It's nice that you believe in the inerrancy of a Bible we don't have, the original Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic. It is a little confusing that you think we can't trust the original translators who had access to the dialects and actual manuscripts they were working on but somehow we can trust scholars thousands of years later who have access to neither. There were no prophetic translators but there are prophetic academics? Who are these illuminated academics that God has miraculously endowed to reconstruct the Bible you don't think He could preserve in the first place?
Think about the arrogance of that for one second Ish. God couldn't preserve His Word so you and a bunch of your professor friends are going to fix it for Him. You'll forgive me for being dense I'm sure. An immature, unrepentant Seventh Day Adventist like me can only be expected to accept so many new things at a time and I still haven't wrapped my mind around the wireless completely yet, but please tell me how I can trust you to tell me what God really meant to say when I can't trust Him to really say what He means?
That's the exact same thing I'm coming out of Ish. The experts would take a verse, completely ignore it and then tell me what principles you could derive from it. There's a place for that kind of study but it's a very small one.
If I wanted to ignore scripture and go with someone's gut I could have stayed in the Pentecostal movement.
I want to live my life as closely as I can to how God wants me to, not how man wants me to. You want to put all of these academics and scholars and judges and teachers between me and Him, right after you tell me that there are no inspired translators. You can imagine my confusion.
I realize I'm making an emotional appeal in the face of many details and closely wound reasonings. I don't expect to change your mind.
But I would like to remind you that through out history people have tried to eviscerate the Bible. They tried to hack out miracles, reduce Christ, justify persecution of your people, remove whole books. I've seen people try to remove Paul and I've seen people try to remove the entire New Testament save the words of Jesus. I've seen other people try to remove the entire Old Testament and somehow still cling to the Psalms and for some bizarre reason the Ten Commandments. It all ends up in the same place.
I'll tell you a story to illustrate my point. When I was a boy (which is how most indisputable stories begin) it was announced with much fanfare that cholesterol was killing Americans at an alarming rate and that we should all stop eating eggs. They were little white oviod balls of death and we were all going to die. I even remember there being egg substitutes of some kind to allow us to still have our morning favorites without collapsing on the way to the school bus.
A few years later I remember the all clear being given. It was now safe to eat eggs again. Nothing had changed in the eggs. The experts had just changed their opinion.
I seem (and this little bit of vagueness inoculates my anecdote from fact checking because fact checking someone's childhood memories seems petty and mean and let's face it, inoculations are grown in eggs so we've come full circle) to remember that this went back and forth for several years. For a while we could eat eggs relatively free from risk and at other times eggs were the primary weapon in an avian led plot to wipe our species off the face of the earth.
The damn experts literally couldn't decide what to.have for breakfast. And this has been born out time and time again. The climate experts can't tell if we're going to have global warming or global cooling. The evolution experts have now discovered so many pre-human species and have pushed their supposed emergence so far back that almost had to spring whole out of the big bang. It was an expert that said the Titanic couldn't sink and it was experts that said man couldn't fly. The experts don't have a great track record Ish.
Oy Zec....
go learn some history; of course we have access to the limited documents the translators of the King james had 400 years ago; we have those Erasmian documents AND we have the much older manuscripts found since that time and several hundred more late manuscripts; all in over 5000 manuscripts or fragments.
Just because you wish to remain willfully ignorant of modern scholarship doesn't make it go away.
I'm getting a little tired of you calling me names and implying motives that arent't there. You've done this before and you apologized and here ya go again a year later.
Where is the growth?
I, like any modern seminary student or scholar or in my case wannabee scholar, believe in the inerrancy of the original language bible.
Yes, we have it. It's the BHS and NA28 Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek critical text editions of the bible.
It's a bit humorous you can pound on your King James as "inerrant" yet you criticize those of us who love the original language text.
Do you even know what goes in to getting a decent grammar understanding and vocabulary to be able to wrestle with such texts?
What love for the word is required and the thousands of hours invested over decades?
How are you equivocating climate change "science" (quotes are being generous) with original language bible study?
Now I explained to you a bit about textual criticism, and Andrew chimed in that it's a real thing and not "the devil's trickery" which you seem to be set on thinking it is.
No Zec, I do not believe that these committees which incidentally DO HAVE liberals on them, are inspired translations. Absolutely not, especially when the translations contradict each other in many places. This is why I encourage people who don't want to put time into learning Biblical Languages to use multiple translations, preferably in parallel and if they know any other language (Spanish, German, whatever) to get their hands on a translation in that language. I absolutely see ZERO biblical support for the concept of "INSPIRED COMMITTEE of translators". It's almost as silly as the story that the Septuagint was translated by 70 rabbis each in their own room and they came out and VIOLA! All the translations matched.
Nobody says you have to become a scholar or lift a finger to learn Hebrew, the holy language, or any other biblical language, but you make yourself look not so great when you insist the English translations are some how inspired when they are not the same and you pretend the the original language variances are not worth investigating.
Calm down, think about it for a week. Research, ask some men of G-d who you trust who are not "King James is the only translation that's good". Maybe talk to Andrew or some of the other elders here and get their take on it. He said he used to be where you are now and it was hard to come out of there realizing that the textual criticism of the bible is a real thing;
maybe you and I have a personality thing going on now (I know I don't react well to name calling).
The notion of inspired committee is a bit rich though no matter how you slice it and in my experience, King James only preachers (not you) often just don't want to get off their duff and study.
Shalom, sorry I didn't see this post earlier.
We have over 5000 Greek manuscript evidences for the New Testament and there are difference. We can have our head in the sand and look like idiots when we get challenged by athiests or other liberals, or we can face the music and see G-d's hand even in this, especially in revealing such ancient versions as the Sinai Greek Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Praise G-d for preserving His word in the languages in which His holy prophets revealed them.