Deconflicting the Bible

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Ed Edwards, Sep 23, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Deconflicting the Bible among people

    Consider the poll here:

    http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=864793&posted=1#post864793

    With 60 votes in, in the last two colums are the
    results (number the %) of the 6th
    "what is Bible inerrancy" poll.

    -1 the Bible has errors (i.e. is NOT inerrant) 3 5.00%
    0 the Bible has minor errors but is still useful 0 0%
    1 The Bible is inerrant on all doctrinal issues 3 5.00%
    2 inerrant on: doctrinal, historic, and scientific 11 18.33%
    3 The Bible is inerrant in the original autographs 33 55.00%
    4 only in the KJV1611 Authorized Version 5 8.33%
    5 inerrant in translation based on the TR 0 0%
    6 Bible is inerrant in all faithful translations 4 6.67%
    7 the Bible is inerrant as applied by _______ 1 1.67%
    Voters: 60.

    Restating my point:
    Most Baptists believe in the inerrancy of the Holy Bible.
    What those 'most Baptists' believe by 'inerrancy of the Holy Bible'
    varies.


    My poll illustrates the varity of those beliefs and how many hold them.

    IF it appears there is a conflict with two parts of the same
    translation/version of the Bible, or between two different translations/versions
    of the Bible; then
    How do we deconflict?

    1. ourselves
    2. between two of us joined together (where Christ is)
    3. in a local church
    4. on the Baptist Board (BB) Translation/Version Forum
    5. in the Body/Bride (BB) of Christ, the Universal Church

    Discussion can range from the practical, to the historical,
    to the theoretical/doctrinal.
     
  2. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    Brother Ed,

    I believe that God is real so is his Son and the Holy Spirit. I further believe them to be one God (mono theos).

    I believe the Word of God to be without fault, blemmish or error. So your question in my view is who wrote Gods word most accurately, without any personal interjection. My answer is I really don't know. That is truly a tall order for any man and there is only one who truly knows and he is in heaven.

    When man finds what he calls an error, was the error the fault of the one who inspired or the one who received the inspiration? Or is the error a misunderstanding of the reader?

    Here is one for example often discussed;

    Lk 3:21 Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, 22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

    Mk 1:10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: 11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

    Mt 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

    In the above, Luke seems to imply that all there saw the heavens opened yet Matthew and Mark appears to say only Jesus saw this. Also, which did the spirit actually say, "Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased" or "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased".

    So the question begins with were these differences in these Men's original writings, in their human account of the same event, in some translating of the original writings, what accounts for these differences?
     
  3. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is an example of a perceived conflict:
    (I learned of it from an atheist commentary
    on the Bible):

    Rev 22:16 (KJV1611 Edition):
    I Iesus haue sent mine Angel, to testifie vnto you these things in the Churches.
    I am the roote and the offspring of Dauid,
    and the bright and morning starre.

    Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heauen,
    O Lucifer*, sonne of the morning?
    how art thou cut downe to the ground,
    which didst weaken the nations?

    Margin note:
    * Or O daystarre

    Note that 'day star', 'Lucifer', and 'son of the morning'
    all refer to the planet Venus at different times in
    the sky.

    Anyway, the seeming discrepancy is:
    Who is the Morning Star?
    Is the Morning Star Jesus or Satan (AKA: Lucifer)?
    Seems like only one of Jesus or Stan could be the
    Morning Star.

    Or maybe the angels (AKA: sons of God) are morning stars?

    Job 38:7 (KJV1611 Edtion):
    When the morning starres sang together, and all the sonnes of God shouted for ioy.
     
    #3 Ed Edwards, Sep 23, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 23, 2006
  4. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    LeBuick: //When man finds what he calls an error,
    was the error the fault of the one who inspired
    or the one who received the inspiration?
    Or is the error a misunderstanding of the reader?//

    I consider it axiomatic:

    When one or more people concieve a possible
    discrepancy in or between translations/versions
    of the Bible; then the fault is that of the
    readers not God.


    Recommend praying together for a common resolution
    from the Holy Spirit.
     
  5. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    I had to look up the word but I guess I agree with you. Thanks for adding to my vocabulary. Soon I will have enough words to make a complete sentence! :wavey:
     
  6. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Said elsewhere: //The N/A and the TR disagree each other
    8,000 times according to a scholar.//

    I cannot seem to find that data among legitimate scholars.
    Were this true consider this data:
    There are some 845,000 words in the KJV1769 Edition.
    If there are 8,000 variants among 845,000 words; this
    is just under 01% at 0.9% (9/10 of one percent).
    90% is is A where I went to school last; 99% is A+.

    I beleive that the 1% MAXIMUM VARIATION results
    in ZERO doctrinal difference.
    (By constrast, among denominations splitting over
    there variant misunderstandings of the KJV1769 Bible,
    we find some places a 43% variation among Baptists
    alone :(


    Ed Edwards: //The study of Multiple Translations enables the
    Holy Spirit to work more freely in one's life.//

    Said elsewhere: //No, which translation is right one?//

    This is NOT a Holy Spirit lead question. I believe
    (and the Holy Spirit witnesses to me) that all
    faithful English Translations are inerrant (without error).

    I believe that all faithful English Translations
    are inerrant (without error).


    Said elsewhere: // When so many translations disagree each other,
    which one do you find for most accuracy?//

    I believe (and the Holy Spirit witnesses to me) that
    if there is a perceived difference in or among English
    Versions/translations of the Bible; then the error is in
    or among men; not with God.
     
  7. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Flint sharpens Steel - but there are lots of sparks :smilewinkgrin:

    Strangely, when I was teaching Logic (in Geometry)
    'axiom' had been replaced by 'assumption'.
    Both refer to basic statements which are unprovable but
    which allow logical discussion among human beans*.

    (HUMAN BEANS - an error I made back on a Bulletin Board (bb)
    in 1989. I was trying to say 'human beings' but my fingers
    got wrapped around one of the keys :) Anyway, when talking
    about 'God stuff' and 'sunday school attendance
    bean counters' the term 'human beans' tells it all.
    :godisgood:
     
  8. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,164
    Likes Received:
    322
    The disagreements are not from God, He is not the author of confusion. Even among the various revisions/editions of the same Bible (such as the KJV1611-1769)there are the so called "disagreements".

    The disagreements have to do with one or more reasons all with their root in the disagreements of men as to the meaning of a word in the original language or a question as to whether a scribal error has occurred in the mss.

    As to which one is the most accurate, well one could consider the advice of the KJV translators themselves:



    HankD
     
  9. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hank;
    You and I have had many civil discussions in the past on many topics. I hope this will not wreck our track record, but I must point out that the quote you have provided from the translators does not support your position. At least I don't believe it does for; 1. The Translators are not voicing their own opinion ; 2. The 'variety of translations' quote is actually from Augustine, who is not to be trusted by any knowledgable Baptist primarily because most of his junk is heretical, (i.e. City of God), and finally 3. I believe the context of the words 'variety of translations' from Augustine are not germaine to your position because he is not suggesting that one should have 200 Greek or Latin Translations (as were the two most common textual languages of his day) but instead he is suggesting that using multiple different language translations is helpful and therefore cannot be compared to our cacaphony of English Translations all vying for the pre-eminence.
    Hence, when you and others try to use the Translators' notes to the Reader as ammunition in your vain attempt at de-bunking the KJVo doctrine, the least you could do is use something which has a little more gunpowder to it instead of this wet blanket and ineffectual quote.
     
  10. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Dear av1611jim,

    You are correct that Augustine did make that statement earlier and that much of Augustine's theology has been shown to be wrong. It is also true that Augustine would have had several Greek and Latin versions available to him. However, I find no validity in your three assertions:

    1. I disagree that the AV men were not expressing their own opinion. The AV translators would not have put this statement in to their Preface if they did not believe it themselves. I don't have my 1611 KJV with me as I write this, but I don't think that there are quotation marks around this statement, nor credit given to Augustine. But even if it is Augustine being exactly quoted, the purpose is to lend authority to a point being made (either positive or negative one). Its clear from the context that this is not a quote against multiple versions, so it must have been used by the AV men in support of their opinion that multiple versions is a good thing. The Preface does not exist to repeat other's opinions, but of the translators.

    2. Truth is truth, no matter what the reputation of the person that spoke it. The true things you wrote remain true, even when I disagree with your conclusions. Many profound truths have be spoken by the unskilled and even vile sinners. There are many recorded in our Bible! Christians are not the only people that recognize God's truth (its that some won't accept the truth).

    3. If Augustine meant that having multiple languages of the Bible is helpful, clearly it is only helpful if the individual is multilingual. But if the reader is not multilingual then variations in his/her mother tongue might also be helpful. No one has suggested having 200 versions per person. It seems your concern is over which version will receive the pre-eminence.

    To borrow a quote, I believe you could do something which has a little more gunpowder to it instead of your wet blanket and ineffectual argument.
     
  11. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Franklinmonroe: //3. If Augustine meant that having multiple languages of the Bible is helpful, clearly it is only helpful if the individual is multilingual. But if the reader is not multilingual then variations in his/her mother tongue might also be helpful. No one has suggested having 200 versions per person. It seems your concern is over which version will receive the pre-eminence.//

    Amen, Brother Franklinmonroe -- Preach it! :thumbs:

    In addition two several Bibles in languages you can read,
    it is also good to have People Skills (for relating to other
    people on this matter*) and God Skills (i.e. be prayed up
    when you study the Bible).

    * both Brother Franklinmonroe & Brother AV1611jim seem
    to possess both these skills. So i'm not dissing anybody,
    I'm just trying to find some general principles of figuring out
    what the Scripture says and what it means.
     
  12. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe I specifically addressed Hank D but your reply is noted.
     
  13. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,164
    Likes Received:
    322
    I'll try again.
     
  14. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,164
    Likes Received:
    322
    OK Ill try to answer Jim again...

    Not at all Jim.
     
  15. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,164
    Likes Received:
    322
    Jim, I'll give my answer in parts. I've tried to answer put I get locked out with the complete answer.


    However IMO the goodly men of the KJV translation comittee probably meant the English in the venacular of their day just as Augustine did of his day.

    In fact they drew heavily from other English translations such as the Bishop's Bible and the Rheims NT which ultimately became the official English Bible of the Church of Rome:the Douay-Rheims.
    I believe now its called the Confraternity Version.

    HankD
     
  16. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,164
    Likes Received:
    322
    The RC Rheims NT was published in 1582. compare the KJ 1611 and you will find about an 80-90% word-for-word sameness. Many verses of the AV1611 NT are identical with the Rheims NT.

    Remember, in 1611 the Church of England was itself still enamoured with Rome (though King Henry 8th had already officially declared severance with "Il Papa").

    They called themselves the AngloCatholic Church and high Anglican priests were still celebrating mass at the time of the KJV publication!

    HankD
     
  17. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,164
    Likes Received:
    322
    Some high Anglicans still call the celebration of the Eucharist "the mass" to this very day.

    Also remember, that they were so fixated upon Rome that in 1611 they included the Apocrypha along with the two Testaments.

    Several years ago I found some historic data and showed it here on the BB that in 1611 there were at least 121 English translations (some partial) of the Bible so they were certainly aware of other English translations and (IMO) meant for the reader to do some comparison of their own. Of course, only the very rich were able to do this.

    All this to me shows the rich history of the KJV which led up to its publication. The Bible which we all love and cherish, the KJV.


    Your friend and brother
    HankD

     
  18. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here we go -- Deconflict these:

    Heb 7:25 (KJV1611 Edition):
    Wherefore he is able also to saue them to the vttermost,
    that come vnto God by him,
    seeing hee euer liueth to make intercession for them.

    Heb 7:25 (HCSB = Christian Standard Bible /Holman, 2003):
    Therefore He is always able to save
    those who come to God through Him,
    since He always lives to intercede for them.
     
  19. Snitzelhoff

    Snitzelhoff
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    Messages:
    301
    Likes Received:
    0
    I see no doctrinal conflict, except perhaps in saving "to the uttermost" versus merely "saving," but if Christ's salvation isn't "to the uttermost", it is not salvation at all, and so simply saying that Christ is able to save is sufficient, and there is, therefore, no conflict between those versions.

    Michael
     
  20. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    The difference seems to be that the
    KJV implies that an individual will be totally,
    completely, 100% saved.
    The HCSB implies that Christ is always
    able to save - apparently always able to save
    whomsoever might call upon the Name of Christ.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...