Did u know todays bible is 97.25% accurate>?

Question

New testament is 99.5% accurate!(spell.mistakes, similar word usage) Ex. "Jesus" or "Jesus Christ" different, but same meaning!Translations are always made from the original Greek manuscripts to avoid error. There are over 24,000 original N.T. copies avaliable, WAY more than any other ancient source. the Bible hasn't been corrupted but slightly changed so we could understand it in modern vocabulary. Wut do u think>?

www.everystudent.com

Answer 1

I think there are lies, damn lies and statistics.

If it is accurate as you claim, what's with all the contradictions?

Answer 2

While you are correct in stating that as far as ancient manuscripts go, we do have more copies of the NT than something like the Illiad or other ancient epics.

However, your estimate is a bit exaggerated for the number of copies available. Keep in mind that many of these are tiny fragments and all are copies, not originals.

By this I don't mean to be discouraging to you, but to note that translators still have a trouble with the meaning of some passages because we don't know what the original said and there are variants among manuscripts.

So, while the Bible may read smoothly in translation, this is often due to the hard work of translators who have to fill in some of the gaps.

Answer 3

"An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture is a dissertation by the English Mathematician and Scholar Isaac Newton. First published in 1754, twenty-seven years after Newton's death, it reviewed all the textual evidence available from ancient sources on two disputed Bible passages, at 1 John 5:7-8 and 1 Timothy 3:16."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Historical_Account_of_Two_Notable_Corruptions_of_Scripture

"Newton refashioned the world governed by an interventionist God into a world crafted by a God that designs along rational and universal principles."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton

OOPPSS, after reading the previous sentence, I realized I need to translate it.

"Newton did not believe God answered prayers or got involved in anything on the earth."

He was a Unitarian & a Deist.


Isaac Newton was a lot smarter than your preacher or anyone else in church history, I'll take his word for how he interpreted the "ancient texts" that so many claim support the Trinity, when, in fact, they do not.

That .5 % error seems to have made a dramatic shift in how the bible was interpreted by a Pagan Roman Emperor and a British King.

Answer 4

I think that no essential meaning or doctrine contained in the Bible is affected by the errors and I think that people who get all red in the face when you tell them that while the original documents were error free, not even the beloved KJV is 100% error free, and they turn to 2 Timothy 3:16 as if they couldn't understand what you just told them about the difference between the originals and the translations of them, need to calm down and invite the Holy Spirit to give them the fruit of peace in their lives.

Answer 5

It doesn't matter what I think as far as you are concerned, or vise verse. Jesus said that he did not care one bit about the opinions of men. I know you are probably just trying to get the truth out and get a discussion going but I think think that someone should say it. The only thing that counts regarding what's true or not is what does God say in His Word about it. When Jesus was asked questions he almost always quoted what us Christians mistakenly call the Old Testament. When he was tempted by the lies of Satan, He quoted the Scriptures; and the only scripture there was, was what we call the Old Testament.

Answer 6

You're going to simply dismiss it out of hand? YOu're not going to investigate to discover if it's true?

He's not saying the Bible is TRUE, he's simply saying the mss. we have are accurate.

It's going to be hard to accuse the next dumb Christians you meet (and it won't be long, we both know!) if you don't check it out. I mean, really folks. Truth.


Lockesmith: That about Exodus is far from established fact; many many respected (in the scholarly community) would disagree with that.

Also true that to get 24,000 manuscripts you have to count a bunch of stuff that you really shouldn't.
-Stephen

Answer 7

Well, some sources tell me that it's indeed accurate.

Some quote versus like Jesus saying the end time was suppose to be during the lifetimes of the apostles who, of course are long since dead.

Others claim that it is so vague you can make anything mean anything.

Answer 8

I will point out only one error. If there is this one how many others do you have? ..... the Greek wasnt the original ... much of the original was in Aramaic ... and then translated into Greek. I wonder what was lost in that translation and what was not bothered with. So with 'facts' like yours ... I am sure your accuracy drops like rock!

Answer 9

i really don't care. the bible was written many, many years later than the stories told "happened", so the chances of them being true are extremely small. and that's not a right number since plenty of stories that appear today in the bible aren't found in the earliest manuscripts which are not the original ones. Wut do u think>

Answer 10

for a 2000 year old document that's pretty good huh?
to 'ponder's comment, we dont have any 'original' manuscripts? the NT is written directly from autographs......directly from the source
And to the other statement, the NT was written in Greek, how many dummy's will attempt to answer this question??

Answer 11

Perhaps that is the only instance of the bible being accurate, but being factual is a different story altogether!

P.S. Your figures contradict each other.