1.1.25

The Manuscripts Behind the Modern Translations

 

 

Modern translations are based on earlier and more numerous manuscripts than the KJV. The manuscripts that stand behind the KJV are not forgotten; rather, better and earlier witnesses have displaced them.

Komoszewski, J. Ed, M. James Sawyer, and Daniel B. Wallace. 2006. Reinventing Jesus: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.

Decline of the Textus Receptus

Decline of the Textus Receptus

The prevalence of the Textus Receptus first began to wane when newer critical editions of the New Testament provided a means of evaluating variant readings of the text. Scholars began to question the Textus Receptus and began publishing editions of the Greek New Testament that broke from it: Karl Lachmann was the first (1831), followed by Lobegott Friedrich Constantin von Tischendorf (eight editions from 1841–1872) and Samuel Tregelles (1857–1872). These critical editions paved the way for the influential Greek critical edition The New Testament in the Original Greek, produced by Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort in 1881.

Westcott and Hort generally assumed the Alexandrian text-type to be more original than the Byzantine. Although Westcott and Hort’s theories sometimes went beyond the evidence, their edition left a permanent impression on the landscape of New Testament studies, the effects of which reverberate in the influential United Bible Societies’ critical Greek New Testaments. The editors of this publication tend to favor the Alexandrian witness, though it has nuanced Westcott and Hort’s position. The Greek New Testament is now in its fifth edition (called the UBS5), and the Novum Testamentum Graece is in its 28th edition (called the NA28)—both edited by Barbara and Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo Martini, and Bruce Metzger. Many modern English translations of the New Testament (NASB, ESV, NIV) tend to follow the conclusions of these textual critics, thus breaking from the influence of the Textus Receptus and the KJV.[1]

 



[1] Ritzema, Elliot, and S. Michael Kraeger. 2016. “Textus Receptus.” In The Lexham Bible Dictionary, edited by John D. Barry, David Bomar, Derek R. Brown, Rachel Klippenstein, Douglas Mangum, Carrie Sinclair Wolcott, Lazarus Wentz, Elliot Ritzema, and Wendy Widder. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

How to Choose and Utilize Translations

 How to Choose and Utilize Translations[1]

Evaluating available translations. How does one choose among the available translations in English? The book So Many Versions?, by Sakae Kubo and Walter Specht, has an excellent discussion of this question.53 There are many competing translations available. What are some of the criteria for choosing? We will suggest four factors that should be considered:

1. Accuracy—This criterion can be described in different ways. As discussed above, a translation should aim to have the same effect on new readers as the originals did on the first readers. Put another way, the goal should be communicate all that the author intended. Of course, it is virtually impossible to capture every feature. We are today historically, linguistically, and culturally removed from the situation of the writers. This is one reason why there will always be a need for further exegesis and new Bible translations.

There are several things a translator must do or possess as a minimum in order to achieve accuracy. First, he must have a high degree of exegetical, linguistic, and literary ability. This will help him in knowing how languages in general are structured.54 Second, it is imperative that the translator go to the original languages.55 The practices of the translators in regard to this are usually stated in the preface of each translation. Third, assessment of the needs of the audience must be consciously undertaken, since they are the all-important hearers of the message. Often a translator will have the goal of making a translation suitable for personal study, or for public reading. A translation that is limited to one particular readership or purpose will appear out of place when used for another. J.B. Phillips wrote his first translation for British youth. It received widespread acceptance because it was suited to his audience.56 On the other hand, the New English Bible, a British translation, often seems too British for many Americans (aside from spelling differences) as when it uses British monetary terms (two pence, Lk. 12:6, etc.), or weeds for “garments” (Gen. 38:14).57

2. Literary quality and style—Attention to these is important for several reasons. First, a translation that is not written smoothly will be tiring to read, and will eventually be neglected. Freshness, vigor, and quality are all required. But a danger in attempting to be too natural in translation is that of becoming slangy. If a translation is to be used for any type of public reading, it should have literary qualities that make it acceptable to a broad audience. In order to achieve the goal of literary coherence and quality, the NIV, for instance, was edited for style by literary experts after the translators had done their work.58

3. Theological neutrality—It is difficult to avoid presuppositions in any scholarly endeavor, even in biblical studies and Bible translating.59 It is not difficult to see such personal or philosophical factors in the history of interpretation. One cannot help having a starting point, a set of assumptions that give direction to study or translation. But, of course, the important thing in biblical studies or Bible translation is to test all assumptions by the light of Scripture, and avoid the situation described by one theologian: “Every exegesis that is guided by dogmatic prejudices does not hear what the text says, but only lets the latter say what it wants to hear.”60 Such non-neutrality can enter in at various levels, as when the Jerusalem Bible (a Roman Catholic translation) adopts a poorly attested Greek reading in Jn. 1:13 which allows the verse to read (in support of the virgin birth): “Jesus who was born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh,” versus “those … who were born …”61

One way to minimize the interference of presuppositions in translation work is to channel the process through a committee.62 Of course, whole committees can be biased in certain directions. Another problem with committees is the tendency toward variation in the quality of work from book to book. Many modern translations have been produced by committees whose composition has intentionally been broad-based. In any case, it is good to attempt to learn the theological positions of translators involved. Often this information is given in a preface, or can be determined in other ways.63 The student of Scripture has the responsibility, as with all other biblical material, of testing what is presented to him to see if it matches Scripture as best he can understand it from all the translations and helps he has available. This is merely the principle of 1 Cor. 14:29 and 1 Th. 5:21, where the believer is required to evaluate the teaching that comes from others to discern false from true, and then “hold fast” ’ to what is valid. Information given in the preface or material published ancillary to a translation will often state the goals or purposes of a translating group.64 Such information may be of help in evaluating literary or doctrinal positions, also, as when the NEB states in its introduction to the New Testament:

We have conceived our task to be that of understanding the original as precisely as we could (using all available aids), and then saying again in our own native idiom what we believed the author to be saying in his.… In doing our work, we have constantly striven to follow our instructions and render the Greek, as we understand it, into the English of the present day, that is, into the natural vocabulary, construction, and rhythms of contemporary speech.65

4. Original language editions utilized—The variation in editions used as the basis of translations, especially of the New Testament, has been mentioned above. In general, major doctrines will not be affected. More recent translations, such as the NIV, NASB, and RSV, have used editions of the New Testament supported by the general consensus of scholarship, editions that use manuscripts older than the Textus Receptus type of edition utilizes. However, the committees involved in making such translations have not followed those editions slavishly.66

Utilizing translations. At times you may feel, especially if you do not have access to the original languages, that you cannot be sure of anything in the biblical text, since there are so many translations available. Here are some guidelines for taking advantage of English translations of the Bible:

1. Compare renderings—It is often very helpful to study with more than one translation. In the turgid portions of Paul’s epistles, for example, translations such as those by Phillips or Way often clarify what is obscure.67 This comparative process can be even more effective if different types of translations are used, since sometimes quite different perspectives can be found and integrated into understanding of a passage.

2. Learn strengths and weaknesses—After repeated use of a translation, the Bible student can often notice where that translation shines or where it misses the mark. The NIV, for example, will break up long sentences that the AV or NASB leaves in correspondence with those in the original languages. A good example of this is found in Eph. 1:3–14. Such a practice enhances readability

3. Read widely—One of the greatest hindrances to progress in Bible study is the failure to read extensively and take in new information. Employing various Bible translations can help overcome that weakness. You may have a favorite study Bible, but you should keep other versions at hand for consultation.

4. Be open to new interpretations—As serious Bible students we must always walk a tightrope between two extremes: (1) not accepting new truth given by the illuminating ministry of the Spirit, but stubbornly clinging to the familiar, and (2) seeing, on our own, what is not there in the text. Openness is good if what we see is verifiable by other Scripture. It is destructive if we see, because of excessive prejudice or a hobby-horse mentality, what is not and never will be in the text. We all ought to be willing to be surprised by what we find in a new translation, and be ready to accept it as valid, if it accords with the rest of the Bible (see ch. 4, Interpreting the Bible).

5. Take advantage of study helps—While the features of study editions of the Bible, such as marginal references, a concordance, etc., are not part of the translation, they do in most instances shed light on the translation. Some notes may be the product of the translators themselves, who after wrestling with thorny problems suggest alternative readings or explanations. The NIV translators’ notes appear on each page of that translation.

 



[1] Karleen, Paul S. 1987. The Handbook to Bible Study: With a Guide to the Scofield Study System. New York: Oxford University Press.

53 Kubo and Specht, 336–44.

54 See Kubo and Specht, 18; Barr, 288–96.

55 It should be noted that The Living Bible was not done originally as a translation from the original languages; see Kubo and Specht, 340.

56 Kubo and Specht, 337–38;69.

57 Kubo and Specht, 207–9.

NIV New International Version

58 Kubo and Specht, 245. see also the section “Introduction” in the Oxford NIV Scofield Study Bible

59 Graham N. Stanton, “Presuppositions in New Testament Criticism,” in New Testament Interpretation, ed. I. Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 60.

60 Stanton, 64.

61 Stanton, 65. This has been changed in The New Jerusalem Bible. (New York: Doubleday, 1985).

62 See Bruce, x.

63 See, for example, the description of Kenneth Taylor’s background in Kubo and Specht, 232; the names of the translators of the NASB and the NIV are available from the Lockman Foundation and the New York International Bible Society, respectively.

64 An example is About the New English Bible, compiled by Geoffrey Hunt (Cambridge: Oxford and Cambridge University Presses, 1970).

65 C. H. Dodd, Introduction to the New Testament, The New English Bible (Oxford and Cambridge University Presses, 1970), vii.

NIV New International Version

RSV Revised Standard Version

66 Kubo and Specht, 200–2, 223, 269–70.

67 J. B. Phillips, in The New Testament in Modern English (New York: Macmillan, 1973); Arthur S. Way, The Letters of Paul; Hebrews and Psalms (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1981).

NIV New International Version

AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)

NIV New International Version

Evaluating Translations

 Evaluating Translations[1]

The history of the Bible in English is a fascinating and important story. There are many competent accounts available, and to cover the whole field would be beyond the scope of this book.47 There are, however, two particularly important issues on which the Bible student should be informed. The first is that of the evaluation and use of the AV in the present generation. There are few issues among Bible students that are as emotionally charged or as complex. To what degree does the AV correspond to the originals? Is it a specially blessed translation? Is it somehow more “the Word of God” than others? Does it produce more fruit or disclose more of the will of God? There are a number of factors that should be brought to bear on these questions in order to evaluate them fairly and objectively. Although the issue cannot be covered fully here, the main question is: does the AV communicate the meaning of the Bible, in terms of style, grammar, and theology, better than other translations? Is it, in short, more understandable and accurate? This is really the key to evaluating any translation.

It would be helpful at this point to recall some of what was said above concerning languages and language change. A language is a social phenomenon, shaped by members of a speech community to best accomplish according to their views the needs of communicating within that community. Languages change, slowly, subtly, but inevitably, and English is no exception. In the more than 350 years since the publication of the AV, English, has changed in vocabulary, syntax, and other features of grammar. Much of the 1611 AV is strange and foreign to the late-twentieth-century ear. This factor alone hinders readability. New versions of the AV, which update its seventeenth-century language, are improvements on an important translation.

One must be very careful to acknowledge the deep influence that the AV has had on Western literature and world society. It has been unquestionably the most accepted and widely read English translation. Since the early seventeenth century, phrases from the AV have found their way into all forms of literature in the English language. Its style and sonorous tones in many places are still considered to demonstrate some of the finest English ever written. Nevertheless, many of today’s readers find other translations easier to comprehend.

As to the issue of accuracy and fidelity to the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts, there are two things that need to be mentioned. First, large numbers of discoveries have been made since the seventeenth century that bear upon biblical studies and the process of translation. More is understood today about the original languages, about archaeology, geography, history, and culture, and newer translations have been able to take advantage of this vast body of knowledge. This does not mean that the reader can be seriously misled in using the AV. But there can be a greater quantity of helpful information in new translations.

A second important area of which the Bible student should be aware is the issue of the manuscript source of various translations. Most available English translations have been produced by translators who knew and consulted Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts, or, more typically, published editions. The variation among Hebrew editions of the Old Testament is not great. However, the Greek New Testament displays greater variation among editions. The AV is based in great part on the editions published by Theodore Beza in 1588 and 1598. These are similar to the 1516 edition compiled by Erasmus.48 An edition published by Beza in 1565 was the basis for one produced by the Elzevir brothers of Leiden in 1633, which came to be called (on the basis of its editors’ description of it) the Textus Receptus, or “received text.” All of these editions were based in general on manuscripts copied at a later date than many that are available today. All other things being equal, the nearer a manuscript is dated to the original, the more likely it is to reflect the text of the original. There are many qualifications to that kind of statement, and many other important factors (for example, the manuscripts of the Textus Receptus type of edition do contain some variant readings that many contemporary textual critics view as likely to correspond to the original, although some of these are found in older manuscripts, too). Nevertheless, many scholars today feel that the kind of Greek text underlying the AV reflects the original Greek New Testament less accurately than that underlying more recent editions, which make greater use of manuscripts copied within a few centuries of the apostolic period. This is not to say that the AV is therefore a bad or misleading translation. It can be safely asserted that no major doctrine is endangered by the type of manuscript variations found in the text used for the AV. It is especially important to realize that one should not argue for the superiority of one translation on the basis of the supposed superiority of a text, Greek or Hebrew.

The argument that asserts that the AV is the best English translation because it preserves key doctrines which all others tend to slight is not really valid.49 In fact the opposite is often true. This kind of argument is often used with more of an emotional basis than a scholarly one. One must be careful of becoming an instant scholar and expert in areas that take many years to master and in which there are complex issues.

Perhaps a helpful assessment would be to say that the AV is one among many important and helpful English translations. It is not “the Word of God” more than another theologically sound translation, for we do not possess the first manuscripts of any of the revealed Word. That is what we would need in order to have the exact “Word of God.”

Further, it must be remembered in evaluating or advocating the AV that languages other than English have and need translations. The AV is usable by only a portion of the world’s population. It would be fallacious to argue that no translation into another language could have the spiritual impact of the AV.

The original translators of the AV admitted the need for continual refinement and revision of any Bible translation.50 Changes in biblical scholarship (discovery of manuscripts, new knowledge concerning languages, etc.) and in language itself necessitate this.51 Bible translation is never finished. The most up-to-date (language-wise) translations today will not be entirely satisfactory for readers a generation or two hence.52

 



[1] Karleen, Paul S. 1987. The Handbook to Bible Study: With a Guide to the Scofield Study System. New York: Oxford University Press.

47 See, for example, Bruce, and also Kubo and Specht.

AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)

AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)

AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)

AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)

AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)

AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)

AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)

AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)

AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)

AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)

48 See Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964), 102, 105–6.

AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)

AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)

AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)

AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)

49 See Donald A. Carson, The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 99; Marchant A. King, “Should Conservatives Abandon Textual Criticism?” Bibliotheca Sacra 130 (1973): 39; Douglas S. Chinn and Robert C. Newman, Demystifying the Controversy Over the Textus Receptus and the King James Version of the Bible (Hatfield, PA: Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, 1979), 16–18.

AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)

AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)

AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)

AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)

AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)

50 Bruce, 101–3.

51 See Kubo and Specht, 19–20.

52 For further material on evaluating the AV, see Carson.

30.12.24

Adding and taking away the word from the Bible

Revelation 22:18-21


18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

20 He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

21 The grace of the Lord Jesus be with God’s people. Amen.


Revelation 22:18-21 indeed contains a stern warning.

It says that if anyone adds to or takes away from the words of the prophecy in that particular book, God will add to them the plagues described in Revelation or take away their share of the tree of life and the holy city.

This specific warning is directed at the Book of Revelation, emphasizing its completeness and the importance of preserving its message. I interpret this as applying specifically to the Revelation itself, I do not view it as a principle that could extend to the entirety of Scripture.

My view that it specifically applies to Revelation and not necessarily to other New Testament books is a valid interpretation, as the passage explicitly refers to "this scroll," which is understood to mean Revelation. 

This warning is not explicitly repeated for other New Testament books. John felt any tampering with the specific details of Revelation's prophecies could lead to false interpretations and mislead people. 


Why Not Repeated for Other Books:

Contextual Focus: The urgency and severity of the warning in Revelation are tied to the nature of the book itself, which deals with the ultimate fulfillment of God’s plan and the final judgment. While other parts of Scripture also caution against distorting God’s word, the book of Revelation focuses on the final revelation of God’s will for humanity. As such, the warning is more explicit because it deals with the conclusion of God’s plan of redemption.


Completion of the Canon: Revelation is the last book of the Bible, marking the conclusion of God’s written revelation. With its closure, no more prophetic books were to be added. The other books of the New Testament, while also inspired and authoritative, did not carry the same final, conclusive nature that Revelation does, which is why the same explicit warning is not given.


Theological Consideration: The warning in Revelation may also reflect the particular danger posed by the eschatological content of the book. Because Revelation deals with the last things, the consequences of misinterpreting or altering its message are seen as especially severe. Other books, while foundational to Christian doctrine, do not deal as directly with the final judgment and the consummation of all things as Revelation does.


Conclusion:

Revelation 22:18-21 emphasizes the solemn responsibility of correctly handling the prophetic message in Revelation, with severe consequences for adding to or taking away from the prophecy. The uniqueness of this warning comes from Revelation's role as the final book in the Bible, marking the conclusion of God’s written Word. While other Scriptures also caution against altering God’s Word, the eschatological nature of Revelation and its status as the final biblical revelation makes this warning especially strong and pointed. It underscores the seriousness with which the early church regarded the integrity of the canonical text, as well as the eternal implications of how Scripture is handled.


Why did only John warn his readers about the book Revelation? Other New Testament writers did not have a problem with "precise" words, perfect words, or adding and removing words?


Please read the Commentary from Patterson, Paige. 2012. Revelation. Edited by E. Ray Clendenen. Vol. 39. The New American Commentary. Nashville, TN: B&H.


22:18–21 A final warning comes from John in v. 18. The apostle warns that if anyone adds anything to the prophecy of the book, God will add to him the plagues described in the book. On the other hand, if anyone takes away from the words of the prophecy, his part in the tree of life and the Holy City, as described in this book, will be taken away from him.4 Though dendron is most often the word translated “tree,” here xulon is used (v. 14). The latter may mean “tree” but is more often rendered “wood” (e.g., Rev 18:12). This same word is employed in reference to the cross (Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; 1 Pet 2:24). In any event, the serious threat associated with the manipulation of the text is almost unexpected. The precise significance of this warning is not entirely agreed on by interpreters.

At the time of the writing of the Apocalypse, the only way for multiple copies of any written material to make their way from the location of writing to the various recipients anticipated was for multiple copies to be handwritten. Some have imagined that John is concerned with the copying of the book and wants to be sure copyists do not take matters into their own hands. Perhaps a copyist would feel that something included did not make sense to him and therefore should be omitted, or perhaps a copyist might think that some other explanation more than John had given was essential. John, according to those who hold this view, is concerned for the integrity of the text because he believes that it is not merely the imagination of his own mind but rather the Spirit of God who has inspired the text. Consequently, he wants it reproduced by copyists with maximum accuracy.

In the introduction there has been some discussion of the textual evidence for the book of Revelation, and this textual evidence is somewhat fragmented with many unresolved textual problems in the book just as would be found in other New Testament literature. This alone would provide reason for John to say this.5

However, the more likely cause for this expression can be seen in the beatitude when those are promised blessedness if they keep the words of the prophecy of this book (22:7). To attempt to do something other than abide by its message, either explaining it away or adding to its message, only results in a deception that makes one the recipient of the plagues who has lost any opportunity for access to the tree of life and the holy city. This seems to be the best understanding of this final warning.6

John provides one more testimony from the living Lord. “He who testifies to these things says, ‘Yes, I am coming soon.’ ” That promise rings from John two important responses. First, he says, “Amen.” As previously noted, the word “amen” arises from the Hebrew and references an affirmation. When Jesus once again concludes that he is coming soon, John’s response from his island observatory is immediately one of affirmation, “Amen. Let it be so.” There follows a prayer voiced heavenward, “Come, Lord Jesus.” John’s heart is ready, and he is eager for the return of Christ. In typical epistolary form not often found in apocalyptic literature, the final theme exhibited in v. 21 is the grace of God.

John prays for his readers now by saying, “The grace of the Lord Jesus be with God’s people.” The NIV has added the words “God’s people.” Pantōn, which means “all,” certainly supports this translation; but the text just uses the one word. The NIV includes the word “amen,” which is present in the textus receptus and in Codex Sinaiticus and a great variety of other texts on Revelation. Some, however, omit it, probably thinking that it would not occur in both vv. 20 and 21. The NIV translators have probably grasped it correctly in finding its presence in the original text. The Revelation is concluded with the affirmation, “Let it be so.”


4 The Authorized Version reading “book of life” may seem to make more sense, but in this case the textual evidence for “tree of life” is so overwhelming that the 3rd edition of the United Bible Society’s Greek New Testament does not even give the reading “book of life.” The slim evidence favoring “book” may be seen in H. C. Hoskier, Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1929), 2:644.


5 A. Y. Collins notes, “Charles argued that these verses were added to Rev by a later editor (Commentary 2. 222–23). His strongest argument was that since John expected the end in a short time, he hardly would be concerned about the transmission of his book over a long period of time. But the remarks in vv 18–19 say nothing about a long period. If he considered that his work contained divine revelation necessary for the faithful to prepare properly for the end, he may well have been concerned that it be transmitted accurately in the short time remaining. Another function of these remarks is to reinforce the claim made elsewhere in the book that its contents originate with God (see 1:1)” (NJBC, 1016).


6 Using this verse to support a cessationist perspective regarding the gift of prophecy, R. L. Thomas says, “The conclusion of this investigation accepts the inevitability of connecting the decline and cessation of the spiritual gift of prophecy to Rev 22:18. Compliance with, indeed universal knowledge of, this warning was not immediate. Nevertheless the divine intention behind the warning necessitated that it eventually be recognized and that the body of Christ move into new phases of its growth without dependence on the foundational gift of prophecy” (“The Spiritual Gift of Prophecy in Rev 22:18,” JETS 32 [1989]: 216).



20.12.24

Should you divide the church over jots and tittles in the Bible?

Do you want to split a church over matters as specific as "jots and tittles" (the smallest details or markings in the Hebrew text or manuscripts of the Bible)?


Jots and Tittles: What Does It Mean?

The phrase "jot and tittle" comes from the Gospel of Matthew (5:18), where Jesus says, "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." The "jot" refers to the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet (Yodh), and the "tittle" refers to a small mark or stroke that distinguishes certain Hebrew letters. It speaks to the precision and permanence of God’s Word.

 

Should Churches Split Over Small Differences?

Ultimately, the decision to split a church should be a last resort. It's important to weigh the potential benefits against the harm it may cause to the body of Christ. 


Doctrinal Integrity vs. Church Unity:

Doctrine is Important: The Bible is central to Christian faith, and disagreements over core theological issues such as the nature of God, salvation, and the authority of Scripture should not be taken lightly. However, it’s also important to distinguish between core doctrines that define Christianity and minor interpretative or textual issues. Differences over translations, textual variants, or minor points of the law (like jots and tittles) might not justify a split if they do not undermine the central message of the gospel.

Unity Is Crucial: The New Testament stresses the importance of church unity (e.g., John 17:21, Ephesians 4:3). Dividing over peripheral issues could harm the witness of the church and fracture relationships within the body of Christ. In this sense, it's important to strive for unity where possible, even when disagreements arise over less central issues.

 

Hermeneutics and the Spirit of Grace:

Differences in interpretation of Scripture are common throughout church history. While it's critical to uphold the truth of God’s Word, the way the Bible is interpreted can vary on non-essential matters. The key is whether a particular interpretation compromises the gospel message or leads people into error.

Disagreements over jots and tittles often represent deeper theological, historical, or cultural differences in how the text is approached. A thoughtful and gracious approach to these differences can preserve the peace of the church, allowing room for differing views without splitting.

 

Theological Traditions and Emphasis:

Some traditions might place a greater emphasis on the inerrancy of Scripture down to the smallest details, while others may focus more on the broader theological themes of the Bible. For example, debates around the King James Version versus modern translations can often center on perceived issues of textual integrity. However, even within the realm of textual criticism, most scholars agree that while small variations exist, they do not affect the core message of Scripture.

 

Biblical Guidance for Disputes

Romans 14:1-4: Paul encourages believers to accept those whose faith may differ on disputable matters. He teaches that Christians should not judge one another over things like eating certain foods or observing certain days but should be fully convinced in their own minds.

1 Corinthians 1:10: Paul calls for unity among believers, urging them to be of one mind and judgment. While he addresses division over various issues in the Corinthian church, he emphasizes that Christ is not divided, and unity in Him should take precedence.

Ephesians 4:1-6: The apostle Paul appeals to Christians to live in a manner worthy of their calling, "with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love," and to "make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace."

 

Conclusion

One should not split the church over "jots and tittles" in the Bible. The phrase "jot and tittle" refers to the smallest parts of the Hebrew alphabet. Jesus used this phrase to emphasize the importance of the Law, but not to justify division within the Church.

The Bible repeatedly emphasizes the importance of unity among believers. Different people can have legitimate differences of opinion on specific biblical passages. Christians are called to extend grace and forgiveness to one another, even when there are disagreements. The core message of the Gospel—salvation through faith in Jesus Christ—should always take precedence over minor doctrinal disagreements.

While it's important to hold to sound doctrine, it's equally important to avoid unnecessary division. By focusing on the essentials of the faith and practicing love and tolerance, we can maintain unity within the Church.

In summary, splitting a church over issues like jots and tittles may not be the most productive or spiritually healthy response, especially if those issues are not central to the gospel. While maintaining doctrinal integrity is essential, the Bible also calls for patience, grace, and unity in areas where differences exist. It's crucial to assess whether a particular issue truly threatens the core of Christian faith or if it is a secondary matter that should be approached with understanding and dialogue.

If a church is considering a split over such a matter, it may be worth evaluating whether the heart of the disagreement is more about theological interpretation or relational dynamics. Often, deeper underlying issues, such as a lack of grace or a desire for control, may be at the root of such divisions.

ESV or LSB? // Comparing the ESV and LSB Translations


 

Verbal Plenary Preservation (Part 3)

 1. Verbal Plenary Preservation

Verbal Plenary Preservation refers to the belief that not only is the Bible divinely inspired, but every word of it has been preserved by God in its original form.

"Verbal" implies that even the words, not just the ideas or thoughts, are inspired.

"Plenary" suggests that this inspiration and preservation apply to the whole Bible, not just parts of it.

The term “preservation” indicates that God has ensured that the Bible, as we have it today, remains faithful to the original autographs (the original manuscripts).


2. Errors in this Concept

Theological and Doctrinal Tensions: One possible critique of verbal plenary preservation is that it leads to a form of fundamentalism where even the smallest variations in manuscript tradition or translation are seen as problematic or heretical. This could lead to an overemphasis on the literal interpretation of every word, potentially at the expense of the broader message and context of the text.

Textual Variants: In textual criticism, it's widely acknowledged that there are thousands of textual variants among the existing manuscripts of the Bible, which complicates the idea of perfect preservation of every word. Some argue that these variants may point to scribal errors, but proponents of verbal plenary preservation might claim that God’s providence ensures no doctrinal error exists in the text.

Translation Issues: Translating texts from Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic to modern languages involves interpretation. Different translations can result in variations in wording and phrasing, which raises the question: can these differences still be considered faithful if the text is claimed to be perfectly preserved?


3. Criticism of Verbal Plenary Preservation

Historical Development of the Text: Some scholars argue that the process of preserving the Bible cannot be separated from historical context. Ancient manuscripts have gone through various stages of transmission, sometimes influenced by the socio-political and theological circumstances of their time.

Doctrine of Inerrancy: The doctrine of verbal plenary preservation often goes hand-in-hand with inerrancy, the belief that the Bible is without error in all its teachings. Critics argue that inerrancy and the expectation of verbal preservation can lead to theological rigidity, ignoring the complex realities of how the Bible has been transmitted, translated, and interpreted over centuries.

Overemphasis on the Letter: Some theologians argue that focusing on the exact wording can lead to a neglect of the deeper spiritual and moral messages of the text. They contend that the Bible’s purpose is not just a record of words but a living document meant to inspire ethical living and a relationship with God, which could be obscured by an overly literalistic approach.


4. Alternatives and Counterpoints

Dynamic Equivalence: Some modern scholars and translators advocate for a focus on the dynamic equivalence of meaning rather than a word-for-word preservation. They argue that what matters most is the conveyance of the intended message, rather than the precise preservation of each individual word.

Providential Preservation: Rather than insisting on a perfectly preserved text, some argue for a “providential” or “superintended” preservation, which allows for human error in the transmission process but trusts that God has overseen the process to ensure the integrity of essential teachings.


Conclusion

The "Errors of Verbal Plenary Preservation" may refer to the theological and practical issues that arise from expecting an inerrant, verbally preserved Bible. While some believe that every word is divinely preserved and inspired, others point to textual criticism, historical context, and translation challenges to argue that this model is overly rigid and potentially misleading.

After you've read this article. Do you still want to start fighting? Argue? Split the church? Divide the Body of Christ?



Verbal Plenary Preservation (Part 2)

Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) is a doctrine that asserts the complete and perfect preservation of every word of the original biblical manuscripts. Proponents of this view often argue that the King James Version (KJV) is the only truly preserved text. However, there are several significant errors associated with this doctrine:   


1. Misunderstanding of Inspiration:

Inspiration vs. Preservation: VPP conflates the concepts of divine inspiration and preservation. While the original manuscripts were inspired by God, the subsequent copies and translations were not.

Human Involvement: The copying and translation of Scripture involved human scribes and translators, who were susceptible to errors, both intentional and unintentional.


2. Overemphasis on the KJV:

Textual Variants: The KJV is based on the Textus Receptus, a text that contains numerous textual variants and errors.

Translation Limitations: The KJV, while a significant historical and literary work, reflects the limitations of 17th-century English and understanding of the original languages.


3. Neglect of Textual Criticism:

Scientific Study: Textual criticism is a rigorous academic discipline that employs scientific methods to analyze and evaluate ancient manuscripts.   

Majority Text vs. Minority Text: VPP often favors the Majority Text, which is based on the quantity of manuscripts, rather than the quality and reliability of those manuscripts.


4. Denying the Value of Modern Translations:

Improved Understanding: Modern translations benefit from advancements in biblical scholarship, language studies, and textual criticism.

Accessibility: Modern translations are often more accurate and easier to understand than older translations.


Conclusion:

While the Bible is undoubtedly God's Word, it is important to recognize that it has been transmitted through human history. VPP's rigid adherence to a specific translation and its denial of textual criticism can hinder our understanding of Scripture. A more balanced approach that acknowledges the limitations of human transmission and values the insights of textual criticism is essential for a deeper appreciation of God's Word.   


Verbal Plenary Preservation (Part 1)

The doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) asserts that every word of the Bible has been perfectly preserved by God, without any loss or alteration, from the original manuscripts to the present. However, critics argue that this doctrine has several errors and issues:


1. Textual Variants**: There are numerous textual variants among different manuscripts of the Bible. These differences suggest that the text has not been perfectly preserved, as VPP claims.


2. Historical Evidence**: Historical evidence shows that scribes made errors, intentional changes, and omissions over centuries. This contradicts the idea of perfect preservation.


3. Translation Differences**: Different Bible translations often have variations in wording and meaning, which raises questions about the preservation of the exact words.


4. Lack of Original Manuscripts**: We do not have the original manuscripts (autographs) of the Bible, only copies (apographs). This makes it difficult to verify the claim of perfect preservation.


These points highlight some of the challenges and criticisms faced by the doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation. 


Preserved to vowels, jots and tittles?

What is YHWH?

YHWH is the most sacred name of God in Judaism. It's a four-letter Hebrew name, often referred to as the Tetragrammaton.   

The name YHWH is often associated with God's self-existence and eternal nature.  It's a profound and mysterious name that has been revered for millennia. God has given us His name, which is written in the Hebrew Bible as YHWH, and He wants us to speak it correctly, know it, learn it, memorize it, and write it on our forearm and curve in our heart. 

So, YHWH appears over 6,000 times in the Hebrew Scriptures, primarily in the Torah (the first five books of the Bible) and other historical books. Vowels were not originally written in the Hebrew Bible, and this includes the name YHWH.

The exact pronunciation of YHWH has been lost to history, it is not preserve, as ancient Hebrew was written without vowels. The most common pronunciation today is "Yahweh" or "Yahveh".   

Due to its sacredness, many Jews avoid pronouncing YHWH aloud and substitute it with the word "Adonai" (Lord) or "HaShem" (The Name).   

Since the ancient Hebrew alphabet did not include vowel markings, so the precise pronunciation of YHWH was lost over time. Masoretic Texts, which were compiled around the 7th–10th centuries CE, included vowel points for many words but intentionally left YHWH without them, to avoid inadvertently pronouncing the sacred name.

We may not know the actual original pronunciation until now. The pronunciation of God's name is not preserve.

The vowels are not maintained in the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible). The vowels are not preserve.

The vowels are inserted later in the sixth and seventh centuries CE.

Please don't dispute about these vowels, jots, or tittles. 

Are you still so blind as to want a perfect Bible?

There is no room for Verbal Plenary Preservation in the presence of God!

Psalm 12:6-7

Psalm 12:6-7 (ESV) reads: 6  The words of the Lord are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times. ...