A Bible question

[Enlightenedtruth]

In another thread I asked a question about a specific Book of the Bible; and I was provided with this really helpful link:

Does the warning in Revelation 22:18-19 apply to the entire Bible or just the Book of Revelation? | GotQuestions.org

Does the warning in Revelation 22:18-19 apply to the entire Bible or just the Book of Revelation? Why is there such a severe penalty for corrupting God’s Word?

www.gotquestions.org

But in some of my other reading I found this link:

Biblical translation | History, Challenges & Benefits | Britannica

Biblical translation, the art and practice of rendering the Bible into languages other than those in which it was originally written. Both the Old and New Testaments have a long history of translation. A brief treatment of biblical translation follows. For full treatment, see biblical literature:

www.britannica.com

britannica used to publish encyclopedia's which I found very useful in school a long time ago; but that does not make them the "absolute authority" on anything.

In the gotquestion link it holds that the Word of God in the Bible should never be changed or altered; but in the britannica link it indicates when the King James translation was made the authors used synonym's instead of the literal Word's that had been given by God.

I know the moderator's on our forum don't like it when I question the "absolute authority" of the Bible. But I just don't understand how synonym's would in no way change the Word of God; I thought God used the exact Word's he intended. Can anyone help me understand that please?

 

[WIP]

In another thread I asked a question about a specific Book of the Bible; and I was provided with this really helpful link:

Does the warning in Revelation 22:18-19 apply to the entire Bible or just the Book of Revelation? | GotQuestions.org

Does the warning in Revelation 22:18-19 apply to the entire Bible or just the Book of Revelation? Why is there such a severe penalty for corrupting God’s Word?

www.gotquestions.org

But in some of my other reading I found this link:

Biblical translation | History, Challenges & Benefits | Britannica

Biblical translation, the art and practice of rendering the Bible into languages other than those in which it was originally written. Both the Old and New Testaments have a long history of translation. A brief treatment of biblical translation follows. For full treatment, see biblical literature:

www.britannica.com

britannica used to publish encyclopedia's which I found very useful in school a long time ago; but that does not make them the "absolute authority" on anything.

In the gotquestion link it holds that the Word of God in the Bible should never be changed or altered; but in the britannica link it indicates when the King James translation was made the authors used synonym's instead of the literal Word's that had been given by God.

I know the moderator's on our forum don't like it when I question the "absolute authority" of the Bible. But I just don't understand how synonym's would in no way change the Word of God; I thought God used the exact Word's he intended. Can anyone help me understand that please?

The literal words given by God were in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Koine Greek I believe. Every translation including the transcripts that we have all contain synonyms. That's how things are translated from one language to another. I'm not sure what the Britanica link you mentioned means by this.

 

[Vinny37]

Rv.22:18-9 was specifically to intentional distortion of what God declared through the prophet John on Patmos: https://archive.org/details/revelations-gone-global/page/99/mode/1up. The KJV printers who wrote, Thou shalt commit adultery, were fined £300, but their names were not excluded from God’s tree of life. As to synonyms, they can form part of God’s message there, and elsewhere. The Bible was a collaboration between God and man, with God controlling not each and every word (mechanical inspiration), but as general editor generally allowing individual writers to write his message inerrantly in their own terms.

One example is that Paul preferred to speak of Christians as God’s adopted children (υἱοθεσια/huiothesia), whereas Hebrews and John bypassed the adoption idea, by υἱοι/huioi (Hebrews) or by τεκνα/tekna and once or twice παιδια/paidia (John). They agreed the basic point, ie children of God, but used their own terms to convey that amazing message from God. I might be called someone’s pal, or chum, or mate, or buddy, but what’s the difference?

Scriptural reworkings were permitted. For example, Ps.53 is basically Ps.14 detetragrammatised, once Jews moved away from God’s name. The NT writers used the slack allowed to bring meaning from the ancient texts into our upgraded times, keeping to the spirit of the letter, so to speak, if not to its law. Most English versions following Tyndale miss out God’s name: we lose out, but their translators are not dropped by God.

Bible translators have some slack, but are called to honestly convey the message, even if to help they render any set word—words have a meaning-range—in differing ways, and different translators will differ in their choices. Eg the old KJV sometimes put αιωνιος/aiōnios as everlasting, and sometimes as eternal, perhaps without noticing. Whether you got eternal life or everlasting life—in the KJV following Tyndale—was pot luck (eg Mt.19:16 vs Mt.19:29; Mk.10:30 vs Lk.18:30).

 

[Fastfredy0]

But I just don't understand how synonym's would in no way change the Word of God; I thought God used the exact Word's he intended. Can anyone help me understand that please?

Are the words in the Bible "imperfect"?​

The devil is in the details. Depends on your definition of "the bible".

If you define the Bible as "the books that make up the Bible as we know it today as originally written" then the Bible is perfect for they were authored by God's inspiration of men and we conjecture that God determined these books went into the Bible as we have it today.
If you define the Bible as the English KJV, AMP, ESV, whatever ... then these versions have minor imperfections. I.E. John 5:4 only found in KJV, NKJV and NASB . Also, converting from the original language to another language is imperfect and the meanings of words in any language changes with time to some degree.

It is an extensive subject. If you're interested you can look at the following link on the subject of: The reliability of the accurately maintaining the content of the original Bible writings.

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCfcxfoNP7k and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7OSUVnfhSo (Dr. Daniel B. Wallace)

 

[Anaphora]

Friend. The original king James companion bible, 1611. Was modified to the king James companion bible. It's easier to read.

Other denominations have there bible. But it has distortions.
Like the Catholics
Mormons
Jehovah witnesses

The king James companion bible, has Hebrew and Greek words, along with cross reference, and 198 appendix by e w bullinger.

Any student of the bible or teachers should have king James companion bible.

The old testament is Hebrew translated to English.
And new testament is Greek translation to English.
It also helps to have STRONGS concordance.

You can go back to the original Hebrew language and Greek.

If you need help studying the bible. I recommend shepherds chapel. They are on YouTube. They tell you the truth.

I hope this helps you.

 

[citrus]

In another thread I asked a question about a specific Book of the Bible; and I was provided with this really helpful link:

Does the warning in Revelation 22:18-19 apply to the entire Bible or just the Book of Revelation? | GotQuestions.org

Does the warning in Revelation 22:18-19 apply to the entire Bible or just the Book of Revelation? Why is there such a severe penalty for corrupting God’s Word?

www.gotquestions.org

But in some of my other reading I found this link:

Biblical translation | History, Challenges & Benefits | Britannica

Biblical translation, the art and practice of rendering the Bible into languages other than those in which it was originally written. Both the Old and New Testaments have a long history of translation. A brief treatment of biblical translation follows. For full treatment, see biblical literature:

www.britannica.com

britannica used to publish encyclopedia's which I found very useful in school a long time ago; but that does not make them the "absolute authority" on anything.

In the gotquestion link it holds that the Word of God in the Bible should never be changed or altered; but in the britannica link it indicates when the King James translation was made the authors used synonym's instead of the literal Word's that had been given by God.

I know the moderator's on our forum don't like it when I question the "absolute authority" of the Bible. But I just don't understand how synonym's would in no way change the Word of God; I thought God used the exact Word's he intended. Can anyone help me understand that please?

There are thousands of manuscripts, scrolls, papyrus, 5,800 fragments (puzzle pieces) ect. There are codexes. With all put together with thousands of scrolls, historical documents and manuscripts even more than dead sea scrolls from 1946- 1947 more antiquities than any in the world it is easy to find spelling errors and things like that by completing them to others. There are people in the bible secular scholars agree lived. There is a lot of places. People use to think the hitties never existed until they found them in turkey. Even secular scholars agree that Jesus walked this earth. The manuscripts have side notes just like how we do today. There are many museums that hold sacred text, such as codex. The bible is translated 99.5% noone changed it. Again they have plenty of to compare and find the exact spelling ect. And what the text is. The word trinity is not in the bible, but it is a word that means, God the father, God the son and the holy spirit. God is not a God of chaos, but order so it is best grouped in correct order easier to say the trinity and people familiar with these automatically knows. Sometimes the words can only describe the action of others.

 

[citrus]

I meant to write*comparing them to eachother* and complementing eachother