Ever since the Garden of Eden, people have been doubting God’s word – “…did God ‘really’ say…?” (Gen. 3:1; emphasis mine.) As Solomon said in Ecclesiastes, there is nothing new under the sun. (Ecc. 1:9.) The same old lies repeat each other over the ages.
Today, doubts about the Bible happen frequently and vehemently (especially among the youth) because false claims spread quickly, perpetuated widely by the Internet, about the trustworthiness of the Bible. Instead of people going to a Pastor or religious leader to ask questions, people Google it. What comes up is a myriad of skepticism about the reliability of the Bible. The reliability of the New Testament documents, for example, is highly targeted. After all, it contains all kinds of miracles, including Jesus rising from the dead. And if it’s true, then it forces a person to look at their lives under the light of how God says a person should be living.
Some of us don’t want to hear that we might be doing things in our lives that are not what God wants of us. Others don’t understand the Bible, not recognizing it holds a variety of literary styles, from historical records to poetry and prophecy, and may misinterpret it because they haven’t been instructed properly on how to read it. It’s not written like today’s books, in a narrative kind of style. It’s a book written by 40 different authors over a period of more than 1500 years, and yet has a continuity to it. It’s definitely unique and remains the number one best-seller each year, despite the naysayers. Nonetheless, the Bible is highly suspect to many today.
Which Bible translation is the “right” one?
One of the biggest misunderstandingsis how we know if we have the right version, since there is such a variety in translations. Just because there are many translations, does not mean the message has been changed. Bible scholars use the oldest manuscript copies we have and translate directly from those. It’s not some game of “phone tag” where one person says something to the next person and down the line the message gets completely changed. No, scholars who know the original languages that the Bible was written in (Greek & Hebrew) spend countless hours with teams of people working to accurately translate the Bible in two primary forms: either a “word-for-word” translation (like the NASB), or a thought-for-thought translation (like the Living Bible). These teams of scholars have a checks and balances system to ensure accuracy. Depending on what you want, choose a translation to meet your needs. Most Bible ‘nerds’ (which I’m included) likethe “word-for-word” translations best, even though they may not read as smoothly as the “thought-for-thought” translations. The word-for-word translation are best for Bible studies involving exegesis.
We don’t have the autograph originals, so how do we know our Bible today is accurate?
When scribes wrote the copies of the Bible, or any ancient history, the paper they used was not archival. They often wrote on Papyrus, and scrolls were damaged or simply aged and thus, needed to be copied. This kept scribes busy, who made lots of copies over the years. Matter of fact, the New Testament was the most copied document in ancient history! We have nearly 6,000 manuscripts of just the New Testament alone. The only other ancient document that comes close to that is the writings of Homer, with about 2,300 copies. So, all these copies are compared with each other to ensure accuracy.
Dr. Dan Wallace is an expert in the field of textual criticism. This field examines the authenticity of ancient documents.
For Internal evidence, scholars ask:
- 1. Who wrote the Gospels? When they wrote them, what was their objective in writing them,what sources the authors used, how reliable these sources were, and how far removed in time the sources were from the stories they narrate or if they were altered later.
- 2. Scholars also consider if the document is misquoting texts from the Hebrew Bible, is making claims about geography that were incorrect, if the author appears to be hiding information or if the author has made up a certain prophecy.
For External evidence, scholars often:
- 1. Turn to ancient sources, including early church leaders.
- 2. Consider other writers outside the church (Jewish & Greco-Roman historians) who would have been more likely to have criticized the early churches.
- 3. Compare archaeological evidence to the texts.
Wallace says that in addition to the thousands of Greek New Testament manuscripts, there’s over one-million quotations by Church Fathers. He said that we could practically reconstruct the New Testament just from these quotations alone!
The two key factors historians use to evaluate the accuracy of ancient texts are:
A) Number of ancient manuscripts (copies) we possess
B) Time gap between when the original autographs were written, and then when the earliest surviving copies were written.
These two primary factors help determine accuracy of transmission. For example, the oldest manuscript we have of the New Testament is verified to approximately 117-135 AD. It contains a portion of John 18. This was just decadesafter the Apostle John’s death, and thus refutes the claim of late authorship.
All of this matters because scholars can reconstruct the originals with copies – manuscripts, remnants, and scrolls – the more copies we have, the better we can reconstruct the originals.
Okay, so we know the Gospels have a TON of manuscript evidence, they were written early, and have no variants in them that affect any major doctrine. But skeptics doubt the memory of those who wrote the testimonies.
How can we know the authors got it right?
It’s important to note that long-term memory is good when events are memorable. The events that happened in Jesus’ ministry are easy to remember, and his disciples learned them well. Rabbis had their disciples sit at their feet, and it was common practice to memorize their teachings. The disciples were with Jesus for three years solid and heard his teachings more than once. In addition, there were eye-witnesses alive at the time the documents were written who could corroborate the Gospel accounts. Most importantly, the Holy Spirit helped (but skeptics don’t buy this).
Jesus said in John 14:26,“But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind youof everything I have told you.”
For accuracy of the Old Testament, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls was a remarkable find! These scrolls contain most of the Old Testament, and the entire book of Isaiah, which is 97-99% accurate when compared word-for word to today’s versions. This also refutes the criticism that you can’t trust the Bible because it’s been copied so many times.
Lastly, the Bible is historically accurate as confirmed by archaeology. This website http://www.biblearchaeology.org is a trusted source for the latest in finds that confirm the historicity of the Bible.
The reliability of the Bible can be known by many methods:
1. Manuscript evidence (more than any other ancient book)
2. Written close to the events: Gospels were written within the 1st Century
3. Dead Sea Scrolls – show Old Testament was also copied precisely.
4. Archaeological evidence backing up the historicity of the Bible
5. Changed lives – literally billions – including mine!
And anyways, what I always say is that if God can create the universe ex nihilo (out of nothing), ‘ain’t no big thang’ for God to inspire people to write his words.
Very nice. Good article. I just hope it is as well received as it is written. Knowing the short-attention-span that permeates our culture these days, I’m not sure it will be read all the way through. Even I found myself skimming after the first few paragraphs.:)
Hi Karl! Well, thanks for stopping by long enough to leave a comment, then!
Another great article! The way you explained the different translations “word for word, vs thought for thought” makes it easier to understand than the academic language. (functional equivalent, dynamic equivalent etc.) For the facebook bible study, I never did insert a link to the last article I asked you about as It didn’t fit as naturally as I thought. However, this one does, espeically as you mention the dead sea scrolls. I”ve been looking for a opportunity to post something on this very subject. You can see the post on the “Coffee with Luke” study on FB. Thanks
Hi Bill! Thanks for your comments. I’m blessed to be of help however I can. May God bless your group!
Just realized you refer to the Living Bible as a “thought for thought” translation. The living Bibile is not actually a translation rather it’s technically a pharaphrase like the The Message. The “New Living Bible” (NLT) is a thought-for-thought translation.
But they are still “translated” into the paraphrased versions. I think this is just a matter of semantics; still basically the same concept.
Thanks, not that is was important. in Craig Blomberg’s book, “Can we Still believe the Bible?” he had pointed out the differences so I was just passing that along. BTW, numerous group members of my Coffee With Luke FB study have really enjoyed your article!. I had been praying for ways to somehow insert some apolegtic material on the trustworthiness of the Bible so that was an answer to prayer. Thanks for writing it.
Thank you, Bill, for being a person committed to truth and helping others know, too. I am blessed to be of help in any way, and I appreciate your sharing the article.
I really appreciate the detail that went into this post. I have friends who doubt the veracity and integrity of the scriptures. Now I have somewhere to point them. We must know and trust that the Bible is the inspired word of God or our faith is unshakeable. At least, in my humble opinion. Keep up the good work!
Thanks for your comments! This is why I do what I do – I’m here to help. God bless you!
This is great and well written and hits home runs with a lot of points. But one I see missing unless I missed it is the statement made by Paul in 1st Corinthians 14- The unspiritual[a] man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
Also Paul says in vs 18 ………………For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
Therefore we must take into account that a lot of skepticism and denouncing of the bible by critics is coming directly from their spiritual state that refuses to and cannot recognize understand or appreciate what they are reading.
The good news is if someone is actually reading it and not just dismissing it as bunk they are exposing their minds and hearts to it and a seed may be planted and take root. God’s word is alive and active and has the power to transform. But generally speaking without the movement of the Holy Spirit upon someone they are likely going to reject His word for the reasons stated by Paul above.
Hi Steve! Thanks for your comments. I totally agree that much skepticism is rooted in a lack of spiritual discernment. What I am aiming at, however, is to show (to those who are critical) that the Bible is historically reliable, whether or not you believe what it claims.
What has happened in culture is that Christians have been made out to look like fools for believing in a “corrupted” book that is full of “a bunch of fairy tales,” as some skeptics tout. This is a false statement that has perpetuated the false idea that Christians are blindly believing in things without good reason. We have evidence, but it’s not the ‘scientific kind’ that some demand. The problem with demanding scientific evidence (or empirical evidence) is that you cannot use that measurement of knowledge towards history. What we know about ANY history is written down; so, we must examine ancient documents to see if they’re valid historical facts. That process takes into account all the things I mention in my blog. And this is how we know anything about history – what was written down must be analyzed. The New Testament documents have been the most scrutinized ancient document in history, and it stands the historicity test. That’s the evidence we’re talking about, and though it won’t convince everyone, it at least shows that Christians have an intelligent faith, not a blind one. It gives Christianity credibility. That’s my main point in writing all of this. God bless you! Lisa Q
Oh I completely agree with all that. I’m just saying that most of those people in question are spiritually blinded by the “ruler of this world” as Paul put him…. I’m pelting all my non believing friends with 101 examples of science found in scripture.. before man even knew what science is. They are all very quiet at the moment 😉
Okay, thanks for the clarification. I just wanted others who may be reading these comments to know why I’m defending the historicity of the New Testament documents, despite what non-believing people claim to the contrary.
Oh, and be careful how you “pelt” your friends! Ha ha ha… bless you!
Great blog post! I really like the way you explain things.
Thanks, Kate! I appreciate your comment. God bless you!
Hi Lisa.
Would you mind if I post this on my blog.
I would of course inform my readers LisaQ wrote it and refer to your blog as well.
Fellow Christ-follower and fellow blogger.
Mark Wanders
Hi Mark! Yes, please repost this blog. I’d be honored! Thanks for asking. God bless you, Lisa Q