Are Bibles the literal unaltered word of God?

[Delta4Embassy]

Many say they believe the Bible is the literal unaltered word of God. Copyrights aside, languages don't translate one into another perfectly, so how can something originally in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek translated into English or other languages still be the original anything?

 

[Indeependent]

It can't.
And the key point is not "translation", it's "interpretation".

 

[Davros]

It can't.
And the key point is not "translation", it's "interpretation".

Translation is interpretation.

 

[Indeependent]

It can't.
And the key point is not "translation", it's "interpretation".

Translation is interpretation.

It's not.
For example, Genesis 1:1 can be interpreted in MANY ways, and that's not even discussing how each WORD can be interpreted.
You have to know at least a smattering of Hebrew to get the point.

 

[Davros]

It can't.
And the key point is not "translation", it's "interpretation".

Translation is interpretation.

It's not.
For example, Genesis 1:1 can be interpreted in MANY ways, and that's not even discussing how each WORD can be interpreted.
You have to know at least a smattering of Hebrew to get the point.

Whatever. Let's just say creating a Bible in English is an imperfect process.

 

[aris2chat]

word of men

 

[the_human_being]

There are a few things to consider here. Is the Bible true? It apparently holds a great deal of truth that anyone can easily see such as the truth that Israel will be a thorn in the sides of the nations. This is especially true now. I could go on and on but doing so would make a lengthy post and I haven't the time right now.

The next thing is that even among the English Bibles, many verses use different words within them that completely change the meaning of the verse. For example: "Will have all men to be saved" vs "Wishes to have all men to be saved". Clearly two different outcomes here.

Next, one must consider an all powerful God and Creator should have little difficulty in maintaining His truth intact throughout the centuries. I really am not an expert but I have read that the very discovery and translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls into English has proven the integrity of the King James.

 

[amrchaos]

Question

1)Are there ideas, situations and other concepts that can be expressed in one language but not in another?

If, then any Holy Text outside the language original written can be considered wrong to some degree. Also, the information found in those texts probably was meant for those that could read the original language.

So, translations aside, there is already a problem with any English Holy Text

2)Is the recording of said information suppose to be literal? Or is it possible that the original information has been lost for some time no and creative license has been by later 'authors' to help convey a general point?

3)Is it even necessary for the text to be 100% True? Yes, one can find truth here or there, but you can do that with Brother Grimm's Fairy tales. However, the Brother Grimm's Fairy tales have "truth" in them as well.

Could it be possible that a Holy text is written more for an embedded "truth" than literal truth?

4)Is not the need for "literalism" based on the faulty premise that God wrote or dictated the entire Bible when it has been shown by linguists that many parts of the Old and New testaments has been written by different authors--more than there are "Books" in the Bible itself?