How do you know?

You may ask why does it have to be in the Greek. So many arrogant American Christians think that God promised to preserve the Bible in their language this is just not so. If He did what about the African tribe that still doesn't have the Word of God. God didn't promise to preserve His Word in a form you could read. He promised to preserve them period.

 

Amen!

 

We should be thankful that we have so many faithful English bibles to study. We could be like the Africans and trapped in darkness!

 

Double Amen to this post.

 

Then what is the point of Him preserving them in any language? He could have just as easily preserved them in some heavenly language that none of us could know.
Pastor Mark. </font>[/QUOTE]So if God promised to preserve His Word in your language what about the African tribe that doesn't have a Bible? Did God fail to keep His promise to them? Because according to your logic God promised to preserve His Word in something we could read. Or did God just give this great gift to the English speaking world? He preserved His Word in human tongues known as: Hebrew and Greek.

 

I think your starting to confuse yourself. I said that none of the mistakes in the KJV,NIV,ESV,ISV,NKJV,NASB,HCSB, or the NCV effect doctrine. And the last time I checked Salvation was a doctrine of the Christian faith.

 

I disagree. I believe that several are in such demonstrable agreement with the evidence we have for the originals that we can rightly call them inerrant... in what they communicate.

None however are inerrant in their choice of words as the God inspired originals were.

 

Pastor Mark:If we can't trust that there is one English version that is inerrant, what is the difference? We can't know that we have the Truth any more than the Africans can. There is no way to justify staking your eternal salvation on something that you can't claim as inerrant, because maybe it is that part about how to be saved that IS in error.

Pastor Mark.

With all due respect...

You cannot show us an English translation that has no booboos whatsoever. However, there are many translations that are inerrant as GOD wanted them to be.

Now, why did the AV translators advise one to use a variety of translations? They knew, same as today's translators, that many Hebrew and Greek words & phrases have several valid definitions in English, and, w/o any help from the context, the translator must use his/her best judgment in trying to select the most correct definition for a given usage. Obviously, different people will have different choices; thus we have the different versions.

Same with the textual questions...This argument is generally a game of "MY scholar kin whup YOUR scholar!"

...All quotes from the AV translators, 'To The Reader', their preface to the AV 1611

The AV translators didn't believe in one inerrant version, not even the one they made...Why should YOU?

However, I shall respect your choice to use just one version, long as you respect others' choices of versions.

 

Which version is correct?

 

You do mean which versions, right?

 

The one? Which Bible version?

 

Why do you insist that there can be only one translation from a manuscript to English? If that is an absolute, then the KJV must be disqualified, since today's common English no longer resembles the King's English of the early 17th century.

 

Any version? NIV? NASB? CEV? TEV? ESV? NLT? Is that right?

 

Why does just ONE have to be correct? Do you understand anything about linguistics?