Are complete opposites exactly the same?

[Gordon]

Can both man and God be 100% right?

Can two bible versions differing in the amount of verses, or differing in that one version says this verse is from God and the other version questions if it should even be there or leaves that verse out - can both of those versions be 100% right?

Could a person love Jesus if there was nothing to even give his name or describe him or his person?

Is it possible to "not be able to really KNOW anything," yet have words like "sure," "positive," "know," "absolute," or "certain?"

[quackheadbp]

Its all based on faith. I think that different versions of the bible really mean the same thing, it all lead's the the same point.

[Gordon]

Does that mean that being right is based on your faith? Don't even athiests have faith that they are right?

One version says that we are not supposed to change God's word and another demonstrates that it is ok to leave out parts or change them. That seems to say two different things.

[Ordek Avci]

Is this a question about the apochryphal books, disputed portions of the Bible, or just different translations? Depending on what exactly you're asking, there are very different answers.

As far as being saved without hearing about Jesus. That answer is pretty clear in Scripture. You have to hear about Jesus. Romans 10:9, 14, 17; Acts 4:12; and many others (these are just the first ones that come to mind) prove that it is only in the name of Jesus that men can be saved. And the only way to hear about Jesus is from the word of God.

And yes, we can know things and we can know things certainly. There are obvious limitations on our ability to know things, since we are humans and not God, and we have a habit of misconstruing the truth, since we are fallen humans. But that does not in itself mean we can't know things. I know that granite is hard, water is wet, and God is good. You can take that to the bank.

[Gordon]

To be honest, beyond learning what "Apocryphal" meant, I never looked any further. I was, however, wanting to know if a person can use any version of the bible and call it God's Word - since many of the newer versions do not say the same things and put into question thousands of verses in the bible and changes many others.

Some of these versions come from different manuscripts that not only disagree with what is referred to as the "Majority Text," but they differ from each other in almost as many ways.

With only those few, yet vast, differences, can they be the same?

If we can know that one version is true, and we can know that the other cannot be the same, what would be the reason for using the second version?

If one is true and differs from man's wisdom of following his heart or being led by his feelings, why would a person stand in man's wisdom instead?

If, in the converse, we absolutely CANNOT know the truth, who is to say what is right? Do we rely on the oldest and wisest? What if the next oldest does not believe the same? Do we change with each person? Do we rely on academia? Who is the smartest? Who has the most impressive letters after his name? What if that person is surpassed in education and the next person does not believe the same way? Do we change with each person? Or are we all right or all wrong?

[southernvaughan]

Just trust what the Holy Spirit tells you in the back of your mind. You know good and well that has not been misconstrewed by anyone. Thats what I try to do anyway and it seems to work. As long as you know Jesus as your personal savior you know whats right and wrong and you know he will take care of you know matter what and that brings a peace to a mans heart like nothing else...

[quackheadbp]

Just trust what the Holy Spirit tells you in the back of your mind. You know good and well that has not been misconstrewed by anyone. Thats what I try to do anyway and it seems to work. As long as you know Jesus as your personal savior you know whats right and wrong and you know he will take care of you know matter what and that brings a peace to a mans heart like nothing else...

AMEN!

[cajun squealer]

Just trust what the Holy Spirit tells you in the back of your mind. You know good and well that has not been misconstrewed by anyone. Thats what I try to do anyway and it seems to work. As long as you know Jesus as your personal savior you know whats right and wrong and you know he will take care of you know matter what and that brings a peace to a mans heart like nothing else...

I can appreciate this attitude and where you're coming from, but this is spiritually lazy at worst and nieve at best. I strongly caution anyone "just trust[ing]" anything that "seems to work". If you think the Spirit is telling you something in the back of your mind, you better make darn good and well it lines up with the Word. Don't take this too harshly, but I'm serious as a heart attack.

[cajun squealer]

Can both man and God be 100% right?

Yes, his name is Jesus. As for the rest of humanity, no-- not apart from the indwelling of Holy Spirit (and all other attributes of salvation).

Can two bible versions differing in the amount of verses, or differing in that one version says this verse is from God and the other version questions if it should even be there or leaves that verse out - can both of those versions be 100% right?

No. Only God's Word in its original text/manuscript is completely inerrant and divinely inspired. Admittedly, modern-day language presents an obstacle for translators, and not all copies of original manuscripts from which the Bible as we know it today (generally speaking) was translated are completely inerrant. However, roughly 99% of the manuscripts that we do have today are in agreement with one another. The variations which persist are predominantly differences in punctuation, word endings, minor grammatical issues, word order, etc. – issues easily explainable as scribal (copying) mistakes. Matter of fact, the preservation of God's Word over the centuries is nothing short of miraculous. For instance, there are manuscripts (copies) from the 15th century that agree completely with manuscripts (copies) from the 3rd century. Remember that the Bible is a reliable collection of historical documents written by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. The original manuscripts were penned by 40 authors in 3 languages across 3 continents over the course of 1500 years. While we do not have the original copies, we have over 6000 manuscripts or portions of manuscripts, the earliest of which date back to around A.D. 120, only about 2.5 decades after the originals. To put this into perspective with other documents believed to be historically accurate, we have less than 12 manuscripts of Julius Cesar's "Gallic Wars" which date back to, at earliest, 1000 years after the originals; less than 10 manuscripts of Aristotle's "Poetics" which, at earliest, date to about 1400 years after the originals; we have none of Socrates' original writings and rely solely on the writings of Plato; and the earliest manuscripts that we have of Homer's "Illiad" were written about 2100 years after the originals. Comparatively speaking, the Bible blows these other widely accepted historical documents out of the water. As far as some of the different conventional versions/translations including or omitting certain verses, there are no major theological implications presented by these discrepancies. The reasons for such are an ongoing and exhausting scholarly debate. Regarding the unconventional versions such as the Jehovah’s Witness cult pseudo-bible, ”The New World Bible” (NWT)and the Catholic cult pseudo-bibles which contain the Apocryphal books (as kindly mentioned by Ordek), that’s a another beast.

Could a person love Jesus if there was nothing to even give his name or describe him or his person?

No, since every one of us humans suffers (or has suffered in the case of the believer) from total spiritual depravity which renders us separated and opposed to God. Love for Jesus, in its truest sense, is not something that we are individually and independently capable of, rather it is a fruit of the Spirit which dwells within the believer and a reflection of the glory of God’s grace upon us as its recipient. Apart from the Word, there is no Christ (since Jesus is the Word made flesh), and apart from Christ, there is no salvation.

Is it possible to "not be able to really KNOW anything," yet have words like "sure," "positive," "know," "absolute," or "certain?"

I’m not really clear on the question posed, yet I have a feeling that the answer is “faith”. Hebrews 11:1 tells us “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” (ESV) I’ll let that speak for itself.

[southernvaughan]

Just trust what the Holy Spirit tells you in the back of your mind. You know good and well that has not been misconstrewed by anyone. Thats what I try to do anyway and it seems to work. As long as you know Jesus as your personal savior you know whats right and wrong and you know he will take care of you know matter what and that brings a peace to a mans heart like nothing else...

I can appreciate this attitude and where you're coming from, but this is spiritually lazy at worst and nieve at best. I strongly caution anyone "just trust[ing]" anything that "seems to work". If you think the Spirit is telling you something in the back of your mind, you better make darn good and well it lines up with the Word. Don't take this too harshly, but I'm serious as a heart attack.

I'd like a little more explanation Squealer...

[skywalker]

I will not speak for squealer, but the Word commands us to 'try the spirits'. How can we 'try them' without the Word as our guide........

[Ordek Avci]

I was, however, wanting to know if a person can use any version of the bible and call it God's Word - since many of the newer versions do not say the same things and put into question thousands of verses in the bible and changes many others.

The first thing you have to remember is that unless you know Koine Greek and are reading the Greek NT, or know Hebrew and are reading the ancient Hebrew texts, then you are reading a translation. Translations have two major problems:

1. There is no way to go directly from language to another. Words in one language can never be lined up one to one with words in another language. There are too many nuances in meaning and usage. Grammar is an even bigger problem. So there will always be difficulties in trying to get from one language to another.

2. Languages change faster than we can translate. Just pick up some books that were written a hundred years ago and give them a read. While you'll be able to understand what the book is saying, you would never confuse it with a book written today. Words are invented, words fall out of usage, words change meaning. Again, grammar rules are just as bad.

So with that in mind, it only makes sense that there are a bunch of different translations that differ from each other. Some of them are better than others. Some are just different. The KJV was fantastic four hundred years ago. Today it is hard to make sense of it. Not only has our language changed drastically, but advances have been made in text criticism, linguistics, verbal aspects, etc., that give modern scholars a huge advantage over the scholars who put the KJV together. So reading a newer translation makes sense because you'll be able to understand it better and it's a more accurate and technically sound translation. I think most would agree that the three best translations available today are the NASB, the ESV, and the NIV. They differ because they were translated differently. The NASB was translated with an attempt at a more "word for word" translation. Though impossible, they tried to keep the translation as verbatim as possible. The NIV is more of a "idea for idea" translation. They emphasized the translation of ideas by reading sentences and passages and translating the main ideas as best as possible. The ESV is closer to the NASB than the NIV, but is somewhere in between. The different translation styles can make the NASB harder to read in places, but it's more faithful to the actual words of the Greek text. By contrast the NIV is a much more readable translation, though some would argue that meaning is lost when the words and word order are neglected. The ESV is a good middle ground. There are some translations that are worrisome at best, dangerous at worst. The NLT takes the "idea for idea" type of translation way too far and the Message is not even a translation, it's one man's interpretation of the Bible.

So with all that said, can we call it "God's Word"? Yes, I think we can. There are scores of scholars that devote their whole lives to studying Hebrew and Greek so that we can have faithful translations into our own languages. Cajun mentioned a lot of great reasons why we can trust the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts we translate from. Listen to the people who study these things and know enough Hebrew and Greek to judge the translations rightly. And trust that if there is a general consensus among scholars that a translations has been done well, that it has been done well. And in the end, if God is able to speak the world into being, completely out of nothing, and raise a man from the dead, then I think He can preserve His own word for a couple thousand years. It really just comes down to whether you believe in the God of the Bible.

I've been typing this for far too long. I'm going to grab some lunch. I'd be interested to hear what major differences between the translations is bothering you? I also wonder if this is a KJV vs. Everything Else debate. There are some people who hold on to the KJV as the one and only true translation despite all the good logic and evidence that says otherwise.

I have tons more to say on this subject, but I'm sure you're tired of reading and I'm tired of typing. God bless.

[Gordon]

Are there such things as "minor theological implications" in the Word? Doesn't God show concern for the "jot and tittle"?

My question is simple : Is there one English version of the bible that we can rely on? (EDIT:I will concede that my original question was if versions are different, are they the same, but I am getting the impression that all contain errors.)

If every one of them has problems, then the answer is no, we cannot rely on any of them. And if the answer is no, how could anyone who does not speak ancient Greek and Hebrew know the truth? In fact, if the answer is "No, we cannot say we have a single inerrant English bible today," then the preservation of God's Word is in no way miraculous, and there is no way to know the Jesus of the original Greek and Hebrew using English.

If the version contains errors, and Jesus is the Word, it is a different Jesus because Jesus contains no errors.

If just believing the back of your mind is wrong, as Cajun has suggested, and every single English version contains minor theological errors, who knows the truth?

While none of the translators of any version were perfect there are groups of translators of some versions that contained unrepentant homosexuals, men who called the flood and Jonah a myth, and men that deny that we can know the truth today. Can that be where God's truth is coming from today?

if there was once a fantastic version, that was not accurate, how did those people know the true God?

None of these explanations offered allow a shred of proof that we can know the same God of the Greek and Hebrew original using the English language today.


EDIT: Oreck, the versions you suggested do not contain the "doctrine of preservation." Can I assume that you don't agree with that teaching from the Recieved Text?

[Ordek Avci]

My question is simple : Is there one English version of the bible that we can rely on?

I think my answer was simple: There are quite a few we can rely on.

If every one of them has problems, then the answer is no, we cannot rely on any of them. And if the answer is no, how could anyone who does not speak ancient Greek and Hebrew know the truth? In fact, if the answer is "No, we cannot say we have a single inerrant English bible today," then the preservation of God's Word is in no way miraculous, and there is no way to know the Jesus of the original Greek and Hebrew using English.

If the version contains errors, and Jesus is the Word, it is a different Jesus because Jesus contains no errors.

This is faulty logic. I don't read classical Greek but I know what the Iliad and the Odyssey say. I don't read Latin, but I know what the Inferno says. I don't read much French, but I know what the Institutes say. We don't have to read the original texts to know what a text is saying (though that's the best way). And to go looking for an inerrant English Bible is a lost cause. To be completely without error, there would have to be no spelling mistakes, no typos, and no smudges that makes an "o" look like an "a". No one that I know of will hold up an English Bible and say that it is without error. It's a translation. Even the parts that may be inerrant translations today will not be the same a hundred years from now. But that does not make the English Bible unreliable. You just have to see it for what it is. It's a translation. But it's a translation done with the best resources and by the best scholars the world has to offer. Pick up an ESV or an NASB and you will be holding in your hand a translation that is fully reliable in every way. Read it and you will be hearing God's words. Believe in it and you will know the one true God and Jesus, the one he sent.

While none of the translators of any version were perfect there are groups of translators of some versions that contained unrepentant homosexuals, men who called the flood and Jonah a myth, and men that deny that we can know the truth today. Can that be where God's truth is coming from today?

That's where God's truth has always come from. Jonah himself was not the kind of guy I'd nominate to be an elder. Noah had sex with his daughters, Moses struck the rock, David had an affair and conspired to kill the man's wife, Solomon went against everything the king of Israel was supposed to be, Peter betrayed Christ, Paul killed Christians, you get my point. God's truth has always come through sinful, wicked people. And in the end, you don't even have to believe in God to translate things faithfully and accurately. Those who were opposed to God have always been the ones who have made the work of God possible. The Egyptians funded the Exodus, the Babylonians funded the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the Temple, heck, the Romans and the Jews killed Christ, which was the greatest sin ever committed, but exactly what had to happen for God's work to go forward. That great sins have been committed by people involved in translating the Bible does not surprise me nor should it affect their ability to translate from one language to the next.

EDIT: Oreck, the versions you suggested do not contain the "doctrine of preservation." Can I assume that you don't agree with that teaching from the Recieved Text?

What do you mean they don't contain this doctrine? I assume by "doctrine of preservation" you mean that the original text of the New Testament has been preserved? And since you mentioned the "Received Text" I assume you believe that to be the place the original text is contained? I do believe we have the full, original New Testament. I do not believe it is found in one manuscript. I believe that all the textual criticism that has been going on for the last few hundred years has done nothing but hone and purify our understanding of what the autographs said.

[Gordon]

You are incorrect - Lot's daughters got him drunk and slept with him, he was unaware of it. Though still his own fault, it was not Noah. Noah only had sons. Lot did not write any of the bible, neither did Noah. Neither did any of the Jews that killed Christ, and Moses repented - God attended Moses funeral and buried Moses himself - your examples are lacking merit.

EDIT: And can you tell me how the Jews paid for Lot's sins? Or can you tell me why Lot's daughters thought that was acceptable?

It is your logic that has fault. To use your own example, there would be no way for you to know conclusively what any book says unless you read all versions of them.


Is there another person more authoritative as to the meaning of Dante than you? Or can you say that there is nothing else to learn in any version of Inferno?

We are not talking about yall instead of ye, we are talking about the changing of doctrines from one book to another. Whether Jesus is God, whether or not homosexuality is sin, important information about adultery, these are important pieces of information that cannot be simply ignored.

Should anyone trust your "general idea" theory? Do you propose that we cannot know the truth unless we read EVERY version? How would anyone preach the Word if the other person has a different verse that does not say the same thing? Have you never gone through scripture word by word - wringing the meaning from every word? How could you do that if yours is different, how could answer questions about the words in my bible if yours does not have it? Do you know anyone that carries all versions to church with them? Or a preacher who has all versions on the pulpit with him and goes through every version?

Should we teach children to memorize all the different versions of scripture for bible drill? Perhaps each child should have every version in a stack before them?

We did not get closer to the truth through man's scholarship, and I marvel that you could suggest it. Just think what you would state if you had the ability to see what will be done 100 years from now...perhaps we would be closer to the truth then.

Or perhaps we have always had truth in one place. Perhaps God promised that we would ALWAYS have it. Perhaps we have always had it. Perhaps we should find the truth.

EDIT: I believe the Textus Receptus agrees with far more manuscripts than the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus which do not agree with each other in almost as many places as they disagree with the TR and are the basis for the versions you describe.