Inerrant

 January 31, 2022 (Monday) and February 1, 2022 (Tuesday)

 

Another presupposition I make about the Bible is that it is “inerrant,” meaning without mistakes. This is a big statement. Let me state, the Bible is without mistakes as originally given and is without significant mistakes in substance in it’ current “good faith” translations. The first should be easy to understand. How can I substantiate the inerrancy of current translations?

 

Not all translations are created equal. Translations done by a single individual should be taken carefully. Those done by a wide spectrum of scholars, without agenda or prejudice, are probably dependable. For instance, the New Testament people and writers quoted the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew original. If Jesus used the Septuagint as authoritative, then it stands to reason (since Jesus is not incorrect or misleading) then other translations can be authoritative as well.

 

There are printing/copying errors. For instance, in the 1702 version of the KJV, Psalm 119:161 reads “printers have persecuted me” instead of “princes.” This error is known as the “printer’s Bible.” The “wicked Bible” printed Exodus 20:14 “Thou shalt commit adultery.” The 1653 edition of the KJV (The “unrighteous Bible”) printed 1 Corinthians 6:9 as “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God.” [didyouknow.org/printingerrors/] These are just a short list of known errors.

 

What about translation differences? For instance, “God is a Spirit…” [John 4:24 KJV] It seems every modern translation reads, “God is spirit…” It is argued that removing the word “a” removes the distinction between God and other spirits. I suppose if I want to get difficult about the translation, I could argue that the Greek word “spirit” literally means “current of air” or “breath” AND the words “is” and “a” are not in the text. Of course the literal meaning would remove the any spiritual aspect. The word “a” was added to help the readers understand. What the modern translations do is bring it into line, consistent with other statements, such as “God is light” (1 John 1:5) and “God is love” (1 John 4:8). The fact is here we are to understand the non-physical aspect of God the Father.

 

If you think that’s being picky, there is great disagreement about a comma in 1 John 5:7 – 8. The “Comma Johanneum” was included in early Latin texts (but not the original Latin Vulgate by Jerome) but does not show up in the Greek text until the 1500’s when Erasmus compiled the “Textus Receptus” (waiting until his 3^rd edition). The difference is between an explicit text mentioning the Trinity (using the comma) or not. The lack of a comma does not negate the clear teaching of the Trinity throughout the Bible.

 

When we look at the huge amount of Greek texts available for study, I have heard the variance is anywhere between one and five percent. Most of these differences and be attributed to spelling, punctuation, grammar, or word order, etc… My point is nothing of significance has changed in the texts and good faith attempts to translate those texts are reliable.

 

This brings us to the question of translation style and manuscripts. The King James Version used the Textus Receptus for the Greek and the Masoretic for the Hebrew (despite their knowledge of the Septuagint). They also used other languages an included notes in the margin to explain or offer varying readings. Modern translations use manuscripts unavailable or unknown to the KJV translators. Newer modern translations are informed by the Greek Septuagint (quoted by Jesus and New Testament writers) for the Old Testament. The Septuagint texts predates the Masoretic text by at least 1,200 years. The newer modern translations are also informed by Aramaic (possibly the original Gospel text language), Latin texts, and the Dead Sea Scrolls (which agree with the Septuagint).

 

Then there are those that believe a translation can be “literal.” Literal is a myth. There is no possible way an English translation can be understood of translated literally. For instance, if you have a KJV, have you notice the italicized words? The translators were indicating these words do not exist in the original language text they were working from. The closet we get is meaning by meaning. Many modern translations use some form of “dynamic equivalency” where there is an attempt to give the sense of the original language texts. Some Bibles go even further, they are “paraphrases,” meaning they attempt to put the original language text into modern context. The Message and the Living Bible are two of the best known examples.

 

Finally there is translation philosophy. The Christian Standard Bible reads, “In the early evening Isaac went out to walk in the field, and looking up he saw camels coming.” [Genesis 24:63 CSB] Every other translation (other than the CEB) states Isaac was out “meditating.”  Which is correct? The CSB (and CEB) are the most literal, however they remove the deep spiritual reading (or reading meaning into the word).

 

Big finish! What is the best translation? First, I recommend you find one that speaks to your heart, head, and soul. Second, I recommend you use one that you will apply to your life, attitudes, and words. I agree with the 1611 KJV “the translators to the reader” (preface) quoting Augustine, “Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures.” (bible-researcher.com)

 

In other words, have at least two translations side by side. I generally run with the English Standard Version, the Common English Bible, and the New Living Translation. I will occasionally check the New International Version (both the old and new editions), the Amplified, the KJV, and a variety of others. A shout out to biblegateway.com and biblehub.com for making this possible and easy.