Showing posts with label ISV. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ISV. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 31, 2014

Is the Newsweek article about the Bible accurate?

Question:

I just read the Newsweek article, "The Bible: So Misunderstood It's a Sin." After having read that, how can anyone honestly remain a Christian?

Answer:

If anyone wishes to read this article, the full text can be found here.

If much of what the Newsweek article said were actually true, Christianity would be in serious trouble. The truth is the article is filled with false information, twisted facts, and insinuations that are simply not true.

The first few paragraphs paint a grim picture of biblical illiteracy and misuse in America. Personally, I think this part contains some valid criticisms, and we believers would do well to address these kinds of issues in our church.

Six paragraphs into the article is this claim:

No television preacher has ever read the Bible. Neither has any evangelical politician. Neither has the pope. Neither have I. And neither have you. At best, we’ve all read a bad translation—a translation of translations of translations of hand-copied copies of copies of copies of copies, and on and on, hundreds of times.

About 400 years passed between the writing of the first Christian manuscripts and their compilation into the New Testament. (That’s the same amount of time between the arrival of the Pilgrims on the Mayflower and today.)

Very little of what is said here is true.

Claim: "No television preacher has ever read the Bible. Neither has any evangelical politician. Neither has the pope. Neither have I. And neither have you. At best, we’ve all read a bad translation..."

Truth: The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic, while the New Testament was written in Greek. There are tens of thousands, maybe even millions of people around the world, myself included, who can read these testaments in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek languages. 

But are they reading the Bible?

Claim: At best, we’ve all read a bad translation—a translation of translations of translations of hand-copied copies of copies of copies of copies, and on and on, hundreds of times.

Truth: While it is true the original first century documents no longer exist, with over 5800 Greek copies of the books found in the New Testament in existence, modern textual scholars have declared with a high degree of confidence that at least 96.4% of the Greek New Testament that exists today is letter for letter identical to the originals. Further, when it comes to confidence in the information related in the New Testament, the most conservative estimate is that 98.33% of the information related in our current Greek Text is identical to the information contained in the original. Further, when it comes to the fundamental doctrines, the "articles of faith," virtually all scholars are in agreement that the Greek New Testament as it exists today is 100% accurate to the doctrines taught in the original documents.

To those not familiar with the field of textual research, 5800 Greek copies of the New Testament might not seem like a lot. But consider this: there are more copies of the books in the New Testament than the next 100 ancient manuscripts combined! The second place for most copies goes to Homer's Illiad, of which there are now almost 1800 copies in existence, but after this, the numbers drop off rapidly. Third place goes to Sophocles, with 193 copies. In fourth place is Aristotle, with 49 copies. In fifth place is Tacitus with 20 copies. By the time we get to the manuscript in ninth place (Euripides), we are down to single digits at 9 copies. All other ancient manuscripts are less than that.

These 5800 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament are NOT translations. The originals were written in Greek, and these are COPIES of the Greek. For more on this information, you can read this articlethis web site, or this blog.

Further, the oldest manuscripts of the NT are from the second century, and are likely only a few dozen copies out from the originals; maybe even closer than that. While many of them probably are copies of copies of copies out hundreds of times, there are so many copies in existence that by comparing them to each other, as noted above, provides us with a very high degree of confidence that what we are reading today is virtually identical to what the disciples wrote 2000 years ago.

So, yes, contrary to what this article claims, many tens of thousands of people around the world are literally reading what amounts to exact words of the New Testament as it was written 2000 years ago, and many millions more are reading ONE translation of the New Testament, directly from the Greek into their native languages.

Claim: About 400 years passed between the writing of the first Christian manuscripts and their compilation into the New Testament. (That’s the same amount of time between the arrival of the Pilgrims on the Mayflower and today.)

Truth: The implication of this statement is that for the first 400 years of Christianity, no one had access to the New Testament. The truth is that for the first several hundred years after the originals were written, the various books of the New Testament were copied and circulated individually. So while many early churches may not have had the entire New Testament in one binding, they did contain most of the content of the New Testament as individual books.

Further, we have proof that within a generation or two, many of the books were circulating in collections. We have copy of the four gospels together in a group (in the same order as they are today) and another copy of Paul's letters (plus Hebrews) that date to about 100-150 years after they were written (between 175 and 225 AD). And the first complete Bibles (including OT and NT) date to about 250 years after the manuscripts were completed (about 325 AD). We have TWO complete Bibles (created in two DIFFERENT scriptoriums) that date from this time period.

Claim: While there were professional scribes whose lives were dedicated to this grueling work, they did not start copying the letters and testaments about Jesus’s time until centuries after they were written. Prior to that, amateurs handled the job.

Truth: Papyrus 66, which contains the Gospel According to John, dates from sometime between 150-200 AD, and is now accepted to be the work of a professional scribe. That means the church employed professional scribes very early on.

However, many of the copies were done by amateurs. Papyrus 75, which contains both Luke and John, and dates to somewhere between 175-225 AD, is known to be a copy made by an amateur. Detailed analysis of both texts have revealed that P-66, which was produced by a professional, has at least four times as many provable copy errors as P-75, which was produced by an amateur. So the actual evidence shows that, contrary to the implications of this claim, just because a scribe was an amateur does not mean what he produced was sloppy or inaccurate.

Claim: And Koiné was written in what is known as scriptio continua—meaning no spaces between words and no punctuation. So, a sentence like weshouldgoeatmom could be interpreted as “We should go eat, Mom,” or “We should go eat Mom.”

First, all the oldest manuscripts have pauses and punctuation at the end of the thought, so we do have rudimentary punctuation.

Second, because all nouns, adjectives, verbs, and many other Greek words had endings that tell us how that word is being used in the sentence, it is actually not that hard to read once you learn the language. I've been reading scriptio continua manuscipts for so long that I barely notice any more, and I rarely have any difficulty reading the text.

Third, while there are a few places where punctuation really could change the meaning of the sentence, that is actually kind of rare, and for the most part, because Greek is a free form language, punctuation in the middle of a sentence would make no sense (and would be largely unneeded, as the endings tell us the function of the words).

For example, in Greek, the sentence above ("weshouldgoeatmom") would be crystal clear no matter what the word order, because the endings on the words would make it clear what function each word served in the sentence. With a few simple exceptions (such as plurals), English doesn't use endings to clarify the use of a word in a sentence. To get a feel for how it works in Greek, let's create a few "endings" that tell us how a word is being used. For our example, we will say that @ at the end of a word will indicate direct address (we are talking directly to that person), and $  at the end of a word will indicate the subject of the sentence.

Using our invented endings, the above sentence would read "we$shouldgoeatmom@." Now we know, no matter where the word "mom" appears in the sentence, we are talking TO mom, not suggesting that we eat her. This also means we can put these words in any order, and we will still know what the sentence means. Thus, if we read "mom@shouldgoeatwe$" or "shouldgowe$mom@eat", we still know that we are talking to mom, and the subject is "we." So, when you take into consideration that all verbs in Greek also had endings, with no punctuation or spaces, and regardless of word order, we can immediately decipher all of these to mean, "Mom, we should go eat."

This means that contrary to what this article implies, scriptio continua is not that hard to figure out in Greek, and is not that much of a hindrance to understanding the content of the New Testament manuscripts.

Claim: And what biblical scholars now know is that later versions of the books differ significantly from earlier ones—in fact, even copies from the same time periods differ from each other. “There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament,” says Dr. Bart D. Ehrman, a groundbreaking biblical scholar and professor at the University of North Carolina who has written many books on the New Testament.

Truth: In case any of you are not familiar with the expert referenced here, Bart Ehrman is an atheist whose many books and articles on the Bible have one purpose: to discredit the Bible, and with it, Christianity. So when this article quotes Ehrman, it is using what an attorney would call, "a hostile witness," and this alone should make it clear the real intent of this article.

I've read almost every copy of every published copy of the New Testament from the first few hundred years of Christianity, and I can personally testify that there are ZERO significant differences between early manuscripts and later manuscripts. But if there are so many variations in the manuscripts, how can I make that claim?

Because while it might be technically true that there are more variations among the many manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament (400,000 variations when taking all manuscripts into consideration, and the NT in Greek contains 138,020 words), what this article doesn't say is that by far the vast majority of these variations literally have no impact on the meaning of the text, or are so subtle the differences cannot be translated into English.

When you get to variations that actually impact the meaning of the text, we are down to a few hundred, and if you go to variations that would literally change a teaching or doctrine, maybe a couple dozen. But when it comes to fundamental, critical doctrines, ZERO variations that would change the teaching (such as salvation, the death and resurrection, faith, grace, etc.). In case anyone is wondering, there are no scholars, including Ehrman, who dispute these facts.

Next, when referencing the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11), while it is true that John likely did not write it, the claims in this article are simply not true.

Claim: Unfortunately, John didn’t write it. Scribes made it up sometime in the Middle Ages.

This is blatantly wrong.

This passage is called the Pericope de Adultera, and first appears in Codex Bezea, which dates from somewhere in the range of 375-425 AD. Further, of the three complete Bibles that predate Codex Bezea, one is missing the page (Alexandrinus), so it is unknown if it does not contain it; one has diacritical marks at that spot (Vaticanus), indicating a known alternate reading exists; and one (Sinaiticus) does not contain it.

Didymus the Blind made it clear in his writings that most copies of John from about 300 AD on contained that passage (we should note the the oldest complete Bible in existence date from 325-400 AD, which is this same period). Jerome reports that it was found in most Greek and Latin texts by 375 AD. And further, several of the early church fathers from the first or second centuries (such as Papias) indicated a familiarity with the story.

All of that is a long, long time before the Middle Ages.

Claim: Moreover, according to Ehrman, the writing style for that story is different from the rest of John, and the section includes phrases that do not appear anywhere else in the Bible.

This is also misleading.

First, it is not clear that the writing style of this passage is different from the rest of John.

Second, there are 5446 different Greek words in the New Testament. Of these, almost half of them only appear ONE time in the New Testament. In fact, every single section of John contains words and phrases not found in any other section of John. For example, the famous opening section of John, 1:1-14, which is completely undisputed, contains three words not found anywhere else in John, and two words only found in ONE other place in John. And if you expand out to the whole first chapter, there are no less than 16 words that are not found anywhere else in John, and another 11 words that are only found in ONE other place in John.

It is true that at first glance, the Pericope de Adultera seems to have a high number of words not found anywhere else in John. In the 12 disputed verses, there are 13 words not found anywhere else in John. But this is not actually so unusual for John. In the 12 undisputed verses from John 19:30-41, there are 14 words not found anywhere else in John.

But when it comes to rare phrases, it should be noted that the critical command Jesus states at the end: "Go and sin no more" (In Greek: μηκέτι ἁμάρτανε) only appears ONE other time in the entire New Testament: John 5:14.

So the critical, most often quoted climax of the story uses a phrase only found in John.
After examining all the evidence, most modern scholars believe the story is authentic, but could have originated from one of the other disciples, and after being passed down orally for a while, was added to John so it would not be forgotten.

Claim: For Pentecostal Christians, an important section of the Bible appears in the Gospel of Mark, 16:17-18. These verses say that those who believe in Jesus will speak in tongues and have extraordinary powers, such as the ability to cast out demons, heal the sick and handle snakes. Pentecostal ministers often babble incomprehensible sounds, proclaiming—based in part on these verses in Mark—that the noises they are making show that the Holy Spirit is in them.

Truth: Having grown up in a Pentecostal church, I can tell you with no hesitation that I have never actually heard anyone reference Mark as evidence that believers will speak in tongues, heal the sick or cast out demons. There is no need, as all of these are recorded as historical events that happened to numerous believers in the book of Acts.

For example:

When the day of Pentecost was being celebrated, all of them were together in one place. Suddenly, a sound like the roar of a mighty windstorm came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw tongues like flames of fire that separated, and one rested on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages as the Spirit gave them that ability. (Acts 2:1-4)

When handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched his skin were taken to the sick, their diseases left them and evil spirits went out of them. (Acts 19:12)

And when it comes to handling snakes without harm, there is this:

Paul gathered a bundle of sticks and put it on the fire. A poisonous snake was forced out by the heat and attached itself to Paul's hand. When the people who lived there saw the snake hanging from his hand, they told one another, "This man must be a murderer! He may have escaped from the sea, but Justice won't let him live." But he shook the snake into the fire and wasn't harmed. They were expecting him to swell up or suddenly drop dead, but after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god. (Acts 28:3-6)

So contrary to the claims of this article, none of these beliefs are based on a disputed passage of scripture since they are found in numerous other, undisputed passages.

Claim: But once again, the verses came from a creative scribe long after the Gospel of Mark was written. In fact, the earliest versions of Mark stop at 16:8.

I have previously addressed the facts of this claim in a previous post. You can read that post here. In short, the evidence for the inclusion of the last 12 verses of Mark is far, far stronger than the evidence against it.

Claim: Then comes the problem of accurate translation. Many words in New Testament Greek don’t have clear English equivalents. Sentence structure, idioms, stylistic differences—all of these are challenges when converting versions of the New Testament books into English.

While this is true, what this article doesn't point out is that this is true of translations between ALL languages, including any modern languages. French has words English doesn't have. English has words Spanish doesn't have. German has words Russian doesn't have. Russian has words Spanish doesn't have.

Further, as a person who can read Koine Greek, and have translated John and Philippians from Greek into English, I can assure you that these translation problems have not led to massive numbers of false doctrines. It is true that some peripheral teachings can be clarified and corrected by reading the Greek directly, but it brings no changes to the vast majority of doctrines, and no alterations of any kind to the fundamental articles of faith of Christianity.

Claim: The gold standard of English Bibles is the King James Version, completed in 1611, but that was not a translation of the original Greek. Instead, a Church of England committee relied primarily on Latin manuscripts translated from Greek.

Truth: While the KJV is a fine translation, and many people prefer it over all other translations, calling it the gold standard is opinion, not fact. But more than that, despite the claims here, the KJV is primarily a translation directly from the Greek and Hebrew. Latin was only employed in the translation of the Apocrypha. Even Wikipedia acknowledges this:

In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from Greek, the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew and Aramaic text, while the Apocrypha were translated from the Greek and Latin. (See the full Wikipedia article here.)

Claim: In other words, with a little translational trickery, a fundamental tenet of Christianity—that Jesus is God—was reinforced in the Bible, even in places where it directly contradicts the rest of the verse.

The implication of this is, of course, that the Bible doesn't claim Jesus is God, and we Christians only believe it because of bad translations. It's not true, and I address one of the most blatant examples of the Bible teaching the deity of Jesus in a previous post, which you can read here. This is not even close to being the only place the Bible teaches that Jesus is God, but it does show that the closer we look at the Greek, the more obvious it becomes that the Bible openly and boldly teaches that Jesus is God.

Claim: That kind of manipulation occurs many times. In Philippians, the King James Version translates some words to designate Jesus as “being in the form of God.” The Greek word for form could simply mean Jesus was in the image of God. 

First thing you need to know is that the Greek in this passage is poetry, so it uses poetic language. Since Paul did not normally speak in poetic language, most scholars believe Paul was actually quoting a popular Christian hymn that would be well known to his readers.

Realizing this is poetry, here is what the Greek in this passage states:

First, that Jesus was in the very form of God,
second, that He did not misuse His equality with God,
third that He then took on the form of a servant, and
finally, that He was made to resemble a man.

Now, realizing this is poetic language, what else could this passage possibly be saying except that Jesus was originally God, and that he changed His APPEARANCE so that He looked like a man?

A very new translation, called the ISV (go here to find out more about this translation), recognizing that this passage is Greek poetry, has produced an ingenious translation that attempts to preserve the meaning of the words while presenting them in a form English speakers recognize as poetry. The result preserves the intent and meaning of each clause while beautifully communicating that this is a first and foremost, a poem, or more likely, a song.

In God's own form existed he,
and shared with God equality,
deemed nothing needed grasping.
Instead, poured out in emptiness,
a servant's form did he possess,
a mortal man becoming.
In human form he chose to be,
and lived in all humility,
death on a cross obeying.
Now lifted up by God to heaven,
a name above all others given,
this matchless name possessing.
And so, when Jesus' name is called,
the knees of everyone should fall
wherever they're residing.
Then every tongue in one accord,
will say that Jesus the Messiah is Lord,
while God the Father praising.
(Philippians 2:6-11)


Claim: Which raises a big issue for Christians: the Trinity—the belief that Jesus and God are the same and, with the Holy Spirit, are a single entity—is a fundamental, yet deeply confusing, tenet. So where does the clear declaration of God and Jesus as part of a triumvirate appear in the Greek manuscripts?

Nowhere.


This, again, is blatantly misleading. It is true that the NAME of the doctrine is not found in the Bible, as that was invented, for the sake of convenience, many centuries later. But that does NOT mean the teaching is not found in the Bible. It is actually pretty easy to prove that the Bible teaches that the Father is God, that the Son is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God, that these three interact with each other as distinct individuals, and yet somehow, the Bible repeatedly insists there is only one God. What the Bible does NOT do is try to explain how these can all be true. It just claims they are.

And that blatant New Testament teaching is what we call, "The Trinity."

The rest of the article contains just as many erroneous claims, distorted facts, and blatantly false implications as I have already addressed, but I think what I have presented here is more than enough to demonstrate that you should not to believe much of anything you read in this article.

If anyone reading this has a specific question about any of the other issues raised in this article (wise men, creation, flood, David and Goliath, homosexuality, women in authority, etc.), please feel free to contact me, and I will address them in detail.

If you would like to read a more scholarly, accurate and balanced evaluation of the Bible, there are many, many choices out there. One such book that is both scholarly and accessible to the average lay reader is "How We Got the Bible," by Neil R. Lightfoot (available through Amazon here). If you would like a deeper, more detailed (and more faith driven) account, I recommend "From God To Us Revised and Expanded: How We Got Our Bible," by Norman L. Geisler, which is available in a downloadable, Kindle version here.

Most of all, don't make the mistake of accepting anything said in this article at face value. It is, at best really, really bad scholarship, and at worst, a blatant, vicious hit piece intended to discredit both the Bible and Christianity.

Don't believe a word of it.

Tuesday, January 21, 2014

Can you Return to the Faith if You Used to Believe, but Fell Away?

Question:

Is it true that if you once lived as a faithful Christian, but fell from Gods grace, there is no point trying to come back to God? Some from a group of Christians told me, there is no returning, based on this Bible passage: Hebrews 6:4-6.

Answer:

If a person has fallen away, and they desire to repent and return to the Lord, they most certainly can. God will not turn them away. This principle, that God will accept those who were once part of the faith, but have gotten lost from it, back to the faith, is a fundamental to many of Jesus' teachings.

Just a few examples are:

1) Jesus Himself will seek those who used to be part of the flock, and have wandered away.

"What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? And if he finds it, truly I tell you, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off." (Matthew 18:12-13)

2) The prodigal son is accepted back to his home with open arms, joy and celebration. The son who left clearly used to be part of the family, and was returning home to his family. (Luke 15:11-32)

3) Peter was a fervent and passionate follower of Jesus, yet openly and publicly denied Him in the strongest terms possible (Then he began to call down curses, and he swore to them, "I don't know the man!" Immediately a rooster crowed. - Matthew 26:74), and yet, was welcomed back into the faith after he repented by none other than Jesus Himself. This, despite the fact that the scripture says,

"If we deny him, he also will deny us." (2 Timothy 2:12b KJV)

4) If someone who used to believe wanders away from the Truth, we should seek to bring them back to save them from death.

My brothers and sisters, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring that person back, remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of their way will save them from death and cover over a multitude of sins. (James 5:19-20)

So what about the passage in Hebrews, that appears to say you cannot come back once you fall away? This question came with the verse quoted in the King James Version, so here is that verse from the KJV:

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. (Hebrews 6:4-6 KJV)

One of the problems with interpreting this to be a "once for all" proclamation is, as demonstrated above, it doesn't line up with the clear teaching in the rest of scripture about falling away and returning, but there is another problem: the tenses in the Greek don't support how this verse is often translated.

First, the verb ἀνακαινίζω (to renew, to restore) is in the Present Infinitive, which indicates continuous, repetitive action. Thus, it should read "to be continuously renewing them over and over again into repentence." The Greek infinitive is not used to express time, but aspect, and the Present Infinitive indicates that something is ongoing or repetitive, while the Aorist Infinitive indicates that something occurred once, or has a definitive beginning and end. For example:

Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: "Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me." (Mark 8:34)

"Follow me" is a Present Infinitive, and doesn't indicate that they need to follow Him once to the specific place He happened to be going at that moment, but that they need to follow Him in an ongoing fashion, for the rest of their life.

Contrast this with the Aorist Infinitive:

When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, "Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today." (Luke 19:5)

Here, the verb "stay" (the Greek literally says, "it is necessary for me to stay at your house...") is an Aorist Infinitive, indicating that Jesus was going to visit Zacchaeus' house one time, not take up residence there for an extended period of time.

So the first thing we need to notice is that this is not forbidding someone from returning to the Lord after having left, but rather, indicates that the problem is if they are continuously falling away and returning and then falling away and returning, on and on, as that is not true repentance. 

Further, the participle (ανασταυρουντας - recrucifying) following that indicates the ongoing state they are in, "continually recrucifying the Son of God..."

A far more accurate translation of this passage is found in the International Standard Version (ISV), which was just released in electronic form in 2013, and is not expected to be released in printed form until this year. You can find out more about the ISV, including how to download it to your computer, phone or other electronic device, here.

For it is impossible to keep on restoring to repentance time and again people who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have become partners with the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of God's word and the powers of the coming age, and who have fallen away, as long as they continue to crucify the Son of God to their own detriment by exposing him to public ridicule. (Hebrews 6:4-6)

In other words, if a person is not sincere in their desire to repent and follow Christ with their whole heart, a habit of constantly wandering in and out of the faith is a hypocritical lifestyle that subjects Jesus to public ridicule. This is the person who tries to join the faith for a while, then leaves it when it gets inconvenient; he rejoins later, then leaves again, then decides to come back, only to get bored and leave the faith again, and so on. That is not a struggling believer, nor is it a person who left once, and has, like the prodigal son, changed their mind and now wishes to return. This is a person who is unstable in their faith, with no real ongoing desire to serve Jesus, and frankly, probably only comes back when it is convenient (and then, only for a while), which is a completely different situation. This kind of person never fully repents and surrenders to Jesus.

This is NOT the same as a sincere follower who commits sins. We do not lose our salvation each and every time we sin. Nor is it a reference to the sincere follower who is struggling to overcome one particular sin (such as anger, or alcoholism). This person does not leave the faith each time they sin, but is immediately remorseful, as Peter was when Jesus looked at him, and he realized what he had just done.

But Peter said, "Mister, I don't know what you're talking about!" Just then, while he was still speaking, a rooster crowed. Then the Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the word from the Lord, and how he had told him, "Before a rooster crows today, you will deny me three times." So he went outside and cried bitterly. (Luke 22:60-62)

If you used to attend, and then, for whatever reason, left the faith, but you want to return, the door is still open. Jesus will still greet you with open arms, and we will all rejoice with you at your return to the family. By all means, come back.

And may I be the first to say, "Welcome home."

Thursday, December 5, 2013

What Translation of the Bible is the Best?

Question:

So a friend told me that the only real Bible is the King James Version, but I have a hard time understanding it. I kinda like the NIV, but she said that one is corrupt. I was wondering which version you think is the best?

Answer:

This is really two issues:

1) Is the KJV really the only legitimate Word of God?
2) If not, what is the best English translation?

The primary argument of the King James Version only view is that all other translations are corrupt because they leave out words, phrases or verses that are found in the KJV. How do we know they are wrong in leaving those words, phrases or verses out of the bible? Simple. If they are in the KJV, they are scripture. Period.

The first issue assumes that somehow an English translation made 1500 years after the New Testament was written is the one and only bible against which all bibles, before and after, must be measured. Thus, if we find a second century copy of the Gospel of John in Greek that differs slightly from the KJV (which did happen with Papyrus 75), the ancient Greek manuscript is wrong, not the KJV. How does this even make sense?

So, they are starting with an assumption that cannot be proven. Then, based on this assumption, when a modern translation is missing something that is found in the KJV, they accuse it of being corrupt, and quote this verse from Revelation to condemn it:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (Rev 22:19 KJV)

There are two serious ironies here.

The first is, how are we to know if modern translations are leaving verses out of the bible that are supposed to be there, or if the KJV has added verses to the bible that were never supposed to be there in the first place? The only way to know this is to look at the oldest copies of the bible in Greek, and see how they read.

For example, 1 John 5:7 appears in the KJV, but not in any modern translations. Why? Because prior to the twelfth century, that verse did not appear in ANY Greek manuscript of the New Testament. It FIRST appears as a margin note in the twelfth century, and is found in only FIVE manuscripts (out of more than 5,800 Greek manuscripts), all of them after the twelfth century. So, here is the problem. This verse was not found in ANY bible in the 1st century, 2nd century, 3rd century, 4th century, 5th century, 6th century, 7th century, 8th century, 9th century, 10th century or 11th century, yet somehow the KJV only view wants us to believe it is original? If a new version drops that verse, are they not returning to the way the bible was for 1100 years PRIOR to its sudden appearance as a margin note? Doesn't the choice to return to the way the bible was for the first thousand years of its existence make more sense?

Besides, Revelation has another warning, one that proponents of this theory never mention.

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: (Rev 22:18 KJV)

The second ironic thing about Revelation 22:19 quote from the KJV listed above is that prior to the sixteenth century, the phrase "book of life" did not exist in ANY Greek manuscripts (it appeared first in a poor Latin translation). ALL Greek manuscripts in existence read "tree of life." So which is correct? The KJV or ALL the Greek manuscripts in existence?

The bottom line here is that modern translations are NOT attempting to corrupt the bible. Far from it, they are, through serious scholarly research into Greek manuscripts, attempting to produce a bible that is as close to the originals as possible.

There are a few other issues involved, but I don't have the time or space to go into them. If you are interested, the following web site addresses many of the KJV only issues fairly well:

Notes on the King James Translation and the so-called Textus Receptus

Bottom line: it is simply not true that the King James Version is the only valid, true and reliable translation of the Bible.

So what is the best translation of the bible?

The one you understand the best, and are most likely to actually read.

In other words, I have only run into ONE seriously BAD translation of the Bible (done by a guy who could not actually read Greek, who assumed that each Greek word had ONE, and only ONE meaning, and really did not understand Greek structure, syntax or grammar - and I am NOT providing a link to his web site), and quite a few really good translations.

The truth is, there is no such thing as a "best" translation of the bible. It is simply impossible to create a perfect translation of a Koine Greek document into modern English, if for no other reason than there are so many things in the ancient Greek for which we have no equivalent in modern English. For example, in John 1:1 the Greek word λόγος is translated "word," yet it does NOT mean "word" in that sentence. In fact, we have no English equivalent for what it means in that context, which is something like this:

λόγος is the principle of order and knowledge in the universe. The way everything in the universe held together, followed laws or patterns, the way learning made sense of that order, and the way new knowledge explained things that had previously been a mystery. All of this was λόγος. You could say that λόγος is all knowledge that ever was or ever will be. In its purest form, it is the actions, thoughts and knowledge of God Himself. [from my up coming book, "The Gospel According to John: Wide Open" due out sometime in 2015 or so . . . hopefully]

We have no English word that can relate this meaning, so what do we do? We use the sorely under-powered and seriously lacking alternative, "Word," mostly because no scholar on the planet can can think of anything better.

But there is more. Greek has constructions we don't have in English, some of which are due to it being a flexible language that uses WORD ORDER to convey subtle, but often critical, information in a sentence, and we have no set way to relate these nuances in English. Greek has greater distinctions and subtleties in many words than we have in English. For example, to contrast two ideas, we have "but, however, and although," each of which mean pretty much the same thing, and to connect, we have "and, as well as" and maybe a few others, each of which, again, mean essentially the same thing. Greek, however, has a five step progression from the strongest contrast (opposites) to the strongest connection (indicating unity, or the tightest connection). How do we accurately relate exactly where we are on this progression with a given conjunction?

Additionally, we are constantly learning more and more about Greek as time goes on. For example, it has only been in the last twenty-five years or so that we have learned that the Greek word αὐθεντέω meant "violence," not "authority" in the first century, and very few modern translations reflect this discovery even today (I only know of one: the ISV).

Different translations tend to reflect different subtleties, all found in the Greek. No translation is perfect, and every translation (including my own) has some problems that often cannot be overcome due to the limitations of human language. Every translation has moments of unmatched beauty, stunning clarity, and outright genius.

My recommendation: get several translations, and switch back and forth between them.

If you are interested, I own well over thirty-five different translations (on top of being able to read the Greek), and these are some of my favorites (in alphabetical order):

Amplified Bible, Contemporary English Version, Easy to Read Version, English Standard Version, Holman Christian Standard Version, International Standard Version, King James Version, Message, Modern King James Version, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, New International Reader's Version, New King James Version, Today's New International Version, Young's Literal Translation.

So buy a couple that you like, and most importantly of all, READ THEM! And you will be fine.

Oh, and if you have any questions about a specific passage or word, write to me, and I'll do my best to explain it to you.