Article by: Kenneth J. Ester
The Truth of the Bible!
Something everyone already knows, but many do not give any thought to, is that in the first century when the original manuscripts were written, they did not have copy machines to print off a bunch of perfect copies. If someone of high importance wanted a copy of a book, they would pay someone to go to someone who had the book and spend time copying it word for word. Contrary to what some may think, these men who copied the books were not divinely inspired by God. They made a lot of mistakes.
The most common mistakes were misspellings or inverting numbers, but they made other mistakes too. They often missed words and sometimes even missed large portions of a chapter. Likely they would take breaks or go home for the night and when they returned to copying it, they would pick up from the wrong place. Yet, these were just the unintentional mistakes they made. Often they made changes on purpose. For instance if the text they were copying had the word "Christ", they might use "Lord" because the word was more commonly used in their place of origin or time. Christ, or Lord, what is the big difference right? In other cases they might have felt something was not clear enough so they would actually add a sentence or two thinking they were making it easier to understand.
Today to our knowledge, the original manuscripts do not exist. Today, we have somewhere in the neighborhood of around 25,000 ancient copies, but none of the original manuscripts. These copies were created over a range of hundreds of years. They are absolutely littered with differences and unfortunately our scholars do not have any of the originals to compare them to, in order to know what is correct and what is not. Instead they have had to compare the many manuscripts we have of each book and puzzle out what is correct and what is not. One of the ways they choose what is correct is by the date the copy was created.
If they have 50 copies of the first chapter of a book, and the oldest ten copies say one thing, and the others (all more recent) say something else, they will accept the older copies to be correct. This is based on the fact that the closer the copy is made to the original date, the less chance they have had to be corrupted by mistakes and changes. If the older copies were wrong, it would stand to reason they would have at least one older copy that matched the words of the newer copies. IF they do not, then likely what happened was that at one point a copyist made a mistake or intentionally changed something and then more copies were made from his copy.
After comparing the thousands of ancient manuscripts and deciding what is most likely the correct words used, they then needed to translate the words from two very ancient and difficult languages (Hebrew and Greek) into yet another very difficult language (English). In all three languages there are countless words that have multiple meanings and many different words that have similar meanings. Unfortunately the scholars were no more divinely inspired by God than the copyists. They were human and like any human they are prone to mistakes.
There is no doubt in my mind that the original manuscripts were truly the inspired and inerrant Word of God. Unfortunately when one considers the above information, it is impossible to logically come to the conclusion that the Bibles we have on our shelves today are inerrant. The truth is they have many copyist mistakes as well as many translation errors. The Bible we have today simply cannot be inerrant.
With that understood, it does not mean it is not the True and Living Word of God! It is the "true" Word of God and I am certain of that! With the thousands of copyist errors they have had to puzzle out, and the nearly impossible job of translating Greek and Hebrew to English accurately, the scholars have done an amazing job. It is now believed that the Bible we have is about 99.5% accurate to the original manuscripts. Of that half a percent they are wrong, very little of it has anything to do with anything of importance. Most of them are grammar mistakes and issues that will not change the truth of God's Word at all. I have studied all of the important doctrines and many minor doctrines in God's Word and I have found no contradictions. I have looked into well over a hundred supposed contradictions listed in atheist websites and found all of them very easy to answer. The more I have studied the Bible, the more it has proven to me that it is truly the Word of God and can truly be trusted. The only thing that half a percent margin of error does, is it means we just cannot say the Bible we have today is inerrant. It is the Truth of God, but it is not without any mistakes at all. It contains human error.
Can we trust versions other than the KJV Bible?
There is a growing movement that says the KJV is the only Bible that can be trusted. They claim that the KJV is inerrant and that all other versions are inferior. Some will even say that other versions are of the devil. As I have already explained, it is simply illogical to think that any version of the Bible is inerrant and that includes the KJV. But if you really insist on believing it is, then I would suggest you look into the original 1611 KJV and read the preface in the beginning that was written by the scholars who translated it. In their notation, they clearly state that they themselves understand it is not perfect. They even claim that it is in their opinion that to truly find the truth of God's Word, it is best to continually make revisions as problems are found. If the men who translated it say it is not perfect, how can we say they are wrong and they did a perfect job?
When the KJV was translated in 1611, they did an awesome job of it. They really did! Unfortunately one of their greatest problems was they were limited on ancient manuscripts that were available to them at that time. Today we have thousands and thousands more ancient manuscripts at our disposal and many of them much older than what they had in 1611. This allows us to look back and be far more accurate in our knowledge of what was in the originals. The scholars of 1611 were limited in how accurate they could make the Bible. A good example is found in 2 Thessalonians 2
2 Thessalonians 2:1-4 (KJV)
1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
The end of verse 2 says "as that the day of Christ is at hand". At the time they translated this, all of their oldest manuscripts used "day of Christ" and so they were correct to write it this way. However, today we have many older manuscripts and most every scholar agrees that the correct wording should be "day of the Lord". The difference in using "Christ" or "Lord" may not seem like anything important but in truth it carries major ramifications to their meanings. If you do a search in the Bible for the phrase "Day of Christ", it is always to do with the return of Jesus in some way. Either the rapture or the Second Coming. However, the "Day of the Lord" is always used in connection with God's Wrath! The day of the Lord is not the Second Coming, but it is the day of Gods Wrath.
When you read 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4 in the KJV, it is telling us that the rapture cannot come until after the antichrist reveals himself and the apostasy happens. But now we know the KJV has the wrong words in place because at the time they were limited in the information they had. In this case the NASB version is more accurate...
2 Thessalonians 2:1-4 (NASB)
1 Now we ask you, brothers and sisters, regarding the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, 2 that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit, or a message, or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 3 No one is to deceive you in any way! For it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.
Suddenly it is not the rapture that cannot happen until the antichrist is revealed, but it is the day of God's Wrath that cannot happen until after the antichrist is revealed.
Understanding 2 Thess 2:1-4 is important. Verse 1 makes it clear that Paul is referring to the rapture. There is no doubt about that. You see, the members of the church had received some kind of false information stating they had missed the rapture and now the Day of the Lord (God's Wrath) was at hand. This had them quite upset. Paul was telling them they had not missed the rapture because the day of the Lord was not truly at hand. He had told them before that the day of the Lord would not come until after the antichrist had revealed himself and the apostasy had happened. Since those things had not happened, the day of the Lord could not be at hand, so their information they had received is false.
Because the KJV Bible insists on sticking with the "day of Christ", it forces those who read only that one version to believe the rapture cannot possibly be pre-trib. They are led down a false path simply because of one single word that was wrong. KJV Only people will insist that KJV is right and all the other versions are wrong, but that simply is not true. In this case, the oldest manuscripts we have all say "Day of the Lord". The only scholars who don't agree with "day of the Lord" are KJV Only scholars. They have to insist "day of Christ" is correct because if they don't, they have to accept that the KJV is flawed just like every other version.
There are plenty of places where the KJV Bible can lead someone astray in their understanding because it is not correct. In some cases it is using the wrong word due to copyist error when they changed the words, not realizing they are changing the meanings of the phrase of that day. In other places it uses the wrong translations. For instance in Luke 14:26
Luke 14:26 (KJV)
26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
People often misunderstand this scripture thinking it says we must hate our family, but God would never wish us to hate anyone. If you look this verse up in Strong's, you learn the word they translate to "hate" is not a good translation. Though "hate" is one of the words it can mean, it also can be translated as to "love less". Which would fit much better with what the Lord is teaching here. Don't hate your family, but do not love them as much as you love the Lord. Sadly this is one translation where nearly every version of the Bible fails. Not only the KJV. Yet it doesn't matter if they all fail or not, what matters here is that the KJV does fail and so it is evidence that the KJV should not be trusted completely all on its own. It has flaws just like every other version.
Then there are the words that were used in the KJV in 1611, that no longer convey the same meaning as it does today. For instance the word "bowels"! Today we think of it as a particular part of our innards. In the KJV it just means the insides, or the center, or can even be used to mean the heart of something. Or what about the many words that have even become obsolete in today's language? Do you know what "anon" means? It means "immediately". Barbarian? It is simply any foreigner who speaks a different language. Do you know what "bewray" means? "Broid"? "Ere"? There are large lists of words that are in the KJV Bible that we don't use anymore or that we do use but have different meanings. Can you imagine how often that can cause someone to misunderstand what they are reading?
Here is another translation problem in the KJV...
1 John 3:8 (KJV)
8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
According to this scripture anyone who commits a sin is of the devil. This verse leads many to believe in some false doctrines because it is not truly translated correctly. The correct translation should be "He that practices sin" Not commits sin. That doesn't even clarify it enough though. In truth, the meanings of the words in this verse in Greek, means to sin in defiance. It is not just someone who is caught up in a sexual sin or alcoholism or some other sin where they just cant seem to break free of it. It is one who sins and thinks it is okay to sin or does it in direct defiance against God. The one who defies God purposely without caring is the one who is of the devil. It is not saying that anyone who sins is of the devil, and you would never know that if you use the KJV only.
The truth is, every version has its flaws. Including the KJV Bible. There is no Bible you can trust all on its own and if you do, you are limiting yourself to accept the many mistakes in that version as being correct. By comparing versions of the Bible as you study it, you give yourself the ability to recognize the problems that come up and to then look into them and find God's Truth and not man's interpretations.
Now this does not mean that all versions of the Bible are equal either. There truly are some very bad versions of the Bible out there. Many of the worst versions are bad because they are paraphrased instead of trying to stay true to what was said. Basically they are nothing more than man's interpretation of scriptures. They may be easier to read, but I personally would advise people to stay away from them. There are a handful of trustworthy versions that have been tried and tested through time by many scholars. Stick with those versions. KJV is still a good version, just don't think it is the only version to trust. NASB is my personal favorite. It is considered more accurate word for word than the KJV but it doesn't use the language of the 1600's so it is easier to understand. NET and ESV are supposed to be good versions as well. A common paraphrased Bible that seems to be popular is the NIV. If you want a readers version, use that one, but I would advise to stick to the more accurate word for word Bibles if you don't want to be led astray too easily. There may be some others that are good versions. There may be some new versions coming out that are good. My question is why take the chance? We have some good and tested versions that are not hard to understand. Why even take a chance of another version teaching you false doctrine?
Finally, I feel it is important to teach you this one thing. Whichever version you choose as your favorite, learn to look for Primary scriptures as you study. There are a ton of false doctrines being taught today in churches all over the world. Most of those false doctrines come from man interpreting scripture to mean something it never says. Many are even taught today that they need to have the Holy Spirit to help them interpret scriptures. This simply is not the truth of it. The Holy Spirit isn't looking to help you interpret scriptures. He will guide you in your studies but only if you are using wisdom as well.
The only time we should be interpreting scriptures is to interpret them to support Primary scriptures. If there is no primary scripture to support by interpreting a verse, then you need to use logic and reasoning to make sure it does not contradict any primary verses. If you don't know what a Primary Verse is, please read this article... Power of Primary Verses. If you want the truth of God's Word, and I mean God's truth, then you will take this advice. If you want to follow man's interpretation of God's Word, you will interpret scriptures on your own.
The most common mistakes were misspellings or inverting numbers, but they made other mistakes too. They often missed words and sometimes even missed large portions of a chapter. Likely they would take breaks or go home for the night and when they returned to copying it, they would pick up from the wrong place. Yet, these were just the unintentional mistakes they made. Often they made changes on purpose. For instance if the text they were copying had the word "Christ", they might use "Lord" because the word was more commonly used in their place of origin or time. Christ, or Lord, what is the big difference right? In other cases they might have felt something was not clear enough so they would actually add a sentence or two thinking they were making it easier to understand.
Today to our knowledge, the original manuscripts do not exist. Today, we have somewhere in the neighborhood of around 25,000 ancient copies, but none of the original manuscripts. These copies were created over a range of hundreds of years. They are absolutely littered with differences and unfortunately our scholars do not have any of the originals to compare them to, in order to know what is correct and what is not. Instead they have had to compare the many manuscripts we have of each book and puzzle out what is correct and what is not. One of the ways they choose what is correct is by the date the copy was created.
If they have 50 copies of the first chapter of a book, and the oldest ten copies say one thing, and the others (all more recent) say something else, they will accept the older copies to be correct. This is based on the fact that the closer the copy is made to the original date, the less chance they have had to be corrupted by mistakes and changes. If the older copies were wrong, it would stand to reason they would have at least one older copy that matched the words of the newer copies. IF they do not, then likely what happened was that at one point a copyist made a mistake or intentionally changed something and then more copies were made from his copy.
After comparing the thousands of ancient manuscripts and deciding what is most likely the correct words used, they then needed to translate the words from two very ancient and difficult languages (Hebrew and Greek) into yet another very difficult language (English). In all three languages there are countless words that have multiple meanings and many different words that have similar meanings. Unfortunately the scholars were no more divinely inspired by God than the copyists. They were human and like any human they are prone to mistakes.
There is no doubt in my mind that the original manuscripts were truly the inspired and inerrant Word of God. Unfortunately when one considers the above information, it is impossible to logically come to the conclusion that the Bibles we have on our shelves today are inerrant. The truth is they have many copyist mistakes as well as many translation errors. The Bible we have today simply cannot be inerrant.
With that understood, it does not mean it is not the True and Living Word of God! It is the "true" Word of God and I am certain of that! With the thousands of copyist errors they have had to puzzle out, and the nearly impossible job of translating Greek and Hebrew to English accurately, the scholars have done an amazing job. It is now believed that the Bible we have is about 99.5% accurate to the original manuscripts. Of that half a percent they are wrong, very little of it has anything to do with anything of importance. Most of them are grammar mistakes and issues that will not change the truth of God's Word at all. I have studied all of the important doctrines and many minor doctrines in God's Word and I have found no contradictions. I have looked into well over a hundred supposed contradictions listed in atheist websites and found all of them very easy to answer. The more I have studied the Bible, the more it has proven to me that it is truly the Word of God and can truly be trusted. The only thing that half a percent margin of error does, is it means we just cannot say the Bible we have today is inerrant. It is the Truth of God, but it is not without any mistakes at all. It contains human error.
Can we trust versions other than the KJV Bible?
There is a growing movement that says the KJV is the only Bible that can be trusted. They claim that the KJV is inerrant and that all other versions are inferior. Some will even say that other versions are of the devil. As I have already explained, it is simply illogical to think that any version of the Bible is inerrant and that includes the KJV. But if you really insist on believing it is, then I would suggest you look into the original 1611 KJV and read the preface in the beginning that was written by the scholars who translated it. In their notation, they clearly state that they themselves understand it is not perfect. They even claim that it is in their opinion that to truly find the truth of God's Word, it is best to continually make revisions as problems are found. If the men who translated it say it is not perfect, how can we say they are wrong and they did a perfect job?
When the KJV was translated in 1611, they did an awesome job of it. They really did! Unfortunately one of their greatest problems was they were limited on ancient manuscripts that were available to them at that time. Today we have thousands and thousands more ancient manuscripts at our disposal and many of them much older than what they had in 1611. This allows us to look back and be far more accurate in our knowledge of what was in the originals. The scholars of 1611 were limited in how accurate they could make the Bible. A good example is found in 2 Thessalonians 2
2 Thessalonians 2:1-4 (KJV)
1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
The end of verse 2 says "as that the day of Christ is at hand". At the time they translated this, all of their oldest manuscripts used "day of Christ" and so they were correct to write it this way. However, today we have many older manuscripts and most every scholar agrees that the correct wording should be "day of the Lord". The difference in using "Christ" or "Lord" may not seem like anything important but in truth it carries major ramifications to their meanings. If you do a search in the Bible for the phrase "Day of Christ", it is always to do with the return of Jesus in some way. Either the rapture or the Second Coming. However, the "Day of the Lord" is always used in connection with God's Wrath! The day of the Lord is not the Second Coming, but it is the day of Gods Wrath.
When you read 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4 in the KJV, it is telling us that the rapture cannot come until after the antichrist reveals himself and the apostasy happens. But now we know the KJV has the wrong words in place because at the time they were limited in the information they had. In this case the NASB version is more accurate...
2 Thessalonians 2:1-4 (NASB)
1 Now we ask you, brothers and sisters, regarding the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, 2 that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit, or a message, or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 3 No one is to deceive you in any way! For it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.
Suddenly it is not the rapture that cannot happen until the antichrist is revealed, but it is the day of God's Wrath that cannot happen until after the antichrist is revealed.
Understanding 2 Thess 2:1-4 is important. Verse 1 makes it clear that Paul is referring to the rapture. There is no doubt about that. You see, the members of the church had received some kind of false information stating they had missed the rapture and now the Day of the Lord (God's Wrath) was at hand. This had them quite upset. Paul was telling them they had not missed the rapture because the day of the Lord was not truly at hand. He had told them before that the day of the Lord would not come until after the antichrist had revealed himself and the apostasy had happened. Since those things had not happened, the day of the Lord could not be at hand, so their information they had received is false.
Because the KJV Bible insists on sticking with the "day of Christ", it forces those who read only that one version to believe the rapture cannot possibly be pre-trib. They are led down a false path simply because of one single word that was wrong. KJV Only people will insist that KJV is right and all the other versions are wrong, but that simply is not true. In this case, the oldest manuscripts we have all say "Day of the Lord". The only scholars who don't agree with "day of the Lord" are KJV Only scholars. They have to insist "day of Christ" is correct because if they don't, they have to accept that the KJV is flawed just like every other version.
There are plenty of places where the KJV Bible can lead someone astray in their understanding because it is not correct. In some cases it is using the wrong word due to copyist error when they changed the words, not realizing they are changing the meanings of the phrase of that day. In other places it uses the wrong translations. For instance in Luke 14:26
Luke 14:26 (KJV)
26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
People often misunderstand this scripture thinking it says we must hate our family, but God would never wish us to hate anyone. If you look this verse up in Strong's, you learn the word they translate to "hate" is not a good translation. Though "hate" is one of the words it can mean, it also can be translated as to "love less". Which would fit much better with what the Lord is teaching here. Don't hate your family, but do not love them as much as you love the Lord. Sadly this is one translation where nearly every version of the Bible fails. Not only the KJV. Yet it doesn't matter if they all fail or not, what matters here is that the KJV does fail and so it is evidence that the KJV should not be trusted completely all on its own. It has flaws just like every other version.
Then there are the words that were used in the KJV in 1611, that no longer convey the same meaning as it does today. For instance the word "bowels"! Today we think of it as a particular part of our innards. In the KJV it just means the insides, or the center, or can even be used to mean the heart of something. Or what about the many words that have even become obsolete in today's language? Do you know what "anon" means? It means "immediately". Barbarian? It is simply any foreigner who speaks a different language. Do you know what "bewray" means? "Broid"? "Ere"? There are large lists of words that are in the KJV Bible that we don't use anymore or that we do use but have different meanings. Can you imagine how often that can cause someone to misunderstand what they are reading?
Here is another translation problem in the KJV...
1 John 3:8 (KJV)
8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
According to this scripture anyone who commits a sin is of the devil. This verse leads many to believe in some false doctrines because it is not truly translated correctly. The correct translation should be "He that practices sin" Not commits sin. That doesn't even clarify it enough though. In truth, the meanings of the words in this verse in Greek, means to sin in defiance. It is not just someone who is caught up in a sexual sin or alcoholism or some other sin where they just cant seem to break free of it. It is one who sins and thinks it is okay to sin or does it in direct defiance against God. The one who defies God purposely without caring is the one who is of the devil. It is not saying that anyone who sins is of the devil, and you would never know that if you use the KJV only.
The truth is, every version has its flaws. Including the KJV Bible. There is no Bible you can trust all on its own and if you do, you are limiting yourself to accept the many mistakes in that version as being correct. By comparing versions of the Bible as you study it, you give yourself the ability to recognize the problems that come up and to then look into them and find God's Truth and not man's interpretations.
Now this does not mean that all versions of the Bible are equal either. There truly are some very bad versions of the Bible out there. Many of the worst versions are bad because they are paraphrased instead of trying to stay true to what was said. Basically they are nothing more than man's interpretation of scriptures. They may be easier to read, but I personally would advise people to stay away from them. There are a handful of trustworthy versions that have been tried and tested through time by many scholars. Stick with those versions. KJV is still a good version, just don't think it is the only version to trust. NASB is my personal favorite. It is considered more accurate word for word than the KJV but it doesn't use the language of the 1600's so it is easier to understand. NET and ESV are supposed to be good versions as well. A common paraphrased Bible that seems to be popular is the NIV. If you want a readers version, use that one, but I would advise to stick to the more accurate word for word Bibles if you don't want to be led astray too easily. There may be some others that are good versions. There may be some new versions coming out that are good. My question is why take the chance? We have some good and tested versions that are not hard to understand. Why even take a chance of another version teaching you false doctrine?
Finally, I feel it is important to teach you this one thing. Whichever version you choose as your favorite, learn to look for Primary scriptures as you study. There are a ton of false doctrines being taught today in churches all over the world. Most of those false doctrines come from man interpreting scripture to mean something it never says. Many are even taught today that they need to have the Holy Spirit to help them interpret scriptures. This simply is not the truth of it. The Holy Spirit isn't looking to help you interpret scriptures. He will guide you in your studies but only if you are using wisdom as well.
The only time we should be interpreting scriptures is to interpret them to support Primary scriptures. If there is no primary scripture to support by interpreting a verse, then you need to use logic and reasoning to make sure it does not contradict any primary verses. If you don't know what a Primary Verse is, please read this article... Power of Primary Verses. If you want the truth of God's Word, and I mean God's truth, then you will take this advice. If you want to follow man's interpretation of God's Word, you will interpret scriptures on your own.
