If the bible is the "inerrant" word of God why...?

Question

The difference here:

1 John 5:7-8 (New American Standard Bible)

7 For there are three that testify:

8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

1 John 5:7-8 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain

King James Version:

John 5:7-8

7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

If every word was inspired by God did he inspire the KJV writers to add that part to support the trinity doctrine?

Why would God inspire that and not inspire that in earlier and modern translations?

My point here is that is blasphemy to call a work of man the inerrant work of God when there are apparant errors.

Does this take away from the bible? No, the bible still is what it is, a guide to get you started on your walk with God.

What the bible is not:

The infallible and perfect word of God himself - which some believe and breeds all sorts of weird ideas.

Use KJV? That's the one that added the verse that was not in the original. It was added later. Actually, it was just a footnote as if the translator was making notes to himself and perhaps his buddy thought that it was meant to be added in.

So if we don't have the original manuscripts, which we don't, why have the doctrine in the first place? Doesn't that open up a nice door of criticism?

So because I forgot to run spell check against my name and against my text diminishes my question how?

By showing I can't spell or have decent grammar? What a way to avoid answering my question.

Answer 1

Christians believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, that its authors were inspired by the Holy spirit. It is infallible in that it is the true guide for our faith and conduct in life. It is not a science book but a theology book.
Translation of the Bible is an extremely difficult task. Translating from one language to another always is hard. But when the translation is from an ancient Semitic language like Hebrew, or the Greek of 2000 years ago, it becomes monstrous. Complicating matters is the fact that the English of 1620 when the KJV was created is different from the English of our time or any other for that matter. Then too, we rely generally on the more ancient manuscripts as being more authoritative. It would be a lot easier if we had the originals, but unfortunately we don't. There are at times minor differences in manuscripts; don't assume however that some sinister motive was involved. Occasionally a scribe would add a personal comment or gloss in the margin of his copy. Or perhaps one reading it later might do so. This gloss sometimes would appear in later manuscripts which used the first as a master to copy. Make sense? What it comes down to is this. The integrity of the text in a version such as the NIV or NEB is sound. The KJV has flaws, but these are not due necessarily to some crotchety old farts in England who wanted to make a point, but rather to their lack of older manuscripts that we now have in our possession.

Answer 2

Yes, "word of God" is the content, message that the bible try to convey, since the catholic and the protestant belief are different, they won't use their counterpart's Bible and make that claim. And the claim has nothing to do with the wording too, there are numerous bible in different languages and interpretations like NIV, KJV etc. however the message is the same. Besides the Bible is not a book of dogma, it inviting investigations, studies from individuals, so the content and the application of it is the real deal. Ethnic(Jews) rituals or local(Middle east) knowledge dating back to early AD would affect the validity of the lessons telling. If someone add/burn a few page or the whole bible with his free will, it makes no difference the book burnt is actually the Bible that most Christians holding dear or "Javascript Bible", a reference for web page developer. The word of God is the message believers can get from the Bible, not equals the Bible in its physical form.

Answer 3

We can't take only what scripture we like and the ones we don't just pay no attention to.

Romans 15:4 (New King James Version)

4 For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (New King James Version)

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Answer 4

I am not sure how to answer your question. The King James was translated mostly from the incomplete (at that time) "Textus Receptus". And, many believe that King Jimmy had an axe to grind -who knows for sure? The NAS is translated from many documents, some of which are much older than the "Textus Receptus".

God did not "inspire" the writers of the King James version, King James did.
The original autographs were inspired by the Holy Spirit. No other work or translation that I am aware of was inspired.

Answer 5

You misunderstand the doctrine of inerrancy.
The teaching is that the original word that was given is the inerrant word of God.
Discerning what that original word was is the work of scholars who spend thousands of hours poring over hundreds or even thousands of ancient manuscripts and coming to a conclusion about what is the most reasonable likelihood of what the original text said.
Even if the text is superfluous in this passage and what the translators of the KJV render does not appear in the original text, nevertheless what is stated is clearly stated implicitly throughout Scripture.

Answer 6

The original Bible was the inerrant work of God. Not every faulty translation. God did not inspire anyone to add passages later. That's like saying he forgot to add it the first time. There was no meeting in heaven: "Ok Guys, this is the final draft... What do you mean you already had them write it? You! Fired! You too! And you in the corner! All Fired! Ok, new plan, in several hundred years, we'll revise it..."

Answer 7

Is not the end result the same? I mean-- how it is said doesn't matter as long as it says the same- New American version- seems to cut out the frill and just give the idea- which is the same in both- I am a firm believer in using the King James- but it is nice to compare from time to time-

Answer 8

The dead sea scrolls are exact translations of the old testament, GEN 1:26 Let US make man in OUR image after OUR likeness. God is talking to the other members of the trinity, the son and the holy spirit. There is teaching of the trinity in the old testament, in the first chapter of the first book.

Answer 9

No its after Jesus death and God the father has Jesus at the right hand of him and the holy spirit is their acctive forces that makes miracles and visions happen.The other version is just in English so others studying the Bible can understand the Bible.

Answer 10

The error, my friend, is in the translation. My recommendation is to use the King James Version. It's a close to the original as we can get.

Good question though.