HOME | DD

Description
This stamp is not intended to convert anyone or shove Christianity or Judaism down anyone's throat. If you don't believe what the Bible says, that's your business. This stamp merely addresses a common myth about the accuracy of Bible translation.

The Bible has not changed over the centuries.

Have you ever heard someone say that the Bible is the result of a game of telephone? You know, that game where a whole bunch of people line up and one person whispers something into another person's ear, that person whispers it into the next's, and so on, and the end result often sounds nothing like the original message? Many people believe that the Bible is similar. They assume that the Bible has been "translated and retranslated" from its original text so many times that it's no longer accurate to its origin. They believe it's changed and translated so many times over the centuries that you can't trust it. That's a very legitimate concern, but, fortunately, it's unwarranted.

Of course this doesn’t mean that all translations are equal! Some are clearly better than others and convey wording closer to the original language. Most scholars I respect recommend the King James over all other versions – it is the standard that all modern translations are compared to. When the KJV was translated, it was done by over 500 scholars working separately, all translating from the original Greek and Hebrew, and using the church's Latin Vulgate for minor aid. They met periodically to compare notes. If their translations weren't 100% the same, they threw it all out and started over. It took many, many years to achieve the finished translation, and it probably is the most accurate of all of them. But please don’t confuse this with those who claim the KJV is the only inspired version. Bob Enyart utterly destroys that argument here . The English Standard Version (ESV) and New International Version (NIV) are also extremely reliable translations. I generally compare those three versions (KJV, ESV, and NIV) when I study the Bible, so as to make sure I get as close as possible to the original text.

If you would like, Bible Gateway (www.biblegateway.com/ ) is a great website with almost every English translation in existence. You can read them all for free. A good rule to follow is that if you ever have any question about the original meaning of a passage, try comparing several versions of the Bible. The one(s) that have a different meaning from the other(s), no matter how slight, is probably the faulty one in regards to that passage.

Direct translation
The Bible is a direct translation of its original texts. This means that it was only translated once from the original Hebrew and Greek (and Aramaic for a few verses in Daniel) into the versions we have now. All major languages of the world are only one step away from the original. The manuscripts are accurate to over 99% precision. The Bible hasn't been changed.

To quote Gregory Koukl, MA in apologetics and philosophy (www.leestrobel.com/videoserver… ):
"When I debated the New Age author Deepak Chopra on national TV, me made an unusual statement about the text of the New Testament. He claimed that the King James Version was the eighteenth or nineteenth iteration of the Bible since the years 313. This comment reflected, I think, the idea that many people have that the New Testament has gone through a serious of translations and retranslations - "iterations" - before finally settling into the English versions of today. A simple appeal to the facts was all I needed to dispatch Dr. Chopra's challenge. All [major] current translations of the Bible start with manuscripts written in the original language - Greek, in the case of the New Testament - which are then translated directly into English [or German, French, Chinese, etc.]. Instead of multiple "iterations," there is only one step in language from the original Greek to our English versions." - Koukl, Greg, Tactics (ISBN 978-0310-28292-1)Meaningful differences make up less than 1% of total differences between original Scripture texts and our translations. When there are differences between the originals and our translations, they are rarely, if ever, about significant doctrinal or historical topics. In fact, over 70% of these "variants" (as they are referred to) concern spelling! We don't know if John's Greek name was spelled with one "V" or two. But does it change the meaning of any particular passage? John is still John. A similar example of such variants would be if a British person and an American person wrote a paragraph about paint colors. I am American, therefore I spell it "color." The British person would probably spell it "colour." Our writing is different, but it does not affect the meaning of the text in any way. We both mean the same thing.

To quote Robertson McQuilikin in Understanding and Applying the Bible:
"Textual criticism is the science of comparing text with text to determine the original text. ...We can be virtually certain of the original text [of Scripture]. In those few instances where questions remain, no significant doctrinal issues are at stake. Virtually all critics were motivated by the conviction that the original text was divinely inspired and thus that an accurate text was of utmost importance. Textual criticism seeks to establish the original text with the greatest possible accuracy."The Dead Sea scrolls (originals) discovered in 1947 also provided a profound testimony to the reliability of the centuries of transmission of the Bible text, as every Old Testament book found was virtually word for word with today’s Bible! (the few differences were “obvious slips of the pen or variations in spelling”2 ).

More reliable than Homer and Shakespeare
English New Testament translations are more accurate than English translations of Homer's Iliad or Shakespeare's plays. I have not studied German, French, Spanish, etc. translations in comparison to their translations of the Iliad and Shakespeare, but I do know about English versions.

Homer’s Iliad, the most renowned book of ancient Greece, is a very distant second to the New Testament in manuscript support, with only 643 copies. Of these copies, there are 764 disputed lines, compared to only 40 lines in the New Testament 5 . The New Testament even fares better than the 37 plays written by William Shakespeare in the 17th century. Every play contains various gaps in the printed text, forcing scholars in many cases to “fill in the blanks”. With the 24,000 copies of the New Testament, we can be sure that nothing has been lost. It is also very impressive to note that scholars can recreate all but 11 verses of the New Testament by simply piecing together quotations by the early church fathers of the second and third centuries.

Sources:
Tactics by Gregory Koukl
Understanding and Applying the Bible by Robertson McQuilikin
www.str.org/articles/textual-v…
str.typepad.com/weblog/2009/05…
bibleevidences.com/textual-evi…

Description
This stamp is not intended to convert anyone or shove Christianity or Judaism down anyone's throat. If you don't believe what the Bible says, that's your business. This stamp merely addresses a common myth about the accuracy of Bible translation.

The Bible has not changed over the centuries.

Have you ever heard someone say that the Bible is the result of a game of telephone? You know, that game where a whole bunch of people line up and one person whispers something into another person's ear, that person whispers it into the next's, and so on, and the end result often sounds nothing like the original message? Many people believe that the Bible is similar. They assume that the Bible has been "translated and retranslated" from its original text so many times that it's no longer accurate to its origin. They believe it's changed and translated so many times over the centuries that you can't trust it. That's a very legitimate concern, but, fortunately, it's unwarranted.

Of course this doesn’t mean that all translations are equal! Some are clearly better than others and convey wording closer to the original language. Most scholars I respect recommend the King James over all other versions – it is the standard that all modern translations are compared to. When the KJV was translated, it was done by over 500 scholars working separately, all translating from the original Greek and Hebrew, and using the church's Latin Vulgate for minor aid. They met periodically to compare notes. If their translations weren't 100% the same, they threw it all out and started over. It took many, many years to achieve the finished translation, and it probably is the most accurate of all of them. But please don’t confuse this with those who claim the KJV is the only inspired version. Bob Enyart utterly destroys that argument here . The English Standard Version (ESV) and New International Version (NIV) are also extremely reliable translations. I generally compare those three versions (KJV, ESV, and NIV) when I study the Bible, so as to make sure I get as close as possible to the original text.

If you would like, Bible Gateway (www.biblegateway.com/ ) is a great website with almost every English translation in existence. You can read them all for free. A good rule to follow is that if you ever have any question about the original meaning of a passage, try comparing several versions of the Bible. The one(s) that have a different meaning from the other(s), no matter how slight, is probably the faulty one in regards to that passage.

Direct translation
The Bible is a direct translation of its original texts. This means that it was only translated once from the original Hebrew and Greek (and Aramaic for a few verses in Daniel) into the versions we have now. All major languages of the world are only one step away from the original. The manuscripts are accurate to over 99% precision. The Bible hasn't been changed.

To quote Gregory Koukl, MA in apologetics and philosophy (www.leestrobel.com/videoserver… ):
"When I debated the New Age author Deepak Chopra on national TV, me made an unusual statement about the text of the New Testament. He claimed that the King James Version was the eighteenth or nineteenth iteration of the Bible since the years 313. This comment reflected, I think, the idea that many people have that the New Testament has gone through a serious of translations and retranslations - "iterations" - before finally settling into the English versions of today. A simple appeal to the facts was all I needed to dispatch Dr. Chopra's challenge. All [major] current translations of the Bible start with manuscripts written in the original language - Greek, in the case of the New Testament - which are then translated directly into English [or German, French, Chinese, etc.]. Instead of multiple "iterations," there is only one step in language from the original Greek to our English versions." - Koukl, Greg, Tactics (ISBN 978-0310-28292-1)Meaningful differences make up less than 1% of total differences between original Scripture texts and our translations. When there are differences between the originals and our translations, they are rarely, if ever, about significant doctrinal or historical topics. In fact, over 70% of these "variants" (as they are referred to) concern spelling! We don't know if John's Greek name was spelled with one "V" or two. But does it change the meaning of any particular passage? John is still John. A similar example of such variants would be if a British person and an American person wrote a paragraph about paint colors. I am American, therefore I spell it "color." The British person would probably spell it "colour." Our writing is different, but it does not affect the meaning of the text in any way. We both mean the same thing.

To quote Robertson McQuilikin in Understanding and Applying the Bible:
"Textual criticism is the science of comparing text with text to determine the original text. ...We can be virtually certain of the original text [of Scripture]. In those few instances where questions remain, no significant doctrinal issues are at stake. Virtually all critics were motivated by the conviction that the original text was divinely inspired and thus that an accurate text was of utmost importance. Textual criticism seeks to establish the original text with the greatest possible accuracy."The Dead Sea scrolls (originals) discovered in 1947 also provided a profound testimony to the reliability of the centuries of transmission of the Bible text, as every Old Testament book found was virtually word for word with today’s Bible! (the few differences were “obvious slips of the pen or variations in spelling”2 ).

More reliable than Homer and Shakespeare
English New Testament translations are more accurate than English translations of Homer's Iliad or Shakespeare's plays. I have not studied German, French, Spanish, etc. translations in comparison to their translations of the Iliad and Shakespeare, but I do know about English versions.

Homer’s Iliad, the most renowned book of ancient Greece, is a very distant second to the New Testament in manuscript support, with only 643 copies. Of these copies, there are 764 disputed lines, compared to only 40 lines in the New Testament 5 . The New Testament even fares better than the 37 plays written by William Shakespeare in the 17th century. Every play contains various gaps in the printed text, forcing scholars in many cases to “fill in the blanks”. With the 24,000 copies of the New Testament, we can be sure that nothing has been lost. It is also very impressive to note that scholars can recreate all but 11 verses of the New Testament by simply piecing together quotations by the early church fathers of the second and third centuries.

Sources:
Tactics by Gregory Koukl
Understanding and Applying the Bible by Robertson McQuilikin
www.str.org/articles/textual-v…
str.typepad.com/weblog/2009/05…
bibleevidences.com/textual-evi…