And so it's like, why would you want to build a faith on something that's not true? You know, my faith is just as strong and I have no problem facing the truth about the manuscripts. It's like I just see a brilliant God. You know, who, who, who... He knew his word was going to be translated into hundreds of languages, and so it couldn't be dependent on the wording in the Greek, the precise wording, because then the whole world, only a little group of people would actually have his word.
You know. David Bercot welcome back to the Anabaptist Perspectives podcast. Good to be back on Reagan. All right. So we have done a number of episodes with you on various topics. And there's one that you did a, I don’t know, a lecture or something. It's been quite a while ago. I think you might still be able to find it on the, on your website. I'm not sure. And we haven't touched on this one yet just because it is fairly controversial, but we want to dive into it. So here, here we go.
So there are some people who claim we can't trust the Bible because ancient manuscripts don't all say the same thing, you know, textual variants between the different manuscripts, particularly, you know, New Testament say, so then some people will also say, well, therefore we can't really know what the Bible originally said or what those texts originally meant. You know, really common one would be like Bart Ehrman or something who says, well, therefore Christianity is false.
And so he leaves Christianity. He writes all these books about it. So let's let's jump into this one, and this can get a little sticky. And I think we should maybe qualify this with we're not, you know, textual variant, you know, experts. It's not like we, you know, study this, you know, extensively. But there are some, some principles here that that I think we should, we should tear into. So let's start with saying, well, what exactly are manuscripts?
What do biblical scholars mean when they're saying these things? Let's let's lay some groundwork as we dig into this. Okay. So I think we're talking about New Testament manuscripts, here. So usually the, the term is used to mean a handwritten copy of the New Testament. In other words, before the invention of the printing press, or maybe before Erasmus's, edition of the Greek text, which was after the printing press was invented.
So when Erasmus put together a Greek text, then it could be printed on printing presses, and then people could use it to translate the Bible, which is exactly what they did do. So before that, monks, I think, were mainly the ones who did it, but before the monks, it was other Christians. They would sit and hand copy The new Testament, word for word. And of course, what that does, I don't know if you've ever looked at a, copy of a New Testament Greek manuscript. It was all run together.
They didn't separate their words, and they didn't use punctuation. They didn't have sentences. It's all run together. So imagine sitting there and copying the whole New Testament and, not missing a letter anywhere in there. It would be. I'd say, probably humanly impossible. Now, God, if he had chosen, could have miraculously prevented, changes from happening. But we know he didn't do that.
There are over 5000 Greek manuscripts in the New Testament, which the New Testament was written entirely in Greek. So we've got 5000 manuscripts now, those are not all complete. So some of them are just like, say, the book of John or part of the Book of John or something like that. I don't know how many we have of the entire New Testament. It's in the thousands. I'm pretty certain of of that. So let's just say there's, you know, 5000 when we, count the, incomplete ones.
It's actually closer to 6000. I know that much. So no, two read precisely alike. Out of all of that, which, again, when we look at how what they were working with it, that's no surprise. I mean, I don't I don't know how you could copy all of that and never make a mistake as a, as a as a human. And sometimes maybe someone was reading it to you and you're writing it down, and words often will have the same will sound similarly, but it's two different words.
In English we call them homonyms where It sounds the same, but it's spelled differently. It's two different words that. So yeah. So I'm sitting here and you're reading it to me and I hear you say this. I might misunderstand you. Or it might be a case of a homonyms and I, I write down this word, and you meant that word. So that's how these variations would come in. So someone says, this author, I have not read him that.
Well, see, it shows the Bible can't be of God or else it would all read the same. You wouldn't have these variations. Well, this is a remarkable thing when you think of, like I say, 5000, you know, or close to 6000 manuscripts or parts of manuscripts that with all of those little changes and little, you know, goofs, typos, you might say, said they were they weren't using a typewriter. The message is the same. I mean, there is no doctrine that is changed by any of those variations.
I mean, it is the same message no matter which manuscript you use. So now you tell me if that's not of God. Yeah. How do you end up with that? That you you, he lets humans be humans. He allows them to make, you know, little mistakes. And yet, yeah, the mistakes are so few that in the end, you don't have several different gospels, several different New Testament messages. It's, you know, so right now I'm, I use the new King James.
Okay. It's based on the Textus Receptus, you know, for my New Testament, I often, for, different reasons will compare. And I'll use the ESV, the English Standard version. You know, it is so rare that there is any difference. I'm usually just looking for a difference in translation of how they express it. But a difference in meaning, that almost never exists.
And yet they are from two different text families you know, one is from the critical text, the ESV, and this is from the Textus Receptus, you know, so as I said, these variations are usually very small. And normally because we have this large group, you can usually figure it out and see where, oh, so he's copying. And he looked down. And when he went back to the one he was using to copy from, he skipped a line down. He was, you know, the his last word was say, the.
And he looked back down. He saw the and he skipped there. And by comparing it with other manuscripts, you can see, oh, he left that sentence out, you know. So most of these things we can, you know, put it back together. Now, do we know word for word how it was originally each of those, letters in the New Testament? No, we we do not know for a certainty that we will talk about the implications of that. And some Christians would say, oh, we we do.
I think just being intellectually honest, we don't know. Now, the interesting thing is, as you know, my field of scholarship is not New Testament manuscripts. It's the early Christians. And they were aware of this. Those variations, the variations we have, the, the, the large ones, most of them are like I say, or just the spelling of a word, spelling of somebody's name, a word like maybe it says Lord Jesus here. And then this manuscript just says, Jesus is like,
you know, it doesn't change a single thing. But, I mean, it would if this manuscript never has the Lord Jesus. But yeah, it does it just in that particular sentence, you know. these variations, they were all there, the major ones before the year 200. So interesting. So pretty early on. Okay. Because I was going to say that that was definitely something I wanted to ask is like, well, what did the early church think of this? Right. You know, so what did they say?
Like, it's funny just how they think differently than a modern day person who was like, Tertullian will say, such and such. And he’ll say, some, some manuscripts say blah, blah, blah, you know, big deal. They didn't really big deal. The only one who really got into it and made a science of it was Origen. He's usually considered the first, New Testament manuscript scholar, because he wanted he wanted to see what was the original.
He was hoping maybe he could figure out what was the original wording, but all he could do was, you know, make a list. Well, these ones read this way, and then these ones read this way. And he he talks a lot about, you know, which one he thinks is correct and why he's he's also considered the first textual, critic, but in no way affected his faith. It's like often it's, you know, a location. It says this town. Another one says this town because it's a word. It's a letter. Different.
Usually it's just often like a letter, difference. So big deal. What difference does it make? It doesn't change the message. So what? You know, maybe I don't know if there was a time in my life that knowing these variations stumbled me. I think from childhood, I think from when I was very little, I knew that these manuscripts differed. So I don't think it ever came as a shock to me. But I have wondered, well, why did God allow this? Like I say, he didn't allow it to change any doctrine.
But as I pondered it more and this is human reasoning, so I may be totally mis guessing the thing, you know, but if he had preserved it perfect, let's say, you know, each of these Greek manuscripts read exactly the same. Or we actually had Paul's original. So, you know, it was preserved somehow in a cave. And, and we knew for certain this was it, you know, so we knew beyond a doubt. This is how this, book of the New Testament originally read.
Okay. What that would create would mean it's only God's Word if you read it in Greek. Because the minute you translate it, you have to change something. There are no two languages that you that are word for word. You know, this language has this word and this language has the exact same word. There are no two languages where you can do that. So anytime you translate, you automatically have to make decisions.
Choices. What word should I use to translate this Greek word, etc.. So then you'd have a situation that that is God's word, but the minute you translate it, it's not God's word. Whoa. Okay. So that's, that's fascinating because that's one of the cornerstones of something like say Islam. And so if you pick up a copy of the Quran and it's in English, it won't say it's a translation, it will call it a commentary because they know, oh, it's been translated. Right.
So therefore it's not the original because in their doctrine it would be this is I mean, exactly what, you know, Allah handed down and you cannot translate it. I never thought that of that. But that makes a lot of sense. I can see what you're saying because knowing human nature, I can imagine people doing the same thing. If you had an original. Yeah. Okay. And that happened with me with the Quran. I was, speaking at, it was a small group of students at, Penn State.
It was on, how we know God exists, and anyway, several the people who attended were, Muslim, because they were interested in hearing, proofs for God's existence. The same as, you know, Christians are. So afterwards, oh, well, before it started, I was looking around. They have a building there that's like a, a religious building has got Buddhists and has got, you know, you know, everything. And so I saw it there in the hall there was a stack of Qurans,
you know, in English. And, you know, they were to hand out. So I helped myself to one and I had it there, and it was just on a stack. I had a notebook and everything. So anyway, during the lunch break or whatever, I'm talking to this guy and he says he's, he's, Muslim. And and suddenly we mentioned the Quran and I looked down.
And I know in Islam, if you've got a Quran, it's got to be the highest book in the room, you know, and here I have it down under, you know, my Bible and then some notebooks and everything. And I immediately said, oh, I'm sorry if that's offensive to you. Yeah. I didn't mean to be offensive. He said, that's no problem. That's not the Quran. That's just a English, you know, translation and and yeah, it's like, yeah. So yeah, this isn't the Bible. If we had Paul's original in Greek.
Well, this isn’t the Bible, this is just a translation. But yeah. So you would have to but it gets more complicated. You'd have to know New Testament Greek, but you'd have to know it as a native speaker. I mean, you can study it now, but there's nobody today who speaks Koine Greek the way somebody did in the first century. You know, there's they study it as a second language.
But there's a big difference between being a native speaker and, somebody who's learning it, particularly 2000 years later. So we would still not know exactly what Paul meant, because the language has changed over the years. And we'd have to be have to be guessing. But it would mean everybody to share the gospel. Yeah, they've got to learn Koine Greek. And see that's not what God wanted. So the Bible is a book that from I mean, the earliest it got translated into Latin.
We were talking about that in a earlier session, how, the Latin translation of the Bible, one of the verses, they mistranslated a, a couple of words there. And, you know, we can correct it now, but it, it affected, some doctrine in that translation. So translations are imperfect. But he got translated right away. They never thought that. Okay. The Greek is this magical language. No, it got translated into Aramaic right away.
It wasn't too long before it was in Coptic and then Armenian and and so on. I mean, that was a mindset from the beginning. This gets translated. We don't worship the words on the page. We worship the message. And so God's Word is his message. It's not the exact, precise words. And so that's by choice. And so I think it's why he didn't want any of those manuscripts to read. Exactly the same. Because he's trying to get across to us. Dude, it's the message that I want you to focus on.
Don't be worshiping these words. And yet I didn't I didn't allow enough change in there that you have to worry about is maybe the message is different. No, the message is the same in all the manuscripts. So, you know, God's God's, his his ways are just always, you know, smarter than ours and things that we think. Because I always thought, well, if I was God, I would have preserved that. And yeah, he saw the trap that that would have created. Now, this is my answer.
And, you know, I may get to heaven and say, Dave, you got that all wrong. You. This is the reason I didn't do this. So so this is just, you know, how I thought through the the problem and realize it wasn't a problem. so the ones like the King James only people and and you know, I'm using the new King James. When I did the Romans commentary, we were talking about that, I actually use the the King James because there's a copyright issue with the new King James.
They they will not let you use it for a commentary unless you get written permission and pay them, you know, some kind of royalty or something like that. So I had to go back to the original King James and I did that with the Matthew commentary and then with the the Romans. And I really grew in respect for the King James. I mean, those translators did a tremendous job. now I'm not into archaic English. You know, I didn't grow up with the King James. And so the archaic English is.
Yeah, I don't enjoy wrestling with it. But as far as their they weren't, inerrant. Some King James people would want to make the King James inerrant. The problem is we have several editions of the King James. You know, it was 1611, but then I think there was 1 in 1614. And the one that's usually used today is from, the 1700s. And then it's been, you know, changed a little bit from that. Yes. Yeah. 1800s.
So it's like, well, which one I mean, if it's going to depend on every little word or something like, like that, but if it's the message, it doesn't matter. But I do want a Bible translation that is not loose. I don't like paraphrases. I don't like where they say, well, we're translating it. Thought for thought. Well, you don't necessarily know Paul's thought when you say thought for thought, what you mean is what I think Paul was saying. And that's what I'm translating.
Well, just hey, give me the words and let me do the interpreting, you know, don't don't you do the interpreting for me. Just how did Paul say it? You know, and so I like the King James. It's fairly literal. You know, the ESV does a good job, too. They claim to be more literal than the King James, well, yeah. Yeah, I don't know. That's a subjective thing. I would say the King James is more literal, just from working with the two and looking at them. But I do appreciate a more literal translation.
So yeah, the King James is great in that regard. I'm not knocking it, but to imagine that those translators had the precise Greek manuscript, because it's based on Erasmus made three different Greek New Testaments So he. okay, so what's with, this is Textus Receptus we're talking about now. Right. Which so Textus Receptus manuscript which is the Koine Greek New Testament which you can still buy it, you know, today. That's, that's what the King James is based on. Right. Just to make sure we get.
Okay, make sure I got our context here. Okay. The Textus Receptus is is an inflated name. It sounds like, oh the received text or something like that. It's just so Erasmus, like I say, you had these handwritten ones and he wanted to get a Greek text and have it printed and, but when he went to do it, he only had like two good manuscripts to work from, and they were pretty late.
I mean, like, I couldn't tell you the exact year, but let's say the 1300s and 1200, something like that, a long, a long ways removed from when the Bible was written. And I think somebody else was working on getting one printed, too. And so he was in a somewhat of a rush. I want to get this out before this other person does. So he took these two. But, he neither one of them had the, the last part of revelation in them.
And so he had he then took the Latin Vulgate, which is a Latin translation, and he took the Latin and translated it back into Greek so he could, you know, make a Greek manuscript. He also took a passage in acts that's not in any Greek manuscript. I mean, any you know, we mentioned there's over 5000. None of them have this particular sentence. It's not theologically important in acts, but it was in the Latin Vulgate that Catholics were used to reading.
So he stuck it in there, even though there is no Greek manuscript that has that, you know. So. Well, then he revised it. There was a second edition and that's what if and don't on on any of this. I'm going by memory so I may have, you know, something a little bit off, if my memory serves me correct. It was his second edition that Luther used and that I think Tyndale maybe used.
But Luther, I'm almost certain, used his second edition and then the third one is the one that the King James is based on. So, Okay. Yeah. It's so you so for so I mean, since you brought it up. Right, we can just plow right into this King James only thing because I know people will be, you know, what does David Bercot think about that. Right.
And again, it's not something we've talked about on the podcast before, but essentially for someone who would say King James, only, you would have to say that Erasmus was inspired when he put that manuscript together. Am I tracking correct or is that I mean, that feels like a pretty, pretty, gargantuan claim to me. Then you'd have to decide. So which of the three was he inspired on?
So if the King James is the inspired one, then Luther's is not, because, you know, one was made from his third, the King James, if I've got it right and one was made from his second, so you're having to say it wasn't. What about Tyndale? What about Wycliffe? What about I mean, what do you start doing with all of this?
If you're saying, well, this is the Bible and that the other thing is, if the King James were and I'm just talking about the New Testament, were the exact Bible, we would have to say there is no Greek manuscript in existence anywhere in the world that has the New Testament in it, because there is no Greek manuscript that reads exactly like the Textus Receptus. It was a conflation of several manuscripts. Oh, I see what you're saying. So it's not like it exists as a whole.
He's pulling together pieces. There is no single manuscript that reads like the Textus Receptus. So you have to say it got lost. And like you say, you're going to have to say Erasmus was inspired by God, who usually the King James People don't like Erasmus, but you'd have to say he was inspired by God to find the exact right ones and put them together precisely correctly to get the original wording. Oh yeah. Yeah. Wow. So but but see here's okay.
So one of the challenges though is people don't like ambiguity necessarily. And I'm saying this very broadly speaking. But you know, I have interacted quite a bit with, with some people on the King James only, world. So well, let me just read the one of the questions here. I think I might have it written better than than I can say it, but, so some people would insist that this kind of textual variation that we're talking about, means we don't have reliable access to God's teaching in Scripture.
So those basically kind of attempting to deny the historical complexity that's involved in the New Testament text. But then you could flip it around and say that there are liberals or skeptics who claim that the Bible was drastically changed. So then we can't know what it really said either. And so how do we respond to those concerns?
It's kind of like you have two wildly opposite extremes where, like you say, Bart Ehrman on one side is like, I'm going to leave Christianity because there's variation in these manuscripts all the way on the way other side, you have someone saying, if it's not the King James, it's not God's Word or whatever, take your pick of whatever is said.
Yeah, what ends up, what scares me or what worries me is a young person hearing that, it'd be pretty easy to get pulled around with those extremes, and I could well, actually just heard of one, you know, just within the last week of a young person who walked away from Christianity because they heard some of this stuff from, oh, this is the only like they're like, this is the true word of God.
And then they ran into some of the stuff from Bart Ehrman and says, well, there are some variations and it through them for a loop. And they couldn't handle that because they had been told, like, there can't be any variation. And then when they were shown, here is some variation in these manuscripts, they left, they lost their faith. Over that. So how do we, kind of a long, convoluted question, but how do we wrestle with these two pretty opposite extremes, you know?
So you know certainly the answer isn't like a parent who tells their children there's a Santa Clause, you know, and then when the child gets older and realizes there isn't, then they don't trust their parent. You know, you tell them that. The truth is, I mean, I don't think we get into Santa Claus, but. Yeah. So, yeah, if you're honest with your children and if pastors are honest with the congregation and if we as a people are honest about things, then you don't have that happen.
Like I say, I think I knew from the time I was a little boy that there were variations. So it never was an issue to me because, you know, I wasn't told, oh, we have the exact thing. And then later I found out we we didn't just hey, just be honest from the start. Now, in answer to the other one, well, we don't know what's true. Well, see, it shows there was no collusion.
I mean, if you had 5000 manuscripts that were exactly the same, it would certainly look like people got in the back room and, you know, let's make sure this is this, you know, when they vary. And yet the message doesn't vary, then yeah, it shows that, okay, we can know what the message was because we have all of these independent witnesses. The fact that they don't read precisely the same shows that they're independent. And yet the message is the same throughout them.
The variations are so insignificant that, hey, it does show we can rely on on the message. And again, because it doesn't depend upon the exact wording, we can translate it into, you know, languages that are really different than Greek. You know, like, you know, some language on an island somewhere, let's say in the South Pacific, that, you know, it's from a different language family that doesn't even have any roots. The same with Greek, but you can still translate it because it's the message.
But the words are going to be, you know, very different. But see this the thing that is so silly about that is we have over 40,000 denominations and sects and, you know, these independent megachurches and all of that. And the majority of them were around when everyone used the King James. So, in other words, what difference does it make, even if you had the precise Bible, if people interpret it differently, it's not going to change how you interpret it.
You still going to have so and unless we have Paul with us to say this is how you should interpret it, we're still in the same situation because the variation isn't because they use different translations, it's because they interpret the existing one different, even Jehovah's Witnesses, you know, now they have this, you know, their own translation and stuff. But when they started, they were using the King James. That was yeah, that was their Bible.
And their doctrinal all was developed using the King James. So maybe this is a bit of a, a smokescreen or or or something. I don't know, I'm trying to think the right terminology. If we get fixated on, oh, there can't be any variation in manuscripts when really you're saying, hey, you know, there's a lot of diversity just in humans interpreting things differently. I mean, I honestly, I hadn't really thought about that before. That makes a lot of sense though.
then and also with translation, you know, so, it's like I say we need to focus that God's Word is his message. It's not the exact thing. And yet there's so little variation, even with 5000 plus manuscripts, that we can be confident what we have is very similar to what the apostles wrote. And so that, you know, to me is comforting. One reason I use, you know, the, I use the new King James because, again, archaic English is not I didn't grow up with it. Is it's the fullest.
So with all these manuscripts, some of them contain incidents like the woman who was caught in adultery has become really famous. None of the early Christians mentioned that incident. Really. And none of the early Bible, none of the the earliest manuscripts don't mention it. Okay. It's now become one of the most popular because people like Jesus saying, you know, you know, whoever has no sin cast the first stone. We like that part.
And I'm, you know, I don't know, but what I like about the Textus Receptus or the majority text. Right now, there's a group of Anabaptists, working on translating the Bible using the majority text Interesting. Wait, is that similar to the Textus Receptus? Very similar So the Textus Receptus would be in the majority text family. It's just it's taking a few of those manuscripts and it's based on that, where the majority text would be taking the large group and saying how how did the majority read?
And then majority doesn't always follow the Textus Receptus. There's so little variation it doesn't matter. But the nice thing with the majority text or the Textus Receptus is let's say that that wasn't originally part of the Bible, about the woman caught in adultery, it might still be a true account. In other words, it may be a true narrative. It just wasn't originally in, John's Gospel, but it was true. And so somebody added it later. So how does that change my Christian?
How I live from day to day? It doesn't change anything. What is it? How does it change my view of salvation or my view of the Trinity, or the view of anything? It has no effect on it, you know, and that's one of the larger things that there's I mean, usually it's just, you know, one word that's that's different. That's the whole episode.
But even something that large and that's probably the largest, you know, single episode, it makes no difference in how we live as Christians, that's the irony of it, that people worry about all of these things that don't affect how we live, don't affect, you know, the fundamentals of Christianity. But I was saying so in with the majority text or the Textus Receptus, okay.
It may have some things in there that weren't in the original, I don't know, but I can feel fairly confident that I have everything that was there. I may have a little bit more than was there, but I've got it all. Nothing's missing. Whereas with some of the others like who don't have that in there, well, maybe they're missing it and maybe that was part of it, but usually the other Bibles they put it in. And then just say the early manuscripts don't have that.
So either way you read it and and maybe I should maybe that's going to stumble someone that I brought that up. But again, hey, we should be on truth is never something a Christian should be afraid of, you know? And so if we create these fake things, then when we're hit with truth, it’s going to stumble us.
So we're talking about the Textus Receptus and the King James. So, I know when we were talking in, in private, you were mentioning it, you grew up reading Jack Chick tracks and and things and, and I've read I've had them handed to me jack chick tracks on the, Textus Receptus and the King James. Yeah. The. Oh, yeah, he's got a whole bunch of stuff. But there's one of them. One of his and Jack chick was brilliant.
I mean, I dislike his dishonesty and stuff, but if there's a jack chick track there, I'm likely to pick it up. You know, he knew how to. That people are drawn to animation, you know, and you just pick them up. I mean, you know, I, I will give, you know, give him his due that that he, he was a genius at communicating truths using that. The problem was he did not have a high standard of I'm only going to put out what I know is true and I mean a lot of his stuff. He just makes up absolute lies.
And he does on the one about the Textus Receptus. So I was reading it, it was given to me and according to it, okay, the early Christians had this, and they had the real Bible. Okay. Now it's interesting because like you say, when you read the early Christians, you find all of these variations are there before the year 200 or nearly all of Yeah, I did not know that. That is interesting. Anyways, sorry.
Continue and so then when Constantine created the Catholic Church and all that, then the true Christians, they went and they had the, the original manuscripts and he hid them in a cave. Okay. And and, you know, they kept watch so that that would be preserved. And then the Waldensians got that, and then they translated the Bible, you know, from the real thing. And then that's also what you know, came down to the King James. Well, that is an absolute lie. Nothing like that happened.
Absolutely nothing like that happened in the what is so absurd is we have the Waldensian Bible. I mean, it's still around and it doesn't follow the, the Textus Receptus. I mean, it's like it's like, this is so absurd. You're just you're just lying. You you don't even care about the truth. So when people are moved to that extent that I've got to believe this and I will lie to do it, well, then that should tell you then. Okay, there's something seriously wrong.
Because when we have the actual truth, then we're not scared of new facts that go against it. You know? And we don't make up lies to try to cover them and all of that. We just look things in the face and the, like I say to me, the good news is that, wow, I can be very confident. When I read the New Testament that I'm reading God's Word, you know, and there may be a question about, you know, you know, the woman caught in adultery or something like that.
And it doesn't make one lick of difference on what I, you know, practice what I believe about God and any of the fundamentals of the faith and whether it was in John's account, it could still be an absolutely true story, you know? And so, yeah, it could still be true. And let's just say it's, you know, someone made up a a good sounding story. Okay.
Hasn't done me any harm either, you know? So, yeah, it's actually just looking at the truth and not being scared of it has, you know, definitely worked in my favor. And, of course, I would have discovered all that the minute I started reading the early Christians, I would have noticed. Wow. They quote these things a lot of different ways. You know, they weren't the least bit bothered by that.
You know, it's just like, but that's that's so interesting though, because so many people are bothered by that now, you know, because like, if you if you grow up in a church setting that's like, this is God's word and you're never told that there's any kind of variation in the Greek and all this stuff, and then let's say you go take a college course or whatever, and the professor says, oh, and by the way, duh duh duh, this. You know, that could be extremely disorienting, you know?
And so how how do we how do we walk through that? Like how? Yeah, I don't know. I feel like this could be kind of a real challenge, actually. Like for, for pastors and, and people looking into this and. Yeah, it's just I just feel like I'll just say it again, you know, a Christian should never have to be afraid of the truth.
And if we if we start from the beginning of being honest and, and having a high regard for intellectual and spiritual honesty, then we don't get into these things where, like I said, I hope you don't get a bunch of people angry with you, but if they are, it's like, so what are you angry about? Do you have some facts that are different than what we've just shared here tonight? I can guarantee you they don't.
They'll have jack chick tracks and they'll have some books, you know, published by him and by other people. They will have no facts that are that are different. And so it's like, why would you want to build a faith on something that's not true? You know, my faith is just as strong and I have no problem facing the truth about the manuscripts. It's like I just see a brilliant God. You know, who, who, who?
He knew his word was going to be translated into hundreds of languages, and so it couldn't be dependent on the wording in the Greek, the precise wording, because then the whole world, only a little group of people would actually have his word. You know, and would have to be trying to get all these people to learn You know, and would have to be trying to get all these people to learn Greek, including David Bercot, you know, and, and. And I've studied it, but wow.
It's I'm, I don't take to it easily. That's that's for sure. It's, it's, So yeah, I appreciate that God made his word. So there's enough flexibility that the message can be translated, into different languages. And it's still God's Word because it's still his message. Unless somebody just really messes with it. Like I say, I don't like these these paraphrases. Now that I have a big problem with, you know, give me God's word. Translate it.
Yes, you might have some errors in your translation, but at least try to translate it fairly literally. You can’t translate it absolutely literally. But but as literal as possible. And yeah, then let me work from there. And it's nice that we have several translations. Well, I mean, we have hundreds of them, but we have good ones we can compare and, and see and oh, okay, that can often shed light.
And like I say, I also like looking at how the early Christians quoted things and how they understood the Greek, because often it is very different than, than even the King James. I mean, there's things in the King James that are, well, I, you know, working on the Romans commentary. Do we have time to go into this? So I'm working on it. And this really surprised me because, like I said, I really have a lot of respect for for the King James translators.
And, you know, I was I was using them and comparing with the early Christians and, you know, it just yeah, this is great how the King James has it, you know, and I would compare sometimes with the NIV or something is like, no, the King James translators got it right. You know, because this is how the early Christians are understanding it. And I can't quote it, the chapter and verse, but in there.
Paul says that he's quoting actually from I think it's Isaiah that, God would make a short word on the earth. Okay. Is what he says. But the King James says he would make a short work on the earth. Okay, now that sounds more reasonable than word. It's short work, and it's like I'm reading the early Christians and they're saying word and they they go into an explanation. There's no, you know, wondering, did they maybe is that just a typo?
Because they talk about what that word is, you know, it's the gospel, that it's a short thing compared to the law that has all these commandments. And the gospel is very short. So the short word was the, the gospel. And it's like the King James says, work. Okay. I look at the Textus Receptus, I look at the text and it's the Greek word, there is Logos, which is word. It's not Ergon, which is work. And it's like, what in the world? You had it right in front of you and you changed it.
Now Then I looked at the Tyndale, which was before the King James. It has a short word. I looked at Geneva. All the ones before the King James have word. The Wycliffe, they all have word. And then King James translators put work in there, and it's like, why did you guys do this? Now, the funny thing is then when you go to modern ones that they say a fresh translation from the Greek, then they have short work. It's like, no way. Yeah, I'm not kidding. I'm not kidding.
which ones do you know of any off the top of your head? I'm pretty sure the NIV, ESV, I think. Yeah, check them out. I mean, All right. You're just. This is very important. Do we have any idea which chapter verse this is? Oh, yeah. That's right. Oh, man. Someone's going to dig it up in the comments. And, Well, no, hold on, hold on. Let's let's let's do it. Let's do a quick, let's do a quick search here because, I mean, this is way too important here.
My point wasn’t criticism, It's just that I don't think that these translators were infallible. Just, hey, they did an admirable job, but they were not infallible. You know, they they, change things, not just there. They were several other things as well. You just changed it. There was no reason to change it. It's. I don't think it's a typo. It's just you thought this doesn't make sense. And so we're going to change this okay. But I can just see the comments coming through already.
Like someone is going to still find a way to defend that and be and be like the King James is still the right when you get that comment, forward it to me because I'd like to see I want them to go to the the Textus Receptus where it says word there Logos. And yeah explain that to me how that can mean work. Okay. That I would like to see I'd like to see someone defend that. All right. If, if you're a King James only person or something who would like to.
Because I would. Yeah. Because I know there are cases like that. I have a friend who's does some stuff with Greek and blah, blah, blah. And they say, oh yeah, there, there are different points where it's just like, oh yeah, they just they kind of messed up there. Like you can read in the Greek. It's like, yeah, it pretty clearly means this. And they, you know, they just and some of that is, you know, maybe it was a mistake, maybe it was this, that whatever.
But it was just interesting because if you grow up hearing this is God's word. And then if you have someone later on tell you, oh, yeah, they messed up, depending on who you are, could actually rattle you because if you're not taught this stuff. So anyway, that's kind of why I was like, I feel like this is an important enough topic. You know, we're going to dive into it and, and and it's not again, somebody who has been raised with a King James is and is using it. Hey fine.
Again I'm saying I think it is great now personally, you know, working on these commentaries, when I do see something different in what's in our, you know, like, say the King James or New King James like that, then I always go back to trying to figure out why is it different? And, of course, I haven't done this with the whole New Testament, so I can't say that this rule applies equally.
I have personally found that more often than not, Wycliffe translates it more similar to the early church than anyone after him. So you have Wycliffe, which is the oldest English translation, and I have personally found it to be the most accurate. Even though he didn't translate from Greek, he translated from Latin. And yeah, and it's really I know and I was always told how terrible, you know, that was. And then Tyndale usually is better than the King James and he's, you know, he's earlier.
So it seems like. And then the King James is almost always better than the NIV. So it is interesting. That's just what what I have found going back, you know. And so I like if it matters. But these things only mattered because I was doing a commentary and I, you know, I had to discuss it. I had the the running text had to fit the comments from the early Christians, you know, and when what they were saying didn't fit the text of the King James or whatever. Then then that's when I started digging.
It's like, well, okay, so why are they saying something different here? And then I would find out, oh, they're following the Greek. And for some reason the King James changed it or whomever that's, that is that is just bizarre. Like it's again, it is a small percentage.
I mean, you know, I don't when I read the The King James, I don't normally feel like, oh, I better check this, make sure it's right, you know, because it's, it's it's a very small percentage, but it's enough I think that we should be honest. Look, these guys were not infallible. And they were very dedicated, very learned, but they were not infallible. And for us as Anabaptists, I never understood this coming in when I saw these people, King James only it's like, now, wait a minute.
One of the key teachings of the Anabaptists was you cannot have a state church. That's wicked that a state church is automatically corrupt. Well, the King James Bible was a state Bible. It was commissioned by King James and it was done with his permission, with his backing, with his money, the state money. And it was made the official the only Bible allowed in the English churches. So it was a state Bible.
So it's like, so why would we as Anabaptists latch on to a state Bible, a Bible that's the product of a state church? Now, again, I use it because it's it's like I say, an admirable translation, or I use a modernized version of it, but it's like I don't worship it as the Bible, because if God did give us the Bible, that we have it absolute, he wouldn't do it to a state church. I mean, unless he wants us, unless unless we're all wrong as Anabaptists and that God wants a state church.
You know, I don't think he would work that way. So it is an odd thing, you know, that Anabaptists ought to step back and like, why are we that's a it's kind of a good point. Like, yeah, maybe we should kind of whoa. Okay. Step back. Look at some of the broader context that's going on. Also, I well before we were recording this and we were talking through this episode and things you'd mentioned.
Well, it's like also to keep in mind the Anabaptist movement had been going on Well, it's like also to keep in mind the Anabaptist movement had been going on for like 90 years before the King James translation even existed. So this is it's not even part of our story as a people, which is fascinating. Which what would have they read just out of curiosity? Okay. Luther's translation interesting. So this is what the Amish use today is Luther's Bible.
Oh, okay. That makes sense. Yeah. So yeah, the Anabaptists, I mean, they were still doing German services, you know. Well into the 1800s. So, yeah, they didn't start using the King James until, you know, the last half of the 1800s. So it's like this is very new in our movement. And now we're already worshiping it as the infallible word of God. And it's like, wait a minute. You know, our people were using Luther's Bible for centuries before we started even using the the King James.
Yeah. Wow. This this is just this is this is, an interesting story with a lot of different pieces kind of weaving together, and there's so many different things, and even like the psychology involved in it and how people perceive the Bible and, and, Wow. Yeah, it's kind of a lot to think about. And I'm really curious what the responses are going to be for starters.
But I think one of the takeaways from this is, is maybe taking a step back from some of our biases and actually looking at more of the context. It feels like that's what you've been doing a lot with comparing with some of these other earlier, like pre King James and then even some of this stuff with where the Textus Receptus comes from. That was interesting. I didn't I hadn't really thought about some of that before.
Yeah that's really good. I what is a piece you would want to leave our audience with when we think about these things? Because they are going to run into this. I'm sure the variations between different manuscripts and people will probably be out there trying to convince them. Therefore, Christianity is not real or therefore King James only, or whatever the case may be. There's lots of ideas and opinions. What's something you can that we can leave our audience with?
Let's leave them on solid ground. Yeah. So, years ago. Wow. About 18 years ago, I, I was sharing a message at, with a group of people, in California, and it got into Bible manuscripts, and I thought I was sharing something that they would enjoy. I did not know they were King James, only. Okay. Wow. Did I jump into a hornet's nest. And one of the brothers, I mean, he stood up and said, I want to be able to tell my daughter, you show her the Bible and say, This is God's word.
I want to be able to do that. You know? And so I think the message that I would want to leave with our listeners is, you can do that. You can pick it up whether it is the new King James or the King James or the Tyndale or the Wycliffe, and say, This is God's Word, because God's Word is the inspired message that is in there, and that you can change a word or two here and there, you can translate it differently. It's still God's word. It's still God's word. Yeah, you can corrupt it.
I think some of the translations do corrupt it, but as long as you are being relatively faithful to the manuscripts, it is God's Word. It is a message that is as was prophesied. It's a short word. You know, his his his message to us didn't depend on all these words. We have them. We have things that often we can't understand. Like like Romans, you know, they they're, you know, people going in different directions, but, you know, God's word is there. And it's really a relatively simple message.
You know, I think actually most Christians, you know, get that, that, you know, we don't have to understand all of that. And it doesn't depend on all these verses. It really does come down to a few things. So yeah, this should not weaken someone's faith unless they've been told something that's false. I mean, always tell your people the truth. And you know, we can be confident when I pick it up and read it.
I have every bit of feeling I am reading the Word of God, even though I know I'm reading a human translation. And yes, a word or two. Maybe wrong, but the message is not going to be wrong. That's that's powerful. Yeah. And I hope people after listening to this can can come away with a lot of new information and not like you're saying don't be afraid to, to look at the truth of these things because I'm sure they're going to run into it. You know, like I did.
You know, I went I was in my library and, oh, here's a book about Bible manuscripts. And it was by Bart Ehrman. And he's here saying, oh, you shouldn't believe in Christianity, because these variations and fortunately, I didn't go down that street. But, you know, maybe somebody else will, you know, and that's unfortunate. And hopefully we can give them some tools that they can still trust and, you know, have faith in what God has preserved.
and if any of this has bothered them now, here's where they can do a lot of digging, that there are a lot of books written out there by Bible believing Christians who acknowledge that there's these manuscripts who don't, who don't lie, who none of this has upset them, you know, I mean, you can go and dig this out for you, for yourself. Very few people have walked away from God because of that. Now, even that person who says that's the reason I really wonder.
My own experience is usually been the hypocritical conduct of Christians. It's caused people, if they're going to turn away, it's yeah, that's it more than oh, it's because, you know, there's various manuscripts. I'd say very few have been stumbled over that. A whole lot of people have been stumbled by Christians who don't walk in the teachings of Christ. So I think that's what we really need to focus on.
That's that's a powerful one to, to leave with is we can get fixated on manuscripts and this little variation here and there, but you keep bringing it back to, what's the message that this text, the the Bible is telling us? And then how do we live that out? And how do we be gracious and humble and love our neighbors and all of these other things, too? That's so easy to forget when we want to, insist on our way, I guess.
Yeah, that's that's a powerful piece to leave us with. And, I just want to say thanks for coming on and being willing to tackle this topic because it's controversial. So yeah. Okay. Thank you. David.