Good question... It is surprising how many people believe that the KJV translation, for example, is infallible.
The doctrine of inspiration applies to the original textual autographs of Scripture in the original languages. Translations are not infallible.
Especially when the KJV itself, in the original 1690 edition, plainly stated that it could not be infallible, and that fuller meaning could always be derived from a more complete study of manuscripts, in its preface...
Perhaps in times past, evil men have tried to stamp out the Bible making it illegal to own one. Or the RCC has tried to convince people that they were too ignorant to "interpret" the Word of God, so the trained priests were here to help you to know what they wanted you to know.
But, I am wondering that since evil men could not do either of the above with any success, could the many different translations have caused errors to be scattered across the contents of the Bible? Change one word in a passage or verse and that one changed word can change the context of the meaning?
Perhaps in times past, evil men have tried to stamp out the Bible making it illegal to own one. Or the RCC has tried to convince people that they were too ignorant to "interpret" the Word of God, so the trained priests were here to help you to know what they wanted you to know.
But, I am wondering that since evil men could not do either of the above with any success, could the many different translations have caused errors to be scattered across the contents of the Bible? Change one word in a passage or verse and that one changed word can change the context of the meaning?
Well, that's the advantage of having multiple early copies, the record survives--but see that a good translation in 1690 just cannot be defined the same with the current idiom as a starting point for many concepts in the Bible, leading to an answer for you, I think. The Word will have to have MSS documentation, clear and concise, like "the earth became void" was, to me at least; and then tested. While this may sound like a descent into ?, it is actually easier than ever before in history! Only takes several clicks, now?
Man, just go in to "lexicon" on a problematic Bible verse, on a Bible site, and not emerge with a fuller understanding...IMO.
Last edited by bbyrd009; 01-02-2012 at 04:09 PM.
Reason: ce
A related question: Can you think of a fictitious example of two scriptures (i.e., hypothetical only -- they are not really in the Bible) that nobody could reconcile if they tried to?
E.g., suppose one verse said "There was a lion in the room", and another, referring to the same event at the same place and at the same time, "There was no lion in the room". Would anyone here say that these two verse contradicted each other? Would Lafon have to throw out the entire Bible if those verse really were in the Bible?
My guess: no. Nobody here (with a few exceptions ) would dare to say that these verses contradicted each other. Some would be so bold as to say explicitly that they don't even see how anyone could claim they are contradictory (as they have pretty much said that about other claims of contradiction).
Why is that? What obligation do you think you have to believe the Bible is true no matter what? Why such fear?
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
My guess: no. Nobody here (with a few exceptions ) would dare to say that these verses contradicted each other. ...
Doh! What was I thinking? Of course everybody will say yes, those verses would be a contradiction (adding, of course, that there are no such contradictions actually in the Bible).
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
A related question: Can you think of a fictitious example of two scriptures (i.e., hypothetical only -- they are not really in the Bible) that nobody could reconcile if they tried to?
E.g., suppose one verse said "There was a lion in the room", and another, referring to the same event at the same place and at the same time, "There was no lion in the room". Would anyone here say that these two verse contradicted each other? Would Lafon have to throw out the entire Bible if those verse really were in the Bible?
My guess: no. Nobody here (with a few exceptions ) would dare to say that these verses contradicted each other. Some would be so bold as to say explicitly that they don't even see how anyone could claim they are contradictory (as they have pretty much said that about other claims of contradiction).
Why is that? What obligation do you think you have to believe the Bible is true no matter what? Why such fear?
Yep. With lack of precise details anything can be reconciled.
__________________
You better watch out before I blitzkrieg your thread cause I'm the Thread Nazi now!
A related question: Can you think of a fictitious example of two scriptures (i.e., hypothetical only -- they are not really in the Bible) that nobody could reconcile if they tried to?
E.g., suppose one verse said "There was a lion in the room", and another, referring to the same event at the same place and at the same time, "There was no lion in the room". Would anyone here say that these two verse contradicted each other? Would Lafon have to throw out the entire Bible if those verse really were in the Bible?
My guess: no. Nobody here (with a few exceptions ) would dare to say that these verses contradicted each other. Some would be so bold as to say explicitly that they don't even see how anyone could claim they are contradictory (as they have pretty much said that about other claims of contradiction).
Why is that? What obligation do you think you have to believe the Bible is true no matter what? Why such fear?
There's one problem Timmy...
If there wasn't a lion in the room then no one would think to write "there wasn't a lion in the room". So the closer approximation to reality would be two verses where one says there was a lion in the room and the other that simly skips over the part about a lion being in the room.
Such passages are easy to reconcile. Instead of assuming the silence about the lion in the room means it wasn't there we assume the part about the lion in the room just didn't seem important to the author who didn't mention it.
__________________
You better watch out before I blitzkrieg your thread cause I'm the Thread Nazi now!
If there wasn't a lion in the room then no one would think to write "there wasn't a lion in the room". So the closer approximation to reality would be two verses where one says there was a lion in the room and the other that simly skips over the part about a lion being in the room.
Such passages are easy to reconcile. Instead of assuming the silence about the lion in the room means it wasn't there we assume the part about the lion in the room just didn't seem important to the author who didn't mention it.
Yes, there are examples of that. But there are also cases of direct contradictions, that some say are not. They often try to use the same defense, but it's a stretch, IMO. E.g., if Jesus rode into Jerusalem on the backs of two donkeys, it would be correct to record that event by saying, as the writer of Matthew did in chapter 21:
1And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples,
2Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me.
3And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them.
4All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying,
5Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.
6And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them,
7And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.
But would Luke's account also be accurate, in chapter 19?
29And it came to pass, when he was come nigh to Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount called the mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples,
30Saying, Go ye into the village over against you; in the which at your entering ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither.
31And if any man ask you, Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him.
32And they that were sent went their way, and found even as he had said unto them.
33And as they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto them, Why loose ye the colt?
34And they said, The Lord hath need of him.
35And they brought him to Jesus: and they cast their garments upon the colt, and they set Jesus thereon.
Mark and John also speak of a single animal. This is sometimes explained in the way you mention: that the three accounts mentioning just one animal do not preclude there being a second one. They just don't happen to mention them both. Matthew, however, is very careful in that detail, probably because he believed the prophecy in Zech 9:9 to be predicting two donkeys. It says "and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass." The other three thought it was a poetic device, common in other parts of the OT especially (they're all over the place in Proverbs), referring to one animal in two ways, the second (the foal) being more specific.
Anyway, like you said, it is always possible to reconcile contradictions, but I would include examples with precise details. The above all seem quite precise, to me, as do several others.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Why is that? What obligation do you think you have to believe the Bible is true no matter what? Why such fear?
well, and personally, the Bible is for me a reflection of the Word, and can only be clarified, not changed. The Bible is a type that you will not improve upon, and discount "believing is true, no matter what" at your peril.
) would dare to say that these verses contradicted each other. Some would be so bold as to say explicitly that they don't even see how anyone could claim they are contradictory (as they have pretty much said that about other claims of contradiction).
Linear Mode
