The Infallability of the Bible Through Translation

[DarkKnight]

Premise
A popular theory from biblical literalists is that the bible has to be the infallable word of God because the authors were divinely inspired by the holy spirit. As a matter of fact it was the holy spirit who authored the book. Because of this every single word of the bible is the inerrant word of God.

Problem
It is a fact that the English translations of the bible contain paradoxes, inconsistencies, and in some instances, direct contradictions. The more intellectually apt Christians turn to the original languages. They show that the word in Hebrew doesn't necessarily mean X, in some circumstances it means Y.

The claim reduced to the original manuscripts being the inerrant word of God. Versions in other languages are not because (pardon the cliche) things got lost in translation. Meanings got altered. Context got convoluted. So we now have a holy spirit which guided the original authors to procure manuscripts which possess the inerrant word of God, but allowed that inerrant message to become convoluted in translation.

Canon?
Another problem is, "how do us humans know which documents are the divine word of God and which aren't". There are many more books of the bible which missed the biblical canon. So what makes the canonized books inerrant, and the ones deemed "false" not the word of God?

The popular line of thought is that the holy spirit also divinely influenced those attending the Ecumenical Councils. With the guidance of the holy spirit those at the councils discerned the true word of God from the others.

Editting
Another problem in the biblical literalist approach is that the bible can't have changed over the course of the years. If it did, then the bible as we know it wouldn't be the inerrant word of God. Literalist Christians usually again use the holy spirit as a reason for why the bible didn't change.

Inconsistency
The above simply begs the question. Why would the holy spirit make sure the inerrant word of God was written in the original documents, discerned from the non-canonical books, and remained static for thousands of years but not taken one simple other step.

Why didn't the holy spirit make sure no meaning, no context, no substance, etc, was lost in translation?

Mind you, we are dealing with his omnipotence, who has to power to make sure nothing is lost in translation. He took the time to make sure the bible maintained its integrity back in the early centuries C.E., but failed to later on? In this age not many know hebrew and aramaic to directly interprete God's will. Why wasn't St. Jerome divinely guided to procure an inerrant copy of the bible? Why weren't the scholars who translated the KJV divinely guided?



Of course there are many Christians out there who either

• Don't believe the bible was ever the inerrant word of God
• Believe that the bible was originally the inerrant word of God but became convoluted through the years do to editting

But of course the latter begs the same question as the original premise.

[boofhead]

Of course there are many Christians out there who either

* Don't believe the bible was ever the inerrant word of God

That would be me. It was written by men very much in touch with God. But still they are men.

[CiusFortius]

I beleive that when the prophets of the bible wrote or spoke the words they were inspired, since then there have been translations, and truths have been lost through mistranslation etc. Personaly my church recognises the King James translation as the most correct translation. I have personaly seen a few direct contradictions between different translations, especialy the more modern translations.