Perpetual Struggles Over the Bible
OK, I need to be totally transparent. For two reasons, (1) I keep this bottled up way to much for fear of being ostracized, and (2) I'm about ready to just give up. My struggle with the Bible has been one that has come and gone, but it is now worse than ever. I am actually at a point now where I don't say with confidence that, "Jesus said this" or "this is exactly what happened in Acts." Let me explain why I struggle as I have been.
I'm reading History of the New Testament in Plain Language by Clayton Harrop, and it is reeking havoc on my trust in the transmission of the New Testament. It is important to note, although, that this problem did not start with this book; my church, being KJV only, has led me to study the issues at hand. The debate is, in simplified form, not about the language of the KJV or the NIV, but the debate is over the Greek text behind both translations.
The KJV is supported by the Textus Receptus (translated "Received Text"), and the modern translations such as the NASV, NIV, ESV, and the like are using a version of the Critical Text from the scholars B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort. The debate is over which Greek text is closest to the original. I have written, read, and thought a lot already on the KJV only arguments; but now the question for me is how can I really trust either?
The Critical Text behind the modern translations, posits more questions than the Textus Receptus for these reasons. First, the Critical Text is driven by a few assumptions and one of which has come to light from the Harrop work. That assumption is that if any reading is only in the Syriac (later renamed Byzantine by Westcott and Hort) it is to be considered false. This is an amazing assumption that has not been shared with me studying this debate. Secondly, proponents of the Critical Text are often resort to apologetic answers that the Bible is 99.5% accurate without any textual variants affecting Christian doctrine. This troubles me, because if God truly did promise to preserve His word (Mat 24:35) than there would be no .5 percent difference. For me, this .5% might as well be 50 or 60 percent.
Proponents of the Textus Receptus will not move themselves to any such apologetic answer; they would say, we have the Word preserved actually as it is. I can sympathize with this desire, because I have such a desire. I went to a conference this last weekend with KJV only preachers and there was not doubt in any of those preachers that they had the perfect, preserved Word of God.
Most Christians have no idea that such a deep debate exists. They don't know that the modern translations omit half of the last chapter of Mark compared to the KJV. They don't know about such fundamental differences such as the Johannine Comma, and they also don't know that the story of the adulterous women brought to Jesus by the Pharisees (Joh 7:35-8:11) appears only in the Textus Receptus. These are huge differences!
I have no doubt behind the Masoretic Text (Old Testament) behind both the modern translations and the Textus Receptus. This certainty comes from an understanding of the amount of precision used by the Jewish scribes in assuring the transmission of the text and the lack of question of the canonical works (besides Esther, but that is a small issue). Also, when you study the first 4 centuries of the Christian church you see how much the church banked more into oral tradition than written, and you also see the mass confusion over those which are canonical works. Some thought books such as The Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, and all the while debating that books such as 2 Peter, Hebrews (due to the uncertainty of the authorship), and even that all four Gospels where true was rampant in the early church.
It wasn't until Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, that the 27 books of the New Testament that we have no was solidified, and this was in A.D. 367. And I'm not going to re-write what is in the book I'm reading (I would suggest it for a critical look at the history of the NT) about all the confusion over what should be in the canon. It seems that there are many questions still left to be solved as to how the NT we have is of God. While I believe God would govern the canon of His work as He did the writing, there seems to be an "inconsistency" if you will in how God did this (which I question He even did).
There are too many loose ends to just say, "just believe it." I don't want to be an ignorant believer of my faith, and so I continue to work through these issues. I have come to the realization, and am beginning to accept, that this will continue until the day I die.
Sep 18th 2005 
10 Comments 
Sep 19th 2005
Keep in mind though that you have just enumerated THE three most significant parts of the NT that deserve a second look. Also that the account of the woman caught in adultery is found in the Western Uncial D.
Grace and peace bro, hope we can have lunch sometime,
Aaron
PS I've been recommend the following book by my uncle:
The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration
by Bruce M. Metzger
ISBN: 0195072979
Sep 19th 2005
Yes, it is in Western D manuscript as well as Alexandrian 892, Vulgate, Caesarean 700, and F, G, H, K, M, and U of the Byzantine family. But it is omitted in Aleph (one of the major texts of contention in the Critical Text), B, C, L, T, W, X, 33, 1241; Western: Old Syriac/Old Latin; and Byzantine: A, N, Delta, Psi among others.
Aaron, these are three major differences; but it is not the end. There are over 200 textual variants between the Textus Receptus and the Critical Text. I know you read the ESV, and that passage is omitted from that Greek text (the Critical, although it might have brackets around it signifying its spot in the Textus Receptus). It is more than just 3 passages, but I mentioned three well known examples.
The Metzger book is actually mentioned several times in the Harrop work. I need to check that out as well (although that title doesn't stir in me much hope, i.e. see my arguments above).
Sep 19th 2005
"200 textual variants" doesn't make much of an impact on me until I see their actual magnitude (i.e. in examples). 200 honestly doesn't sound that bad considering the scope of the NT. If there's only 200 then we can certainly go through each of them case by case and take a look at them.
From what I know, those three well known examples you mentioned, contrary to how you make it sound, are the most significant and major. They aren't three of many that have equal or greater magnitude.
Grace and peace in Christ, Aaron
Sep 19th 2005
200 refers to a number I saw only in a tract explaining all the variants; I've actually read comparisons with over 2,000 variants. There are, in scope. 40,000 variants between various versions of the NT. So, if you want a bigger number. The fact is, is it or is it not in the Bible? If the story of the adulterous women was not in the original texts than the Critical Text is right, but if not it is wrong. In other words, which one is right?
No offense bro, but I spent tons of times struggling over variants between the Greek texts; and also studying the transmission of the NT. From the work I cited, you can see the confusion in the canonical process. That is also a thrust of my frusturation.
If we do believe we have the word of God, then we are faced with issues that we must settle. If one Bible has more or less text in it then they are different works. Again, I can't say we have 99.5% of the original text, because it doesn't float with other versions of the Greek manuscripts (and I mention the TR specifically).
If God does providentally preserve His word, then we must be sure 100%.
Sep 20th 2005
Hey Chris!
I do not know too much about all of this but I know a prof at Cedarville ?University who specializes in the NT. His name is Dr. Hoffeditz and his email is: hoffedid@cedarville.edu if you want to ask some questions or whatnot. Just let him know you are a friend of Alecia Niese. His website is: http://people.cedarville.edu/Employee/hoffedid/
Some other good profs to talk to if you ever have any questions include: Prof. Bjornstad- bjornstj@cedarville.edu (Theology, philosophy, Christian Evidences and Apologetics), Prof. Thigpen- jthigpen@cedarville.edu (OT), Dr. Cook cookj@cedarville.edu (Missions).
Hope this helps!
Blessings this day! -Alecia
Sep 20th 2005
PS.. I had New Testament Literature with Hoffeditz. Phenomenal... He also teaches classes like Biblical Archaeology and Jesus and the Gospels. If you have questions, this is the guy to talk to. -Alecia
Sep 20th 2005
So, to sum it up, are you saying that the Textus Receptus might really be the best (and only) original manuscript to use? (Not that you’re saying you’re going KJV only, but that they have a point?)
ps. If so, the ESV flows down from the KJV ;) ;)
Sep 20th 2005
I don't know if they have a point...trying to figure it out. Actually, no the ESV did not flow from the KJV (many differences in the manuscripts).
Sep 21st 2005
I have also struggled over these issues and have been hesitant to discuss my thoughts that the bible as we know it may not be an entirely accurate translation of the original thoughts that were communicated. I have also been struck by the fact that the New Testament was not organized until hundreds of years after these books were written. I want to explore more who were the people who decided what would be and not be in the New Testament, as I have wondered, can we really trust them? I have been troubled by rather significant differences between KJV and NIV. Sometimes the differences seem simple, like whether a passage is in first person or third person, but the implication of those differences are quite significant. The scriptures warn that there will be much deception, and that it was already at work in the world at the time of the writing of the works that comprise the New Testament. The bible also gives dire warnings to those who would tamper with what has been written. I agree that God is certainly capable of perserving His Word, but there are so many variations between translations that I ask which one best represents the Logos. Add to this confusion the idea that was recently shared with me that much of New Testament writings were probably originally written in Hebrew, and that Greek scholars were often not the best at understanding and communicating Hebrew thought. I have had to leave this in God's hands and ask that He reveal truth to me. There is much that the translations have in common. I think the far greater danger in the church is that much is being taught that has no firm foundation in the scriptures. The same was true in Jesus' days, and I believe that a time is coming where a dividing line will be drawn and believers will need to decide whether they will use the bible as their source of truth or whether they will rely on traditions that have been taught within the church. We need always to pray for wisdom on such matters. I have found that God usually does not have a lightening bolt approach to clearing up these matters for me, but it's more like unpeeling layers of an onion...He needs to let me wrap my mind around one thought before I am ready to see something else. It's a very exciting process and I believe that this struggle to understand Him better is all part of the relationship that He wants with us. I have become convinced that God and His Word are alot more mysterious than we generally give Them credit for being. I pray that God will encourage you in this struggle with His Word, and will give you an exciting journey as you grow to know Him more. Blessings - kari
Sep 21st 2005
Thanks Kari. You are such a blessing to me.