Main Entry:the·o·ry
Pronunciation:\'the-?-re, 'thir-e\
Function:noun
Inflected Form(s): plural the·o·ries
Etymology:Late Latin theoria, from Greek theoria, from theorein
Date:1592
1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : speculation
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art
4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : conjecture c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject

Main Entry:opin·ion
Pronunciation:\?-'pin-y?n\
Function:noun
Etymology:Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin opinion-, opinio, from opinari
Date:14th century
1 a: a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter b: approval, esteem
2 a: belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge b: a generally held view
3 a: a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert b: the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based

Problems of Bible Translation
by Ilias Chatzitheodorou
One basic problem inherent in Bible translation is that we do not have the original manuscript of the Bible, but copies of copies of copies.
However, translating the Bible is not an easy task, since there are many problems inherent in Bible translation. If we think how hard it is to translate modern languages into English, then how much more difficult it must be to translate 3,000-year-old Hebrew and 2,000-year-old Greek! The purpose of this paper is to consider some of the basic problems of Bible translation that have been encountered in the past and will certainly be encountered in the future.

One basic problem inherent in Bible translation is that we do not have the original manuscript of the Bible, but copies of copies of copies... and this causes many problems because translators do not know which of all these copies is correct and which is not, since none of them are identical. The differences are not very significant in the Old Testament, but they are in the New Testament. According to research, "about 3 per cent of the Bible's texts varies across all the manuscripts. Nowadays, we have about 1,500 complete or partial manuscripts of the New Testament." (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/robert_beecham/whichbib.htm). There are two main approaches to solving this problem. The more common one is called the ecletic approach. Scholars put together a text from all the available manuscripts using various rules to sort out differences. For example: what do the oldest manuscripts say? What do the majority say? What do the best say? Which reading is more likely? But this approach is not accepted by many people, for it gives too much scope to human judgment.

Another approach that has been used in the past is that of Ivan Panin. In 1890 Ivan Panin, after his conversion from atheism, discovered that the entire Bible was full of hidden numerical patterns largely based on the number seven. This discovery had two major implications. First, it gave striking proof of the inspiration of the Scripture. Every sentence, every word and even every letter had the divine seal upon it. The patterns could never have been placed there by human wit. Second, it gave him a method of deciding in every instance which was the correct text; and this numerical theory even enabled Panin to resolve ambiguities of punctuation (ibid). However, Ivan Panin's work has been almost entirely ignored by academics.

As most people know, the Bible in its original untranslated form is a collection of ancient writings; the New Testament in Greek (though parts may have been previously written in Hebrew or Aramaic and then translated into Greek), the Old Testament in Hebrew and Aramaic, some passages of the Old Testament, mostly in Daniel, spanning many cultures and more than a thousand years. The 66 books into which the Bible is divided represent "a greater variety of literary styles e.g. historical narrative, prophecy, poetry, instructions and exhortation etc. than any other piece of literature in the history of mankind" (Snell-Hornby et al., 1998; 275). This variety of text types makes Bible translation a hard task for the translator, especially when translating into languages which do not have a long literary tradition.

The true and ultimate test of the Bible is prophecy.

And Jesus himself sat down in their midst and said: "I tell you truly, none can be happy, except he do the Law."

And the others answered: "We all do the laws of Moses, our lawgiver, even as they are written in the holy scriptures."

And Jesus answered: "Seek not the law in your scriptures, for the law is life, whereas the scripture is dead. I tell you truly, Moses received not his laws from God in writing, but through the living word. The law is living word of living God to living prophets for living men. In everything that is life is the law written. You find it in the grass, in the tree, in the river, in the mountain, in the birds of heaven, in the fishes of the sea; but seek it chiefly in yourselves. For I tell you truly, all living things are nearer to God than the scripture which is without life. God so made life and all living things that they might by the everlasting word teach the laws of the true God to man. God wrote not the laws in the pages of books, but in your heart and in your spirit. They are in your breath, your blood, your bone; in your flesh, your bowels, your eyes, your ears, and in every little part of your body. They are present in the air, in the water, in the earth, in the plants, in th e sunbeams, in the depths and in the heights. They all speak to you that you may understand the tongue and the will of the living God. But you shut your eyes that you may not see, and you shut your ears that you may not hear. I tell you truly, that the scripture is the work of man, but life and all its hosts are the work of our God. Wherefore do you not listen to the words of God which are written in His works? And wherefore do you study the dead scriptures which are the work of the hands of men?"

C'mon shared, many many christians think that the bible is completely inerrant.

And the message of salvation (as well as any other message within the bible) depends upon interpretation, which of course depends upon accuracy in copying and translation.. not to mention remembering the events from decades earlier.. or retelling the story without convenient embellishments. Amongst other problematic issues.

Its not useless at all, its quite easy in fact, and judging by how quickly you tried to shift the focus away from your badly flawed bible and point it accusingly at us you likely know it too.

For starters, you have to read it literally. If you read it metaphorically then you could claim everything ever written is inerrant - for example Spider Man comics are inerrant because spider man represents justice and the villains represent corruption.

Next, just start reading. If you find any errors or contradictions then it is not inerrant. And since it has errors and contradictions throughout, its clearly not inerrant.

I really hope we tackle these issues, because that should be clearly addressed in this thread. Not just casually, but very specifically. Your objection must be answered properly, I insist, as all men should insist.

Yes, the scientific method is patently sound, just like the argument for innerancy. There are arguments against it believe it or not. Further, like theology, a necessary ingredient is being peer reviewed. What is true about both of the arguments, is that you cannot simply use them as mantras to rationalize every claim that Science appears to make about itself or that the Bible appears to make about itself. That, they both have in common.

Many claims of Science over the years have been found at fault. It doesn't at any point detract from Science, its purpose, critique, or methods.

Shakti, this is not some agenda on the part of Christians. It is what the Bible claims to be: inerrant.

Your statement about what resonates as truth to you or to me, is subjective. It is the difference between your favorite color and my favorite color, and what you define as beauty and what I deem as beauty.

In other words, in regards to inerrancy, the claims for literal inerrancy, revelational inerrancy, inspirational inerrancy, and historical inerrancy need to be individually addressed as a whole investigation of this usage of the term "inerrancy". That will determine the question of why Christians will say the Bible is inerrant, more commonly or literally correct in terms of the concept, infallible.

P.S. Remember though, the Bible can be falsified today. There are objective test for falsifying this "infallibility".

P.S. Remember though, the Bible can be falsified today. There are objective test for falsifying this "infallibility".

Sorry there was a typo... it should have said "not inerrent"
as corrected below:


Quote from acting_out:
I've resided in a position that the bible may not be inerrant, but still infallible.

Shatki:
How does that make sense? Did you make a typo? I don't understand what you mean, could you elaborate?



A.O.: Infallible

When a statement, teaching, or book is called 'infallible', this can mean any of the following:

It is something that cannot be proved false
It is something that can be safely relied on
It is something completely trustworthy and sure
Also see Ian Poxon.
When a person is called 'infallible', this can mean any of the following:

Some statements or teachings made by this person can be relied on to be certainly true
All statements or teachings made by this person can be relied on to be certainly true
All information believed by this person is true
This person is free from flaws or defects, especially of a moral nature




Inerrent shows something to be free from error.

So my contention would be that while the events and people are correct, there may certain words that may have changed, but that doesn't mean it's an untrue story.
Therefor, as i see it, the bible may not be inerrent but still hold it to be infallible.