Eye of the needle

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:

quote:

---

Going to have to correct you again, Blitz (sorry!)

---

​

No problem. A rope or camel can't pass through the eye of a needle, so it doesn't make too much of a difference which it is

---

It does if you want to claim biblical inerrancy.If one word can be mistranslated, then why not others ... and
if the bible is the word of God and all translators are
touched by him to reveal the true word of God, how can it even
happen?

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:

quote:

---

Going to have to correct you again, Blitz (sorry!)

---

​

No problem. A rope or camel can't pass through the eye of a needle, so it doesn't make too much of a difference which it is

---

​

It does if you want to claim biblical inerrancy.

​

If one word can be mistranslated, then why not others ... and
if the bible is the word of God and all translators are
touched by him to reveal the true word of God, how can it even
happen?

​

---

​

I don't see how a mistranslated word that doesn't affect the meaning of the verse discredits the bible. It would be impossible to my knowledge to translate the bible into all languages and maintain an exact translation. If we take into account that some cultures have a great many words for a similiar thing. The Inuit have something like 20 words for snow. All of which we could translate only to snow.

​

Words are only a vessel to contain a meaning. I do not see in this particular case where the new vessel has lost it's meaning. I think we all know that language is flawed, words over time, gain too broad a definition or multiple definitions. A word can imply quite a different thing, in contrast to it's intended definition. However this is not the case here the meaning is not lost.

​

The idea that a man who loves his riches is not likely to enter into the kingdom of heaven, is very much still there.

---

You cannot claim inerrancy if you accept that translation errors
can have occurred.If you have an original to refer back to, you can assess the meaning
acsribed by the translator and see if you agree ... translation
can change the meaning (take the famous 'Ich bin ein Berliner!'
JFK quote as an example).We cannot know what interpretations have been made, nor what
mis-translations have been applied in taking the original
from one language to another to another.Without that knowledge we have insufficient grounds to claim
inerrancy.That's not to say that the message might not be intact ... we
just do not know whether it is or not, so cannot make the claim
either way. There is doubt.