Accurate Bible?, controversy

A couple of points I have discovered that make the answers in this thread less definitive.

Is the Bible accurate? Needs to be defined.

Do you believe that the Bible is Translated Accurately?

Do you believe the Bible to be historically accurate?

Do you believe that the original manuscripts that comprise the Bible were accurately preserved up to translation?

Do you believe that the Bible accurately conveys God's word?

Also this is from the analytical viewpoint. (being part Vulcan )

If you believe that the Bible should include more than it does already(i.e. other texts that have never been included in the Cannon or are not widely accepted as part of it) Why?

Also if you believe that the Bible should include more or less, have you read the Bible in it's entirety, Old and New Testaments and other texts that you believe should be a part of the Bible to see if it makes sense to you that the other texts are not a part of the Bible. (obviously someone did that at some time and if I was disputing them I would want to see if I could see what they saw)

If you believe part of the Bible has been changed or deleted to suit the church and it's agenda, why and what evidence can you offer to support this? Or are you basing what you believe about the Bible on what you percieve to be possible or not possible.

Ulitmately faith equates with trust. If you believe in an all powerful creator, do you believe do you believe that he is capable of keeping his word in tact for all of his followers to read?


Certainly some things are provable and others not. It seems senseless to argue what can not be proven one way or another. If you have already made up your mind that the authors and characters in the Bible are guilty until proven inocent then in many cases (such as Issac and Abraham) the most solid evidence that you have is what is presented by the characters in the story by the author and at some point you either decide to trust the story and the author or not. Reasoning about a story happening more than once are not conclusive and are arbitrary. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that history could repeat itself on some level and maybe quite closely. (this happens all the time)

I see how some have arrived at their opinions, but I would like to know how others have and what they are based on or if they had even considered where those opinions came from previously.

I personally formed my opinion about the Bible by reading it intitially (with the idea that the stories would be full of wholes but that I may find some truth in it) Then examining it in light of external evidence. (I.E. archeology, preservation methods, translation and methods, etc...) Then cross referencing for difficulties (apparent contradictions) and seeing if they could really be reconciled (with in the Bible itself and across various English translations)

I compared it with what science says are there any contradictions?(provable hard science, not theories as they are frequently unsubstantiated)

From a literature standpoint, can the Bible be trusted as an accurate representation of what it was originally in all parts.

Finally the Cannon, what about other works, should they be given equal weight or any weight at all compared to the Bible. (I.E. Gnostic works, other Gospels, Apochrypha, Book of Mormon, etc....not meaning that I have read every single work that was not deamed worthy of being included in the Cannon of Scripture, but a very significant amount, enough to convince me that the Cannon is as it should be)

I have spent the last 18 years of my adult life working on this endeavor as I for one want to know why I believe what I believe and I am not suggesting that anyone should take my word for it. I simply think that in considering whether or not the Bible is the word of God a substantial amount of effort should be put forth because if it is indeed his devine word, this is one of the most important decisions that anyone will ever make in their lives.

(sorry for the long winded ness )

Mikel

Well, I will just say that I am of the old school of Christain beliefs: I believe that the Bible is the written Word of God. I believe it AS WRITTEN and prefer the KJV because I believe it is the closest and most powerful of the written versions (though I do have other versions in case I find something difficult to understand in the KJV). Yes, the KJV was written at the behest of King James, but I do believe that he was inspired by God to do so and that translators he employed to do so were led by God. I believe in a literal translation of the Bible. For instance, when the Bible says the world was created in seven day, I believe it was a literal seven days as we know them. And yes I believe that God IS all-powerful, and is powerful enough to keep His own Word pure.

Nuff said by me.

A bumper sticker I saw once that best expreeses my views:
The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it.

I'm going to use you just for an example here Alan, I hope you don't mind

This is what I am talking about Bible accuracy, Alan believes that the Bible is to be taken literally and this has nothing to do with the translation being literal, but the interpretation.

Alan obviously believes that the Bible is completely accurate (as I do, just for different reasons )

This is just where the semantics can lead to confusion about what we are actually talking about. At some point if we consider the Bible we will make one of 3 choices, I believe, I don't believe, not enough evidence to make a decision.


Peace

Mikel

Wow! Very interesting conversation. I am like in Allen in the point that I believe the Bible is the literal word of God that God inspired men to write. I am sure that down through the ages that written translations got messed up somehow. I know that I wrote that I was told that the New American Standard was the most accurate, but personally I much prefer the New American Standard.........much easier reading

You all bring up some very good points!

Peace and love!

I did not come to you with eloquence of speech, I came to you preaching Jesus Christ, and him crucified. Paul

I believe we can get too wrapped up in wandering wondering. I'm not saying that the thoughts in this thread are aimless, just that I like to interject what I find to be the most important reality in all of man's understanding. Jesus. Without him we can do nothing. We are poor, wretched, and miserable.

The Bible says that God writes his word upon our hearts. If that is true, then why are there so many that say "this is what this means" and "this is what that means". The word written in the texts may in some instances be just that, word. The word written on the heart is The Word. Our need for our Creator, and His Son, Jesus, is I think, part of our DNA. The fact that we can deny that part of ourself as a matter of decision is very interesting, but we can, and so many do. But that Word is there nonetheless. I hope that somewere along this post as many as contribute will evidence their scholarly interest with a real knowledge of Him, that which can not be learned in a classroom.

without the Bible, we would not know what Jesus is like and what he taught. Yes, God wrote the need for him into us, i dont neccessarily think it was the DNA . That is why you will find men or women who don't know anything about the Bible but are searching for God. That is why every culture in the world has some sort of religious belief. However, God specifically reveals himself in the Bible, His charachter, His promises, His comandments. currently there are forces at work in our culture that wish to eliminate the Bible from public places and history. Most notably the ACLU. (after all they just attacked the pledge of allegience because two words were added in the 60's-Under God) That is why we need to know if we can trust the Bible. If you don't, I can give you reasons to at least reevaluate that, if you do great but how many attacks on that belief can you stand up too? (I am asking this hypothetically please don't feel that I am asking you to respond to this)

The bible says to always be ready with an answer for the faith that you have. Saying that it is your faith is a valid answer. But is there more?

If you believe the Bible has innacurate statements, which parts are innacurate?

Is it where abraham lied to abimalech or where Christ died on the cross for our sins?

I find that most people say it is the part they disagree with, or that they cannot believe, not that the Bible disagrees with itself.

The many translations, im talking main streem ones such as KJV, NIV, NASB, etc., agree even though they were translated at different times. The NIV wasn't until Late 1800' or early 1900's (I cant remember exactly when, somebody please cone up with the specific date). Well after the time the Catholic church lots its monopoly on religious thought. Yet, They still agree with the KJV which was translated in 1611. The Books of the Bible are written by close to 50 different authors over more than 1000 years. That many people cant agree on pizza toppings, yet they agreed on religous philosophy and what the character of God was and how Christ came to earth to be our sacrifice. We have had what, roughly 10-15 people post here maybe less, about half us so far believe the Bible to be the accurate word of God, the other half believe it is fallible.

I prefer the King James, I grew up using the NIV. I like the imagry that only the King james uses. The thees and thous never really confused me. I also believe it is the most accurate word for word translation. I say this to let people know where I am coming from not to cause another debate.

The King James Bible is called that because it was COMISSIONED by King James not because it pleased King James. Who by the way persecuted protestants so why would he have a bible written that could readily be used by protestants, if he was going to mess with it.

I see a lot of opinion on the matter, which is good But if opinion is backed up by more opinion than it is nothing more than faith. I can list many reasons why I believe the Bible is 100% accurate. A big chunk of those reasons is my faith that God did what He said he would do, I believe in an all powerfull, personal God. Some other reasons are extrabiblical. Such as the accurate history, accurate psychology, accurate science (not including creation because science cannot prove creation or disprove it. )

So far I believe only 1 subject has been braught up to show the Bible has errors, Abraham and Issaac and the story with pharoh and abimalech. In my mind this was settled, I believe the text clearly shows that they are three different stories not misinformed retellings of the same story. No error on this subject.

If you take any 2 bibles, the KJV and one other and read and compair passage to passage you will see there is a great difference in the meanings presented by both. My daughter, who at the time was 7, was asked to read a passage at her mothers church , we have many versions of bibles in this house, and she saw the differences in meaning right off in the pasages she was to read. REMEMBER they are written by men who claim to be of god.

They were men who claimed to be "inspired" by God.........there is a difference. God ordained these men himself and inspired them to write what He wanted written for the rest of us mankind. Just my humble opinion.

Shadows,

I don't think you understand that these are not different Bibles, . These are simply different translations of the same texts into English. I think that if you are using the translations as your only method of comparison and then say all the versions are different, then you are ignoring the fact that of archaic langage in the KJV and different methodology of translation (i.e. literal vs accurate, modern language vs poetic language, paraphrase vs translation, etc...)

Remember that they are only translated by men. The original manuscripts (those used to render all modern English translations) are the same verse for verse.

But don't take my word for it check out a couple of different interlinear Bibles from the library. (an interlinear Bible has a parallel translation with the original Greek/Hebrew/Interlinear text) Get one for the KJV or NKJV and one for any other popular version including, NIV, RSV,NSRV etc... and you will have all of the available manuscripts.

It is not like there are a bunch of conflicting manuscripts floating around. The 2 available are 99% the same with just a couple of missing verses. (i.e. the last part of the last chapter of Mark, 1John5:7) that's it and everything said in each of those passages is actually stated elsewhere anyway.

I know there has been a lot of conversation here about what people believe the Bible to be but the question is about Biblical accuracy.

The main question seems to be the reliability of the scriptures as far as how they have been handed down. I would recomend to anyone who is truly interested to read a book by Josh McDowell "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" It is heavily documented from many extra Biblical and scientific secular sources. It presents many very compelling arguments for the historical, and bibliographical reliabiliy of the Bible as a work of antiquity.

Chapter 4 deals exclusively with this subject. Check it out it is well worth the little bit of time it takes to read.

Peace

Mikel

BTW - what reddrake said also

Although I can't name them offhand, I have heard some scientists speak, and even reference other scientists as well, who have set out to prove the Bible inaccurate. To show the fallability of scripture, to show the Bible's contradictions, and to disprove the entire account of the Creation. These men set out to disprove, and end up believers. I'm not saying all scientists who study the Bible end up Christians, but the numbers that have should at least serve as a testimony of the power of the word.

There is another person, I have read his book "The Case for Christ". He also has written "The Case for Faith". He was an atheistic investigative reporter for a major newspaper (I think the Chicago Tribune), and he did much the same as so many scientists have. He used his investigating talants to research the reliability of Biblical text. He too became a Christian, and a true believer. I think that his name is Lee Strobel.

Anyway, I thought some of you might find this interesting.

I found this interesting article about who "owns" the Bible at http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/kjvcopy.htm this article is in the same vane as this forum discussion because it covers a profit motive for creating new translations.

this is an interesting portion from http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/biblever.htm

This post has been edited by birddog20002001 on 06-Jul-2004, 05:34 AM

The article found here http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/kjverror.html shows that the KJV a protestant Bible did not have full access to the stores of works at the Vatican an some mistakes were made due to this

While interesting reasearch Bird Dog this is a little bit of a different discussion. This is more which translation.

There are a number of people who say that the KJV is the only reliable Translation. I personally find these arguments to be without merit and have found most of the points of contintion to be on minutia. I have read all of the poplular translations and have found them to say essentially the same thing even when read in parallel. Of course in some cases it would be possible to come up with different meanings if you ignore the larger context and are not familiar with Biblical exegis. I have also read portions of some ridiculous (i hesitate to call some of them translations, they were so bad and far removed from anything that resembled a serious work that I assumed them to be at the best a paraphrase with a lot of literary license being used, i.e the Cotton Patch Bible, the White Mans Bible...at the least written with a definite ax to grind and not to be compared to serious translation efforts) I have read enough in these to know that I do not want to waste my time on a complete reading.

Onward

Mikel

I found this article interesting even though I am not unfamiliar with most of these articles. I also found it interesting that while stating

"No language can be translated word for word into another language. Hebrew and Greek idioms often do not come through clearly into literal English. Thus, beginning in 1560 with the Geneva Bible, translators initiated the practice of adding italicized clarifying words to make the original language more plain. The fifty-four King James translators did the same. Often, the added italicized words do help make the meaning clearer. At other times, the translators through their doctrinal misunderstandings added errors instead."

then attempts to correct words that are simply archaic in their use. Also if you were to rely on this critisism you see that this author has made a judgement about the doctrine of the King James Bible, most likely because it does not line up with his own.

So I don't spend all day here and not get any work done here are just a few more examples of the inaccuracy of this article and then we can move on.

Genesis 10:9 should read " . . . Nimrod the mighty hunter in place of [in opposition to] the LORD." The word "before" is incorrect and gives the connotation that Nimrod was a good guy, which is false.

Reads
10:9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD: wherefore it is
said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD.
Example of archaic use of language. i.e difference between the King's English in the 16th century and modern. Also author give's his opinion as fact as far as his perception of the connotation given here. For example reading the same passage I have never had the idea that Nimrod was a good guy as a result.

Leviticus 16:8, 10, 26 in the KJV is "scapegoat" which today has the connotation of someone who is unjustly blamed for other's sins. The Hebrew is Azazel, which means "one removed or separated." The Azazel goal represents Satan, who is no scapegoat. He is guilty of his part in our sins.

Another example of archaic language. The word scapegoat taken from the context of the translation bears just this meaning. What they are talking about in this particular passage is actually goats which are being used for atonement in a sacrificial way. The idea is that the goats are not guiltyof anythingthat is why they are an acceptable sacrifice. That is where the modern idea comes from even though the connotation today is not exact with what is represented in Leviticus. The author then goes on to make an unsupported statement that The Azazel goal represents Satan you can not get that from the context even substituting the translation he suggests.

Actually reads
16:8 And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for
the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat. (Insert - one removed or separated here)
16:9 And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the LORD'S lot
fell, and offer him for a sin offering.
16:10 But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat,
shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement
with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the
wilderness.

I would have to make the assumption that scape added to goat in the 16th century mean't just what it was translated to mean.

Malachi 4:6 should read " . . . lest I come and smite the earth with utter destruction." "Curse" doesn't give the proper sense here. Same word used in Zechariah 14:11

The author is simply making a judgement call here about the proper sense. I also did a little research on the author and could not find that he had any credintials that would ad credence to his opinion over the opinions of mainstream modern translators who have acknowledged that the KJV is the most literal modern translation. I said before that I was not unfamiliar with most of this and that is because this author is bringing his critisism from a particular theological bent, which means that these aledged discrepancies do not line up with his theology.

I selected these particular portions of this article because they were the easiest to deal with given my limited time this morning. Also when I find glaring discrepancies in an article such as this and unsupported statements made by someone without any credintials to back them up, I find that in most cases you can discount much more of what they say, if there case is so weak to begin with that they feel they must bolster it with more weak argument like this.

I could go on and will later if you would like

But I must run for now.

TTFN

Mikel

In response to the copyright issue. I havn't looked at these specific instances yet, but last time I checked two companies could not copyright the exact same thing, or idea. It has to be different in some way. This said I don't believe it is the translation that is neccessarily copyrighted but the study notes and crossreferances. The little helpful things that publishers add into the Bible but don't claim that it is part of the direct revelation from God. Like Historical background, authors, who the epistles were written to. I use the Life Application Bible KJV. If I put it next to any other KJV the text is exactly the same except for the study notes if any.

Also, first the vatican is accused of hiding texts and altering them, now the later translators are being accused of errors because they did not use the manuscripts the vatican had ( again we are assuming that these powerful people were to stupid to destroy or alter anything they didn't want revealed later). I thaught that would have been a mark in their favor.