Featured Miscellaneous translation notes.

The history that was recorded down to us by the original inspired authors would have always been accurate and correct, so the problem must be than, if any mistake, in the copy made for that passage that is being used in the source texts for the translation.

 

no ,opposite.. The original text, being from God have to be correct. Any discrepancies must be man made. intentional or not

 

That is what I stated, that any historical mistakes would be duet o mistake made in the source texts used for the translation!

 

no, not necessarily, mistakes can happen anytime man is involved.

 

Maybe not meant to be seen as a literal reconstruction of Jewish hitory until time of Christ, maybe more as a highlight reel leading to the coming of Christ!

 

Scripture faithfully records lies from Satan. Why could it not do the same for Stephen's possible mistake in recounting history?

 

When the three friends of Job spoke to him, disagreeing with him, were their homilies inerrant? No, but they were written through inspiration and the content was recorded inerrantly. But God did not mean us to live by their faulty doctrines. To go even further, what Job himself said was sometimes mistaken, but was recorded by inspiration of God, and inerrantly portrayed in Scripture.

Likewise, what Stephen said was recorded by inspiration of God and recorded inerrantly. God never guaranteed to Stephen that what Stephen would not make errors of history. (But of course we can live by what he preached because he preached Christ and Him crucified.) However, when the Bible does record history (as in Acts), that history is inerrant, since it is given as fact and not as the record of someone's sermon.

And again, we are not allowed to change Greek grammar by using English grammar, and we are not allowed to rearrange Greek grammar to fit our presupposition of inerrancy. I believe and stand for an inerrant Bible, but I have to take it as it is, difficulties and all.

 

Do we have the actually words that Jesus and the Apostles spoke recorded down to us in Acts, or more like the gist of what they said, like a summary statement?

 

If they spoke in Greek, I believe they were exact words. If they spoke in Aramaic, as Jesus probably did, the Greek words were faithful translations.

 

Isn't there also the truth that per the custom of recording down events of that culture and times, thsat they were able to write down more of a paraphrase of what happened, or re oder around the time/order of the event, and still be considered accurate?

 

That may be true, but I don't know.

 

I was thinking like how the Gospel; writers would rearrange their materials in order to prove a point regarding jesus as Messiah.

 

If you are talking about Q, I don't buy it. Some kind of oral tradition, maybe. But in the end, it's "given by inspiration."

 

I agree with that!

 

Lets see:

1) What is the best English translation of anothen? The word seems to have 3 meanings, above or top, from the first or from the beginning and (3) again or anew. At John 3:3, I think "anew" best fits the context. To be born again suggests to be born in the same way, whereas anew opens the door to a different birth, one we have not experienced.

2) I have no position on the difficulty, someone bought the location and the bones were buried somewhere. The difficulty is useful in discussions concerning on whether an errant view can be recorded by someone presenting accurate and trustworthy inspired information.

3) I looked at Biblehub and nearly all English translation have wounds, or stripes, or scars, plural. One version had the singular and the Majority Text appears to be singular. The Critical Text also appears to be singular, so someone else must explain why I see plural in the NASB, at 1 Peter 2:24. I fear the ever helpful translators might have "fixed" the translation to better match Isaiah 53:5.

 

LOL. Check out this howler from John Calvin where he "re oders" the Bible's chronology:

Bible (Genesis 29:11-12)
11. And Jacob kissed Rachel, and lifted up his voice, and wept.
12. And Jacob told Rachel that he was her father’s brother, and that he was Rebekah’s son: and she ran and told her father.

Calvin (Commentaries on the First Book of Moses, Called Genesis)
"The order of events, however, is inverted in the narration of Moses; for Jacob did not kiss Rachel till he had informed her that he was her relative."