Objection 4: The Bible has been Rewritten and Changed

Transmission vs. Translation in the Reliability of Scripture

Well, I want to Pass this out. This is our handout. We're continuing in our study of apologetics this evening. If you don't mind sir, yeah, actually, that's the. It's a two-sided but you give each one one tonight.

We are Continuing on in our lesson on the subject of objections and While he's passing those out. I'm just going to write down as a reminder The categories of objections we have for this particular lesson we have been discussing the subject of of The categories of One two three one the existence and nature of God to the nature and reliability of Scripture and three the interpretation and An application Of Scripture we have looked at the existence of God the nature of God and the nature of Scripture so far but tonight we are going to look at the reliability of Scripture.

And as I said this this sort of follows a lot of conversations I've been in and the reason why I'm doing it this way is it sort of follows the objections. Sort of as they come the first thing is whether or not God even exists.

And then if he does exist, what kind of God is he and then how do we know what kind of God he is? Well, he's given us his word. Well, what is his word? It's the Bible where we talk about the nature of the Bible and then the question comes up very quickly and very often.

Well, why do you trust the Bible? Why do you trust what the Bible says? How do you know that? When you read Genesis Exodus Leviticus, how do you know when you read Matthew Mark and Luke that what you're reading is correct?

We kind of dealt with that last week because we said well we believe that it is God's Word and God does not err. God cannot err so we say the Bible is inerrant meaning it doesn't err and it is infallible it cannot err.

And today we're going to go beyond that discussion of the nature of the Bible to the question of well, how do you know that what you're reading is actually Accurate to what was written in the first place.

It's one thing to say that Peter Paul Matthew and the rest wrote true things. It's another thing to say that what we're reading is what they actually wrote. How many of you have ever played the telephone game?

The telephone game goes like this I would start down at the end of the line and I would whisper something in to miss Dottie's ear and miss Dottie would go over and whisper it into Dale's ear and then him into Jackie's ear and over to the Fraser's and all the way around and Normally the way that it goes is that whatever starts with Dottie by the time it gets to Dad at the back.

It's something either grossly Exaggerated or Absolutely maligned from what was originally said. I remember in second grade our teacher making us do this exercise as a way of demonstrating why gossip Was such a bad thing.

Because gossip tends to begin with somebody saying something that is their version of whatever happened and then that person changes it to their version and then the next and the next and the next and the next and And So oftentimes when you're talking to someone you'll hear them say that about the Bible.

Well, the Bible has been translated many many times or the Bible has been changed many many times. It was written 2 ,000 years ago. It's gone through so many hands and so many brains and so many people.

How can we believe that we have anything? Anything that Resembles what was originally written? Well these questions tend to fall into two categories and This is not on your notes. I didn't put this on the notes, but you can write it off to the side if you'd like because this question falls into two categories the category of transmission and Translation now, you know what transmission is.

That's that thing that you have to use in your car to get you going. I Know there's not a lot of you. That was a little funny Transmission. Not even a little. Okay, that's a bad joke a Trans the transmission means how it is Transmitted or how it how it goes from one place or one person to the next person to transmit Something how the Bible has been copied and how it has been passed from one generation to another.

That is transmission. Translation is different. Because translation is how the Bible is taken from one language to another language. That's different than transmission. Transmission is how the Bible goes from one generation to the next how it goes from one person to the next.

Transmission can include translation, but transmission is its own thing. Because when we talk about the Bible, we do know what language it was written in and We know that the language that it was written in the Old Testament primarily was Hebrew.

The New Testament primarily was Greek. There is a very little bit of Aramaic in there. But for the most part we can say the Bible is Hebrew and Greek and we can Read the Bible in the original languages, so we are not limited To translation.

But we are limited to transmission because we have to believe that the Greek that we have and the Hebrew that we have is Accurate to the Hebrew and the Greek that was written and that it has been transmitted to us accurately Accurately.

The Promise of Isaiah 40:8 and Jesus on the Word That Endures

So the question the objection For tonight that we're going to answer is how can you trust the Bible? When it has been rewritten and changed so many times and I want you to invite you to Isaiah chapter 40 our verse for the evening.

Isaiah chapter 40 in verse 8. It's on your sheet the Bible says the grass withers and The flower fades. But the Word of our God Will stand forever. The grass withers and the flower fades, but the Word of our God will stand forever.

That is a beautiful and important promise from the scripture about God's Word and remember when we talk about the scripture we're talking about God's Word written down and So God has provided a promise that his word While the earth itself will change and the flowers will fade and the grass will wither his word will not Go away it will stand forever and so when we talk about the subject of transmission, we have to consider the fact that this is a theological issue first.

Why is it a theological issue first if we believe that God gave us his word and We believe that his word is true. And we believe that his word is for us not just for the generations that received it before all generations then that would in Courage us to believe that we have the Word of God.

I was as it was intended for us to have and So that becomes a theological issue mentally because some people don't believe that some people say I'm a Christian, but I don't believe the Bible. I really don't know how you reconcile that mentally.

I don't know how you reconcile that because you're what you're saying is well God gave his word, but he didn't do anything to preserve his word and Preservation is part of transmission. Preservation is a theological concept that God not only gave his word but he ensured that his people would always have his word and I think that we can base the theological assertion at least in part on Isaiah 40 verse 8 because he says the Word of God will stand forever.

And Jesus says later in the Gospels that not one jot or tittle Will pass away from the Word of God and so Jesus gets down to the very smallest letters. And he says this book this word and we know Jesus is talking about the written word because he mentions two very small Hebrew Markings and he says the jot and the tittle he said even these two things not one comma or one period Will pass away if we were to put it into a modern vernacular and so yes, sir.

Absolutely, and that's true and I'm gonna talk about that later, but Jesus does use the Septuagint. The Septuagint is a translation and He quotes from this as it's the scripture and and the Apostles did too They translate or quoted from translations with the confidence that this is still God's Word.

Can I hold up an English Bible and say this is God's Word? Yes. Is it translated? Yes, but it still bears witness to the Word of God so Why do we believe? That what we have in Our hands is accurate to what was written 2 ,000 years ago.

I remember a few years ago I may have meant I may have told this story before. But it's just it's it's funny how things stick out in your mind a few years ago. I was at dinner. I remember where I was as a Pizza Hut of all places.

I was on Dunn Avenue Pizza Hut. I don't know why I was in my mind, but I'm having dinner with my mother and one of her friends and We're sitting there talking and while we're having dinner Some the subject of the Bible came up and she said she said, you know what?

I wish I wish I could have a copy of the original Bible before King James came along and changed it and I remember being very overwhelmed. So much so that I think I kind of choked on my pizza. Because the statement demonstrated a lack of historical knowledge and a willingness to believe the most outlandish of falsehoods and That's what we end up running up against when we talk to people about the transmission of the Bible.

People don't know but they hear things and They repeat things that are just foolish and So It behooves us to understand some things About how the Bible came to be the way it is and and I thought about this too this this apologetic series will end eventually.

Probably going to end sometime before August because we're going to take August off. But when we come back, I may do a series on just how we got the Bible because what I'm doing tonight is such a small.

Such a small bit and and I think it's good for Christians to know Things like the you know, the King James Bible wasn't even the first English Bible. The first English translation of the Bible was translated from the Latin by John Wycliffe 300 years Before the King James Bible and the most popular Bible before the King James Bible was the Bishops Bible in the Geneva Bible.

Not the King James. In fact when the King James Bible came into existence it was considered a state Translation and it was not it was not widely accepted by many people because it was had the had the state's Handprint on it as it were sort of like if we if you have the United States Translation or heaven forbid the Barack Obama translation.

You might have a little issue with it or the Donald Trump translate. You might have a little issue with that Bible. And this Bible was dedicated to the King. So there were some issues. With its translation the Geneva Bible had Much more widely read and circulated than the King James at the time.

So my point is there's so much there's so much here in the in the half hour 45 minutes. We're going to spend on this. We're not going to drop in the bucket. But I do want to. I want to give you some things to put in your mind to go with this series number one.

I Want to tell you three things that Christians claim are true and are not. There are three things I hear Christians say that are just not true and You should at least know. That you shouldn't use false arguments.

You know that right. You shouldn't say things that are not true. But Christians do either because they don't know or because they're self-deceived. They've convinced themselves of something that's not true.

Three Common Claims About Bible Preservation That Need Correction

The first thing that's not true God has preserved his word in English through a perfect translation called the King James Bible. Now I realize that what I just said would get me run off of many of churches and and that's okay I'm not vying for popularity anywhere.

I Just want to please God it is believed by many that the King James Bible is the absolutely perfect English translation of the Bible and I want to say this before I say anything else the King James Version is a beautiful translation and it has majestic language and most of what we Like remember.

We often remember from King James English. Because that's how we grew up hearing it. Words like thou and thee words like whosoever. These are not normal words in modern vernacular, but it's words we understand because they're in the King James Bible.

But I want to make a point if you have your Bibles turn with me to first John. Does anyone have a King James Bible? Okay, well turn to 1st John chapter 5 not John but 1st John. The little small letter in the back go to 1st John chapter 5 and go to verse 6.

Everyone there says in verse 6. This is he who came by water and blood Jesus Christ. Not by water only but by water and the blood and the Spirit is the one who testifies because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that testify.

The Spirit and the water and the blood and these things agree. All right. Now, is that what everybody else that says? Is there anyone who says there are three that bear witness in heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit and these three are one New King James.

Okay. Does it say that in NAS? It doesn't say that in NAS does it? Verse 7 read verse 7 for me. But It doesn't say there are Three that bear witness in heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three are one.

It doesn't say that, right? Yours does what do you have? New King James, okay that one phrase. It's called the Kama Yohaniam. It is one of the most argued passages in the Bible. Because it is true. But it ain't in there what I mean.

What it says is true. There are three that bear record in heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit and these three are one that is true. But that phrase which is not found in the ASV. It's not in the NASB.

It is in the New King James, but it's not in your Bible. Is it? It's not in your Bible. Is it that whole phrase is. Not part of first John's original writing. That particular phrase is known as a textual variant and the variant itself Was not introduced.

That we know of in the Greek. Until several hundred years after the writing of the New Testament and I believe that it was introduced through the Latin. I believe that it was a Latin Marginal note, you know what a marginal note is.

Well, the ones the people who had Bibles translated they made marginal notes. I think the person I think how it got introduced. I can't prove this but I think how it got introduced was there's all this talk of these three bearing witness.

I think a marginal note was introduced in the Latin translation. Which later became part of the recognized scripture and was added in. But we're going to talk about textual variation later, but here's the deal.

Why? Do we even know about it? We know about it because we have the manuscripts we have the Greek language manuscripts. And So we can go back and we can see that this was not part of the original. Now some people argue that it was those who hold to King James only ism.

We'll say it was absolutely had to have been part of the only one was. But what's their argument? Because it's in the King James. It had to be part of the original that's Anachronistic arguments that's arguing backward and that's not how you argue.

The text that underlies the King James Version. I just want to read this quickly. The text that underlies the King James Version comes from an edition. That was edited by a man named Desiderius Erasmus and that text became known as the Textus Receptus when compiling the manuscripts for his text.

Erasmus could not find any Greek source for that reading. But it was one very important reading to the church. Because they felt like it underlied the doctrine of the Trinity. And it was in the Latin and for a thousand years the Latin was the foundational use Bible of the church.

Erasmus did not include that reading in his first edition or his second edition. But he did include it in his third edition under pressure from the church that Reading does not belong in the Bible doesn't.

And in my I will stand on that I've had arguments and debates with men on this if that reading Belongs in the Bible then we have no way of having any certainty of what was ever supposed to be in the Bible.

Because that reading did not make its way into the Greek manuscripts until hundreds of years later. It is not supposed to be there. So if somebody says the King James Bible is perfect I go first on five seven has a reading that wasn't in the original.

That's my art that's one of my arguments. I have others about the King James, but that's that's a that's pretty. That's a big matzah ball hanging out there. Yes. Yeah, but they're not using that 1759.

Yep. Yeah, I have a copy of the of the 1611 and It doesn't look anything like what most people say is the King James Bible because most people are carrying a 1769 Blaney revision of The King James Bible so even the Bible they're carrying and saying this is it is a revision.

It's not the 1611. The 1611 had an entirely different way of writing the S's look like F's. It had looked different. The language was looked different. Again, if you're a King James purist person who says King James is a pure word of God.

We can have this conversation another time. But from my perspective if that's the argument you're using I Think it's a bad argument. Because I don't think it stands the test of scrutiny. If you're going to say the Bible's the Bible is perfect.

And I can trust it because God gave us the King James Bible and that's the argument some people use. I think you're using a bad argument now. Hopefully get to that maybe at another time, but that's number one number two the second thing that Christians will say.

Scribes never made mistakes scribes never made mistakes. I remember this particularly. I remember in a Sunday school class a man in the Sunday school class who was going on and on about how meticulous the scribes were and how Absolutely certain they were about counting the numbers of letters and making sure that they would they would take a string and they would Take the string to the two corners and the one letter in the middle of where those two strings met had to be the same where they'd throw the entire document away and and and and and while that is certainly the case in Certain sections of history where there were scribes and scriptoriums.

Even then There were mistakes of writing and I didn't bring it tonight, but I have a copy a Photograph copy of Codex Sinaiticus one of the three major Codexes of the first 500 years of the church and you see in the codex Marginal fixes you ever write something you mess it up.

You make a line and you write that they did that. And you can see it. So to say scribes never made mistakes is just mythical. It ain't true. Now we don't have a lot of again. I hate that. I don't have the time I need.

But just remember this also Christians particularly the New Testament Was not copied in the first few hundred years. It was not copied in scriptoriums by scribes. It was copied by Christians who were on the run in General or were living in situations where they were not in the best economic Situations.

The idea of Christian scriptoriums that didn't come about in the first couple centuries of the church. Now I say that to say this when we look at a papyri manuscript papyri is. Is they would take the rear of the papyrus plant?

They would they would flatten them and then they would cross that's them with other reeds and they would make what we would call paper and There would be a smooth side and a hard side and the smooth side was used for writing.

We have manuscripts that are papyri Manuscripts still today these things have lasted 2 ,000 years. Could you imagine this lasting 2 ,000 years? It won't last two weeks put it out in the Sun. It'll dry up and it'll be brittle and fall apart.

They're papyri. Papyri manuscripts Go back 2 ,000 years. But you know what we found out about them the Christians Wrote on both sides of them. And that wasn't what you're supposed to do because one side was rough and one side was smooth.

You know why they wrote on both sides because they were poor and Because they wanted to get the Bible copied and because they didn't have a lot of papyri to go around. So we'll find manuscripts that are written on both sides of the papyri.

And we see them and we see here is a group of people that were desperate to get this word out. And did they make mistakes? Yeah. So don't use that argument. Don't say the scribes never made mistakes. Not true.

Third if ever a question about a manuscript comes up. All we have to do is consult the original documents. I've heard this many times and you might you might think that you've heard me say that I've never said it.

I've never said that all we have to do is consult the original documents. Do you know why? Because the original documents no longer exist we do not have an original copy of Mark. We do not have an original copy of Matthew.

We do not have an original copy of anything Paul wrote. We don't in fact, I Think if we did it would be a bad thing. I Think could you imagine what people would do if they had the original copy of Romans?

People will worship a piece of bread that's toasted to look like the Virgin Mary imagine what they would do if They have the original writing of Romans. They would break their necks to try to bow down to it.

When somebody says all we have to do is go back to the original documents. That's not true. Now you have heard me say We consult the original Manuscripts that's different manuscripts are copies. They're not the original documents.

That's different. The autographs are the originals they no longer exist. Wherever they went they no longer exist. We have manuscript copies. That is what we possess. We do not have the original mark the original Matthew.

None of that. So if you tell somebody well, we'll just go back to the original document. You're misleading them. Now you might say the original manuscripts the copies of the originals or you might say the original language.

You might have heard me say that because Greek and Hebrew were the original languages and that's important because again It comes back to transmission versus translation. But don't say we're going to show you the original Paul or the original mark.

You don't have it. Now so far I may have busted some bubbles because you may have come in here tonight thinking well, this is how I would argue for the tenacity of the text and if so Sorry to disappoint because that's not how you do it.

But even in spite of that I'm going to give you nine or rather eight propositions as To why I believe the Bible in the form that we have it today can be Trusted and I didn't make you have to fill one blank in.

I Did it because I wanted to make sure you got it, right? I wanted to make sure because this is a lot of words. But I want to make sure you have it exactly as I'm saying it. Because there's eight reasons if somebody says why do you believe the Bible the way you have it they can be trusted.

I would say eight reasons. Eight reasons why I believe the Bible can be trusted as it is today. Number one. The scriptures are without error in the original manuscripts. I believe with all my heart That God gave us the Word of God through Paul Peter John and the rest of those who wrote it and I believe that when they Wrote they wrote without error.

The Bible says pass ha. I'm sorry thinking the wrong word. Pass graf a found us toss all scripture is God-breathed. I Believe that I believe that the Bible is perfect because God is perfect. And I believe it was given to the men Paul Mark Matthew and the others.

That when they put the hand to paper when they put the pen to paper they were doing so under the superintending of Almighty God. That again is a theological argument. But it is my first argument, why do you believe the Bible is true.

Because I believe it's God's Word and The first thing is I believe it came to us without error. That's one number two. We no longer have the original manuscripts as I've already said. That's a good thing.

What we do have is a text that represents the results of critical study of a vast Manuscript Tradition. Now, I know a lot of times us especially as non Catholics We tend to be that word tradition gets us a little hot under the collar.

I don't like that word tradition. Let me tell you something when I say a vast manuscript tradition I'm using it in the sense that we don't have one copy. But we have over five thousand copies of the New Testament alone in Its original language that span everywhere from the early second century all the way into the 15th century.

We have handwritten copies. Outweighing the last that the last number I have is five thousand seven hundred and fifty two. But that was in November 2008 that number has risen. Since then that's almost ten years ago.

But just going back to that point. Five thousand seven hundred fifty two manuscripts. We ain't got the original but we sure enough got a lot of copies and These manuscripts are broken up into various types and a time won't allow me to get into this too far.

But I do want to mention this the The original manuscripts the original Bible was written on papyrus excuse me. Show me yeah and papyrus manuscripts go until about the second century between the second and third century.

Then you have written on vellum. Do you know what vellum is? Vellum is animal skin that tends to last longer. It's a it's it's it's it's it holds up better than papyrus. And we have those dating from the third century on The the vellum well actually fourth century say fourth century on you have vellum manuscripts and.

Then from about the ninth century. We have what are called minuscule forget that minuscule yes, minuscule minuscule is when the Greek language underwent a Massive shift and how it was written the Greek language when it was written during the time of the Apostles was written in all capital letters.

No spaces no punctuation all capital letters. No spaces. No punctuation now. They had a method for reading it. And then we know those methods today for how they read it and understood it and if that's all we ever knew that we'd know how to do it too, but most of us grew up with capital letters and lowercase letters and spaces and punctuation.

Well those things were introduced into the Greek in the ninth century. So if you look at a manuscript that has lowercase letters and uppercase letters and has spaces and. You know that that comes after the ninth century.

But if you're looking at a manuscript that is all capital letters. It all runs together. There is no spaces. Then you know that it possibly could go back as far as the fourth even up to the second century.

So that's how they identify the dating of these manuscripts, and they know how old they are. Also based on other factors, but that's one of the ways that they understand that so even though we don't have the originals we have Thousands and thousands of copies even family lines of copies like if there's a one that has a particular variant.

They can trace the variant back to when it was introduced. You understand because you'll have thousands over here that won't have that variant so you can take that one back and say okay. Well, here's where the guy made a mistake or here's where the scribe Did something incorrect and they can trace that back because they have family lines of manuscripts.

Variants, Scribes, and the Limits of Textual Change

Number three. Variants do exist in these manuscripts. Yet because of the vast amount of copies these variants are easily Recognizable. I just said that so I'm pretty much just just reiterating. There are two kinds of kinds of Variants there's intentional and unintentional.

What would be an unintentional variant? Well, there's something called home away. Tell you time home I tell you time is when you have the end of a sentence and the next sentence ends the same way or a similar way home away tell you time in similar endings and Whole lines are missing from certain manuscripts.

Because the scribe read to the end and he's copying and he skips a line because the end of this sentence was the same as the end of this sentence and so they find a missing line and. Then guess what the next one who copies off of him has a missing line and they can follow that all the way back.

They also have one the one guy funny there. You know how you have columns. I could call them here. That's column one and column two and the words are like this and like this. Well, they had one guy who didn't realize there was a column break and he literally he didn't read the language.

So he just literally just copied straight across and so. That makes no sense. Because he didn't he didn't read the language. He was copying letter for letter and he missed the break and he just and his doesn't make any sense.

But we can see where it came from we can see and anybody who copied off of him. It's easily recognizable that they didn't know either. But then there are intentional Variants, those are what we call unintentional people did it ignorantly or didn't know made a mistake that happens.

But what's an intentional variant? I'll give you an example I don't have only have time to go read it. But if you go to the the the the model prayer. We say it every Sunday our Father who art in heaven Hallowed be thy name that kingdom come that will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us of our debts as we fear those who are indebted to us. You know, we say trespasses, but King James says debts anyhow. You go to Luke. Luke has the model prayer also in Luke chapter 11 the original Greek of Luke is Shorter Than Matthew's it leaves out part of the prayer.

Most of your modern translations have that shorter version but the King James Bible. The the one in Luke is the same as the one in Matthew. Why? Because at some point a scribe Balanced them because he saw well, here's a here's this prayer has less than this and so in an attempt to Harmonize he simply brought in what he felt was missing.

But you see you say oh, that's scary to think somebody has the power to do that. He didn't do it without us knowing. Because he couldn't get all the thousands of copies and make all the changes when he did that.

We can see it. You ain't fooling nobody. We got you, you know, that's the way this works. That's the beauty of the New Testament. There's never been a time where anyone could go out and collect all the manuscripts.

Okay. Now we're gonna change this. We'll make Jesus God, you know, oh, we're gonna go we're gonna make Jesus born of a virgin. We gotta get all the major. There's never been a time in history where all the manuscripts could be collected.

Not only do we have 5700 plus Greek manuscripts. We have Syriac. We have Coptic. We have Latin all going back to the 2nd century 3rd century 4th century. There's no way you could collect all that and say, okay now we're gonna take out that part about hell.

Or we're gonna add something about that. It would have been absolutely impossible. You see that's the way God preserved his word through the copious amount of Writing it could never be given a wholesale change that could not later be recognized and Dealt with number four moving moving moving the overwhelming majority of variants are either not viable or meaningless.

Because you might hear somebody say well, I know the Bible translations have variants and I've even heard it said that there are More variants than there are words in the New Testament. That's actually true.

There are more variants than there are words if you count all the variants and you count all the words. Here's the problem. Everything is a variant. That's not the same as the one before. So if somebody writes Christ Jesus instead of Jesus Christ it's a variant if somebody misspells Christos and Leaves out a letter.

That's a variant and you're talking about just the New Testament 27 books times 5700 Manuscripts some of them, you know varying degrees of how much of the New Testament they contain. Is it any real wonder why there would be so many variants we're talking about Things that are either meaningless or not viable.

For instance, there's mark 141. There's a textual variant. The Bible says Jesus saw this man who came to him and he was moved with compassion. Okay, the word there for compassion is splot in his face a nice word for compassion splot in his face.

But there's another variant and the word is Orgostas. Orgostas. Orgostas means moved with anger if you read it in context. This is someone Jesus loves person comes to him and the text says he was moved with compassion but one Translation one Manuscript says Orgostas Moved with anger and here's the funny thing that one manuscript alone is Considered to be one of the worst manuscripts because there's so many Intentional errors in it it actually by itself Includes a commentary on the text and is by itself responsible for many many Manuscript variations.