George Antonios
Well-Known Member
The question is about a flawless, inerrant, error-free Bible, wherein all the words are approved of God.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Flawless Bible Poll
- Thread starter George Antonios
- Start date
- Status
George, I've been involved in enough translation work to know what's involved. So, I'm forced to vote "No" to your question.
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
Everyone will have a justification for their "no", but I appreciate the straightforward answer.
It is shear lazyness to demand from God a perfect translation in one edition only. That is not how God gave us the Bible in English. He did not give it to us in one perfect edition.
". There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbor, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts and precious stones, etc. concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgment, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded."
The Translators to the Reader
". There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbor, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts and precious stones, etc. concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgment, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded."
The Translators to the Reader
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
Cast in your vote please, you know, since you're not lazy.
I say "yes". God has preserved His Word (all of His words) in almost any Englush Bible you can pick up.
That said, I believe that God's Word transcends (and is not so superficial as) words on paper. So we may be talking about something different there.
But if you mean exact words, then obviously English translations are out. We have to assume the Hebrew language did not change for thousands of years. It just is not logical.
Anyway, if you mean words on pages then no. We have Greek and Hebrew texts, but cannot be assured that God dictated the exact Hebrew word to write down.
That said, I believe that God's Word transcends (and is not so superficial as) words on paper. So we may be talking about something different there.
But if you mean exact words, then obviously English translations are out. We have to assume the Hebrew language did not change for thousands of years. It just is not logical.
Anyway, if you mean words on pages then no. We have Greek and Hebrew texts, but cannot be assured that God dictated the exact Hebrew word to write down.
37818
Well-Known Member
There is no such translation. The MLV is claimed to be the worlds most accurate Bible.
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
If you guys want to tell why you'd answer "no", great, do so, but please actually answer "no".
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
At least you had the honesty to answer the poll.
37818
Well-Known Member
There are choices of a word or words. And choices of a known manuscript variants. There is the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. And problems of translator and reader presuppostions. God's word is inerrant and immutable. They are the agreed upon 66 books.
37818
Well-Known Member
A reference.
The KJV reading.
A reference translation reading.
A comment or what maybe it should be.
An example:
John 13:2
KJV, "And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him;"
MLV, "And it happened during supper, the devil had already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, in-order-that he should give him up."
Comment: The KJV is correct. The MLV intentionally changed the correct translation with the common opinion and showed it in italics.
The KJV reading.
A reference translation reading.
A comment or what maybe it should be.
An example:
John 13:2
KJV, "And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him;"
MLV, "And it happened during supper, the devil had already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, in-order-that he should give him up."
Comment: The KJV is correct. The MLV intentionally changed the correct translation with the common opinion and showed it in italics.
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
The question reads "all his words".
So yes, I mean his exact words.
You should change your vote if you don't believe that.
Then
Which is it?
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
Over 150 views and only 7 votes on a straightforward, fundamental question.
Had you changed the wording to Bibles, instead of the single "bible", meaning a single edition of the KJV, people could have more accurate editions of Gods word.
Have a KJV from the 1900 hundreds? You would need also a 1769 printed edition. Then you would need a 1611 printed edition. And that is only to improve the KJV. Add other Bibles which correct some of the errors in the KJV then the accuracy goes up. Add a bible from the more accurate Byzantine or Majority Text the accuracy between all the editions have gone sky high. One or more of the editions will contain the original text.
Have a KJV from the 1900 hundreds? You would need also a 1769 printed edition. Then you would need a 1611 printed edition. And that is only to improve the KJV. Add other Bibles which correct some of the errors in the KJV then the accuracy goes up. Add a bible from the more accurate Byzantine or Majority Text the accuracy between all the editions have gone sky high. One or more of the editions will contain the original text.
Why would this be necessary?
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
Because Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
I'd say that's about as "necessary" as it gets.
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
This thread is not about the KJB. You can address that elsewhere if you wish.
Rule #8: "Stop turning every single thread into a KJV vs. all other versions discussion."
The number of views may count the same person viewing the thread different times. The number of views would likely include views by quests who are not members of this forum and thus who cannot post. The 150 views may include all the times that you have viewed your thread. How many times have you viewed this thread? It does not mean that 150 different people have viewed it.
You do not prove that your question is "a straightforward, fundamental question." Where do the Scriptures state your question as being a fundamental?
Perhaps your question is based on the fallacy of false dilemma offering only two choices where they may be more than two, which would mean that your question would be invalid since a question based on a fallacy would be invalid. Your question is also not a straightforward, fundamental question if it is based on contradictory human reasoning [a later paragraph in this post explains how your question may in effect be contradictory]. Your question is also not a straightforward, fundamental question when it is likely based on your mere hypothetical speculation that "copies and translations can be perfect" instead of being based on reality [actual facts that can be verified]. You do not name and identify any complete manuscript copy of the Scriptures as being perfect or any specific translation as being perfect.
It would be pointless to answer a question based on mere unsupported hypothetical speculation. Questions do not determine nor establish truth. You are not entitled to attempt to demand that your non-straightforward question be answered.
Believers can believe that God has preserved all His words, not just in one single manuscript copy and in one single English Bible translation. That may be what the Textus Receptus editors, the early English Bible translators, and the KJV translators believed since they used multiple varying sources.
The KJV was not based on one single manuscript copy of the Old Testament and one single manuscript copy of the New Testament. The KJV was not even based on one single printed edition of the Hebrew OT text and on one single printed edition of the Greek NT text. The KJV was based on multiple, textually varying sources that did not have all the same words. Claiming that the KJV has all God's words would be denying that God had preserved all His words in one single source before 1611, making that inconsistent human reasoning contradictory.
According to the KJV translators themselves, the KJV does not have all the words of God since they acknowledged that they did not provide any English rendering for some original-language words of Scripture in their underlying text. Over 150 words not found in the 1611 edition of the KJV were added in later editions.
Last edited:
Perhaps you show that you misunderstand or misinterpret Matthew 4:4. You may be jumping to a wrong conclusion based on misunderstanding of what Matthew 4:4 really teaches. Matthew 4:4 does not actually teach nor support your question.
Last edited:
I voted "no" on the poll.
- Status