Melody,
The very act of translation changes the word. How can I say the particular English word is directly inspired by God to be infallible, inerrant.... especially true for those words added by the translators to make the English grammar and sentence work better.
The originals are indeed word for word perfect. Even if we had them, could you or I sit down and read them and perfectly understand everything? Doubtful that our scholarship would be so good that we could understand those languages so well that we would get it perfect, but that doesn't mean the Word isn't perfect, only that our understanding would not be perfect. Even if we read in English our understanding is slightly different.
With the process of transmission of the scriptures, can we say that we have a perfect reproduction of the originals? No, probably not, though it may be, we cannot be absolutely sure until we find the originals and recognize them. We do the best we can with what we have. However, we are
very very sure that we are
very very close. The things that we are least sure of are not matters of doctrine or faith, of those we are indeed very sure because they are repeated in different places and with different words, and the witnesses are in such good agreement. What we are least sure of is numbers. Numbers are very hard to copy correctly over and over. Here's a number 300098873333333348876, I'll be back in a few thousand years to see if you have it correctly copied
It is difficult especially because of the repeated numbers and the fact that no commas are used. Remove or add a digit and it doesn't become obviously wrong like many (though not all) words. This is very much like some of the ancient numbers. Thirty for instance would very much be tententen so it is easy for a scribe to miss a ten or add it and hard to catch it when proofed.
Now the scriptures are held in such esteem that very few take the freedom to change the text just based on what we think should be correct. Take this example:
In the KJV: We have the "problem" of the how old was Jehoiachin when he became king of Jerusalem?
(a) Eighteen (2 Kings 24:
.
(b) Eight (2 Chronicles 36:9).
That was what the evidence the translators had at the time said. Rather than pick the more likely eighteen, they let it stand as they had it, until scholarship and finding new witnesses could truly resolve the issue. We could sit down and make a translation that eliminated those things, but would it be right to do so? We will know in time, and they don't really affect us anyway.
The NET Bible now shows eighteen for both with this footnote:
tc The Hebrew text reads “eight,” but some ancient textual witnesses, as well as the parallel text in 2 Kgs 24:8, have “eighteen.”
NIV uses eighteen for both with this footnote: 2Ch_36:9 One Hebrew manuscript, some Septuagint manuscripts and Syriac (see also 2Ki_24:
most Hebrew manuscripts eight
The NKJV leaves it at eight but has the same footnote as the NIV. So they are agreeing on the evidence but haven't all agreed that the evidence is sufficient.
Manuscripts are in agreement in the eighteen in 2 Kgs.
So we are really pretty sure that Jehoiachin was 18 when he began his rein, but we are really really sure a King, Jehoiachin existed and ruled.
We get even more sure in matters like Jesus was true God, and true man. That there is but one God in the trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. That Jesus died for our sins and was raised again physically, and so on.
We know those things to the extent that it could not be called a reasonable doubt to question their truth, it would have to be called an unreasonable doubt, and it doesn't matter which sincere translation you would use in order to make that statement.
There is very little doubt indeed from what we know today concerning what God's message is to us. As such it is much more than a guideline document, but rather it really is reasonable to follow what we have as scripture itself. To consider it the very Word of God. To not do so means we will miss the mark by much more than if we do. Noone gets more truth by ignoring the whole Bible due to some little copyist error on the age of Jehoiachin , only less truth. Nothing available is closer to God's absolutely pure Word than the Bible we have. By that I don't mean one translation, but the whole knowledge we have as to what God said. Each translation has a few little weaknesses, but that's no excuse to throw any or all away as untrustworthy. Or to neglect their study.
Marv
Author