emptyjanitor

[emptyjanitor]

Which bible is the real inerrant bible? 

Spoiler: none of them cause that's not how this works.

First and foremost, it doesn't say anywhere in the bible that we are supposed to read the bible literally and or as an inerrant body of work. Nowhere. Period. At all. To claim otherwise is a lie. That is fact. But beyond that I will lay out why the idea doesn't even make sense anyway. 

1. The Bible Isn’t a Single Book – It’s a Collection of Collections

There are many versions of the Bible, depending on which tradition you look at:

• Protestant Bible: 66 books

• Catholic Bible: 73 books

• Eastern Orthodox Bible: up to 81 books

• Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Bible: as many as 88 books

If the Bible were truly universal and inerrant, there wouldn’t be disagreement on what even counts as scripture.

⸻

2. Massive Translation Variation

There are over 3,000 different Bible translations across languages – and even within the same language. In English alone, you have:

• King James Version (KJV)

• New International Version (NIV)

• English Standard Version (ESV)

• New Living Translation (NLT)

• Revised Standard Version (RSV), etc.

Each uses different source texts and linguistic philosophies (literal vs. dynamic equivalence), leading to significantly different wording and meaning. An “inerrant” Bible can’t depend on which translation you happen to pick.

⸻

3. Textual Contradictions and Variants

There are tens of thousands of known textual variants in the manuscripts of the Bible. These include:

• Different genealogies of Jesus in Matthew 1 vs. Luke 3

• Different death accounts of Judas (hanging in Matthew, falling and bursting open in Acts)

• Resurrection accounts that differ across the four Gospels (who went to the tomb, what they saw, what Jesus said, etc.)

Some contradictions are theological, others are historical. If two passages say fundamentally different things, both can’t be inerrant unless you allow for contradiction within “truth” — which breaks the very definition of inerrancy.

⸻

4. No Original Manuscripts (Autographs) Exist

We don’t have a single original document written by the supposed authors of the Bible — only copies of copies, often centuries removed. What we call “the Bible” is reconstructed from fragments, some of which disagree. So how can one claim inerrancy when we can’t even point to a single, original inerrant text?

⸻

5. Interpretation Is Subjective and Shaped by Culture

Even if a perfect Bible existed, it would still be read and interpreted through human bias, language, and cultural lenses. That’s why we have thousands of denominations — all reading the “same” Bible, yet coming to vastly different conclusions on core doctrines (baptism, salvation, LGBTQ+ issues, women in ministry, etc.).

⸻

Conclusion

The idea of a universal, inerrant Bible is a theological fantasy.

There never was one, because:

• No single version or canon has been universally agreed upon

• No flawless manuscript exists

• No translation is without error or bias

• No interpretation is immune to context and culture

So it’s not just that the Bible has contradictions — it’s that the entire structure of biblical transmission and interpretation makes inerrancy impossible. Faith can still exist and does without inerrancy, but pretending the Bible is a flawless, unified book and is historically and intellectually dishonest and ignorant of historical context.

[emptyjanitor]

The Misunderstanding of Monogenēs and Almah: How Translation Distortions Shaped Christian Doctrine

The Christian tradition, especially in its more literalist and inerrantist forms, has long rested on specific biblical words taken to imply divine miracles or supernatural uniqueness. Two of the most consequential terms in this regard are monogenēs and almah. Their mistranslation and theological repurposing—particularly in the early centuries of Christianity—have deeply shaped doctrines like the Virgin Birth and the divinity of Jesus. Understanding what these words actually meant in their original languages helps us see how theological dogma was built not on fact, but on fragile translation choices. This matters not only for theological accuracy but for the integrity of faith itself.

Monogenēs: Not “Only-Begotten” The Greek word monogenēs appears nine times in the New Testament and is most famously used in John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son…” Traditional translations like the King James Version render monogenēs as “only begotten,” suggesting a unique divine birth, implying Jesus was born of God in a literal, biological sense. However, monogenēs does not mean “only begotten.” The root words are monos (only) and genos (kind, type, class, or lineage), not gennaō (to beget). In classical Greek usage, monogenēs means unique or one-of-a-kind, not biologically “begotten.” It refers to something singular in nature, not in birth. Ancient writers like Philo used it to describe Isaac as Abraham’s monogenēs, despite the fact that Abraham had other sons—because Isaac was the unique child of promise. So why the mistranslation? The distortion began in the 2nd to 4th centuries, especially through the Latin Vulgate translation by Jerome (completed around 405 CE). Jerome rendered monogenēs as unigenitus—“only begotten”—which locked the term into a biological frame. Later theologians like Augustine further hardened this into dogma. Theological motivations were strong: by emphasizing Jesus as begotten, the Church could support creeds affirming his divine origin, like the Nicene Creed (“begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father”). ⸻

Almah: Not “Virgin” In Isaiah 7:14, the Hebrew word almah appears in a prophecy: “Behold, the almah shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” This verse became a cornerstone of the Christian claim that Jesus fulfilled a prophecy of a virgin birth. But almah does not mean virgin. It simply means young woman of marriageable age. The Hebrew word for virgin is betulah. While an almah may be a virgin, that is not the word’s literal or necessary meaning. So where did the virgin idea come from? The problem began with the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible made by Jewish scholars around the 3rd century BCE. In that translation, almah was rendered as parthenos, the Greek word for virgin. This translation error (or reinterpretation) gave the Christian Gospel writers a prophetic “proof-text” for Jesus’s virgin birth. Matthew 1:23 quotes Isaiah directly, using the Greek parthenos, and builds the doctrine around it. This created a theological feedback loop: the mistranslation became a prophecy, the prophecy confirmed the virgin birth story, and the story validated the mistranslation. ⸻

The Danger of Literal Inerrancy Why does this matter? Because when people are told that these words are literally and inerrantly true in their popular meanings, entire belief systems are built on sand. If one believes Jesus is divine because he was “only begotten,” and born of a “virgin” due to prophecy, and both terms are mistranslations, then the foundation cracks. Literal inerrantism demands that every word of the Bible is perfect and without error—even when those “words” are the result of flawed human translation centuries after the fact. This has two major consequences:

It replaces meaning with magic. The original theological and philosophical depth of the text is flattened into supernatural claims that require blind belief rather than deep understanding. Jesus’ monogenēs status meant he was spiritually unique, not biologically manufactured.

It blocks reform. When a mistranslation becomes a doctrinal pillar, questioning it is treated as heresy. This discourages serious inquiry, pushes out critical thinkers, and creates fragile faiths that collapse under scrutiny. ⸻ Conclusion The distortion of monogenēs and almah shows how language, power, and theology intertwine. These were not small mistakes—they were decisive shifts that shaped the core doctrines of mainstream Christianity. The early Church, driven by a desire to define and defend the divinity of Christ, hardened flexible, ambiguous terms into rigid dogmas. These shifts were made by translators, theologians, and Church councils—fallible human beings. Recognizing this is not about destroying faith—it’s about grounding it in truth. A mature, honest spirituality is not afraid of history or etymology. It asks better questions and builds on solid ground. Faith should not depend on errors in Greek and Hebrew. It should depend on truth, humility, and the courage to revise what we think we know. FACT CHECK:

Claim: Monogenēs does not mean “only begotten,” but “unique” or “one-of-a-kind.” Verdict: True Linguistics: Monogenēs = monos (only) + genos (kind/type), not gennaō (to beget). Used in classical Greek to mean “unique,” not “biologically begotten.” Biblical Context: Philo calls Isaac monogenēs though Abraham had other sons—demonstrating the word’s non-biological nuance. Mistranslation Origin: Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (early 5th century) rendered it as unigenitus (“only begotten”), a theological choice, not a lexical one. This stuck in creeds and doctrine. Modern Scholarship: Top lexicons (BDAG, Liddell-Scott) define it as “only, unique,” not “begotten.” Scholars like Larry Hurtado, Richard Bauckham, and Dale Martin all back the essay’s interpretation. Conclusion: The essay’s treatment of monogenēs is accurate and well-supported.

Claim: Almah in Isaiah 7:14 means “young woman,” not “virgin.” Verdict: True Hebrew Lexicon: Almah means “young woman of marriageable age.” It does not specify virginity. Betulah is the Hebrew word that explicitly means “virgin.” Textual Evidence: Isaiah 7:14 uses almah, not betulah. The Septuagint (LXX) translated it as parthenos (“virgin”), which is where the issue began. Gospel Dependence: Matthew 1:23 quotes the Greek parthenos, treating it as fulfilled prophecy of Jesus’s virgin birth. The virgin birth doctrine leaned on this translation—not the original Hebrew meaning. Scholarly Consensus: Hebrew scholars (e.g., Robert Alter, Michael Coogan) affirm that almah doesn’t mean virgin. Christian theologians have acknowledged this for decades—even conservative ones. Conclusion: The essay is correct: the virgin birth prophecy was built on a mistranslation.

Claim: Literal inerrancy depends on mistranslations like monogenēs and almah, and this distorts doctrine. Verdict: Substantiated Historical Context: Church doctrine (like the Nicene Creed) was built using Greek and Latin texts, not original Hebrew/Aramaic. When those texts carried translation errors, the errors became embedded in doctrine. Doctrinal Consequences: “Only begotten Son” underpins Jesus’s divine sonship. “Virgin shall conceive” underpins the miraculous birth narrative. Inerrancy Problem: Literalist traditions claim the Bible is inerrant “in every word.” But those “words” are translations, often centuries removed and shaped by theology. That makes the inerrancy claim logically and historically fragile. Scholarly Backing: This argument aligns with scholars like Bart Ehrman, James Barr, and Peter Enns: Dogma has often been shaped more by translation tradition than original languages. Conclusion: The essay is factually sound in showing how literal inerrancy relies on flawed translations, and how this leads to fragile theology.

Conclusion Claim: These translation shifts weren’t accidents—they were theological moves that hardened into dogma. Verdict: Supported by historical evidence The early Church chose specific translations and interpretations that supported their theological goals. Councils like Nicaea (325 CE) institutionalized these interpretations. Translation choices were not neutral—they were part of a broader effort to define orthodoxy and combat heresy (e.g., Arianism). Scholars across the spectrum (from Elaine Pagels to Raymond Brown) have documented how doctrinal consolidation in early Christianity involved political, linguistic, and theological maneuvering. Conclusion: The essay’s argument that translation was weaponized to shape theology is historically accurate.

[emptyjanitor]

TL;DR:

Literal inerrancy—the belief that the Bible is 100% error-free and must be taken literally in all aspects—is a uniquely American, modern fundamentalist view. It emerged as a reaction to science and liberal theology, but it’s theologically flawed, self-contradictory, and rejected by most global Christians. The Bible contains internal contradictions and diverse genres that demand contextual, theological reading—not rigid literalism. Jesus taught love, grace, and spiritual transformation, not legalism or textual obsession. True Christian faith honors the Bible’s depth, not weaponized certainty

Literal Inerrantist Interpretation Is the self invalidating belief that the Bible is completely free from error and must be interpreted as literally true in all aspects: historical, scientific, and theological. It’s not just flawed theology; it’s self-refuting by its own standard.

Why It’s Primarily a U.S. Phenomenon:

• Emerged from 19th–20th century American Protestant fundamentalism.

• Reactionary stance against evolution, modern science, and liberal theology.

• Reinforced by U.S. culture wars seeking moral absolutism and authority.

Why Most Christians and Scholars Reject It:

• Not supported by the majority of Catholic, Orthodox, or most Protestant traditions globally.

• Ignores the Bible’s diversity of genres, contexts, and theological development.

• Global Christianity overwhelmingly favors contextual, theological readings over strict literalism.

Biblical Contradictions (Illustrating the Flaw):

• There are over 400 documented internal contradictions in the Bible (e.g., Skeptic’s Annotated Bible catalogues 467).

• Examples:

• Creation order (Gen 1 vs Gen 2)

• Judas’s death (Matt 27:5 vs Acts 1:18)

• Genealogies of Jesus (Matt 1 vs Luke 3)

• God seen or not? (Ex 33:20 vs Gen 32:30)

• Noah’s animals (Gen 6:19 vs Gen 7:2)

Preferred Interpretation (Used by the Majority of Christians):

• Contextual, theological, and literary approaches

• Seeks spiritual truth through genre, history, and metaphor

• Encourages humility, not judgment, recognizing the Bible as a divinely inspired human text

Why These Are Preferred:

• Embraced by the vast majority of global Christians

• Informed by centuries of theological scholarship and tradition

• Avoids distortion by respecting the Bible’s complexity and depth

• Aligns with how Jesus taught: parables, symbolism, and spiritual wisdom, not legal literalism

Christ vs. American Literalism:

• Jesus preached love, grace, justice, and transformation, not rigid literalism. He welcomed outcasts, broke purity laws, and challenged the gatekeepers of his religion.

• Christ’s message was relational and spiritual, not legalistic or text-obsessed

• American inerrantist Christianity often idolizes an interpretation of the Bible and the theological stance itself over the spirit of the living Word it points to. John 5:39.

Modern literal inerrancy is largely a modern American distortion. They Are the Modern Pharisees. They preach certainty, demand conformity, and weaponize Scripture to exclude. That’s not faith — that’s spiritual control. It's hard to imagine Jesus died for that. 

Christ calls for inner transformation, not textual fundamentalism. There is a reason why the global Church reads Scripture through the Spirit, tradition, and reason, not rigid literalism that ignores contradiction and context. This is not opinion, you can, and indeed should fact check it yourself.