Catholic Theology Q & A

Jewel wrote:
Copyist error huh? Seems copy&paste from webs.

Scripture cannot be broken: it is the case that the infallibility of Scripture is able to survive the process of copying and printing and editing and translating,despite the fact that particular copies, printings, edits, and translations have errors particular to each version. The survivability of the infallibility of Scripture is due to the large number of different sources of Scripture, which can be compared to one another to distinguish the teaching of Scripture from the particular errors of particular editions.

Jewel wrote:
could you cite for me a single version of the bible today that has got no error or contradiction??

There are no contradiction error in the bible: Scrpture cannot be broken -If any interpretation of any verse in the Bible has the effect ofmaking that verse null and void, then that interpretation is null andvoid, not Scripture. Apparent errors in the Bible have a number of explanations, in particular: misunderstanding the text, a lack of faith, and even an ill will.

Some passages are mistakenly interpreted an overly literal manner and so seem to be false. Other passages are mistakenly interpreted according to a modern way of thinking. The ancients had a different way of describing and understanding the world. Some readers expect an unreasonable degree of precision from the text. The Bible is both true and accurate in all that it asserts as true, to whatever degree of accuracy it asserts. Some passages are thought to be in error because the order of events is different, but it is a common story telling technique to present events in other than a chronological order. Quotes in the Bible are not presented as if they were exact word-for-word quotes, such as we write today. They are free quotations, sometimes rewording the quote and sometimes joining it with words from another passage or another speech. This is not an error, but merely a difference between the ancient and modern method of expressing quotes.

Jewel wrote:
Im just curious if there is any. If there is one, i'd be happy to know and that will be well and good.
Thanks

There is no single definitive version or edition of the Bible.
The truths of the Bible are not completely contained, nor fully expressed, in any single edition.

now

Let me broaden your question to: Which translations and editions retain the character of infallibility,
and which lose that character?

Translations which lose the character of infallibility generally...

1. extreme literal translations, called inter-linear translations, are useful for study, but are not Scripture. For example, a Greek-English interlinear NT is useful for studying the meaning of the Greek text(which is Scripture), but the English by itself is almost incomprehensible.

2. extreme paraphrase translations, are perhaps useful to introduce the Bible to some persons (such as children), but they are not Scripture.They are so loosely translated that they do not represent the Word of God, but rather the understanding of the translator. Such translations are more in the realm of commentary and Bible stories, than infallible Sacred Scripture.

3. extremely biased translations or edits: if the Bible is edited or translated to add or subtract substantially from numerous verses and passages, so as to remove numerous teachings offensive to the bias of the editors/translators, and to introduce teachings favored by the bias of the editors/translators, extensively, then such a translation ceases to be the infallible Sacred Scripture.

That said, most Bible translations, even Protestant translations, even translations that are overly literal or overly loose, even translations with clear and prominent faults and problems, are still Sacred Scripture and still retain the character of infallibility.

Furthermore, all translations, editions, printings, and copies of the Bible may contain errors particular to that translation, edition,printing, or copy. These errors are usually easily detected by comparison between numerous different versions, so that the particular problems of one edition do not cause the truths of Scripture to be lost or hopelessly obscured.

Most Protestant translations of the Bible are still good and useful,despite the problems of confessional bias, despite lacking 7 books and parts of 2 other books in the OT. But Catholics would be well-advised to make use of one or more Catholic translations for the majority of their Bible study and devotion.

Thanks a lot sis yidda for you effort in responding my questions.


Have a nice day

Jewel wrote:Thanks a lot sis yidda for you effort in responding my questions.

Have a nice day

you're welcome Jewel. Thank you.

grace and peace

Individual translations and edits of the Bible can have particular translation errors, or particular editing errors. The Bible is entirely inerrant because it is entirely inspired. But translators and editors of the Bible do not operate under inspiration, so we can and do err.

There are always those persons who will point out apparent contradictions or inconsistencies in the Bible. These are generally easily explained. But even if there is an apparent error in Scripture,we are required by faith to believe that it is only an apparent error;if properly understood, there is no error at all.

for example:

[1 Samuel]
{13:1} When he began to reign, Saul was the son of one year, and he reigned over Israel for two years.

A number of translations assume that this text is an error 'the son ofone year' (a Hebrew expression indicating age). They substitute "..."for Saul's age. This is because they tend to ignore the spiritual level of meaning of Scripture; they are treating the book as if it were merely a human work.

This assertion about his age is based on the previous event in Saul's life, in which God made him into a new man, giving him a new heart,even making him like the prophets:

{10:9} And so, when he had turned his shoulder, so that he might go away from Samuel, God changed him to another heart. And all these signs occurred on that day.
{10:10} And they arrived at the above-stated hill, and behold, a group of prophets met him. And the Spirit of the Lord leapt up within him,and he prophesied in their midst.
{10:11} Then all those who had known him yesterday and the day before,seeing that he was with the prophets, and that he was prophesying, said to one other: “What is this thing that has happened to the son of Kish?Could Saul also be among the prophets?”
{10:12} And one would respond to the other, saying, “And who is their father?” Because of this, it turned into a proverb, “Could Saul also be among the prophets?”

So the meaning of the verse is that Saul began to reign one year from when he became a new man.