Flawless Bible Poll

[1689Dave]

I can remember what B. Myron Cedarholm, late President of Maranatha Baptist Bible College (now Maranatha Baptist University) said about his Scofield Bible. "I read it from the top-down not from the bottom up."

It has too many serious errors to be considered Christian. Did you know Christ's death was a plan B and not the intention of his coming, according to Dispies? How wicked is that?

 

[robycop3]

I have no idea what you just said.
Let's make this simple.
Name a Bible that I could go buy on, say Amazon, that you would consider to be 100% error free in every word in every way.

NO translation in any language.

But EVERY valid translation in any language is perfect for God's intended use of it.

The most-perfect Bible man could have would be made of every known ancient Scriptural manuscript, untranslated. BUT HOW MANY PEOPLE COULD READ ALL OF IT ?

 

[robycop3]

Here is another:

" This is he that came by water and blood, [even] Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." ( 1 John 5:6-8, AV ).

" This is he who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.
7 For there are three that testify:
8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree." ( 1 John 5:6-8, ESV ).

Those are two of many.
Some passages don't say the same thing, while others leave out ( or add in, depending upon one's perspective ), thereby essentially contradicting the words on the page...

At least in my own opinion.
You decide.

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT:

Have you taken the time to check out the Greek for yourself, to see which renderings are the MOST-ACCURATE? You might not like the results !

 

[robycop3]

One more:

" Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep [market] a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.
3 In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water.
4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.
5 And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years." ( John 5:2-5, AV ).

" Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, in Aramaic called Bethesda, which has five roofed colonnades.
3 In these lay a multitude of invalids—blind, lame, and paralyzed.
5 One man was there who had been an invalid for thirty-eight years." ( John 5:2-5, ESV ).

Contradiction:

In verse 2, the AV has the words, "In the Hebrew tongue" while the ESV has the words, "in Aramaic".
Notwithstanding the actual words, the two languages are not even the same...
Hebrew is of ancient Israel in origin, while Aramaic is of ancient Syria in origin.

Also, there's the matter of verse 4 where one has it, and the other contradicts the former by not having it.

With that, I take my leave of this thread.
Good evening to you all, and may the Lord's peace be upon you.

The majority of the Jews of that time spoke Aramaic, which was the "lingua franca" of the time. Thus, it was considered a 'hebrew tongue'.

And, if you check, you'll find that the name "Bethesda" is of CHALDEE origin.

 

[robycop3]

wow, that Philippians 2:6 in the ESV is brutal, I can hardly believe I never noticed that before.
That undermines the deity of Christ.
I honestly don't know how Christians are all cool about such things.

Check out the Greek for "robbery". You might not like the results.

The Greek word there, 'harpagmos', means to seize or grasp, & is applied to robbery and non-robbery seizing as well. Thus, "not robbery" & "not to be grasped" are both correct.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

It has too many serious errors to be considered Christian. Did you know Christ's death was a plan B and not the intention of his coming, according to Dispies? How wicked is that?

That is something I never hear or was taught.

 

[robycop3]

It has too many serious errors to be considered Christian. Did you know Christ's death was a plan B and not the intention of his coming, according to Dispies? How wicked is that?

Where's THAT come from?????????????????????? Isaiah & Daniel both prophesied He'd be suffering and would be "cut off", meaning an early death.

 

[1689Dave]

Where's THAT come from?????????????????????? Isaiah & Daniel both prophesied He'd be suffering and would be "cut off", meaning an early death.

The Dispensationalists believe this according to the Scofield Bible notes. It is among other heretical beliefs found in the first Scofield notes. Are you a "Dispy"?

 

[1689Dave]

That is something I never hear or was taught.

It's in the notes. Also, another heresy is where Scofield said the Sermon on the Mount is not for the church. But for the Jews in the Millennium. How demonic is this? John says if anyone has not the doctrine of Christ, they are not saved. Mathew calls the Sermon on the Mount "the doctrine of Christ". Many got rolled by Dispensationalism and it is so bizarre, it takes lots of studies to see how evil it is.

 

[Baptist Believer]

That is something I never hear or was taught.

When I was first studying the Bible seriously, I used a Ryrie Study Bible. I read the Bible cover to cover and found Ryrie's notes to be helpful in the Old Testament. But when it came to the gospels, it was clear that Ryrie believed that Jesus was going to set up the Millennial Kingdom of God upon the earth, but delayed that because of His rejection by the Jews. Therefore, the church age is "Plan B."

Having read the Old Testament and the rest of the New Testament, especially Paul's writings, I struggled as to how to interpret the New Testament. I finally realized that Ryrie's notes were simply his opinions, and I had to have the courage to go with what the scripture actually taught instead of Ryrie's interpretation. That taught me a huge lesson as I started over with the scripture and made sure that everything that I was taking as fact was backed up somewhere in the text of scripture. It revolutionized my study.

 

[JonC]

Then change your vote please.

No. For that you need to change the question.

The OP asks has God preserved all his words in ANY, 100% error-free, Bible that I could obtain?

My answer is yes, despite the translation process God has preserved all His words in several 100% error free Bibles you can obtain.

Differences in translations are not errors in translations but instead are interpretative decisions made by the translators. And God has preserved His words through these translations.

 

[robycop3]

The Dispensationalists believe this according to the Scofield Bible notes. It is among other heretical beliefs found in the first Scofield notes. Are you a "Dispy"?

I am certainly not a "full dispy, such as preterists make out all anti=preterisms to be. I believe there are 5 dispensations, the ways God interacted/interacts with man They are:
1.) the world before the flood
2.) the world between the flood & Exodus
3.) the world between the Exodus & Jesus' ministry/resurrection
4.) the present age, between Jesus' resurrection & His return
5.) the future world after Jesus' return

Hard to dispute those "dispensations".

 

[robycop3]

When I was first studying the Bible seriously, I used a Ryrie Study Bible. I read the Bible cover to cover and found Ryrie's notes to be helpful in the Old Testament. But when it came to the gospels, it was clear that Ryrie believed that Jesus was going to set up the Millennial Kingdom of God upon the earth, but delayed that because of His rejection by the Jews. Therefore, the church age is "Plan B."

Having read the Old Testament and the rest of the New Testament, especially Paul's writings, I struggled as to how to interpret the New Testament. I finally realized that Ryrie's notes were simply his opinions, and I had to have the courage to go with what the scripture actually taught instead of Ryrie's interpretation. That taught me a huge lesson as I started over with the scripture and made sure that everything that I was taking as fact was backed up somewhere in the text of scripture. It revolutionized my study.

That's why I don't use "study Bibles".

 

[1689Dave]

I am certainly not a "full dispy, such as preterists make out all anti=preterisms to be. I believe there are 5 dispensations, the ways God interacted/interacts with man They are:
1.) the world before the flood
2.) the world between the flood & Exodus
3.) the world between the Exodus & Jesus' ministry/resurrection
4.) the present age, between Jesus' resurrection & His return
5.) the future world after Jesus' return

Hard to dispute those "dispensations".

Impressive! However, scripture never mentions them.

 

[Yeshua1]

The question is about a flawless, inerrant, error-free Bible, wherein all the words are approved of God.

That would be the very Originals themselves!

 

[Yeshua1]

George, I've been involved in enough translation work to know what's involved. So, I'm forced to vote "No" to your question.

NO translation was either inspired, nor exact copy of the originals!

 

[Yeshua1]

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

The are known issues in the OT texts regarding numbers at times!

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

God preserved the words in the Translations, but did not inspire any translation, nor is there any perfect copy of the originals!

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

Take the Critical Greek text, and amend it in the certain areas where the MT/Bzt is to be seen as being the preferred rendering, and then translate into English!

 

[Yeshua1]

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."

ONLY KJVO claims to have a perfect translation though!