The accuracy of the bible

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by xdisciplex, Feb 27, 2006.

  1. xdisciplex

    xdisciplex
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,766
    Likes Received:
    0
    Only recently I noticed that there are quite a few passages from the bible where people say they were added later on.

    1.John 5:7 for example which mentiones the trinity.

    John 7:53- end of chapter 7.

    Luke 16:19-31

    I also found this here on the net:

    Matthew 28:19 (New International Version)

    Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

    In the original manuscripts, this verse never mentions the son or the holy spirit. The early Church added notes about it and it managed to find its way into many english tranlastions. It's misinterpretations like this that make me wonder.

    -------------------------------------------------

    What do you think about this?
    This concerns me a bit since I'm not a scholar and I cannot say anything about it. I don't like it when others say "This was not in the bible and this also..."
    I mean in order to be able to trust the bible you have to be able to trust every verse otherwise you can simply pick whatever you like and neglect the rest or when you don't like a verse you can always come up with excuses like "I feel like this verse might have been added later on...."

    Basically it's the same as with the KJV/new age bibles problem. These christians say that the bibles which we have today still contain the important things but they are not God's word anymore since there are so many difference between the different manuscripts and so on.

    For example this here which I found on the net:

    To take one example of how the manuscript evidence entirely undermines the foundational premise of a Bible code, the Dead Sea Scrolls, our closest textual witnesses to the original Hebrew Old Testament, have a markedly different way of spelling. In just a few verses there might therefore be dozens of letter differences due only to spelling convention (recall in English the word “color” vs. “colour”). The Hebrew text used by Bible code researchers is much younger than the Dead Sea material, and does not account for the ancient spellings. The significance of this can be dramatically illustrated. One Bible code proponent, Grant Jeffrey, claims to have found dozens of coded names associated with Jesus in Isaiah 52:13-15:12, the Old Testament prophecy of a suffering Messiah. In just these fifteen verses, there are 115 letter differences between the text Jeffrey uses and the Dead Sea Great Isaiah Scroll because of spelling differences.

    How to deal with such claims? I cannot check this or disprove it since I don't even have the knowledge to.
    But in order to trust the bible you have to be able to trust it 100%. What sense would it make to dig in the bible and to spend time thinking about what a verse might mean when in the end you can't even know wether the verse is translated correctly? This makes no sense at all!
    And so often people say that there are verses in the KJV which are translated wrong or at least could have been translated better.
    But if God didn't protect his word and if what we have today is only a bad copy which contains the general message but where all the niceties have been lost then we had nothing to rely on. This cannot be. This makes no sense to me. Didn't God say his word is pure? Think about it. What do we have from inspired original scriptures which are long gone when our bibles today are no longer accurate? The long gone original manuscripts don't help us at all. This is like being in the store without money and at home you have plenty of money. This doesn't help you. So this really makes no sense and why should an omnipotent God not be able to protect his word?
    I also don't like the thought of everybody having his own bible version, this is ridiculous. The pastor uses his favourite bible and the people in church all have their own favourite bibles. This doesn't work in my opinion. Or having dozens of different versions and then comparing all versions with each other.
    Sometimes the same verse sounds totally different in different bible versions. When our bibles today are not longer 100% accurate then bible reading seems so futile to me. This is like trying to find a friend and driving around with your car searching him when you don't even know where he might be. Totally senseless. :confused:
     
  2. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    The issue isn't accuracy. The issue is a knowlege of the history of the source texts. I fail to see why this is in ay way "senseless".
     
  3. xdisciplex

    xdisciplex
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,766
    Likes Received:
    0
    When you read a verse and cannot even be sure wether this verse is genuine and also translated correctly then it becomes kind of senseless to even think about this verse, doesn't it?
     
  4. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think to question the accuracy of scriptures is nothing short of Satan speaking to you. These variations from source text to source text are quite minor, and no where is there a compromise of biblical doctrine in any of those source texts.
     
  5. xdisciplex

    xdisciplex
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,766
    Likes Received:
    0
  6. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bist du doch von Deutchland? Ich glaube warscheinlich nicht. Warum fragen Sie uber Amerkanische texten, und nicht etwas von Gutenburg?

    Your previous statement demonstrates either a lack of understanding of the scriptural source texts, or a disregard for them in an attempt to start a fight where there is none. I think you're attempting to start trouble on the bb, and not seek sincere answers. Your other posts denote a similar ring to them.
     
  7. xdisciplex

    xdisciplex
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,766
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are you paranoid or what?
    I am not trying to cause trouble but it seems like you cannot even be debated with on such subjetcs. You say these are minor differences, they are not minor! I want to know what you think is "minor".
    Gosh...
    I really do think you're paranoid. Most likely everybody who isn't of your opinion is trying to start trouble. That's really sad.
    And how do you dare calling me a liar? I am from Germany. :rolleyes:
    You know what I don't even want to talk to people like you.
     
  8. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, since you made the assertion, what is it that is "major"? Having studies source texts and scriptural history in Bible college, I can tell you with assertion that I have never seen any doctrinal differences in the major varying translations.

    Since you are from Germany, you should be able to tell us what the Guternburg or Gute Nachricht bibles say in the aforementioned verses you believe to be of concern.
     
  9. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    xdisciplex

    Unfortunately, you've entered into this issue with a pre-judged bias. I don't think you're willing to honestly look at the translation comparisons.

    You use the phrase "KJV/New Age Bibles." This offends me and anyone else who has seen God speak to us through non-KJV means.

    You also quote a "Bible code" proponent, Grant Jeffrey. He is at very best shoddy in his work and at worst fraudulent. "Bible code" is a crock. God's word is not hidden in obscure textual ways...He has made the Way plain for us.

    Not trying to bash you, or the KJV (which I use as well as NIV and other solid translations). But you've already made up your mind, it seems...
     
  10. xdisciplex

    xdisciplex
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,766
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think you don't even get what the problem is. The problem is not that the main content has been changed. The problem is words being changed or verses being left out. Do you think God like this? Or do you not care as long as the main message is still correct? The you can as well read a Chick tract it also tells you what to do to become saved....

    But I already notice that it's senseless trying to talk about this here.

    And by the way the german bibles are also corrupted. They have the same differences which also the NIV has except the bibles which are based on the TR such as the Luther bible from 1545.
     
  11. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0

    I think I do. I think you're posting for the sole purpose of starting trouble. I suspect you're not even from Germany. I've posted two things in German, to which you have not responded. Additionally, you appear to have no knowlege of German bibles such as the Gute Nachricht Bibel. A German would not refer to translations as KJV vs New Age.

    Again, tell us what "words" have been omitted from the original source texts. Also tell us what "content" has been omitted. You do know, don't you, that the source texts for later translations like the NIV actually predate the source texts for the KJV? That means that you cannot accuse later versions from omitting. You would have to accuse the KJV of omitting. I suspect you did not know that, or you would not have made the claim.

    Interesting again. A German would not have much knowlege of Jack Chick, since his claims are from a POV that one English translation is superior to all others.

    What is senseless is that you are bending over backwards to answer questions posed to you.
    Please list the differences so that we can discuss them. I doubt you will, because I doubt you have any comprehension of the German language, let alone German scriptural texts.
     
  12. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    The Luther Bible was translated from the TR in 1545. But language changes with time. We can see this with the KJV which was translated in 1611. We don't even use the 1611 version today. The version we use today is one of the revisions done nearly 150 years later. Almost no one here would be able to easily read the 1611 KJV. So what do you read in Germany. Not everyone speaks English in Germany. I know. I lived in Germany for a few years. Even passing through there more recently it was difficult to find English speaking people to help give me directions.
    So what Bible do the people commonly use in their churches today?
    Is it a Bible based on the Critical Text?
    Is it a Bible based on the TR?
    Living in Germany you ought to be more concerned with these issues rather than the KJV. Why does the KJV concern you so much when you are living in Germany, and Germany is your mission-field not the English speaking world?
    DHK
     
  13. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,762
    Likes Received:
    0
    What you have found are not minor!
    those are serious matter to the true believers.
    I hope you will find the answer by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The first step is to pray God to give you the wisdom and insight.
    What I notice is that Satan works everywhere in the world to blind the people. I hope you will find yourself clouded by some invisible power on this issue. KJV differs from the most modern Bible and especially from "Die Heilige Schrift" von Brockhaus Verlag Wuppertal.

    You can find it differs from KJV in thousand verses. Some of them you mentioned.
    What about
    - Ephser 3:9 (ohne oder durch Jesu Christ)
    - Apostelgeschichte 3:13, 3:26 ( Ist Jesus Knecht od Sohn?)4:27 auch
    - 1 Tim 3:16 ( Der geoffenbart worden ist oder Gott geoffenbart worden ist?)

    I hope you will be serious on this issue, and only God can give you the clear direction, and if you find the answer from God, your joy will be enormous.
     
  14. xdisciplex

    xdisciplex
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,766
    Likes Received:
    0
    What you have found are not minor!
    those are serious matter to the true believers.
    I hope you will find the answer by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The first step is to pray God to give you the wisdom and insight.
    What I notice is that Satan works everywhere in the world to blind the people. I hope you will find yourself clouded by some invisible power on this issue. KJV differs from the most modern Bible and especially from "Die Heilige Schrift" von Brockhaus Verlag Wuppertal.

    You can find it differs from KJV in thousand verses. Some of them you mentioned.
    What about
    - Ephser 3:9 (ohne oder durch Jesu Christ)
    - Apostelgeschichte 3:13, 3:26 ( Ist Jesus Knecht od Sohn?)4:27 auch
    - 1 Tim 3:16 ( Der geoffenbart worden ist oder Gott geoffenbart worden ist?)

    I hope you will be serious on this issue, and only God can give you the clear direction, and if you find the answer from God, your joy will be enormous.
    </font>[/QUOTE]Amen! It's not minor at all.

    Take a look at this! I know that the site looks a bit strange but look at the differences between NIV and KJV. These are huge differences.

    http://www.av1611.org/attack.html

    @ DHK

    In Germany it's just like in the USA. Everybody has his favourite version. You cannot say that they have a standard. You ask me why I'm concerned about the KJV? Cause the problem is exactly the same in Germany. It's also TR vs. the other texts. It's exactly the same problem as with the KJV vs. newer bibles.
    I even compared the NIV to the German Elberfelder. Exactly the same things are missing!
    The German Luther bible from 1545 is the same as the KJV from 1611, only in German. They are both based on the TR. But besides the Luther bible we do not have many German bibles based on the TR. The only one which comes to my mind is the Schlachter bible.
    Actually I do not think the KJV is hard to read and I'm German. The thou and thee's are not really a problem. The only problem I have is that my vocabulary is too small I would have to look up many words. But I don't even have to read the KJV I can as well read the German Schlachter bible.
    But nevertheless the topic is interesting and also important. I am looking for answers, that's all. I realize that both sides have good arguments. The KJVists have good arguments and the others also have good arguments. Personally I would really like to believe that the TR is right and the other texts are corrupted. This would make a lot of things easier. Every christian having his own favourite bible seems strange to me. And how do these differences between the manuscripts fit together with what the bible says about itself? The bible says that it's pure and God said that he will protect his word. How can we say he protected his word when we have different bible versions with huge differences? Where verses are missing? How can you totally rely on your bible when other bibles are different? How can you totally rely on a verse when you cannot even know it's correct? This doesn't work. Imagine you read the bible and you find a verse which totally fits into your situation, maybe a verse which contains a promise and then you want to totally rely on this verse and proclaim it. How can you do this when at the same time you can also ask yourself wether this verse is even real or wether it might have been added later on or wether the translation is correct? :confused:
    Do you understand now what I mean? These are very important questions.

    Read the page and look at the differences. Isaiah 14:12 for example. Lucifer is taken out. You get the impression that whoever fall from heaven is the morningstar. Later in revelation you read jesus is the morningstar! What impression does this give you? Jesus fell from heaven! :eek:
    And you think this is minor?

    Or what about hell,grave and sheol?

    Imagine you want to warn somebody and tell him:

    Either you repent or you go to the grave!

    Do you think this will impress this person at all? Of course not.

    Hell is a scary word. This impresses people but not grave. Why do they do this? Why do they water down the bible? This can only have 1 reason in my opinion.
     
  15. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    the av1611 site is a KJVOist website. KJVOism is a scripturally false doctrine. I see now where you are comign from. You have been poisoned by the false doctrine of single-translation-onlyism. You need to abandon this belief before it does more damage to you faith.

    If it is your belief that any "additions" must be avoided, then you must stay awy from the KJV. Why? Because the source texts of the KJV are more recent than the source texts of man of the so-called "modern versions". Therefore, following your logic, the KJV source texts added the verses in question.

    It is inconsistent logic to stick to the KJV out of concern for "additions".
     
  16. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    You've decided that a bunch of godless scholars got together, smoked a few, and said to each other, "Now, how can we help out Satan and destroy the Bible?"

    When that's your view of things, discussion is fruitless.

    This is said by someone who doesn't want the KJV to go away, either.

    Oh well...your mind is made up. God bless your ministry.
     
  17. xdisciplex

    xdisciplex
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,766
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh man, you are so funny! Seriously. How in the world do you want to know what "a german" would know and what not? This is ridiculous! You are really being paranoid. Of course I know Jack Chick. I also have tracts from him at home. Chick even has a german site www.chick-gospel.de
    I can only shake my head at your assumptions and at you implying that I'm a liar and only wanting to cause trouble. [​IMG]
    I think from my posts one should see that I'm only seeking the truth. :confused:

    But on the other hand I'm also honored because obviously my English seems to be pretty good since you think I'm not even German. [​IMG] :cool:
     
  18. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    the av1611 site is a KJVOist website. KJVOism is a scripturally false doctrine. I see now where you are comign from. You have been poisoned by the false doctrine of single-translation-onlyism. You need to abandon this belief before it does more damage to you faith.

    If it is your belief that any "additions" must be avoided, then you must stay awy from the KJV. Why? Because the source texts of the KJV are more recent than the source texts of man of the so-called "modern versions". Therefore, following your logic, the KJV source texts added the verses in question.

    It is inconsistent logic to stick to the KJV out of concern for "additions".
    </font>[/QUOTE]
    Lucifer is not taken out. The word "lucifer" in English is a transliteration of the vulgate meaning "morning star" or "day star". Even the KJV marginal notes say so. It is not a reference to Satan. If you had knowlege of scriptural source text history, you'd know that.
    What about them? "Hades" it the Greek word for the Hebrew word "Sheol". Sheol is the place where, in Hebrew custom, the souls of the dead went to rest, also known as the "Grave". It is not "Hell" as we understand it. The KJV translates "sheol/hades" as hell, which, in today's use of English, results in error.
     
  19. xdisciplex

    xdisciplex
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,766
    Likes Received:
    0
    the av1611 site is a KJVOist website. KJVOism is a scripturally false doctrine. I see now where you are comign from. You have been poisoned by the false doctrine of single-translation-onlyism. You need to abandon this belief before it does more damage to you faith.

    If it is your belief that any "additions" must be avoided, then you must stay awy from the KJV. Why? Because the source texts of the KJV are more recent than the source texts of man of the so-called "modern versions". Therefore, following your logic, the KJV source texts added the verses in question.

    It is inconsistent logic to stick to the KJV out of concern for "additions".
    </font>[/QUOTE]Which version puts more glory to Jesus?
    The KJV or the NIV where dozens of things are removed? Now tell me which version would you rather choose? Let's say the KJV has been added to then Satan was pretty dumb cause he did a pretty counterproductive thing since these additions are not negative. [​IMG]
     
  20. xdisciplex

    xdisciplex
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,766
    Likes Received:
    0
    Does this mean that since hell is a wrong translations preachers should stop warning people of hell and should start warning people of going to the grave?
    Everybody goes to the grave.

    Grave,underworld,sheol,pit.

    All these words are harmless compared to hell, they have no effect on the people. I don't understand that you cannot comprehend this.
     

Share This Page

Loading...