# Do we have accurate copies of the Bible? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 1, 2005, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-accurate-copies-of-the-bible/319553 "2005-09-01T05:02:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2005, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-accurate-copies-of-the-bible/319553/21 "2005-09-01T15:06:28Z")
I can’t believe it, but you’ve just argued that the Bible is true because it says so in the Bible. ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2005, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-accurate-copies-of-the-bible/319553/22 "2005-09-01T15:19:29Z")
> [@ainigma](#): > > I find it strange that there is no proper psysical description of jesus in the NT, which might suggest that some editing might have taken place. The only description of jesus comes from the apocrypha, and the church will have nothing to do with those. Besides vague references like referring to David as “ruddy”, Sarah as “fair”, the Shullamite as “black and beautiful”, there’s not any detailed physical description of anyone in the Bible. Why? Because it really wasn’t important to Jewish religious thought which valued The Word over The Image. The Church (Catholic & Orthodox) most certainly deals with Apocryphal books & even accepts some as canonical. I’ve read the writings describing JC & they add nothing to the teachings of the NT, nor do they have any tradition of authenticity. They may or may not have an accurate description. It is interesting tho that the man they describe is the traditional picture of JC, and even the man on the Shroud. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2005, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-accurate-copies-of-the-bible/319553/23 "2005-09-01T15:22:17Z")
> [@Bible man](#): > > Ultimately, to support\believe those arguments one has to take the position that both the Old and New Testament are complete fabrications from cover to cover (and some try to argue exactly that), there’s no in-between position. Or in other words, I was wasting my time, as far as you were concerned, in writing my last post to this thread! :mad: This is called the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle, and is a common device of demagogues: “If not the way I insist, then inevitably the complete antithesis of what I insist, which nobody wants.” That there may be other, intermediate possibilities is rejected. **By your own premises** , sir, you are now bound for Hell as violating the Third Commandment as regards me and what I had to say. > [@](#): > > Exodus24:4 “Moses wrote all the words of the Lord.” Interesting case of quoting out of context. **In** context, this passage applies directly to the preceding chapters and verses. Exodus 20-23 contains the Lawgiving at Sinai, where God gives the Ten Commandments and follows it with a series of ordinances for the Israelites. Then: > [@](#): > > 1. > > ``` > Then he said to Moses, "Come up to the LORD, you and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, and worship at a distance. > > ``` > > 2. > > ``` > Moses alone shall come near the LORD; but the others shall not come near, and the people shall not come up with him." > > ``` > > 3. > > ``` > Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice, and said, "All the words that the LORD has spoken we will do." > > ``` > > 4. > > ``` > And Moses wrote down all the words of the LORD. He rose early in the morning, and built an altar at the foot of the mountain, and set up twelve pillars, corresponding to the twelve tribes of Israel. > > ``` > > 5. > > ``` > He sent young men of the people of Israel, who offered burnt offerings and sacrificed oxen as offerings of well-being to the LORD. (Exodus 24:1-5, NASV) > > ``` Clearly “all the words of the Lord” refers directly to the divine commandments of Exodus 20-23. Nice job of “prooftexting” by quoting out of context. > [@](#): > > The Bible presents a homogenous message and it finally comes down whether one decides to believe it or not. Indeed, it’s either all true or it’s all false because it’s that well integrated. If it’s a fabrication, it would have to be a deception handed down by people through many generations and cultures who not only perpetrated a fraud but who also made it amzazingly well integrated. And since they usually received no earthly benefit for doing so, but instead usually received torture and death for their efforts, it really strains credulity to believe they did so for the purpose of perpetrating a fraud. Further, those who might engage in such gross deception don’t exhibit the kind of character that the Bible writers displayed (despite times of failure). This is an unsupported assertion advanced as fact. You will find hundreds of threads here where respected members and Sophomore Atheists ™ alike have demonstrated clear contradictions in not merely detail but theme between disparate portions of the Bible. Presuming an unchanging God, one is forced to the conclusion that the Israelites/Jews/early Christians went through an **evolving understanding** of God and His purposes. In fact, Paul makes this extremely clear in his passages in Romans about the purpose of the Law, as _paidogogos_ to the spiritually young Children of Israel. I completely concur that the (largely non-Biblical) accounts of martyrdoms do support the idea that those who were martyred were willing to place their lives at risk to stand by something vitally importand and meaningful to them. There is, however, the point made at me when I advanced that argument that men **have** stood steadfastly for and given their lives for things we now know to be false. Many brave and stalwart Confederate soldiers, for example, fought for a complexus of ideas including the right to secede and to maintain chattel slavery. Does their willingness to put their lives on the line make those two concepts right? ---
**Author:** ![ainigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@ainigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ainigma)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2005, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-accurate-copies-of-the-bible/319553/24 "2005-09-01T15:39:24Z")
> [@Bible man](#): > > If it’s a fabrication, it would have to be a deception handed down by people through many generations and cultures who not only perpetrated a fraud but who also made it amzazingly well integrated. And since they usually received no earthly benefit for doing so, but instead usually received torture and death for their efforts, it really strains credulity to believe they did so for the purpose of perpetrating a fraud. . On the contrary religion through the ages was a political power (still is) and the one who can deliver the most powerfull deighty has enormous benefits to reap. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2005, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-accurate-copies-of-the-bible/319553/25 "2005-09-01T15:47:08Z")
> [@Bible Man](#): > > These [Qumran scrolls] dated 10 centuries before any ancient manuscripts we had, and they are futher testimony that the copies of the Bible we have today remain unchanged from the original writings. This is silly. The Qumran scrolls predate the completed Masoretic recension by roughly 1,000 years, but we certainly have other intermediate scrolls and books that exist between them. And the Qumran scrolls do not address the issue of the New Testament in any way. The Qumran scrolls date between (roughly) 200 B.C.E. and 70 C.E. and contain no New Testament writings, but we have fragments of the New Testament dating to around 125 C.E. and more or less complete copies dating to the fourth century. ---
**Author:** ![ainigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@ainigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ainigma)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2005, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-accurate-copies-of-the-bible/319553/26 "2005-09-01T15:53:05Z")
And lets not forget those suicide bombers …they also have faith that 60 odd virgins are waiting for them once they complete the task their clergy has set them. faith might be more closely associated with fanatism, 'cause it needs no proof it needs no reason ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2005, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-accurate-copies-of-the-bible/319553/27 "2005-09-01T15:55:15Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Or in other words, I was wasting my time, as far as you were concerned, in writing my last post to this thread! :mad: Not as far as I was concerned, however. I always find your posts on topics such as these illuminating. I profess no religion, and am no friend to Christianity, but your thoughts and and the facts at your disposal always make me think. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2005, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-accurate-copies-of-the-bible/319553/28 "2005-09-01T15:59:29Z")
> [@](#): > > And lets not forget those suicide bombers …they also have faith that 60 odd virgins are waiting for them once they complete the task their clergy has set them. Actually, the virgins bit is something taken from a spurious bit of Islam and it is unlikely that the suicide bombers believed it. In other words, they were committing their actions purely for the glory of God and not for reward. Regardless, the “look at all the martyrs” argument is simply without merit. Was Jonestown an example of the Truth of God? Were thousands of Catholics and Protestants who were martyred from the 14th though the 18th centuries proof that their version of Christianity was the correct one? Does the slaying of Muslims and Jews during the Crusades prove that Islam or Judaism is the true religion? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2005, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-accurate-copies-of-the-bible/319553/29 "2005-09-01T17:23:13Z")
> [@Bible man](#): > > An argument which is made repeatedly in these Great Debates, is the notion that the Bible can be, and has been changed numerous times through the centuries. The implication is that, even if it was originally a divine communication, it is now unreliable or corrupted. On that basis, some claim it can’t be appealed to as the “Word of God” or innerrant, or inspired in the sense of coming directly from God’s mouth to our ears. > In this thread I am undertaking with Tomndebb’s assistance what might seem to some to be the Herculean task of proving (yes, proving) that changing a book, epistle, phrase, or a even word of the Bible has been, and will alway be, absolutely impossible. And this proof can even be demonstrated by anyone by using their own computer. I want to start the thread using a statment from one of tomndebb’s (the moderator) recent posts. I recently posted a Bible quote and Tom challenged a word in the quote by saying: > > " In the Greek, that phrase is: > “ou | gar | qelhmati | anqrwpou | hnecqh | pote | profhteia” (vB is not amenable to diacritical marks) > or > “not | for | by will | of man | was brought | ever | prophecy” > Every single extant version of the Greek manuscripts agree with this wording. (The Sinaiticus and some derivative texts change the order of pote profhteia to profhteia pote (which does not change k) and a single third century manuscript inserts the word “may be” before the phrase “ever prophecy.” In other words, you are claiming that I have “an interpretation” that is false when you have deliberately changed what was written. > Now, you may feel you have ample reason to change the words of the passage, based on your beliefs from the word “prophecy” to the word “scripture,” but you cannot claim that you have rendered the verse the way it was written and it is dishonest of you to make that claim. I am now reading some “commentary” or some “interpretation” I am reading the words that we have in every Greek manuscript available to us." > > My premise in this thread is that the same appeal Tom made to our existing Bible manuscripts has existed from the instant that the very first copy of a book or epistle was created. It is done by simply comparing the copy with the original and verifying its accuracy. As more copies are created and distributed the original work becomes increasingly protected against change. Any variation from the original will be instantly exposed because of the existence and testimony of every accurate copy. When a mistake or change is introduced, the accurate copies reveal it instantly and Tom has quite eloquently shown how the process has worked for us from the very day of the original writing right up to our time. Further, while the original author of the writing was alive and copies were being produced and distributed, his personal testimony would also serve as a living and vocal witness against any mistakes or counterfeits. The writer’s living witness and the increasing number of accurate copies serve, from the very first day the work was made public, to make any successful change virtually impossible. Further, this would hold true for almost any written work but is especially true for writings that are considered special or holy. Greater quantities of those works are made, and extra care is always devoted to them. Considering it a holy calling, some gave their entire lives to producing numerous, accurate copies of the Bible. Each copy produced and distributed provided more assurance that the original writer’s work was protected from mistakes and counterfeits. > > The proof of this can be performed at your own computer. When I posted my scripture quote, even I, the original writer, could never successfully retrieve it or change it, nor can anyone else. There were instantly thousands of copies in existence and no one can alter the original successfully. Although the ancient process of “posting” writings was slower than ours, the process was exactly the same. Further testimony about this process and the reliability of our Bibles was the discovery of the dead sea scrolls. These dated 10 centuries before any ancient manuscripts we had, and they are futher testimony that the copies of the Bible we have today remain unchanged from the original writings. The topic of translations and versions of the Bible is a related thread and should also be taken up in the future. It is worth remembering that it is within the lifetime of the oldest members here that precise copies could be mechanically made by even moderately substantial groups, much less individuals. For most of the history of Biblical manuscripts, they were produced by either persons copying from dictation (someone reading from a manuscript) or simple copying (read original, write what you read). In the course of this, inevitably, minor (and probably a few not-so-minor) errors crept in. I misquoted **BibleMan** ’s OP (arguably violating a minor rule here, but with good intent, and with an explanation here) to show exactly how these work. In his second sentence, I changed “throughout” to “through” – which does not change the meaning of what he wrote, but is a good example of a minor error. However, in the paragraph beginning “Now you may feel…” I changed “I am **not** reading…” to “I am **now** reading…” – a one-letter change that reverses the meaning of the sentence, and the point being made. This is a good example of why people feel that manuscripts are not in and of themselves reliable, and why scholars tend to prefer the readings of the older uncial (majuscule) codices over the more prevalent but newer minuscule texts on which the Textus Receptus relied – there was more chance for copying error. How reliable and accurate even the oldest texts are is therefore debatable. Further, this argument applies a reversal to the basic point **Tom~** made to the issue at hand: that “prophecy” does not equal “Scripture,” nor has it ever except in the sense that **BibleMan** argued in the other thread. To apply that forcing of synonymy to the text is unquestionably interpretation. Further, it raises the issue of what “God’s Word” means as applied to the Bible – clearly, what someone wrote alleging it to be the verbatim words of God, as in “Thus saith the Lord…” can reasonably be referenced as “God’s Word” – but what of something like the censuses of the Children of Israel or some random passage in Acts? Are they in some sense “God’s Word”? If so, in what sense? Finally, the issue of the varying canons, brought up in GQ recently, is worth looking at. Is this Scripture: > [@](#): > > May God grant me to speak with judgment, and to have thoughts worthy of what I have received; for he is the guide even of wisdom and the corrector of the wise. (Wisdom 7:15 The numerical majority of Christians belong to churches which say so. But I suspect that **BibleMan** accepts only the proterocanonical OT (=the Tanakh). ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2005, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-accurate-copies-of-the-bible/319553/30 "2005-09-01T17:47:11Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > I misquoted **BibleMan** ’s OP (arguably violating a minor rule here, but with good intent, and with an explanation here) to show exactly how these work. Nah. You took his quote, but you clearly- Hey, wait a minute! That’s my shtick! :mad: Why, this sophomore atheist think you need to cool off. _Scott throws a bucket of water all over Polycarp, yet again_ 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Bible\_man](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@Bible\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bible_man)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2005, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-accurate-copies-of-the-bible/319553/31 "2005-09-01T19:05:45Z")
[QUOTE] > [@Polycarp](#): > > Or in other words, I was wasting my time, as far as you were concerned, in writing my last post to this thread! :mad: This is called the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle, and is a common device of demagogues: “If not the way I insist, then inevitably the complete antithesis of what I insist, which nobody wants.” That there may be other, intermediate possibilities is rejected. **By your own premises** , sir, you are now bound for Hell as violating the Third Commandment as regards me and what I had to say. I have only read the first 2 posts and answered them. My second post was to Jojo and was made without seeing yours. Scrolling through the posts before I have to take a trip I happened upon the red face and thought I should make a brief reply. It looks like you made some very good points and I would like to take a try at answering them when I return. In the meantime maybe others will have some input. My apologies to everyone for having to “post and run” (sudden death in the family). ---
**Author:** ![devilsknew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4da419/32.png) [@devilsknew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/devilsknew)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2005, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-accurate-copies-of-the-bible/319553/32 "2005-09-02T06:18:33Z")
The psychic structure of language and hence its meaning evolves, changes, and varies from language to language, individual to individual, time within time. The “word” will never be recovered or understood as the original, as all of us are new synthesizers for the word. The “word” is lost to eternity. Ironically, the story of the tower of Babel within the bible points this out completely. The bible is as infallible and inspired as the last newspaper article you read. These are objective, inspired accounts…the problem is, there is no real objectivity…only synthesis upon motive. Motives for control, teaching, slander, fear, power, wisdom, good, evil, prejudice. If the emotive of the bible is accurate as communicated I find a great deal of that which is communicated is fear and death. Understanding of the bible will never be complete and without error. An unerring, infallible, direct communication of the hypothetical Word of God is only as accurate as a modern man’s synthesis of motive, culture, language, and time listening to the conversation of an ancient man’s synthesis of motive, culture, language, and time relaying another man’s synthesis of the same, perhaps through thousands of accounts yet again. As an amateur student of language, I have never heard nor seen an entirely accurate translation or interpretation _ever_ between any two languages, let alone within a single common language between two people (Hence the existence of this forum, to wit.). There are only approximations of the truth and your personal understanding. Language carries meaning but is unique to each synthesizer. Infallibility of the bible is an impossibility as dictated by the very limits of language, written and spoken. Synthetic truth is all you will ever glean from the Bible, or any other book for that matter. ---
**Author:** ![Bible\_man](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@Bible\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bible_man)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2005, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-accurate-copies-of-the-bible/319553/33 "2005-09-11T06:47:29Z")
> [@](#): > > =cosmosdan] **Bible Man** I’m glad you’re still here and willing to discuss. I do thinnk you missed a couple of key points. > 1Even if we accept that the Bible is inspired where does it say that inspired equals inerrant? Keep in mind that since we’re talking about God’s will, Christian traition or individual reasoning isn’t good enough. Is there anything within this book you consider inerrant to clearly indicate that inspiration equals inerrant? The concept of innerrancy is incorporated in the Biblical declarations that God and His Word are the Truth. For example, “God is Truth” (John14:6) and “Your Word is Truth” (John17:17). Nothing that has error can be true. > [@](#): > > 1. What evidence do you have that it was ever the will of God that we have one final authoratative compilation of writings and then inspired writings would cease? Is there anyting in this inerrant book to indicate that? No, the only writing that even comes close is the warning in the book of Revelation about adding to or removing from the Words of its prophecy (Rev22:19). Considering the magnitude and scope of its content, it’s unlikely that any further input will be added by the Holy Spirit but technically, there is no basis to close the Canon. Further, inspired writings and utterances have never ceased, but in most cases there is no warrant to add them to the Biblical writings. For instance, Phillip’s four daughters were prophetesses (Acts 21:9), and certainly whatever they spoke by the Holy Spirit was important to the particular hearers, but not of sufficient weight to be added to the Canon for the general body of believers. The Rules for speaking in God’s Name are clearly posted in Deut18:18-22. If, and when, utterances or writings are presented, the same rules that applied to the previous writers of the Scriptures can be used to verify their authenticity and if what is presented is tested, proven to be genuine, and is of sufficient weight to add to the Canon, there is nothing in the Scriptures to prevent it. > [@](#): > > 1. What evidence is there that the books that are in the Bible are the right ones, or the only ones we should consider? There is evidence within the Bible itself that there are other writings we don’t possess. How do we know they don’t contain crucial information? If they were discovered would we value them or dismiss them. > 2. Of all the writings available who decided which ones would be included and which ones would be left out? A fair summary of the general rules for Canonicity are summed up by the Baker Encylopedia of Christian Apologetics: 1) Was the book written by a prophet of God?, 2)Was the writer confirmed by acts of God? 3)Does the message tell the truth about God? 4) Did it come with the power of God? 5) Was it accepted by the people of God? There are writings which have been deemed counterfeits, some are lost, some are considered historical and accurate but not considered directly inspired by God. In the final analysis it’s each individual’s responsibility to consider any or all of them that they might have access to, and make their own decision about their authenticity\inspiration. But its not those “lost books” of the Bible, or missing information, or even the paradoxes of the Bible that cause any real problems, its the clarity of the main Bible message that causes so many to stumble over it ie, we must acknowledge our sin, come to repentance, accept Christ’s sacrifice as the only way back to God, etc, It also declares an eternal blessing for acceptance of its message and eternal destruction for rejecting it. People just have trouble with its authority, its narrowness, and its requirements, and they want a different, easier message. But the testimony of vast numbers of past and present Christians is that the assembled books of the Bible have all the information needed to know the Truth about God and to lay hold of the salvation that He has offered to mankind, no outside books or knowledge is needed. > [@](#): > > For some of your arguement it will take someone with a lot more Biblical background than I to answer but I still have some concerns. Because of the other threads we weer discussing scripture in I started reading different versions on Bible Gateway{ an excellent site for bible study} I noticed that in different translations subtle word differences can make a big difference in meaning. > > examples; > Philippians 2:5-7 (New International Version) > 5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: > 6Who, being in very natureGod, > did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, > 7but made himself nothing, > taking the very nature of a servant, > being made in human likeness. > > Philippians 2:5-7 (New King James Version) > > 5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. > > In my opinion the difference between “did not consider equality with God something to be grasped” > and “did not consider it robbery to be equal with God” could be fairly significant. > > The point is that several scholars might not interpret the exact same manuscript in the same way, and a subtle word change might mean a major doctrinal change. Looking at different translations is important because differences in language, the technical skill of the translator, and even the theological orientation of the translator can make a difference in some cases. It’s wise to investigate all aspects of what is presented to us as being God’s Word and decide for ourselves if it has been communicated to us as accurately as it should. But in those verses, both translations communicate the essential idea: Christ was God before taking human form and willingly left His position to come to earth as a humble servant. There’s no difference in the essentials. And thanks for waiting, and if you have a response\rebuttal, take your time - I’m going to be playing catch up on some things and won’t be responding very rapidly. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2005, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-accurate-copies-of-the-bible/319553/34 "2005-09-11T15:05:08Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > I think the more likely argument you’re going to hear on this board is that the first extant copies of the gospels we know of were written at least decades after the actual event, and therefore the accuracy of the very first copies as a transcription of what actually happened is already suspect. You’ll also hear that there is nothing divine about the bible whatsoever, that it was written solely to support a scam. Therefore, worrying about accurate translations is meaningless. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2005, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-accurate-copies-of-the-bible/319553/35 "2005-09-11T15:16:14Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > You’ll also hear that there is nothing divine about the bible whatsoever, that it was written solely to support a scam. Therefore, worrying about accurate translations is meaningless. Gotta object to this argument. Speaking as a textual historian, I’d say that making accurate translations of important ancient texts is an absolutely crucial issue of scholarship. That’s irrespective of whether the original ancient text was directly revealed by a deity, written by a divinely-inspired human scribe, composed by human authors who merely **thought** they were inspired, or perpetrated as a deliberate fraud by unscrupulous con-men. And I’d be surprised to learn that anybody here at the Straight Dope disagrees with that. You got a cite for the claim that somebody here thinks accuracy in Biblical translations doesn’t matter unless it’s actually a divine book? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2005, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-accurate-copies-of-the-bible/319553/36 "2005-09-11T15:38:09Z")
> [@](#): > > You got a cite for the claim that somebody here thinks accuracy in Biblical translations doesn’t matter unless it’s actually a divine book? His post is his cite. However, since the topic is the age and quality of texts, not the quality or accuracy of beliefs, pursuing that train would be a hijack to this thread and anyone wishing to pursue it should open their own thread. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2005, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-accurate-copies-of-the-bible/319553/37 "2005-09-11T21:20:04Z")
> [@Bible man](#): > > The concept of innerrancy is incorporated in the Biblical declarations that God and His Word are the Truth. For example, “God is Truth” (John14:6) and “Your Word is Truth” (John17:17). Nothing that has error can be true. I can’t agree. The problem with this is that the Word of God which is the truth, being refered to is not any written word. Very often the scriptures refering to God’s word are used to support the inerrency of the the Bible are not speaking of any written word but the Living word of God which is the Spirit of God that lives within us and allows us to commune with God. > [@](#): > > Heb 4: 12 **For the word of God is living and active.** Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. > [@](#): > > 1 peter 1: 23Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by\*\* the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever\*\*. 24For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: 25But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. Jesus taught us to rely on this personal communion with God as our source. > [@](#): > > John 16: 12“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. > [@](#): > > 1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. I see it as an unfortunate mistake that so much of Chistianity has elevated the Bible to a place that it was never intended to occupy where it has equal authority with the true Word, which is the Spirit of God within us. Look at the other evidence. The Bible is loaded with contradictions {perhaps we should start a thread about those} which show it is not inerrant. It is also obviously influenced by the culture of the day with scriptures like > [@](#): > > 11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women will be saved through childbearing– What you propose is a long held Christian traditon which is only \*man’s \* teaching, and doesn’t hold up long to any realistic examination of what the Bible says and our understanding of it’s history. > [@](#): > > No, the only writing that even comes close is the warning in the book of Revelation about adding to or removing from the Words of its prophecy (Rev22:19). Considering the magnitude and scope of its content, it’s unlikely that any further input will be added by the Holy Spirit but technically, there is no basis to close the Canon. I appreciate your honesty here. As far as I can see, it was men who decided which writings would be included and it is men that keep any other writings from being considered.That is in Christianity of course because we know that other religions have their own Holy books. In fact LDS and Community of Christ both have latter day scripture in thier doctrine and covenants. The Course in Miricles is supposed to be communication directly from Christ. There are also the Gnostic gospels. Why shoould we let men and the traditions of men keep us from considering those writings? Jesus taught us that we should not give ultimate spiritual authority to other men no matter how well intentioned. That belongs only to our personal communion with God through the Spirit. > [@](#): > > Further, inspired writings and utterances have never ceased, but in most cases there is no warrant to add them to the Biblical writings. You speak of the scope and magnitude of Biblical writings and what they cover. Don’t you think there are things that could be clearer by new revelations. What about the issue of slavery which continued for centuries in Christianity? Issues that we struggle with today such as abortion, stem cell research, gay rights? Even Christians don’t agree on these issues amongst themselves because they are unlcear in the Bible. > [@](#): > > A fair summary of the general rules for Canonicity are summed up by the Baker Encylopedia of Christian Apologetics: 1) Was the book written by a prophet of God? The authorship of the books of the Bible is not clear. > [@](#): > > 2)Was the writer confirmed by acts of God? Since we don’t know who the authors are we can’t know this either. > [@](#): > > 3)Does the message tell the truth about God? Which man or group of men gets to decide this. The Pharisees thought they had spritual authority in their day. We know how Christ felt about them. > [@](#): > > 1. Did it come with the power of God? Does this mean confirmed by miricles? > [@](#): > > 1. Was it accepted by the people of God? Since Jesus taught us that all people are the children of God which "accepted writings should we consider legit? What do we do when the people of God can’t agree with each other? > [@](#): > > But its not those “lost books” of the Bible, or missing information, or even the paradoxes of the Bible that cause any real problems, its the clarity of the main Bible message that causes so many to stumble over it ie, we must acknowledge our sin, come to repentance, accept Christ’s sacrifice as the only way back to God, etc, It also declares an eternal blessing for acceptance of its message and eternal destruction for rejecting it. People just have trouble with its authority, its narrowness, and its requirements, **and they want a different, easier message**. But the testimony of vast numbers of past and present Christians is that the assembled books of the Bible have all the information needed to know the Truth about God and to lay hold of the salvation that He has offered to mankind, no outside books or knowledge is needed. Or perhaps they want the truth instead of the traditions and teachings of men. Paul recognized that we would be seeking the truth our entire lives. “Now we see through a glass darkly” The testimony of vast numbers of Christians past and present is not enough to turn tradition into truth, any more than the testimony of vast numbers of Muslims, or Buddhists, or Hindu’s can. Especially since we plainly see these vast numbers can’t even agree with each other. Obviously something else is needed. You have people like Pat Robinson, Jerry Falwell, and Jimmy Swaggart advocating killing people in the name of God and Christ. They know the scriptures but the living word is not within them. > [@](#): > > Looking at different translations is important because differences in language, the technical skill of the translator, and even the theological orientation of the translator can make a difference in some cases. It’s wise to investigate all aspects of what is presented to us as being God’s Word and decide for ourselves if it has been communicated to us as accurately as it should. But in those verses, both translations communicate the essential idea: Christ was God before taking human form and willingly left His position to come to earth as a humble servant. There’s no difference in the essentials. I agree we need to study and decide for ourselves. I don’t limit my study to the Bible. Since we can trust the Holy Spirit to discern the truth for us we can be open for God to use any book as well as other sources to teach us. We carry the ultimate authority within us every moment of every day. We don’t need an external authority. ---
**Author:** ![Bible\_man](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@Bible\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bible_man)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2005, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-accurate-copies-of-the-bible/319553/38 "2005-09-12T01:08:37Z")
> [@Jojo](#): > > Oh are you talking about the New Testament rather the the Old Testament? I thought you were referring to the bible as a whole. In any case the oral tradition thing still holds true even for the NT (in its first years). Jesus never told anyone to write anything down and most of his followers couldn’t have written it down anyway, even if they’d wanted to, since most people were illiterate. All the Old Testament books were preserved in written form from the time that the particular prophet received the communication from the Holy Spirit, although copies of the earlier writtings like the Pentateuch probably were not made until years later when the materials and methods of copying became more refined and easier to produce. In those early years the oral tradition was the main form of communication by necessity, as it was in all cultures, but the Writtings existed in written form and served to guard against errors of oral transmission. By the time of the New Testament writings, the oral means of communication was declining rapidly and many copies of the books were made immediately and continuously, and dispersed throughout the various churches. Some of the disciples were indeed illiterate (Mark was obviously Peter’s scribe) but Matthew clearly could write or he could not have been a tax collector, Luke (being a physician) was quite literate, and John had to have written his own letters since Revelation was written while he was alone on Patmos. Jesus didn’t tell the apostles to write anything while He was with them but did so after His Ressurection, for example Rev1:11, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last. Write promptly what you see in a book and send it to the seven churches…” > [@](#): > > We’ve done all that Q stuff about a gazillion times but I suppose you can’t search as a guest. Have you read the straight dope columns on [who wrote the bible](http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible1.html)? I’m aware of Q and the other capitals that go with the Documentary Theory (JDPE) and I describe those theories as trying to get on an imaginary airplane that’s going to a non-existent island. The best use for those theories is to find out who believes them and sell them your extra Florida swampland, they make great customers ] ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2005, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-accurate-copies-of-the-bible/319553/39 "2005-09-12T01:23:01Z")
> [@](#): > > Jesus didn’t tell the apostles to write anything while He was with them but did so after His Ressurection, for example Rev1:11, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last. Write promptly what you see in a book and send it to the seven churches…” The book of Revelation was written around 60 years after Jesus had departed, so he was not addresssing his _Apostles_ and there is no evidence that the “John” of the _Revelation of John_ is the same person as John the Apostle, so your claim that Jesus said anything about writing to the Apostles is based solely on your personal belief that the vision to John of _Revelation_ has to be a statement by Jesus to John the Apostle, which is not supported by any facts. > [@](#): > > The best use for those theories is to find out who believes them and sell them your extra Florida swampland, they make great customers Interstingly, I find that the people who are most eager to reject actual scholarship are the most likely to beggar themselves in their old age while enriching the likes of Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggart, and Jim Baker. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2005, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-accurate-copies-of-the-bible/319553/40 "2005-09-12T01:59:12Z")
Q is not part of the Documentary Theory. The Documentary Theory refers only to the Pentateuch (specifically the process of redaction and syncretism which edited several strands of originally discrete narratives into a unified whole. Q refers to a hypothetical shared sayings gospel (or other common written source) which is believed by most New Testament scholars to have been necessary to explain the common material in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke which did not come from Mark. While the latter is still at least somewhat controversial and other solutions to the synoptic problem (notably the Farrer Hypothesis) have some currency these days, the fact that the Pentaeuch was woven from multiple, prexisting narratives is disputed by almost no one except those with overtly conservative religious biases and agendas. The belief, for instance, that Moses wrote the Torah is purely a faith-based position and is not a product of methodical scholarship. As to your OP, it is manifestly untrue to say that the texts that comprise the Christian and Jewsh canons “cannot be changed,” because all one has to do is read the _Textus Receptus_ in conjunction with the _Textus Sinaiticus_. **Tom** has addressed that issue pretty well. As to the precise question asked in your thread title. The answer is that we simply don’t know. Until we actually find autographs for any of the Biblical manuscripts (and it’s enormously unlikely that we will ever find even one), it isn’t possible to know exactly how accurate the extant manuscripts are. I would also argue that this is not an important fact since the extant manuscripts, as they are, are the literary basis for those religions for better or for worse. I also have to inform you that your OP involves a giant strawman in that people who are skeptical of the historicity of these books do not base their skepticism on the reliability of its copies but on the testable claims which are made in the _extant_ books. We don’t care if they are perfect duplications of the autographs or not. That has nothing to do with whether their claims are verifiable or credible. It would of course be hugely informative and interesting to know exactly what the autographs said but even you were able to prove that one line or another of manuscript transmission was perfectly accurate it would not have any significance to people who do not believe they were divinely inspired. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-accurate-copies-of-the-bible/319553.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-have-accurate-copies-of-the-bible/319553.md?page=3)