If the bible is infallible, which version is the infallible one? ... part 2?

Question

Since the various versions disagree on some things, they can't all be correct. That's logically impossible.

And what evidence can you provide that YOUR version is the infallible one, while the others are not?


Saying "the original" writings doesn't help any

If you know anything about "the bible" you know that different versions disagree on which writings should be included in the first place.

It doesn't matter if you're reading the original book of Job, if two versions disagree on whether Job is legitimate.




... and please, unlike last time, back your answer up with some evidence.
I don't want to know that you think that the King James version is the only true word of god, I want to know if you can back that up!

Bring evidence, or don't bother posting an opinion.

Com on admits that he doesn't understand the issue enough to comment,

and Gator says essentially "the originals" revealing that he didn't even bother to read the question.




Is there anyone with a brain out there?

Answer 1

Since a committee of fallible human beings decided what went into the bible and then versions were 'corrected' or made better from that then no bible is infallible. They are all full of human bias.

Answer 2

You could do a literal translation- such as the New American Standard bible from 1903. Its pretty harsh to understand because the context doesn't translate.

The New International Version (1974 to 1985) is considered to be the most accurate translation- the reason why is because the way how it was written. Essentially they had teams do a translation from the oldest text, then referenced these to the oldest translations- then passed these translations to other teams. When a pictular word's meaning was in dispute, they would argue and cross reference its meaning- then, its meaning would be tranlsated into english, then printed.

The New King James Bible just flat out sucks- the orginal King James was politically slanted, and is considered to be a unreliable translation by most religions- the Mormons are the exception, in that they believe its the only "authorized" edition- what they fail to realize is the "authorization" was only from the King of England, not G-d.

"the Living Bible" is a misnomer- its NOT a bible, but a pharaphrase- it was written by one man, going to and from work on the NY subway system, for his children. Needless to say it is NOT an accurate text, nor is it even designed to be taken seriously by any true bible scholars.

Theres a few other bibles out there- the very best ones are the ones that have 3 translations and the orginal all on one page. You open the book and to the far left you have the orignal greek, hebrew or aramaic. Then you might have the New American, then the New International, and then the King James. This allows for serious scholarly work to understand the true meanings of the authors intent.

The King James Bible, has persisted in staying in print- even though it was written in 1611, the edition you purchase now is from the 1769 third printing. People like the King James because its so poetic in nature, not for the true meanings of the scripture.

Answer 3

The problem lies in that few people actually sit down and learn the Bivle in the original Aramaic/Greek/Latin. When translated, the language may lose meaning and also there are some idioms- words which have no direct translation in other languages, or that are untranslatable easily. The skill lies with the tranlator picking a 'good' translation of the sentence or word.
This happens with the Jehovahs Witnesses main text, the New World version. At several points the text refers to Jesus as 'a god' rather than just God, referring to him like a false god such as Baal.
It is far easier to read it in Latin as the Catholic Church did until it decided that Latin was not suitable for a 'modern' church.
I must also point out that most of the versions just have a different version of the same text- the language used reflects the language of the time. For example, the word begotten is used in he KJV, and the NIV lists it as 'son of' instead.
There is no right or wrong so long as the message of the text gets through.

Answer 4

OK I asked for evidence first

"""The bible is only infallible on matters of faith. All of the bible agree on that, the rest isn't really as important. If the bible disagrees on a location or how old Job is, that's not important. What's important is that agrees on the 10 commandments, the fact that Jesus rose from the dead, etc. If you manage to show me a place in the bible where it disagrees about faith, then you can talk about how infallible it is.

():-D
shadowgirl

You should have known would get out of this question, DA """





Exact wording I might add.

Answer 5

im a christian i i know the bible is true and i was wondering if you were a christian or what your position is right now in believing in God. you have to read this whole thing becuase i have proof the bible is true. a few days ago, on friday, we had josh mcdowell, a very famous christian author, speak at our school. he was a very good speaker and seemed like a great guy. you should read some of his books. NEWAYS, i have never heard of different types of bibles disagreeing with each other. but i can prove that ne type of bible is true (except the morman bible, which isnt tru, only the christian bible is tru) bcuz listen to this. it is very old, but in a 250 year range after it was written , there were almost 25,000 copies made with almost no mistakes, and the only mistakes were switching a with an, and stuff like that. to prove my point about how accurate the bible is look at this, the next oldest book with the second most amount of copies is homers illiad. that had abour 250 copies in a very big time range, alot bigger than the 250 yr time range with coping the bible. that means the bible is more accurate, i cant explain this very well,but i know that if you visited a church or wrote to josh, mcdowell, he could really clear up your ?s. did u know that josh used to be a very big athiest, and he spent a very long time trying to disprove the bible, but in the end, he realized that it had to be true. i hope that u bcome a christian and if you do or if u have ne ?s concerning religion, please send me a message or something

god bless

Answer 6

when discussing things that are hard to put into words this is always going to be a difficulty for translators. If you had actually read anu of the versions you would know that while they may not precisely agree they absolutely do not disagree. There is a big differance. You sound like fanatic christians talking about muslims, you know not of what you speak. There are plenty of places to be critical of chritians why pick something you know nothing about. Just because people disagree about scripture does not mean scripture disagrees with itself. You have not backed up your premise that scripture contradicts itself.

You want to jump on christians case here is an issue. The Bible clearly advocates that individuals and leaders be held accountable. (letters to TIM and MAT. 18) Bush says he is a christian yet clearly has used aggression. So why has he not either been forced to repent or been publically ex-communicated. There is a legitamite bone to pick, the right wing christian leaders supported him for his second term knowing he was acting in a manner clearly opposite of scripture, yet no one has called them on that. There is an issue you can be critical on.

Answer 7

no, infaliible further means appropriate and the historic previous of the worldwide proves that the bible has been altered, translated and retranslated because of the fact the inerrent translation earlier grew to become into judged in blunders. people who lead us reason us to err. it has constantly been the comparable. whereever devil is, there'll be a servant of devil optimum the sheep as though a real prophet. one blunders in bible translation comes from the fact that christians all have self belief God is invisible. (continuously) yet men of holiness have constantly seen God. yet another blunders in historic previous is the fact that the verse in john regarding the trinity, grew to become into extra unto the bible until eventually ultimately the 365 days 1000! see bart erhman "jesus interupted" or take a Seminary degree.

Answer 8

not all Christians believe the Bible is inerrant. Though most do believe it is infallible, that is def 2 - unfailing in effectiveness or operation; certain: an infallible remedy

Answer 9

"... and please, unlike last time, back your answer up with some evidence.
I don't want to know that you think that the King James version is the only true word of god, I want to know if you can back that up!

Bring evidence, or don't bother posting an opinion."

And this is sort of like the pot calling the kettle black. You make all these statements about inconsitancies and disagreements, and yet you never give any examples.

Answer 10

The Hebrew Masoritic text, has never been known to be changed, and all versions are based on it.