Do we have the inspired Word of God today?

[wholearmor]

There is one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.

There is one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.

Through Him all things were made. For us and for our salvation He came down from heaven: by the Holy Spirit He became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.

For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate; He suffered death and was buried.

On the third day He rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory.

With His saints He will judge the living and the dead. And His kingdom will have no end.

There is one Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father. With the Father and the Son He is worshipped.

He has spoken through the prophets and through the Scriptures.
God established the Body of Christ into which the Holy Spirit baptizes every new believer.

God offers salvation by grace through faith alone in the resurrected Christ.
The Bible records the true history of man including that God created the heavens and the earth and everything in them in six literal days; only eight people survived a global flood; through great wonders God delivered Israel from Egypt; the prophets, Christ, and the apostles performed many miraculous deeds.

The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, in their original state, are the inspired Word of God. God legislated morality out of love for His creation.
Men who reject God will suffer eternal damnation.

Christ commands His followers to rebuke and to judge with righteous judgment and to forgive those who repent. One day God will resurrect the dead, punish the unbelievers, and reward those whom He has justified with the life of the world to come.
Amen.

"
"The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, in their original state, are the inspired Word of God."

So, do we have the inspired Word of God today?

 

[JudgeRightly]

"The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, in their original state, are the inspired Word of God."

So, do we have the inspired Word of God today?

We have copies of copies of copies. What we have today are not the original manuscripts. The original manuscripts are the inspired word of God.

The Bibles we have today are God's word, but they themselves are not the inspired words of God.

 

[wholearmor]

We have copies of copies of copies. What we have today are not the original manuscripts. The original manuscripts are the inspired word of God.

The Bibles we have today are God's word, but they themselves are not the inspired words of God.

So, we can't believe a word it says?

 

[JudgeRightly]

So, we can't believe a word it says?

Of course we can believe what it says. Why? Because the Bible contains truth claims that stand on evidence. The Bible is falsifiable.

AND:

It was written in such a way that, just because it's copied (which has the possibility of introducing errors), or because the language is updated (compare Dead Sea Scrolls to modern Hebrew Bibles), or because it's translated into another language (which never results in a 1:1 translation, simply because there are differences between any two given languages, meaning that some less than precise translations are required), the message being conveyed does not change, and the context of what is being said reinforces the meaning, like adding rebar to concrete to make it stronger.

 

[wholearmor]

Of course we can believe what it says. Why? Because the Bible contains truth claims that stand on evidence. The Bible is falsifiable.

AND:

It was written in such a way that, just because it's copied (which has the possibility of introducing errors), or because the language is updated (compare Dead Sea Scrolls to modern Hebrew Bibles), or because it's translated into another language (which never results in a 1:1 translation, simply because there are differences between any two given languages, meaning that some less than precise translations are required), the message being conveyed does not change, and the context of what is being said reinforces the meaning, like adding rebar to concrete to make it stronger.

"...the message being conveyed does not change,"
The message in the very first verse of the Bible changes between versions. The King James Bible is the ONLY one to translate it:
(Genesis 1:1 KJB)
(1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

All the others translate it:
(Genesis 1:1 NKJV)
(1) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

So, what actually happened in the beginning? Did God create the heaven and the earth, or did he create the heavens and the earth?

And here's something else from the NKJV:
(1 Corinthians 1:18 NKJV)
(18) For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

(Ephesians 2:8 NKJV)
(8) For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,

Did you catch it?

 

[JudgeRightly]

"...the message being conveyed does not change,"
The message in the very first verse of the Bible changes between versions. The King James Bible is the ONLY one to translate it:
(Genesis 1:1 KJB)
(1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

All the others translate it:
(Genesis 1:1 NKJV)
(1) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

So, what actually happened in the beginning? Did God create the heaven and the earth, or did he create the heavens and the earth?

The Hebrew word used for "the heavens" in verse 1 ( הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם "haš·šā·ma·yim") is plural.

In other words, the KJV translators did not correctly translate "הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם".

But what does this have to do with what I said, which is that the message being conveyed does not change?

And here's something else from the NKJV:
(1 Corinthians 1:18 NKJV)
(18) For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

(Ephesians 2:8 NKJV)
(8) For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,

Did you catch it?

Make your point, please. I can't read your mind.

 

[wholearmor]

The Hebrew word used for "the heavens" in verse 1 ( הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם "haš·šā·ma·yim") is plural.

In other words, the KJV translators did not correctly translate "הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם".

But what does this have to do with what I said, which is that the message being conveyed does not change?



Make your point, please. I can't read your mind.

How do you know that's what the Hebrew word is? Besides, we speak English. The message changed because heaven and heavens are not the same.

I wrote out the two verses. What does that have to do with reading my mind? They're right there for you to compare. Do you catch what one says differently than the other, or no?

 

[JudgeRightly]

How do you know that's what the Hebrew word is?

Because I have a Hebrew interlinear... Duh.

Besides, we speak English. The message changed because heaven and heavens are not the same.

If you want to say that the meaning changed, then you can only say that the KJV translators mistranslated the word, while the other translations translated it correctly.

I wrote out the two verses. What does that have to do with reading my mind? They're right there for you to compare. Do you catch what one says differently than the other, or no?

If you think there is some argument that needs to be made, then make the argument already. Because all I see is you quoting two different verses and hinting at some sort of discrepancy. They're two different verses that are saying two different things. Why wouldn't one say something differently than the other?

 

[wholearmor]

Because I have a Hebrew interlinear... Duh.



If you want to say that the meaning changed, then you can only say that the KJV translators mistranslated the word, while the other translations translated it correctly.



If you think there is some argument that needs to be made, then make the argument already. Because all I see is you quoting two different verses and hinting at some sort of discrepancy. They're two different verses that are saying two different things. Why wouldn't one say something differently than the other?

How do you know the Hebrew interlinear is correct?

No, I can say the rest of them translated it incorrectly.

Are you just quickly skipping through the verses or what? Is that how you study your Bible, too? There is a difference between them that is glaring. I'll give you one more chance to figure it out, then I'll tell you if you need me to.

 

[JudgeRightly]

How do you know the Hebrew interlinear is correct?

Because of the context.

No, I can say the rest of them translated it incorrectly.

Because you say so?

Are you just quickly skipping through the verses or what? Is that how you study your Bible, too? There is a difference between them that is glaring. I'll give you one more chance to figure it out, then I'll tell you if you need me to.

Either make the argument or don't. I'm not going to do it for you.

 

[Bright Raven]

Try the KJV.

 

[Nick M]

"The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, in their original state, are the inspired Word of God."

I have to rely on those that can read Greek and Hebrew. I don't. Believe it or not, Google translate gets a few things right. Do you want to see what I mean? It is regarding "The Rapture".

 

[SwordOfTruth]

If you want to say that the meaning changed, then you can only say that the KJV translators mistranslated the word, while the other translations translated it correctly.

On what basis can such an assertion be made? Are we saying that if a majority of independent translators all agreed on a given translation then they by virtue of their QUANTITY should be deemed right? That would seem to be a bit of a stretch in all honesty.

So who gets to specify which translators correctly translated any given text?

But what does this have to do with what I said, which is that the message being conveyed does not change?

The message, any message gleaned from the Bible/Texts is always entirely subjective and independendly reached. A million people could read a given passage and have differing interpretations of what the meaning is. Such is the nature (and some would say power) that the scriptures have.

If the translations are different then it follows most certainly that interpretations will differ.

There can clearly be a difference between "heavens" and "heaven". One person may interpret "heavens" as a multi-facted realm or plane of existence. Another might interpret it as the various layers protecting the Earth, the upper waters, the darkness pressing on them, the firmament.
If it's just "heaven" then one might interpret that as a singular layer, for example as:

"the upper surface of “the deep [waters]” (what will later become “the upper waters”), which is covered by a layer of darkness."

As ever any literal reading of the text tends to give rise to such differing interpretations and not a few contradictions.

Taken allegorically, for example as the basis for a description of the basic alchemical process of fermentation then it matters not if it's heavens or heaven. The meaning remains which is that it is refering to the top of the alchemists flask/vessel where the rising mist condenses like dew and falls back down like rain.

 

[Nick M]

So who gets to specify which translators correctly translated any given text?

Any body that can read ancient Hebrew or Greek. Conveniently, the Dead Sea Scrolls are not different than what we have today. Are you aware?

First a short video. He is speaking of the departure of the church, commonly called the rapture. This comes down to translation errors. Even in the KJV, which is part of why I am not "KJB only". Others that read those old languages often use it and say it is a really good version. But it still has translation errors.

Click this link. It is the verse in question by someone promoting the Latin Vulgate.

Here is what they claim the Latin states.

3	ne quis vos seducat ullo modo quoniam nisi venerit discessio primum et revelatus fuerit homo peccati filius perditionis Let no man deceive you by any means: for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition

I think the person who made the website has an agenda, or he hired the wrong person to translate. It does not say "rebellion" or "falling away", or "revolt" as stated there. Dr Felter in the video is correct. Here is the literal translation by a service that doesn't know there is a discussion. My point is, even the KJV has translation errors. And so does the NKJV, in critical spots.

 

[Nick M]

There is a difference between them that is glaring. I'll give you one more chance to figure it out, then I'll tell you if you need me to.

Still waiting on you.

 

[SwordOfTruth]

Any body that can read ancient Hebrew or Greek. Conveniently, the Dead Sea Scrolls are not different than what we have today. Are you aware?

Interesting. So you are effectively claiming that everyone in the world that has learned Hebrew or Greek would 100% translate any Hebrew or Greek text exactly the same way . . . . . ! Really?

 

[SwordOfTruth]

There is a difference between them that is glaring. I'll give you one more chance to figure it out, then I'll tell you if you need me to.

I think you're probably referring to the fact that in the first verse it states "to us who are being saved" which means "in the process of being saved" and implies some kind of on-going process, whereas in the second verse it states "have been saved" which implies it's already happened, finished, over.


Here's the KJB version of that passage:
"18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God."

So here we also have a fait accompli. It says "are saved" not in the process of being saved.

 

[Nick M]

So you are effectively claiming that everyone in the world

Correct, which is why I call them liars. After they have been shown, if they continue, then what do you call it? Retardation?

 

[Nick M]

And here's something else from the NKJV:
(1 Corinthians 1:18 NKJV)
(18) For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

(Ephesians 2:8 NKJV)
(8) For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,

Your point is wrong. False dilemma might be the term. It doesn't say it is an ongoing process as suggested. We are being saved, those who have called upon him for salvation.

If you sit in front of a catholic "priest", you are clearly not saved, nor calling on him. You are asking for a mediator still.

 

[JudgeRightly]

On what basis can such an assertion be made? Are we saying that if a majority of independent translators all agreed on a given translation then they by virtue of their QUANTITY should be deemed right? That would seem to be a bit of a stretch in all honesty.

So who gets to specify which translators correctly translated any given text?

Answered by others here, but quite frankly, it's not what someONE determines, but what is allowed by the context.

The message, any message gleaned from the Bible/Texts is always entirely subjective and independendly reached. A million people could read a given passage and have differing interpretations of what the meaning is. Such is the nature (and some would say power) that the scriptures have.

This is simply false.

The Bible was written in such a way that it is extremely hard to mistranslate it.

It was written as a story, a narrative that follows God and His chosen people throughout their history, culminating in what should have been the climax of the story, but what ended up being a HUGE plot twist, where God's chosen people have been relegated to the role of just another nation, at least for the time being, with the promise that they will eventually be brought back into focus again.

This narrative prevents someone from intentionally mistranslating it, because such a translation simply wouldn't match the context of what is being said, and it makes it difficult to unintentionally mistranslate it, or introduce errors, because the information it presents is mostly redundant, and what errors HAVE crept in, are obvious, and well-documented.

Perhaps you've heard of one instance of a mistranslation.

There was a rather egregious error introduced into the Bible in the year 1631, and because of it, that specific translation of the Bible became known as the "Wicked Bible." what was the error that could have given it such a name?

It was an accidental omission of the word "not" in Exodus 20:14, where, instead of it being a command AGAINST adultery, it reads: "Thou shalt commit adultery."

The omission of one word completely changed the meaning! Yet, even so, the error was IMMEDIATELY obvious to anyone who read the passage, due to God being the Author of both the Bible and of humans, and because of previous translations.

If the translations are different then it follows most certainly that interpretations will differ.

There are different translations because of a few different things:

Bias, textual differences, and understanding of what the text is saying.

However, the vast majority of the manuscripts that we have (the actual documents that we translate from) are mostly in agreement with one another.

No discrepancy found in the Bible affects the overarching message the Bible is teaching.

There can clearly be a difference between "heavens" and "heaven". One person may interpret "heavens" as a multi-facted realm or plane of existence. Another might interpret it as the various layers protecting the Earth, the upper waters, the darkness pressing on them, the firmament.
If it's just "heaven" then one might interpret that as a singular layer, for example as:

"the upper surface of “the deep [waters]” (what will later become “the upper waters”), which is covered by a layer of darkness."

As ever any literal reading of the text tends to give rise to such differing interpretations and not a few contradictions.

Hydroplate Theory seeks to answer this properly.

Taken allegorically, for example as the basis for a description of the basic alchemical process of fermentation then it matters not if it's heavens or heaven. The meaning remains which is that it is referring to the top of the alchemists flask/vessel where the rising mist condenses like dew and falls back down like rain.

LOL!!!!

No, I can assure you, when it says "the heavens" and it's referring to the sky, it DOES, IN FACT, mean the sky, and when it says "the windows of heaven were opened," it DOES, IN FACT, mean that it started to rain.