How do theists justify the translations of the scriptures?

[Macoleco]

The Bible, or any other holy book, is a translation of scriptures written thousands of years ago, and even in different tongues.

How can theists confirm these translations are 100%, or even somewhat, accurate?

One would think that if God wants to deliver such an important message, it would be translation and time proof. But I am sure that the Bible is different even in modern bibles of different languages, and even of the same language.

[Fake Messiah]

Indeed, people change and manipulate Bibles all the time and this is part of the changing mythology of Christianity. Leaders usually manipulated the texts to please themselves, according to the circumstances they were in and the necessities they had to meet.
For instance there are script alteration to the word "kill" in the Sixth Commandment, which usually is translated as, "Thou shalt not kill." This creates a problem for Christian soldiers and other believers. How could any army or police force be successful if its members took "Thou shalt not kill" literally? Consequently, in many modern versions "kill" has been changed to "murder," for expediency's sake.

Another problem is Romans 3:23 ("All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God"). All means all; that's what it says. But Gen. 6:9 says, "Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations" and Job 1:1 and 1:8 say the same about Job. The obvious question is: If these men were perfect, how, then, can all be sinners? Biblicists will usually play with the word "perfect" and contend Gen. 6:9 doesn't say Noah is perfect; it says he was "blameless" or "complete." Authors of newer versions of the Bible try to escape the problem by revamping the wording.

Or 1 Timothy 6:10. We have all heard the comment, "The love of money is the root of all evil." Notice it says "the love" of money is "the root" of all evil. That is in the King James and a few other versions. But the NIV says, "For the love of money is a root." It does not say the root, it says a root, one among several. The quote goes on "of all kinds of evil" (not necessarily all evil). Another version says, "For the love of money is a root of all evil." And a fourth version that can be found, for instance, in the NWT, says, "For the love of money is a root of all sorts of injurious things." That does not necessarily mean it has to do with evil at all. So we have four different versions of 1 Tim. 6:10, all of which have differences, some small and some large, that go to a material doctrine in the Bible that is of critical importance. In dealing with evil and how it materializes we have these variations.

Or take Mark 16:9-20, in which the problem is not so much over what the verses say as whether or not they should even be in the Bible. The New International Version states as a footnote: "The two most reliable early manuscripts don't even have these verses," even though they are very important. They pertain to the biblical doctrine of taking up serpents and drinking any deadly thing. In light of the fact that many fundamentalist children have died while using these verses, a very important concept is involved. Yet, even people who support the Bible can't agree on whether or not these verses should be included.

You might think that you need to know Greek or Hebrew to verify the original meaning of a given passage, but the fact that scholars don't even agree on how verses should be translated. And also there are many old texts that conflict each other. You could be the world's greatest Greek or Hebrew scholar and still have experts dispute your interpretations. So who is correct? If scholars agreed, there wouldn't be so many versions on the market with major differences. This leads one to believe that they have access to the original autograph manuscripts. Nobody today has the original writings themselves. You know the original manuscripts of the NT no longer exist. They were written on perishable material and it is unlikely that they lasted for more than a few years, let alone 20 centuries. There was no "original Bible." At no time did the original autographical manuscripts of the 27 books of the NT ever reside between the covers of one particular book. So to say "I believe in the verbal, plenary complete, inspiration of the original Bible" is to say you believe in nothing, for no such book ever existed.

So when somebody gives you a book, be it the RSV, the KJV, the NIV, or what have you, all they are doing is giving you a writing that was put together by a group of scholars who read some ancient manuscripts that purportedly are accurate representations of the originals, which no longer exist. That's what you receive when you go to the store to buy a Bible. You cannot obtain a copy of the Bible since the book was never assembled within the covers of one particular volume.

[no one]

Magic.

[brewer]

They confirm whatever supports their desired position.

So sayeth the lord!

[The Grand Nudger]

Any way they can op, fullstop.

[Acrobat]

The Bible, or any other holy book, is a translation of scriptures written thousands of years ago, and even in different tongues.

How can theists confirm these translations are 100%, or even somewhat, accurate?

One would think that if God wants to deliver such an important message, it would be translation and time proof. But I am sure that the Bible is different even in modern bibles of different languages, and even of the same language.

Now a days you can compare multiple readings of the same verse, look up the words themselves in their original language, read criticism of certain interpretation etc...

[Belacqua]

How can theists confirm these translations are 100%, or even somewhat, accurate?

Some theists deny that any translation is accurate: Muslims say the only real Koran is the one in the original language. 

Some theists acknowledge that complete translation of meaning in different words is impossible, and the original languages are the basic text while translations are just assistance for people who who can only read different languages. That's why new translations of the New Testament, for example, are made from the original Greek -- not from one translation into another. (Greek to Japanese, for example. Not Greek to English to Japanese.)

Other theists say that since any human language is a flawed way to present the truth, even the original language can only approximate reality. 

And a lot of theists don't think the text is magic -- they acknowledge that it was put together by flawed humans, and can only be trusted that far.

[Drich]

The Bible, or any other holy book, is a translation of scriptures written thousands of years ago, and even in different tongues.

How can theists confirm these translations are 100%, or even somewhat, accurate?

One would think that if God wants to deliver such an important message, it would be translation and time proof. But I am sure that the Bible is different even in modern bibles of different languages, and even of the same language.

In short the bible (not religion) is a map to find God. How is any map vetted/proven to be true? by whether or not it takes you where you want to go.

The bible promises to place us in the presences of God in this life one on one. 2.18 billion people have found this to be true to one degree or another.

So if the bible delivers on the promises then we can look to the bible for other truths. the fact that there are over 25,000 copies of the bible hand written and preserved over 2000 years makes it the single most copied manuscript we have of the ancient world. nothing comes close. Therefore to question the bible authenticity is to question every other document in history of that time period. So again not just the facts of thousands of copies, but the truth in the directions people are still finding.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

the fact that there are over 25,000 copies of the bible hand written and preserved over 2000 years

I've heard this nonsense before, and it is manifestly untrue.  There are absolutely, positively NOT 25 000 copies of the Bible that have been preserved for two millennia.

What IS true is that there are 25 000 handwritten manuscripts of the NT, but even this is a misrepresentation of what the situation is.  There are no extant manuscripts from the first century, and only eight (I think) from the second.  For the first four centuries, there are approximately 100 manuscripts.  The copying craze started after that (largely due to the advent of monasteries).

But what is a manuscript?  It is anything that is written by hand, irrespective of length.  The oldest bit of the NT is a fragment of John about three inches long - for historians, this counts as a manuscript.  We don't have anything more substantial than that until around 200 CE.

The overwhelming majority of that 25 000 number so often bandied about weren't written until well after the NT was codified - say, between the 11th and 16th centuries (Mr. Guttenberg largely put the brakes on copying out the Bible by hand).

So, are there 25 000 manuscripts of all or part or the NT?  Yes, but it is almost entirely irrelevant from an historical perspective.  All that really matters are the hundred or so from the first four centuries.


Boru

[Drich]

the fact that there are over 25,000 copies of the bible hand written and preserved over 2000 years

I've heard this nonsense before, and it is manifestly untrue.  There are absolutely, positively NOT 25 000 copies of the Bible that have been preserved for two millennia.

What IS true is that there are 25 000 handwritten manuscripts of the NT, but even this is a misrepresentation of what the situation is.  There are no extant manuscripts from the first century, and only eight (I think) from the second.  For the first four centuries, there are approximately 100 manuscripts.  The copying craze started after that (largely due to the advent of monasteries).

But what is a manuscript?  It is anything that is written by hand, irrespective of length.  The oldest bit of the NT is a fragment of John about three inches long - for historians, this counts as a manuscript.  We don't have anything more substantial than that until around 200 CE.

The overwhelming majority of that 25 000 number so often bandied about weren't written until well after the NT was codified - say, between the 11th and 16th centuries (Mr. Guttenberg largely put the brakes on copying out the Bible by hand).

So, are there 25 000 manuscripts of all or part or the NT?  Yes, but it is almost entirely irrelevant from an historical perspective.  All that really matters are the hundred or so from the first four centuries.


Boru

actually:
The New Testament has been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work of literature, with over 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts catalogued, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic and Armenian.

It's a little more complete than your dismissal would have us believe.

Not to mention the OT roll in all of this. in that there are hundreds of copies of the OT that date back upto 500 years beore Christ that have all been well documented.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript

Bottom line is no matter how you slice it there is more written of the bible and more verified hand written copies than any other text