Why Christians should care about the work of CSNTM

I would imagine that most pastors, let alone most Christians, are unfamiliar with the work of CSNTM (gotta love acronyms).  The Center For The Study Of New Testament Manuscripts is an organization founded by noted New Testament manuscript expert, Dr. Daniel B. Wallace (a personal favorite) in 2002.  What does CSNTM do?  The organization's mission is to utilize emerging technologies to preserve and study Greek New Testament manuscripts. Since then, CSNTM has collaborated with more than forty institutions on four continents to produce hundreds of thousands of images of New Testament manuscripts. In the process, CSNTM has discovered dozens of New Testament manuscripts. - From the About page of the CSNTM Website
What is the importance of this work?  By cataloging surviving NT manuscripts, and digitally preserving them, CSNTM is helping to add further depth and breadth to our understanding of the original autographs of the NT. 
Why don't we just look at the originals?  Easy enough to answer, they no longer exist.  No autograph (original from the hand of the author) of any ancient document {excluding those carved in stone, not exactly an option for the entire NT) has survived to the modern age.  Time, wear and tear, natural disasters, and deliberate destruction (think marauding barbarians gleefully setting fire to libraries) have seen to that. 
What do we have then?  Around 5,800 NT manuscripts (some whole, some very fragmentary) in Greek, 10,000 in Latin and 9,300 in various other languages (the non-Greek being translations, still useful, but not as much as those in the original language, Greek).  The further beauty of CSNTM is that they have discovered, cataloged, and digitally photographed 90 previously undocumented NT manuscripts.  In other words, the surviving evidence of the original NT text is getting stronger thanks to this work.
How is the work of CSNTM utilized?  Scholars are able to remotely study individual manuscripts much easier than finding them and gaining permission to view them, without risk of damaging this delicate ancient documents.  In addition, the printed Greek text that underpins nearly all English translations (exceptions being the KJV and NKJV which use the Textus Receptus, and the Douay-Rheims based on the Latin Vulgate {the Catholic Bible, based on Jerome's 4th century translation into Latin}) is today the Nestle-Aland's 28th Edition or the United Bible Societies' 5th Edition both of which are in a continual process of being updated to take advantage of new discoveries and new scholarship (like that of CSNTM) to further refine the 99% accuracy of our current text.

For further study, check out my 6 hour lecture on the History of the English Bible (located conveniently at this blog), where I delve into the history of the copying by hand of the NT, the advent of printed editions, and the translation work that brought the Bible from its original hand copied Hebrew and Greek manuscripts to our printed English texts today.

Sermon Video: Intelligible words in the Church - 1 Corinthians 14:13-19

Having established the priority of building up the Church when ranking the desirability of spiritual gifts, the Apostle Paul continues the theme by explaining that even 10,000 words given in a language unknown to the hearer(s) are worth less than 5 intelligible words whose meaning can be grasped.  In stating this, Paul asserts that our minds needs to be engaged in prayer and worship, not just our emotions, and that our end goal, edification, requires understanding (on the part of the recipient) in order to be fruitful.  Illustrations utilized: the Western Church's use of the Latin Mass (a barrier to understanding), the dense verbiage of Martin Buber's I and Thou (verses the accessibility of Max Lucado's Just like Jesus), and the unnecessary barrier of teaching English to non-speakers envisioned by Sam Gipp's KJV Only position.  In the end, it is incumbent upon us that we make a serious effort, in both evangelism and apologetics, to share, explain, and defend God's Word with both intelligibility and clarity.

To watch the video, click on the link below:  As a bonus, the introduction features the story of my preaching in Guatemala in 1997 through an interpreter, as well as my fumbling my way through a lesson in Spanish (not a pretty picture).

The Dead-End of Anti-Intellectualism in the Church

One of the favorite themes of a growing number of politicians is an anti-intellectualism aimed at scientists, professors, and intellectuals of all kinds.  They combine this thinly veiled envy with a heaping dose of blue-collar mentality and grand conspiracy theories.  The end result is best illustrated by the insanity of the long-running anti-vaccine movement, a movement that is immune (pun intended?) to scientific evidence for it is all dismissed as being part of the global conspiracy involving governments, the CDC, the UN, and many more.  This same anti-intellectualism continues to be attached to issue after issue, to the detriment of our democracy, for few things are as dangerous to a healthy democracy (yes, I know, our gov't is a Representative Republic, but most people don't know the difference between that and a Democracy) as a purposefully uninformed electorate.
The Church is equally at risk when in the grips of anti-intellectualism.  Many evangelicals routinely belittle the public education system (thereby slandering the many good God-honoring men and women working in it), and look upon the higher education system with nothing short of hatred.  Secular though this education may be, it is still absolutely necessary that the people of God be an educated people.  Why?  Because when they're not, they're easy prey to heretics, charlatans, and frauds, not to mention the politicians who look at them with disdain while pandering to their hot button issues.
Just today I came across two examples of anti-intellectualism that are a clear danger to the Church.  The first was also mixed with racism (not a good combo) in that it was a protest against the teaching of the basic tenants of Islam to school children.  As a former teacher, I'm aghast at the idea of limiting the knowledge of the world that our children are given, and as a pastor, I'm entirely convinced that Christian children need to know the basics of not only Islam, but Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Shinto, plus the ancient religions of the Greeks, Egyptians, Norse, not to mention the basic ideas of Communism, Fascism, and a host of other ideas that make our world tick and explain how we arrived at where we are.  Why?  Because ignorance is a haven for horrible ideas, and ignorance breeds bigotry like cockroaches.  When a Christian teens goes off to college, private or public, religious or secular, that teen needs to know his/her place in the world, needs to know where he/she stands and has little chance of being prepared for the many ideas that will soon flood his/her way if we've chosen to shelter those inside the Church from the many competing ideas that exist in our world.  Teachers need to teach, not pretend that ideas don't exist, how can a high school senior possibly understand the world that we live in today without knowing about the world's religions?  How can people appreciate the government that we do have if they are ignorant of the horrific alternatives that have already been tried?
The second example was once again the same ol' anti-intellectualism of the KJV Only movement, this time from a Chick Publications video that denigrated a seminary education (thereby slandering the many God-honoring men and women who work at America's seminaries) and instead elevating an "ignorance is bliss" attitude about the Bible.  In the video, David Daniels dismisses the manuscript evidence for the Bible, mocking the scholar and archaeologists who continue to work in this field, and treating the term "textual criticism" like a profanity instead of the vital tool that it is.  Why is anti-intellectualism a cornerstone of the KJV Only movement, the answer is quite simple: the entirety of the historical evidence, modern scholarship, and the way in which translations work are so firmly against their belief system that the only way to avoid total embarrassment is to dismiss the opposition as part of a huge conspiracy led by the dreaded intellectuals.  To say this attitude gives the Church a black eye is an understatement.
The Truth is not our enemy.  Facts, history, and knowledge are not the enemy of the Church, never have been, never will be.  We serve a risen savior, a Messiah whose life, death, and resurrection are firmly established in history, to veer off into anti-intellectualism, as a Church, is not only needless and foolish, but a dead-end.

Warning signs of an unbalanced worldview

As I was meandering about on Youtube recently, looking to see if there were any new interesting videos posted in the areas of textual criticism and the KJV Only debate, I happened across a series of videos made by Chick Publications that reminded me of the warnings signs of a Christian organization/church that is dangerously unbalanced.  There could be many ways in which those who claim to follow Jesus become lost in warped thinking, these ones are prevalent among them:

1. The Conspiracy Theory - It doesn't matter who the villain of the theory is, although the most common choices are the Vatican (i.e. the Jesuits and Illuminati), the Jews (the Rothschilds and Zionists) and the United Nations (the New World Order is the code word for various one-world gov't theories).  If a central tenant of the belief system of the individual/organization/church is a grand conspiracy theory, this mindset will warp and twist all manner of other thoughts and attitudes and end up leading to isolation and paranoia, not good qualities upon which to minister for the Gospel.

2. The Eisegetical Scripture Citation Defense - That doesn't really work as an acronym, what it means is that the common defense of such groups is to utilize a Scripture reference as a comeback or rebuttal to any criticism instead of utilizing historically accurate facts and/or logically sound reasoning.  The primary problem with such a method is that the Scripture cited is almost invariably unrelated to the conversation at hand.  An out-of-context eisegetical (which means "reading into" the text) citation is NOT a valid argument.  For example: To cite Psalm 12:6 as a defense of KJV Onlyism is an affront to the words of David who was in no way talking in that Psalm about translations of the Bible, certainly not about English translations, and was also certainly not declaring that the KJV Bible would be a second work of inspiration for his words two thousand years later.  And yet this verse is routinely cited by KJV Only advocates as if the mere citation of Psalm 12:6 proves something for them.

When the primary defense of a position advocated by a Christian individual/group/church is to improperly cite Scripture that does not apply to their situation, it is a sure sign of lazy thinking, poor scholarship, or most likely, a very weak position in the first place.

3.  The We're the Only Ones Going to Heaven conclusion - Another common trait among groups that have lost their way and strayed from the Gospel is the firm conviction that they, and they alone, are in possession of the knowledge that will lead to eternal life, all other so-called "Christians" are at the least deluded, and in all likelihood in league with Satan.  Set aside for a moment the sad state of the Church of Jesus Christ if this were true (how weak would should a Gospel be to be misunderstood and misapplied by so many, and how ineffective would the Holy Spirit be if 99% of those who thought they were Christians were on their way to hell?), and just contemplate the megalomania required to convince yourself that everyone else is wrong, nobody else can see the Truth, only you and those like you have penetrated the lies and schemes of Satan to be saved.  Yikes!  And yet such groups exist, persistently in their bunker mentality, scorning cooperation between churches, calling Ecumenism the work of the Devil (no doubt as part of some vast Vatican conspiracy), and waiting for the sky to fall.  How can this attitude lead to an effective witness for the Gospel or effective help for those in need?

Other warnings signs could be added, these happen to crop up again and again among these individual and groups.  There are many, many churches alive and well within the Church of Jesus Christ today, places where the Gospel is being preached, where truth and facts are elevated, and where the victory that Christ has purchased for us is being realized, there is no need to buy into what they're selling.

Defending the Word of God: A task that never ends.

It was just two weeks ago that I wrote about a syndicated article in the paper in which a Mormon and a Unitarian both challenged the Orthodox understanding of the Bible that the Church has held throughout its history.  For the Mormon, the challenge came in the form of believing in an Open Canon, i.e. that new revelation beyond that of the Apostles was possible.  For the Unitarian, the challenge came via disbelief in the accuracy of the Bible that we have today and ultimately doubt as to the divine origin of the original anyway.
In a recent letter to the editor, a local resident made an accusation about why he believes America is in moral decay, a position all too readily assumed by many Christians, regardless of the actual evidence, a reflection of a deep seated pessimism about the future.  The comment in question was the worst sort of guilt-by-association and causation fallacy (that because A precedes B, A must be the cause of B).  The writer was listing the signs of the "downfall" of America and claimed that this trend began in earnest in the 1970's with the legalization of abortion and the publication of the NIV Bible.  It should go without saying that one of those two things is a moral evil and truly a sign of trouble in society (although certainly not a harbinger of the end, the society into which the Gospel began its mission of transformation was well known for its infanticide, not to mention rampant slavery).  To equate the two, as if there is some sort of connection between them (other than happening in the same decade) is of course nonsense, but in this case it is part and parcel with the type of "argumentation" often put forth by those who see the world through a KJV Only set of glasses.
If I believed, for a second, that the only true Christians were those attending independent, fundamentalist, KJV Only churches in America, I'd be a pessimist about the future too.  If the Gospel were failing in our world that badly, if only .001% of the world's population were being saved by the power of the cross and the empty grave, where would hope come from?
Thankfully, the truth is far different.  The work of the Gospel, through the universal Church of Jesus Christ, is being carried out all over the world, in hundreds of languages (thanks to the tireless efforts of Bible translation teams from organizations like Wycliffe Bible Translators).  His Church is making tremendous progress throughout Africa, and is growing rapidly in Southeast Asia.  Nobody knows what the future holds for any nation, America included, but the Church of Jesus Christ is not whimpering in a corner, huddling with a few link-minded individuals, it is out there in the world today, reclaiming lost souls for the kingdom, and doing it using a variety of the many wonderful translations of the Bible that we have today.
The task of defending the Word of God never ends.

King James (or TR) Onlyism as a logical syllogism

In order for a logical syllogism to be valid, all premises must be true, and the conclusion must be forced by the premises.  With that in mind, and knowing that many KJV (TR) Only advocates will howl at the idea that something they take on faith is evaluated on the basis of logic, I offer this:

1. The Bible promises that God will preserve his Word

2. The only possible definition of preserve is "perfection"

3. The only text that is "perfect" is the KJV (TR).

The first premise is entirely true.  God did promise to preserve his Word.
The second premise is an interpretation of Scripture, that can be debated, as all interpretations must be, it is not correct by the standards of Church history to say that it MUST be the only interpretation.
The conclusion can no longer be valid, since the 2nd premise is untrue, but even if it was, the conclusion is not a result of the first two premises.  There is nothing different about the KJV (TR) from any other text or translation that sets it apart as "perfect".  Advocates of that position will claim otherwise, will make their chosen favorite the standard by which all others are judged, but they cannot escape the clear facts of history, and must in the end retreat into saying that their position MUST be taken by faith (with all the dire consequences of apostasy heaped upon those who disagree).

There is a lot of confusion, name calling, tangents that have nothing to do with the main issue, and outright lies being spread about this issue within the Church.  It is enough to make the head of an ordinary lay person spin, and not a few pastors as well.  But, in the end, everything comes back to premise #2 and the desperate attempt to prove that the KJV (or TR) satisfies that standard.

The sad thing is, none of this is necessary, we have an amazingly, providentially, preserved Word of God, living and active, powerful and mighty, available to us in English in an array of sound and beneficial choices.  Not only that, but this entire discussion relegates God's work through his Word among the other peoples of the world to sideshow, when in reality God's work among the English speaking peoples, and the Western cultures is but one part of his amazing work all over the world.  Everyday the percentage of Christians reading the Bible in English shrinks because the number of Christians reading it in other languages is growing by leaps and bounds!

An evaluation of the TR (and/or KJV) Only position's presuppositions

The presuppositions of the TR Only position, which for the most part match up with those of the KJV Only position seem to be as follows: (1) That the Bible’s passages on the preservation of Scripture require a “perfect” Bible, anything less makes God a liar and is thus a perversion of Scripture. (2) That the definition of “perfect” envisioned by this viewpoint can allow for no textual criticism, no revisions, no corrections of the text.  {Some of the KJV Only would add “no variants” to this list}(3) That other than the original autographs, this “perfect” example of Scripture exists only in the TR (or KJV). 

Let us for a moment assume each proposition to be true and see what the results would be. (1) If the passages of Scripture about preservation require a “perfect” Bible, they do not in any way indicate which text that would be.  Since it must be available in every generation, it must have first existed in the Hebrew manuscripts (aside from the Dead Sea Scrolls, all of which were lost prior to the Middle Ages), then in the Greek manuscripts, although it could only be in one text type, but without the original autographs there is no basis for choosing one and only one text type as the “perfect” text when the only thing we have to compare them to is each other. (2) If no textual criticism is to be allowed, and how can it be when the text is “perfect”, there is no ability to answer the clear evidence of a text which changed over time, with additions and corrections, throughout its history (NT in particular given the wealth of manuscripts we have of it).  If the text was already “perfect” and needed to remain “perfect” each and every generation, it could not change, at all, not even a single word.  Yet that is not the history of the manuscripts.  By comparing one generation of them to another, in any text type, this becomes clear, copyists made mistakes, both intentional and accidental that became accepted (for at least a time, by an unsuspecting Church).  But if God’s power and veracity stands or falls based upon an unchanging text, the only possible explanation is to ignore history and evidence and claim that the text must be taken on faith no matter what (that’s Sam Gipp’s stated position, any fault in the KJV, even typographical mistakes of the printer, are to be ignored and the result taken on faith). (3)  Who is the authority, Scripture is certainly silent about which future text will be the “perfect” one and which will be the corrupted ones, that determines that the TR, and only the TR (and hence the KJV) are to be deemed perfect over and against the Byzantine text, the Alexandrian, the Majority (which will always represent the Byzantine as the number of those manuscripts is such a clear majority), or the Eclectic blending of all sources?  Who designated Erasmus as the final authority on the preservation of Scripture, who sanctified his work and declared it without error?  Keep in mind, that Erasmus himself made significant changes to his printed editions with each new one, as did Stephanus and Beza after him.

In the end, I see no compelling reason to belief that we MUST believe any of those suppositions, if a TR Only (or KJV Only) advocate wishes to tweak them somewhat, fine, but the primary issues remain.  The Scriptures do promise preservation, but are silent as to how that will occur and by what agency, The text tradition does include many variants, all of them do, there are no perfect manuscript traditions, even within Erasmus’ exceedingly limited number of manuscripts representing one text tradition, there were variants that he had to sort out by doing textual criticism.  Lastly, the only way that the TR, and only the TR, can be elevated to such a status is an appeal to tradition or authority, both of which were supposed to be rejected by the Reformers, to resurrect them now would be a disservice to the ideals of men like Tyndale, Luther, and Calvin.

If you need a good laugh, watch Sam Gipp's, "What the big deal about the KJV?" video

I needed a macabre laugh today so I re-watched "Dr." Sam Gipp's "What's the Big Deal about the KJV?" video.  From the very first scene, this 40 minute video is one ridiculous example after another of the worst KJV Onlyism set in a fake college setting where "professor" Gipp enlightens his students about the "perfect" Word of God.  Straw Men abound, as per usual, as well as illogical argument like this: The KJV is from Antioch through the TR (not actually true, the 6 manuscripts Erasmus had were medieval Byzantine copies, but let that go for a minute), the Eclectic Critical text ("you should know that there's a problem right there when they say their text is critical", as if the term Biblical Criticism was somehow an evil practice, forget that Erasmus, the father of the TR engaged in Biblical Criticism, as did the translation team utilizing Tyndale, the Bishop's Bible, and Erasmus to put together the KJV and every other copyists or translator) is from Alexandria (Of course this too isn't true, the Modern Critical text utilizes all of the manuscripts Western, Alexandrian, and Byzantine, far more of them {5,500+ vs. 6} than the TR, plus Church Fathers, and other early translations).  Gipp then explains that Antioch is where the followers of Jesus were first called Christians, that must mean it is a holy place of all goodness and its manuscripts are perfect (forget that heresies also came from Antioch, such as Monothelitism and Nestorianism), and Egypt is always called a bad place in the Bible (forget for a moment, "Out of Egypt I called my son"), thus Alexandria is written off as a place full of heretics whose manuscripts must therefore be 100% corrupt.  FYI, Guilt by Association, even weak association, is a favorite KJV Only tactic.  (Such as labeling anything they don't like "Catholic" as if that somehow ruins and taints whatever person or manuscript they need to discredit).

Everything goes downhill from there, including a hilarious scene where Gipp has a Bible study group read Psalm 23 in half a dozen different translations to show them the "confusion" that results, as if unison reading not lining up somehow proves anything.  Another favorite "proof" of Gipp is that the Modern Critical Text omits verses from the Bible, thus throwing off the numbering system of the 16th century (What, those guys can't even count, he says).  Don't stop and wonder why those verses are in the margins in the modern text, don't ask why scholars know for certain that they were added later, just go along as Gipp tells you that they're taking things out of the Bible because he has already set up the KJV as the only standard, therefore any "change" in the text from the KJV is what counts, and don't worry about what the original Greek text says regarding the "changes" he points out, he doesn't say so in this particular video but he's said elsewhere that he wouldn't care if original autographs were found, he already has a perfect KJV.

The proof text of any KJV Only fanatic is I John 5:7, a verse that has zero manuscript evidence in Greek before the 16th century, which by the way Gipp accuses the Alexandrians of removing from the Bible because they hate the Trinity (something they couldn't have done, of course because it didn't appear until later Latin copies of the Vulgate), sad for him that none of the Byzantine manuscripts have it either, and that none of the Church Fathers quote the verse despite their blood feud with the Arians.  Thus in this one instance, Gipp is accusing other Christians of denying the Trinity by relying upon an verse addition that comes from the Latin Vulgate, the Bible of the Catholic Church (which Gipp and those like him hate with white hot fury).  Forget for a moment that the trinity is found elsewhere in the NT (in the modern texts as well), forget for a moment the horror if such an important verse could be expunged from the manuscript tradition for 1,600 years, all of this isn't supposed to matter as you feel anger toward those who deny the trinity by changing God's perfectly preserved Bible, the KJV.

In the end, "Dr." Sam Gipp, along with Peter Ruckman, Gail Riplinger, and those who follow in their wake, have faith in a perfect Bible, the same blind faith of the world's Muslims who also allow no variants in their text, and treat any questions as those of heretics, and they have a skeptics doubts about the Early Church, the manuscript copying process, and the preservation of the original text, just like that of Dr. Bart Ehrman who has no faith because the text isn't "perfect".

Keep making your propaganda movies, they're good for a laugh, at least they would be if you weren't trying to destroy Christian fellowship, the reputations of devout men of God whose work as scholars has only increased our knowledge of the real reason why our Bible can be trusted, and making things up as you go to fit a conclusion that you reached long before you started making up your conspiracy theory.  While you're at it, say hi to Dan Brown, he enjoys a good conspiracy theory.

The unexpected agreement between Dr. Bart Ehrman's skepticism and the KJV Only fanatics

"When you subjugate it to the human laboratory for testing and twisting and probing, it takes on a different nature.  If it isn't preserved perfectly, then it lacks in authority, something less than full authority."  This is a quote about the Bible from Kent Brandenburg, and it has something that he might not be happy to hear about in common with the leading agnostic critic of Biblical accuracy alive today, Bart Ehrman.  Bart is a well known critic, with best selling books like Misquoting Jesus and How Jesus Became God to his name.  One of the most crucial conclusions that Dr. Ehrman makes in his rejection of the Bible that we have today is that it isn't the same as the original as penned by the Apostles.  If we don't have the original, God must not have preserved it, if God didn't perfectly preserve it, he must not have given it in the first place.  If the modern Bible isn't a perfect copy of the original autographs, if it has any errors (despite its historically unheard of 97% accuracy), it is no longer the Word of God.  KJV Only fanatics take this same view of the preservation of Scripture.  Their answer to Bart's dilemma is to posit a new revelation from God that occurred in 1611 (don't mention to them the typographical/spelling/printing mistakes of that edition, it won't be welcome).  The King James Bible to them is a perfectly preserved English version of what the Apostles wrote, so much so that many of them have dismissed the relevance of an original autograph should one be found in some cave like the Dead Sea Scrolls, and so much so that some of them (Sam Gipp for example) contend that the only way to hear the Word of God today is for the people of the world to learn English to read the KJV (Don't point out the obvious racist white superiority behind this line of thinking, just because God treats all men equally doesn't mean they have to).  How do we know that the KJV is a perfect edition in every way, especially since in their view that's the only way it will be God's Word?  You'll have to take that on faith.
  Dr. Ehrman yearns for a perfect Bible, doesn't have one, and has lost his faith, the KJV Only crowd yearn for a perfect Bible, so they've pretended they have one.
The sad thing is, we have an amazing Biblical text today.  All of the original readings have been preserved within the manuscript tradition, none of what the Apostles wrote has been lost.  The Bible is more readily available and accessible than ever before all over the world in hundreds of languages with new ones being translated every year.  The Word of God has never been closer to ordinary people, too bad the skeptics and the fanatics can't see it.

* Note * Kent Brandenburg should not be identified with the KJV Only crowd of Ruckman/Gipp/Riplinger (which he rightly dismisses as an untenable position), both groups believe in "perfect preservation", the first as found in the KJV, Kent's group as found in the Textus Receptus (TR definition).  To prefer the TR is a defensible position, just as it is defensible to prefer the KJV, the TR was the Greek text basis for Tyndale, the Bishop's Bible, the KJV, the Geneva Bible, Luther's German NT, and the New King James, but to be TR ONLY is almost as erroneous as the KJV Only position in that it posits a perfect moment in Church history when the text of God's Word needs to be frozen, when all scholarship and textual criticism needs to cease.  The problem with that, is that there is no one TR (it isn't a manuscript, but a published collation of a few late Byzantine texts that were available to Erasmus), there are many published additions of Erasmus/Stephanus/Beza that were the result of their efforts at textual criticism, so why must these men be the only authorities that can offer God's people his Word?  The TR is a good text, but the Majority text is better, and the Critical Eclectic text is better still.  Christians in the 16th century like Erasmus did a great job considering the manuscripts they had available to them at the time, but we have no need to limit ourselves to what they knew then.  God has indeed preserved his Word, in EACH generation, that effort continues to this day through the work of Godly men who continue the work of their ancestors in the faith. 

The History of the Bible: Lecture series

Is the Bible the Word of God?  That is a question that only faith can answer.  Is the Bible we have today an accurate representation of what its authors originally wrote?  That is a question that evidence can prove.  The Bible is by far the most well attested ancient document with a rich manuscript history and a fascinating story of ordinary people who rose to the occasion to protect it, or sank to the depths to try to keep it from the people.  It is a story of hand-written copies, and a story of translation efforts from the original Greek and Hebrew.  This three part series will open the door to the much larger subject of the history of the text of the Bible, its preservation and transmission from the ancient world to the plethora of English Bibles that we have available to us today.  Along the way, it will help answer questions about the reliability of our text, the affect that variants have upon our confidence in the text, as well the reasons why we have so many translations in English today.

            There are skeptics who don’t believe that we can have any confidence that our text is the same as what was originally written.  Amazingly, they agree with the essential facts of history that the Bible’s manuscript tradition is rich and ancient, sadly, they draw opposite conclusion from this evidence and end up with nothing but doubt.  There are “perfect” Bible zealots who have complete confidence in one particular translation of our text, made 400 years ago, who are immune to evidence because their belief in the text of the Bible is a matter of faith not facts.  Both of these groups think that ordinary Christians will have their faith destroyed if they learn the truth about the history of the Bible, they’re both wrong.  The Word of God has been handed down to each new generation throughout the history of the Church, and that story is something that every Christian should want to know.

In order to best understand the lecture, please take the time to download the PowerPoint, Word document, and especially the manuscript chart.  Having them in front of you while you listen will allow you to more fully understand the information that is being presented.

To watch part 1 in the series, click on the link below:

The History of the Bible video, 1 of 3

The History of the Bible video, 2 of 3

The History of the Bible video, 3 of 3 

To look at the PowerPoint slides used in the presentation, click on the link below:

 History of the Bible PowerPoint (for all 3 parts)

To view the manuscript evidence Word document, click on the link below:

Manuscript evidence

To view the manuscript history chart created by Pastor Powell and Pastor Scott Woodlee, click below:

Manuscript History chart 

Thoughts about the history of the Bible & KJV Onlyism

As I prepare to teach my series on the history of the English Bible for the third time, beginning on August 10th, I've been reminded of the zeal with which advocates of KJV Only positions have often disparaged the faith of fellow Christians in the name of defending God's Word.  That the Word of God should not be used to tear asunder the Church of God seems like an obvious truth, but sadly it is not.  That historic facts should be the basis of our faith, and our faith in the accuracy of the Scriptures also seems like an obvious truth, but it is routinely tossed aside when passion replaces reason and personal attacks replaces evidence.
As I was continuing to refine my presentation I came across several resources that might be helpful to those confused about the KJV Only debate that I would like to share here.

This first one is a web page by a man named Derek Oulette who created it in response to a "historic" chart that he was given by a KJV Only advocate.  It answers the fundamental questions of text types, copies, and reliability in an accessible manner.  To look at the web page, click here: KJV Debate web page

The second is series of TV shows recorded about twenty years ago that feature James White, one of the best authors on this subject, The King James Only Controversy, as well as representatives from the translation teams of the NKJV, NIV, and NASB, along with three KJV Only advocates, among them the notorious "Dr." Samuel Gipp.  As you watch, notice the use of evidence and facts on the side of those representing the modern texts, and the complete disdain for them on the other side along with circular arguments and personal attacks.  To begin watching the videos, click here: John Ankerberg TV show videos
** There are 39 videos in this series, but they average about 5 minutes each.  Also, the KJV Only advocates in these videos are fond of accusing those representing the modern translations of being on the side of their arch-villain, the Roman Catholic Church.  This attitude of acting toward the Catholic Church like the year is 1611 instead of 2014 is beyond sad; We're 500 years out from the Reformation, isn't it time to start building on our common love of Christ and stop acting as if the next Pope is likely to be the Anti-Christ?  Fear of the Catholic Church runs right alongside anti-intellectualism in the KJV Only circles.**

The whole issue of NT textual criticism can frighten lay Christians without cause (which is one of the reasons for my desire to teach the history of the Bible), this webpage does a good job of explaining some of those historical issues in a brief format. To visit the webpage, click here: NT Textual Criticism

The last is a portion of a video from a physics teacher in England who regularly posts video that explain complicated things like the European Union or the American Electoral College.  This particular video is a Q&A that delves into the subject of opinions and why people hate to change them.  Skip ahead on the video to 1:15 to start the question about opinions.  To watch the video, click here: CGP Grey video

** I know that some will say, "the Bible isn't an opinion to be dropped when I learn something new!!"  Of course not, and if you think that you've missed the point.  The authority of the Bible is foundational to who we are as Christians, the history and exact text of the Bible is different, however, because it involves evidence and ongoing research.  When Nesle-Aland and UBS (the two primary Gk. texts for modern Bibles) issue an updated version of their text they're doing so because ongoing study in the fields of Biblical archaeology and textual criticism continue to help us move closer to the original text; the accuracy is already 98%+, but why shouldn't we be willing to continue working on that last 2%?  To fix the errors of the past is not to denigrate God's Word at all, rather it shows our reverence for it, thus when the text can be corrected we must do so instead of clinging to it like an out-dated or erroneous opinion.  That is the fundamental error of the KJV Only advocates, and the reason for referencing Grey's video.**

Lastly, let me make it clear that I appreciate the KJV Bible, it was a remarkable Bible in its day made by men who loved God and served his Church.  It has stood the test of time far better than many other translations, but it isn't perfect.  It has errors, these can be corrected, it has archaic language, this can be updated.  I have no problem with those who love the KJV, or with those who only use the KJV, but those who insist on KJV Only, and attack anyone who uses any other translation (even the NKJV), are wolves in sheep's clothing, they can only destroy the Church through their work.

Thankfully, I have encountered only reasonable ministers here in West PA, men and women eager to serve the Church of God, more interested in saving the lost and shepherding their flock than fighting their brothers and sisters in Christ.  This sort of environment doesn't exist in a vacuum, however, it continues to need education and ecumenical cooperation to feed it and keep it strong.  In my own way, I'm happy to be contributing to that effort.