Skip to main content

Trusting Bible Manuscripts

When pondering ancient texts, people wonder why we should trust biblical manuscripts. After all, we do not have the originals. We do have copies that have been passed down through time. Lots of them. In fact, there are far fewer copies of works by Plato, Caesar, and other ancient writers, and there is a tremendous gap between when they were written and the oldest manuscripts — and people trust their authenticity for some reason. What makes the Bible more reliable?


People wonder why we should trust the Bible since the manuscripts are so ancient. There are many reasons to be certain that God has preserved his Word.
Section of P-45 Greek papyrus manuscript of the Gospel of Luke via Wikimedia Commons
It has been suggested that since people tend to worship and idolize things, God has not made the originals available. That may also be the reason the body of Moses was buried by God (Deuteronomy 34:5–6). For that matter, I heard someone say that if a miracle happened on a particular spot, people would adore the spot instead of the one who performed the miracle. I'll allow that this is all speculation, but it makes sense.

Biblical manuscripts have been found that date way back yonder, and older copies have been discovered as well. When compared, there are no significant differences, and nothing has ever contradicted major Christian doctrines. Jewish scribes took their work very seriously, and it wasn't just a matter of corralling several manuscripts and picking those based on personal preference, nor was it like a supervisor tossing a copy on a desk and telling the scribe, "Here, copy this. And try not to spill your soy latte on it this time!" It was a sacred duty. Also note that Christians do not attempt to hide known variations. That is why you will see footnotes in your Bibles.

Those ancient scrolls are mighty fragile. One was recently "read" through imaging technology. The scroll is essentially the same as what is available today.

There is an area of scholarship called textual criticism where manuscripts are evaluated. (This is not to be confused with higher criticism, which utilizes circular reasoning based on secularist presuppositions.) It has been shown that God has indeed preserved his Word.
Why does my reference Bible have notes at the bottom of the page that say things like “Some manuscripts add . . .” or “some early manuscripts omit . . .”?
This is not a minor issue. Headed by Bart Ehrman, a growing movement claims that we cannot be sure what the original Bible said.
First off, there is no other ancient literature so well attested by so many manuscripts (handwritten copies of the original text) over such a length of time, as the Christian’s Bible. But since we don’t have the originals, written by Isaiah or Paul for example, would the many copies made over the years introduce thousands of mistakes, as Erhman and others believe?
Let’s check it out so you know what to say next time someone makes this claim.
To read the rest or download the audio, click on "Trusting the Text". The author is Brian H. Edwards, and you may be interested in some of his related material, here.



Popular posts from this blog

Andy Stanley, Frank Turek, and Bad Theology

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Andy Stanley has been disappointing some people, and causing quite a few to be alarmed by his opposition to the authority of Scripture. (Note: Do not be confused.  Charles  Stanley is his father, senior pastor of First Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia, and heard on In Touch Ministries . I've found most of his teachings to be doctrinally sound, and he upholds the inerrancy and authority of the Bible.) Unfortunately, megachurch director Andy Stanley has been saying things that are destructive to the truth, including recommending the false teaching of theistic evolution. Gray wolf image credit: US National Park Service While shooting from the hip can be a good thing, someone claiming the title of pastor should reign himself in . Stanley was disrespectful of small churches, then apologized later . In another instance, " What  did he just say?", Stanley may have used a very bad word in a sermon. When the segment was legally posted on YouTube

A Cowboy Bible?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Before I get going on this, I'd better clarify something, even though many of my regular readers (and podcast interview listeners) know: my "cowboy" moniker is not earned. It's a nickname I picked up a few years ago, and it shows my cowboy attitude. I don't know nothin' 'bout no hayburners; tell me to saddle up a horse and ride, I'd probably get kicked, fall off, and land in poo. So, I need a guide. Yes, I lived in the West — the west side of Michigan. Anyway, being a cowboy at heart has helped me get things done. My father had a cowboy attitude as well, which is something I learned from testimonials at his funeral. Anyway, adding some Western-style lingo in posts and articles adds color and personality, I reckon, even though I usually have a conversational style for the most part. Assembled from components at Clker Clip Art A while back, I was looking for cowboy Bibles and came across the " Simplified Cowboy Versio

Poor Excuses for Rejecting Creation

So often with various kinds of conversion experiences where people get all worked up about something — then the excitement cools. Books are untouched on the shelves, no interest in lectures (videos or otherwise), but they have a smattering of knowledge. Image source before modification: Pixabay /  Spencer Wing This is especially sad when someone believes in Jesus Christ but then falls away (Matt. 13:18-23). In a similar way, someone can become excited about biblical creation science but get discouraged and distracted by philosophies, intimidated by militant atheists, harassed by college professors, teased by friends, and so on. There are some who claim to be "former creationists" that have saddled up to ride with the Old Earth brand (or even with professing atheists), but when they have discussions with knowledgeable creationists, it is discovered that they only had superficial knowledge of biblical creation science. Worse, their theology (which is intertwined with it) is als