Has the Bible Changed? (Full Text)
|
|
Let's say I am in the lobby of a building and a fireman comes in and says, "There is a fire, get out of here!" I run to the upper floors and say, "The fireman said to me, 'Leave the building now because there is a fire." Did I communicate the message faithfully? Yes. Were my words a direct quote of the fireman? No, but the intent of the message was correct. Even though the messenger is imperfect, the message is understood. Thus, four gospel writers describing the same events, and sometimes providing more details of those eventswhile at the same time using different words, does not change the message. In the same way, small changes in grammar and spelling do not affect the message. With this correct understanding of revelation we can place our trust in the message of the Bible.
Perhaps you have heard that the Bible has been changed. Suppose for a moment that the accusation is true. Suppose God permitted the revelation that He gave to the prophets to become so obscured that no one could rely on them to know the way to paradise. That would mean that God left millions of humans to perish with no hope of salvation until He corrected the error hundreds of years later. People would have had no way of knowing the right way. The accusation that the sacred scriptures were changed casts a shadow on the loving character of the Creator. From a logic standpoint it just doesn't make sense that God would allow the way of salvation to be hidden for centuries.
Who would benefit if there was so much doubt about the reliability of the Bible? Satan has the most to gain by keeping people from reading the books. In the Bible there are detailed descriptions of Satan's fall from heaven and his hatred toward the human race. The books explain the way Satan works and why he does what he does. The Bible shows God's people what they must do to protect themselves from Satan's attacks. The book of Revelation, the last book of the New Testament, reveals Satan's activities just before the final day and what the believers must do at that time. Clearly Satan does not want his purposes exposed and he has the most to gain by diverting people's minds from the Bible.
If you carefully read the sources used to show that the Bible has been changed, you will notice that a majority of the texts indicate that people would obscure, not the words themselves, but the meaning of the words. This can certainly be true. Throughout history, many people have falsely interpreted the Bible.
One text says that people would write things and claim they were from God. This also happened. If you look at books like the gospel of Barnabas, it is easy to understand that it is a forgery and not written by a true prophet. For example, the gospel of Barnabas contains many errors proving it was written centuries after the time it was claimed to have been written.
If God had permitted the Bible to be changed to the point that it was an unreliable source of truth for salvation, it would be like a father who deceived his son after promising him a home. On the son’s wedding day, the bride and groom were looking forward with great anticipation to live in their new house. But during the wedding, the father informs them that he has given the use of the house to the enemy that their family had been at war with for 600 years. Unfortunately, the young couple will never live in the house. Does that seem fair? Is the father in this story just? Do you believe that God is just? God has revealed the way of salvation in the Bible and promised it to the believers. God would not allow the enemy, Satan, to corrupt the holy scriptures and make them untrue. The true heirs, those who believe, can be confident that the way of salvation is found in the Bible.
Evidence from Archaeology and Paleography
In the early 1900's one of the oldest known manuscripts of the Old Testament was the Codex[1] of the Prophets, now located in a Cairo synagogue. This was a manuscript copied in 895 AD. Skeptics said that the manuscript was corrupt and did not reflect earlier copies of the Old Testament. They said the writings had been changed. It was a clever accusation to try to discredit the scriptures. How can you prove that something has not been altered? It is nearly impossible. Then in 1947, copies of 38 out of the 39 books of the Old Testament were found in the Judean desert at Qumran. These copies were more than 1000 years older than any existing manuscript. It was the archaeological find of the century! These are commonly known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. Among the Dead Sea Scrolls was a complete copy of the book of Isaiah written 100 years before Christ. Skeptics and believers alike waited with anticipation for the unrolling of the scroll. What did it reveal? Had the words of the prophet Isaiah been altered between 100 BC and 895 AD? There were a few spelling differences. But they had no significant impact on doctrine. There was also an occasional interchange words or the addition or absence of a phrase. For example, in Isaiah chapter 1:15 the copies we use now say, "Your, hands are full of blood." In the version found at Qumran it says, "Your hands are full of blood and your fingers with crime." In another text, the version we have today for Isaiah 2:3 reads, "...let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob..." In the Qumran version the phrase, "to the mountain of the Lord" is missing. These variations are rare and they have no impact on the doctrine of the books. The conclusion that scholars came to was that the copy we have in our hands today is the same as the one Jesus read!
Scholars have investigated thousands of manuscripts of non-biblical writings and found large variations and discrepancies. The Bible however has been translated with amazing accuracy. Should we expect anything less from God who gave the way of salvation to the prophets to give to the people? It is interesting to note that Jesus constantly directed His listeners to the Old Testament. (Remember that the New Testament was written after Jesus.) As a prophet, if Jesus knew that it had been changed He would have never done that. We can be certain about what the Old Testament looked like in Jesus' day because we have an actual copy of it that predates Jesus' time.
What about the New Testament? Has it been altered? Again, why would God allow people to have no knowledge of the way of salvation for hundreds of years? That doesn't seem like something a just and loving God would do. Consider too that there are more than 5700 existing manuscripts of the books of the New Testament. The earliest known portion is called the Rylands papyrus and is dated between 97 and 150 AD. It contains a portion of the gospel of John. It is believed that John wrote the gospel toward the end of his life in the late first century. This means that the Rylands papyrus may have been copied within 10-60 years after being written by the apostle John. Let's compare that to other, non-religious manuscripts from antiquity.
Scholars believe that the Iliad was written in the eighth century BC. Only 2000 manuscripts of the Iliad exist compared to 5700 for the New Testament. The oldest Iliad manuscript comes from the late 9th century AD. That is more than 1500 years after it was written down! In spite of many variations between copies, how many people do you think refuse to read the Iliad saying, "It has been changed! There are no original manuscripts therefore it is not reliable!" The message of the Iliad is clear despite differences. The same can be said of most ancient manuscripts. Plato lived in the 5th century BC. There are only 250 manuscripts of his works in existence, the oldest is from the 9th century AD, more than 1200 years after Plato lived. How many people reject Plato's writings as invalid because there are minor differences between some copies and because there are no early copies extant? In contrast we have a piece of the gospel of John copied just 10-60 years after it was originally written!
In fact, large portions of the New Testament exist from the second and third century (designated for example as P45, P46, P47,P66, P72, P74 and P75), meaning that they were copied within 70 to 150 years after the books were first written. From a paleography standpoint this shows amazing reliability.
Do an internet search and compare that time span of 10-150 years with the manuscripts of other religious books. How much time elapsed between the originals of those other relgious books and the earliest existing copies? You will see that the existing copies of the New Testament are as early as any other religious books you will find. You will also see that the New Testament is one of the best preserved manuscripts from ancient times. In other religious books were there spelling variations? Were there slight variations in texts? Yes, you will find slight variations in spelling and text in non-biblical religious manuscripts. This does not mean that the manuscripts are unreliable or that the message is corrupted.
The New Testament was copied so that everyone could read God's revelation. In the early days, there weren’t that many professional scribes copying the New Testament and yes, occasionally, words were misspelled. Sometimes people's eyes were tired and they skipped a line when copying it. In other cases they wrote the same line twice. Sometimes, several scribes copied the New Testament while one person read it out loud. Some vowels like omicron and omega in the Greek language sound alike and so the scribes put an omicron instead of an omega. Admittedly, there are minor variations in manuscripts but they do not cause doctrinal problems. If you said that any change in spelling makes the manuscript unreliable, you could not rely on any ancient religious manuscript of any religion because they all contain these slight differences. But this does not mean their content or doctrine is changed or unreliable.
The New Testament was translated into many languages and quoted tens of thousands of times in other people's writings. By comparing these manuscripts with each other and with the quotations from the New Testament in contemporary writers, scholars have been able to identify all variations or additions made at a later time. Modern translations either omit added words or make a footnote about variations so that the reader is aware of the situation. Are there variations in manuscripts? Yes. But we know what the variations are because of the multitude of manuscripts and quotations. Once again, the truths found in the Bible including the way of salvation were not lost, confused, or changed.
We noted above that people in our culture often think that God only provides holy books by dictating exactly what He wants to say through an angel to a prophet, who then writes those exact words down. But is this the only way that God reveals Holy Scripture? Not at all! Let's review and expand on the topic.
The Bible consists of 66 books. The 66 books have approximately 40 authors. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek experts can see the differences in style between the 40 authors. The education and writing ability of the authors was different. Some of them were shepherds, some were priests, and some were kings. If God had chosen each and every word then there would not have been differences in writing ability or style.
While God guided the prophets regarding the content of what they would say or write, God did not choose each and every word. God let the prophets express the truths revealed to them with their own writing skills and abilities. Some prophets wrote in such a way that in later years scribes in a few places corrected their grammar! The writers of the New Testament books wrote in Greek, which for some was not their mother tongue. Their grammar and ability of expression was not always of the highest literary quality in their second or third language. Nevertheless they faithfully communicated the message of God correctly. When we understand that most revelation is not a word-for-word dictation by God then we are not alarmed if a later scribe corrected the grammar of a sentence without losing the meaning of the sentence. We are not alarmed if the spelling of a word was copied incorrectly. God's message is not lost because He did not permit it to be lost.
When God communicates with a prophet through a dream or vision, He does not always specify how the prophet must express the vision or dream to others. Of course God will not permit the prophet to teach falsehood, but how the prophet chooses to express truth given to him is largely up to him. We call this thought-inspiration, which is different than verbal-inspiration. Verbal inspiration is also called word-for-word dictation. In the Bible only the Ten Commandments can be considered verbal inspiration. The rest is thought-inspiration which may include quotations of God's words. Because God is giving the thoughts and the prophet is choosing the words, the Holy Scriptures are the product of God speaking through the prophets. Although human hands write the words of the Bible, and the prophet chooses which words to use, the will of God is communicated faithfully. The prophets themselves understood this and when referring to their own writings they repeatedly wrote, "The word of the Lord..." The Bible is this: God's perfect message in imperfect human language.
When a person reads through the four gospel accounts and only knows about verbal inspiration, it is natural for them to think that the writings are not trustworthy. They think that all four gospels should express things in exactly the same way. But in actuality the differences prove their trustworthiness. The writers of the gospels considered themselves witnesses. They risked their reputations and even their lives on their testimonies.
Today, in a court of law, if two witnesses have the exact same testimony (i.e., word for word,) their testimony will be considered invalid. Why? Because experience has shown that no two people see an event in exactly the same way. One point influences a witness in one way. Another witness is more impressed by another point. Even though they saw the same event they use different words to express themselves. As long as the testimonies do not contradict one another, their testimonies are considered valid. If the witnesses' testimonies are exactly the same however, the witnesses are considered liars. They have colluded together.
Jesus spoke in Aramaic. The four gospel writers wrote in Greek. Any two translators choose different words but both communicate the message faithfully.
As shown in the illustration in the introduction, the message of the fireman was correct. Even though the messenger calling people to leave the building is imperfect, the message is understood.
What is the conclusion of the matter? The Bible is the most widely copied and best-preserved document from ancient times. Slight variations in spelling, word order, added words, or corrected grammar can all be identified by comparing the multitude of manuscripts and quotations. The message of the scriptures, the doctrines, and truths are not changed. The books are reliable. Don't let Satan keep you from learning what you need to know about the end time by believing slander about the sacred writings. Believe in the Bible. The message is from God. He preserved it so that you would know the way of salvation.
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1:20, 21.
[1] A codex is an early manuscript book. Made from parchment or papyrus it was in a format resembling a modern book as opposed to a scroll.
Perhaps you have heard that the Bible has been changed. Suppose for a moment that the accusation is true. Suppose God permitted the revelation that He gave to the prophets to become so obscured that no one could rely on them to know the way to paradise. That would mean that God left millions of humans to perish with no hope of salvation until He corrected the error hundreds of years later. People would have had no way of knowing the right way. The accusation that the sacred scriptures were changed casts a shadow on the loving character of the Creator. From a logic standpoint it just doesn't make sense that God would allow the way of salvation to be hidden for centuries.
Who would benefit if there was so much doubt about the reliability of the Bible? Satan has the most to gain by keeping people from reading the books. In the Bible there are detailed descriptions of Satan's fall from heaven and his hatred toward the human race. The books explain the way Satan works and why he does what he does. The Bible shows God's people what they must do to protect themselves from Satan's attacks. The book of Revelation, the last book of the New Testament, reveals Satan's activities just before the final day and what the believers must do at that time. Clearly Satan does not want his purposes exposed and he has the most to gain by diverting people's minds from the Bible.
If you carefully read the sources used to show that the Bible has been changed, you will notice that a majority of the texts indicate that people would obscure, not the words themselves, but the meaning of the words. This can certainly be true. Throughout history, many people have falsely interpreted the Bible.
One text says that people would write things and claim they were from God. This also happened. If you look at books like the gospel of Barnabas, it is easy to understand that it is a forgery and not written by a true prophet. For example, the gospel of Barnabas contains many errors proving it was written centuries after the time it was claimed to have been written.
If God had permitted the Bible to be changed to the point that it was an unreliable source of truth for salvation, it would be like a father who deceived his son after promising him a home. On the son’s wedding day, the bride and groom were looking forward with great anticipation to live in their new house. But during the wedding, the father informs them that he has given the use of the house to the enemy that their family had been at war with for 600 years. Unfortunately, the young couple will never live in the house. Does that seem fair? Is the father in this story just? Do you believe that God is just? God has revealed the way of salvation in the Bible and promised it to the believers. God would not allow the enemy, Satan, to corrupt the holy scriptures and make them untrue. The true heirs, those who believe, can be confident that the way of salvation is found in the Bible.
Evidence from Archaeology and Paleography
In the early 1900's one of the oldest known manuscripts of the Old Testament was the Codex[1] of the Prophets, now located in a Cairo synagogue. This was a manuscript copied in 895 AD. Skeptics said that the manuscript was corrupt and did not reflect earlier copies of the Old Testament. They said the writings had been changed. It was a clever accusation to try to discredit the scriptures. How can you prove that something has not been altered? It is nearly impossible. Then in 1947, copies of 38 out of the 39 books of the Old Testament were found in the Judean desert at Qumran. These copies were more than 1000 years older than any existing manuscript. It was the archaeological find of the century! These are commonly known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. Among the Dead Sea Scrolls was a complete copy of the book of Isaiah written 100 years before Christ. Skeptics and believers alike waited with anticipation for the unrolling of the scroll. What did it reveal? Had the words of the prophet Isaiah been altered between 100 BC and 895 AD? There were a few spelling differences. But they had no significant impact on doctrine. There was also an occasional interchange words or the addition or absence of a phrase. For example, in Isaiah chapter 1:15 the copies we use now say, "Your, hands are full of blood." In the version found at Qumran it says, "Your hands are full of blood and your fingers with crime." In another text, the version we have today for Isaiah 2:3 reads, "...let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob..." In the Qumran version the phrase, "to the mountain of the Lord" is missing. These variations are rare and they have no impact on the doctrine of the books. The conclusion that scholars came to was that the copy we have in our hands today is the same as the one Jesus read!
Scholars have investigated thousands of manuscripts of non-biblical writings and found large variations and discrepancies. The Bible however has been translated with amazing accuracy. Should we expect anything less from God who gave the way of salvation to the prophets to give to the people? It is interesting to note that Jesus constantly directed His listeners to the Old Testament. (Remember that the New Testament was written after Jesus.) As a prophet, if Jesus knew that it had been changed He would have never done that. We can be certain about what the Old Testament looked like in Jesus' day because we have an actual copy of it that predates Jesus' time.
What about the New Testament? Has it been altered? Again, why would God allow people to have no knowledge of the way of salvation for hundreds of years? That doesn't seem like something a just and loving God would do. Consider too that there are more than 5700 existing manuscripts of the books of the New Testament. The earliest known portion is called the Rylands papyrus and is dated between 97 and 150 AD. It contains a portion of the gospel of John. It is believed that John wrote the gospel toward the end of his life in the late first century. This means that the Rylands papyrus may have been copied within 10-60 years after being written by the apostle John. Let's compare that to other, non-religious manuscripts from antiquity.
Scholars believe that the Iliad was written in the eighth century BC. Only 2000 manuscripts of the Iliad exist compared to 5700 for the New Testament. The oldest Iliad manuscript comes from the late 9th century AD. That is more than 1500 years after it was written down! In spite of many variations between copies, how many people do you think refuse to read the Iliad saying, "It has been changed! There are no original manuscripts therefore it is not reliable!" The message of the Iliad is clear despite differences. The same can be said of most ancient manuscripts. Plato lived in the 5th century BC. There are only 250 manuscripts of his works in existence, the oldest is from the 9th century AD, more than 1200 years after Plato lived. How many people reject Plato's writings as invalid because there are minor differences between some copies and because there are no early copies extant? In contrast we have a piece of the gospel of John copied just 10-60 years after it was originally written!
In fact, large portions of the New Testament exist from the second and third century (designated for example as P45, P46, P47,P66, P72, P74 and P75), meaning that they were copied within 70 to 150 years after the books were first written. From a paleography standpoint this shows amazing reliability.
Do an internet search and compare that time span of 10-150 years with the manuscripts of other religious books. How much time elapsed between the originals of those other relgious books and the earliest existing copies? You will see that the existing copies of the New Testament are as early as any other religious books you will find. You will also see that the New Testament is one of the best preserved manuscripts from ancient times. In other religious books were there spelling variations? Were there slight variations in texts? Yes, you will find slight variations in spelling and text in non-biblical religious manuscripts. This does not mean that the manuscripts are unreliable or that the message is corrupted.
The New Testament was copied so that everyone could read God's revelation. In the early days, there weren’t that many professional scribes copying the New Testament and yes, occasionally, words were misspelled. Sometimes people's eyes were tired and they skipped a line when copying it. In other cases they wrote the same line twice. Sometimes, several scribes copied the New Testament while one person read it out loud. Some vowels like omicron and omega in the Greek language sound alike and so the scribes put an omicron instead of an omega. Admittedly, there are minor variations in manuscripts but they do not cause doctrinal problems. If you said that any change in spelling makes the manuscript unreliable, you could not rely on any ancient religious manuscript of any religion because they all contain these slight differences. But this does not mean their content or doctrine is changed or unreliable.
The New Testament was translated into many languages and quoted tens of thousands of times in other people's writings. By comparing these manuscripts with each other and with the quotations from the New Testament in contemporary writers, scholars have been able to identify all variations or additions made at a later time. Modern translations either omit added words or make a footnote about variations so that the reader is aware of the situation. Are there variations in manuscripts? Yes. But we know what the variations are because of the multitude of manuscripts and quotations. Once again, the truths found in the Bible including the way of salvation were not lost, confused, or changed.
We noted above that people in our culture often think that God only provides holy books by dictating exactly what He wants to say through an angel to a prophet, who then writes those exact words down. But is this the only way that God reveals Holy Scripture? Not at all! Let's review and expand on the topic.
The Bible consists of 66 books. The 66 books have approximately 40 authors. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek experts can see the differences in style between the 40 authors. The education and writing ability of the authors was different. Some of them were shepherds, some were priests, and some were kings. If God had chosen each and every word then there would not have been differences in writing ability or style.
While God guided the prophets regarding the content of what they would say or write, God did not choose each and every word. God let the prophets express the truths revealed to them with their own writing skills and abilities. Some prophets wrote in such a way that in later years scribes in a few places corrected their grammar! The writers of the New Testament books wrote in Greek, which for some was not their mother tongue. Their grammar and ability of expression was not always of the highest literary quality in their second or third language. Nevertheless they faithfully communicated the message of God correctly. When we understand that most revelation is not a word-for-word dictation by God then we are not alarmed if a later scribe corrected the grammar of a sentence without losing the meaning of the sentence. We are not alarmed if the spelling of a word was copied incorrectly. God's message is not lost because He did not permit it to be lost.
When God communicates with a prophet through a dream or vision, He does not always specify how the prophet must express the vision or dream to others. Of course God will not permit the prophet to teach falsehood, but how the prophet chooses to express truth given to him is largely up to him. We call this thought-inspiration, which is different than verbal-inspiration. Verbal inspiration is also called word-for-word dictation. In the Bible only the Ten Commandments can be considered verbal inspiration. The rest is thought-inspiration which may include quotations of God's words. Because God is giving the thoughts and the prophet is choosing the words, the Holy Scriptures are the product of God speaking through the prophets. Although human hands write the words of the Bible, and the prophet chooses which words to use, the will of God is communicated faithfully. The prophets themselves understood this and when referring to their own writings they repeatedly wrote, "The word of the Lord..." The Bible is this: God's perfect message in imperfect human language.
When a person reads through the four gospel accounts and only knows about verbal inspiration, it is natural for them to think that the writings are not trustworthy. They think that all four gospels should express things in exactly the same way. But in actuality the differences prove their trustworthiness. The writers of the gospels considered themselves witnesses. They risked their reputations and even their lives on their testimonies.
Today, in a court of law, if two witnesses have the exact same testimony (i.e., word for word,) their testimony will be considered invalid. Why? Because experience has shown that no two people see an event in exactly the same way. One point influences a witness in one way. Another witness is more impressed by another point. Even though they saw the same event they use different words to express themselves. As long as the testimonies do not contradict one another, their testimonies are considered valid. If the witnesses' testimonies are exactly the same however, the witnesses are considered liars. They have colluded together.
Jesus spoke in Aramaic. The four gospel writers wrote in Greek. Any two translators choose different words but both communicate the message faithfully.
As shown in the illustration in the introduction, the message of the fireman was correct. Even though the messenger calling people to leave the building is imperfect, the message is understood.
What is the conclusion of the matter? The Bible is the most widely copied and best-preserved document from ancient times. Slight variations in spelling, word order, added words, or corrected grammar can all be identified by comparing the multitude of manuscripts and quotations. The message of the scriptures, the doctrines, and truths are not changed. The books are reliable. Don't let Satan keep you from learning what you need to know about the end time by believing slander about the sacred writings. Believe in the Bible. The message is from God. He preserved it so that you would know the way of salvation.
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1:20, 21.
[1] A codex is an early manuscript book. Made from parchment or papyrus it was in a format resembling a modern book as opposed to a scroll.