying that He IS the “ROCK” (or the foundation) upon which the church is built (1 Cor. 3:11). And so, the NIV translators did what the Catholics have always wanted to do.

How can this rewording of the Truth of God's Word make it infallible? It isn't even true, is it?

Also the Bible says to 'compare spiritual things with spiritual'. Well, you can't do that when they have changed the words. It used to fit together like a puzzle, but now by the changing of the Word, based upon the ideas of Men, it has beome impossible to even compare one verse with another because the phrases in the verses have changed. So it is no longer infallible because the verses are not even true and they no longer match one another.

1 Corinthians 2:13
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

Some of these Bible verses were changed based upon the demonic ideas of Westcott and Hort, the men who were into Spiritualism, which is completely anti-biblical to start with. So how can these versions be infallible? They were involved in the Occult Underground , ‘The Ghost Club’ or ‘Ghostly Guild'.

It is impossible for God to lie (Titus 1:2; Heb. 6:18). But these other Bible versions have turned the whole thing into a lie.

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils

 

There are times when I thank God that I am just a simple Woman, and not a Bible Scholar.

Matthew 11:25
25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

 

The originals were all Inerrant, Verbal plenary inspired, without any mistakes/errors in them, while the translations based upon the original language source texts would be infallible.
there is no need to have out translations to be 100 % accurate copies of the originals to be Infallible!

 

Why such a fixation on using these red flag terms: inerrant and infallible? Can't you just agree that Scripture is truthful, reliable, authoritative, normative?

 

When some do not like to see Inerrant/Infallible being used, reminds me of when some do not like to have justification/propitiation still used in translations, like somehow those words no longer are good to use.

 

Because it's been a standard go-to tactic of Satan ever since the Greek philosophers three thousand years ago: Construct a strawman of an impossible standard...God must be completely omniscient, God never makes a mistake, etc....and, if it turns out that something did surprise him or that he rashly said something which he later came to regret (Job 38-41, front and center), then, why, there must be no God!

God is a person, and he can identify with the process of learning and growing as a person. Yes, in the final analysis he will be completely omniscient and completely satisfied that the end result of everything is good, and since he is a being outside of time that perfection will touch the entire chain of events from beginning to end...but it's taken him some bumps, bruises and hard knocks to get there.

 

The main problem is the terms inerrant/infallible o not mean what many see them as meaning!

 

When I speak of "inerrancy", what I mean is that every word of our Scriptures as originally given is exactly what God intended to say at the time it was given...and that, while God may at this juncture wish that he had said something else, he acknowledges that he did say that, he accepts the responsibility for that, and he will bear the cost of any restitution if you proceed based upon what he clearly stated. Of course, if you start burning witches in this day and age, he might choose to bring you Home for a mostly-friendly talking to....

 

God gave what He intended to give, as God never makes mistakes, never has to second guess Himself, change His mind based upon new information, correct?

 

Incorrect. I believe that if you were to have a face to face chat with him, and he trusted you enough to be completely open with you, he would tell you that what he said to Job in chapters 38-41, while accurate enough on the surface and in accordance with what he believed at the time, was the single biggest mistake he ever made. "Might makes right" was a horrible precedent to set...the logical conclusion being that, if Satan can acquire more power than our God (his desperately desired aim), then he deserves to be worshiped and honored for having that power. I say no; I say that he would then need to be held to account for his abuse and misuse of that power. And I say that the same applies to our God...except that in His case I believe that He agrees enthusiastically.

 

No God doesn't need to learn or go through bumps and bruises to get there.
that is heresy.