"Has the Bible been corrupted, altered or edited?"

[Garland-Green]

Answer: The books of the Old Testament were written from approximately 1400 B.C. to 400 B.C. The books of the New Testament were written from approximately A.D. 40 to A.D. 90. So, anywhere between 3400 to 1900 years have passed since a book of the Bible was written. In this time, the original manuscripts have been lost. They very likely no longer exist. Also during this time, the books of the Bible have been copied again and again. Copies of copies of copies have been made. In view of this, can we still trust the Bible?

When God originally inspired men to write His Word, it was God-breathed and inerrant (2 Timothy 3:16-17; John 17:17). The Bible nowhere applies this to copies of the original manuscripts. As meticulous as scribes were with the replication of the Scriptures, no one is perfect. As a result, minor differences arose in the various copies of the Scriptures. Of all of the thousands of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that are in existence, no two were identical until the printing press was invented in the A.D. 1500s.

However, any unbiased document scholar will agree that the Bible has been remarkably well-preserved over the centuries. Copies of the Bible dating to the 14th century A.D. are nearly identical in content to copies from the 3rd century A.D. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, scholars were shocked to see how similar they were to other ancient copies of the Old Testament, even though the Dead Sea Scrolls were hundreds of years older than anything previously discovered. Even many hardened skeptics and critics of the Bible admit that the Bible has been transmitted over the centuries far more accurately than any other ancient document.

There is absolutely no evidence that the Bible has been revised, edited, or tampered with in any systematic manner. The sheer volume of biblical manuscripts makes it simple to recognize any attempts to distort God’s Word. There is no major doctrine of the Bible that is put in doubt as a result of the minor differences that exist between manuscripts.

Again, the question, can we trust the Bible? Absolutely! God has preserved His Word despite the unintentional failings and intentional attacks of human beings. We can have utmost confidence that the Bible we have today is the same Bible that was originally written. The Bible is God’s Word, and we can trust it [2 Timothy 3:16; Matthew 5:18].

gotquestions.org  

[Different...Very.]

But what about the various versions? Do you think it's ethical/blasphemous for King James to have told his men to make the changes he made to how the Bible was written? And then the New International Version... is it really alright to alter the wording the way these various versions do?

I almost want to say that the way the Bible is written is the way Shakespeare is written: If you change anything about it, it's not at all what the author intended. Shakespeare has his couplets, rhyme schemes, repetitions, etc that make the works of art what they are. When an actor forgets a line, paraphrases it, or mixes lines up, it's different, possibly no longer as powerful.  

[Garland-Green]

Different...Very.

But what about the various versions? Do you think it's ethical/blasphemous for King James to have told his men to make the changes he made to how the Bible was written? And then the New International Version... is it really alright to alter the wording the way these various versions do?

I almost want to say that the way the Bible is written is the way Shakespeare is written: If you change anything about it, it's not at all what the author intended. Shakespeare has his couplets, rhyme schemes, repetitions, etc that make the works of art what they are. When an actor forgets a line, paraphrases it, or mixes lines up, it's different, possibly no longer as powerful.

The reason why King James commissioned Bible translators was because of the commentaries of the Geneva Bible, which was the most popular Bible around those days, and it was for a long time even after the King James Bible. The King James translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England. In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus.

In discussing in what respect the Bible -- or any translation of it -- can be the Word of God, we must distinguish between the inspiration of the text of the original manuscripts and the inspiration of the wording chosen by a translator working with another language. I don't think it was blasphemous of King James to have it commissioned. The primary difference between the translations is the marginal commentary (and commentaries are interpretations - in addition to the given text. It is important to remember that when reading commentaries. They need not be true) which is present in the Geneva translation but nonexistent in the King James Version. Another is the Old Testament translations--the Geneva Bible is translated from the original Hebrew and Greek while the King James version relied heavily upon previously printed English translations.

We can't read Hebrew, so naturally it has to be translated from the original text. So we should appreciate having it in our own language. Language is living, but so is the Bible. For the average Bible reader reading the Bible is about understanding God's will, not so much the structure of sentences and the Bible as an artistic expression. Even with all these translations we have the original manuscripts to compare our Bibles to as a safeguard. With that being said; every major belief of Christianity can be just as easily proven from the Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Version, or the New International Version, as from the King James.

The greatest strength of the New International Version is its readability. The NIV is rendered in smoothly flowing and easy-to-read English. One weakness of the NIV is that it occasionally delves into interpretation rather than strict translation, which is the very problem that has brought us the 2011 NIV. In the NIV, some passages are translated with more of a “this is what the translator thinks the text means” instead of “this is what the text says.” In many instances, the NIV likely has a correct “interpretation” but that misses the point. A Bible translation should take what the Bible says in the original languages and say the same thing in the new language, leaving the interpretation to the reader with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

So what then of all the translations? Does it matter?
Some translations are easier to read and more accurate
in their translation from the original text and convey the message better,
but it is in the end up to the reader which translation he/she picks. God is in control no matter the language of the Bible you decide to read. We have the Holy Spirit also to guide us in situations like this.

There are different translation methodologies for how to best render the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into English. Some Bible versions translate as literally (word-for-word) as possible, commonly known as formal equivalence. Some Bible versions translate less literally, in more of a thought-for-thought method, commonly known as dynamic equivalence. All of the different English Bible versions are at different points of the formal equivalence vs. dynamic equivalence. The New American Standard Bible and the King James Version would be to the far end of the formal equivalence side, while paraphrases such as The Living Bible and The Message would be to the far end of the dynamic equivalence side.

The advantage of formal equivalence is that it minimizes the translator inserting his/her own interpretations into the passages. The disadvantage of formal equivalence is that it often produces a translation so woodenly literal that it is not easily readable/understandable. The advantage of dynamic equivalence is that it usually produces a more readable/understandable Bible version. The disadvantage of dynamic equivalence is that it sometimes results in “this is what I think it means” instead of translate “this is what it says.” Neither method is right or wrong. The best Bible version is likely produced through a balance of the two methodologies.  

[Robotic Chewie2590]

Different...Very.

But what about the various versions? Do you think it's ethical/blasphemous for King James to have told his men to make the changes he made to how the Bible was written? And then the New International Version... is it really alright to alter the wording the way these various versions do?

I almost want to say that the way the Bible is written is the way Shakespeare is written: If you change anything about it, it's not at all what the author intended. Shakespeare has his couplets, rhyme schemes, repetitions, etc that make the works of art what they are. When an actor forgets a line, paraphrases it, or mixes lines up, it's different, possibly no longer as powerful.

No Liars In Heaven
The Attack
Bible Comparisons