The Bible is far and away the best seller on earth every year. Tens of millions are printed annually, and billions of them populate the planet, enough for every man, woman, child, and even a few domesticated animals.

(1) Why is the Bible so popular?

Because myriads of people today believe the Bible contains the actual will of God. No other plausible explanation exists for the astonishing Biblical revelation of scientific facts thousands of years before their "official" discoveries; for the numerous undeniable prophecies that have been incontrovertibly fulfilled - centuries after the original prophecies were made; or for the uncanny harmony of all Biblical authors - in spite of the fact there were 40 of them who wrote in 3 different languages and spanned an incredible 16 centuries.

(2) But does any of this matter if the Bible is not accurate - if it is beleaguered with errors and contradictions?

Bible's Accuracy Under Attack

One thing is certain: Accusations of gross Biblical inaccuracy should be taken seriously, for if these charges are true then Christianity is without doubt the greatest hoax ever foisted upon humanity.

Attacks on the Bible's integrity are by no means a new thing.

Voltaire (1694-1778), the renown French philosopher / agnostic / anti-Christian, predicted within 100 years of his time Christianity would become extinct. Presently, Voltaire appears to be extinct while Christianity continues to explode.
Worse still, within 50 years of Voltaire's death the Geneva Bible Society acquired use of his home as a printing office and distribution center for the very Bibles he so fervently scorned.

(3) The Bible has repeatedly endured and resiliently rebounded from attack after endless attack, but its extraordinary truths, uncanny accuracy, and undeniable prophecies appear to have eternally inoculated it from anything but momentary
setback

50,000 Errors in the Bible?

While millions of people consider the Bible to be the accurate word of God, many others, including some scholars, question whether the Biblical words we read today are the same words penned by the original Biblical authors.

Muslims and other skeptics allege the Bible contains almost 50,000 errors and perhaps over 100 Bible contradictions (examined in the next article).

Their logic is unmistakable: "With so many errors, how can we really trust the Bible's message?"

Even some "Bible believing" Christians question Biblical accuracy. They've been informed by certain credible sources about Biblical inexactness and have thusly concluded that Biblical content should be accompanied with a large grain of
salt - although, they surmise, Biblical principles are probably accurate. Hence, specific Biblical doctrines should not be taken seriously since, they believe, some of the finer details have been lost through time.

Needless to say, such allegations hold huge, perhaps even "religion-changing" implications.

A Closer Look at Biblical Accuracy

In a moment we will show that charges of gross Biblical inaccuracy are grossly untrue. But first let's examine the reasons why some intelligent people make such startling accusations.

The widespread circulation of these allegations is probably due to misunderstanding in 3 areas:

1) Failure to understand how the Bible came into existence,

2) Failure to understand how ancient Bible manuscripts were collected and combined to form a "reconstructed text" from which translations are translated, and misunderstanding how so-called "errors" are counted, and,

3) Failure to understand that, to find truth, one's own motives must not be allowed to cloud rational judgment and honest logic; nor should religious traditions or pre-conceived opinions be allowed to influence one's quest for truth.

Now let's take a closer look at these misunderstandings. (Note: This article will focus on the New Testament portion of the Bible since it is the Christians' primary Guide. However, the concepts following also apply to both the New
Testament and the Old Testament.)

Misunderstanding #1: Failure to Understand How the Bible Came Into Existence

Fortunately, you don't have to climb a telephone pole to make a phone call, or memorize a car manual to operate an automobile. Likewise, you needn't be a connoisseur of textual reconstruction to understand the vital concepts of how we got our modern Bibles: How Biblical books were originally chosen, copied, re-copied, and finally collected to form a reconstructed "original" from which our modern Bibles are translated into various world languages.

Are the Original Biblical Books Gone - And If So, What Are the Ramifications?

The New Testament was originally written in the first century during the height of the most powerful government to ever control the civilized world: the Roman empire. The Romans were a surprisingly advanced society, and writing
technology was no exception.

The 1st century writing material in vogue was papyrus (from which our modern term "paper" is derived). Light and easily transportable, papyrus "paper" was manufactured from the Papyrus reed which grew abundantly in Egypt, Ethiopia, and the Jordan River valley. (4)

Hence, New Testament authors penned the original New Testament books on papyrus. The earliest books of the New Testament were composed around 50 a.d. and were completed about 96 a.d.

But papyrus had its drawbacks. Although abundant and light, it was also somewhat fragile. As a result, it is unlikely any of the original Biblical books have entirely survived. This means it would be extremely difficult for unprincipled individuals to alter the original text, for to do so would require modification of perhaps thousands of copies across the world.

Why Were Only 27 Books Selected to Be "the New Testament?"

Exactly 27 books, written by 9 men probably on papyrus, were collected into one document that we now call "the New Testament." These so-called "books" were actually letters (to individuals and churches), historical documents, and prophetic writings revealing future events. (5)

But why these - and only these - 27 books?

Let's take the Apostle Paul's 2 letters to the church at Thessalonica as an example. At the end of Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians, he instructed them to pass his letter on to all Christians to read. 1st Century Christians apparently obeyed this mandate, since today there exists 5,300 Greek manuscripts (these were handwritten copies containing all or portions of the New Testament - Greek was the original language of the New Testament), and an amazing 19,000 more copies in various other languages, adding up to a whopping 24,000 New Testament manuscripts worldwide (all located in museums and libraries dotting the globe).

Obviously, since 1st century Christians considered Paul's writings sacred, they made copies. Original letters were then passed on to other churches, who made copies of their own. Some Christians - unable to obtain Paul's original letters - probably made their copies from copies - in essence creating second generation copies of the original. This process was repeated for all Biblical books, some of which were specifically addressed to multiple churches (such as the epistles [letters] of Peter, James, and Hebrews) rather than to a single person or church (such as Paul's epistles to Philemon and Timothy). (6)

This means that the original letters of these universally-accepted, inspired Christian writers were copied thousands of times. Each new copy helped ensure the accuracy of the original, since it further eliminated the probability the original could be modified - either inadvertently by careless copyists, or purposefully by unscrupulous individuals - because doing this would require locating and modifying numerous manuscripts.

Naturally, as each of these letters and books were circulated, they were compiled into a collection of sacred writings (called a "canon"). In this manner, early Christians settled on 27 New Testament books written by 9 inspired writers that
became universally accepted as inspired writings which embodied the entirety of God's will. (7)

By 170 a.d., complete sets of the New Testament could be found containing our modern New Testament.

How Can We Be Sure the Manuscripts Were Copied "Mistake-Free?"

Let's face it: Early Christians - regardless of how well-meaning - were not perfect individuals.

True, they considered the original writings of Paul, Peter, and the other Biblical authors to be accurate according to God's will. True, they were careful. They doubtless tried to be accurate. But they were human. And humans make mistakes.

Which leads to a question: If early Christians probably made a few slip-ups, why do modern textual experts consider the Bible to be an essentially accurate document?

Why Do Experts Consider the Bible Accurate?

Plainly, one reason is simply due to the sheer number of Bible manuscripts (24,000). Since there are so many of them, and because their content is so similar (more on this in a moment), scholars believe beyond reasonable doubt the reconstructed Bibles we have today are essentially equivalent to the original. Even if a "bad apple" manuscript existed among the 24,000 - perhaps due to a sloppy copyist or unscrupulous person who tampered with the text - the massive number of copies would make identifying and eliminating the "bad apple" a relatively simple task. And what about all those allegations regarding unscrupulous modifications to Bible manuscripts? There is no reliable historical evidence suggesting such a conspiracy ever took place except in the imaginations of Biblical opponents.

Phillip Schaff wrote: "We possess so many MSS [manuscripts] and are aided by so many versions, that we are never left to the need of conjecture as the means of removing errata [errors]." (Companion to the Greek New Testament and English Version, p. 182)

Another reason scholars have enormous confidence in Biblical accuracy is that early Christians were utterly intolerant of dishonesty. Early Christians were commanded by Christ and Biblical writers - to be absolutely truthful, reliable, and honest in all situations. And all historical evidence seems to suggest they did just that. (8)

And finally, Christians were strictly forbidden to add or take away from God's word in any manner. They deeply believed in the importance of preserving every detail of the entire word of God "exactly as it had been delivered to them." (9) (10)

Thus it should come as no surprise that textual experts consider the Bible to easily be the most well-attested book of antiquity. There are many more surviving manuscripts of the New Testament than there are of any other piece of ancient literature. Outside of Homer's Iliad which has less than 700 surviving manuscripts, no other ancient Greek or Latin work has more than 200 surviving manuscripts, and very few have more than 20. (11)

Misunderstanding #2: Failure to Understand How the Bible Was Reconstructed and "Errors" Are Counted

Since the original 27 New Testament books are probably not in existence, how did textual critics go about reconstructing the original text from all those 24,000 manuscript copies?

Textual reconstruction is actually a simple concept. Older copies, unless sloppily copied, are clearly more valuable since there is less of a chance they possess accidental mistakes (misspelled words, missing lines, skipped words, etc) - and
more of a chance they are first / second / third generation copies of the original. With 24,000 manuscripts, it would be normal to expect insignificant, unintentional mistakes to creep into the text - they would also be extremely easy to identify.

Specialists in manuscript analysis report that copyists were prone to making two types of scribal blunders: First, slightly modifying proper names (especially unfamiliar foreign names), and second, using contemporary numbering systems. In
other words, the vast majority of so-called errors we hear about today were apparently harmless scribal modifications of names (e.g., today the Russian name "Katya" might be translated into English as "Kate" or "Katherine") and conversions
of ancient weights and measures to more easily understandable contemporary systems.

Textual critics call any modification a "variation" or "variant reading."

How Do Textual Experts Count "Errors?"

Since the purpose is to recreate the original text as accurately as possible, textual critics keep track of the number of variations among the manuscripts. It is the manner in which they count these variations that has led to all the modern confusion and misinformation about so-called "Bible errors."

How then do textual critics count variations?

Each variation in every copy is added up by experts. Thus, if a single word was misspelled in an early copy, and 5,000 copies had been made of that one copy, textual specialists would consider this as 5,000 variations, even though the
variations would not change their ability to accurately reconstruct the original whatsoever.

50,000 Errors - Or Less than 10?

Some scholars believe the New Testament contains perhaps from 150,000 to 200,000 variant readings among the 24,000 manuscripts. (12)

That sounds like an enormous number, but 150,000 divided among 24,000 averages to a meager 6 variant readings per manuscript. While this is only an average, it showcases the astonishing accuracy of Bible manuscripts, particularly when one realizes the New Testament contains roughly 250,000 words and well over 1,000,000 letters (although not
all manuscripts contained all New Testament books). When one factors into this the intentional modification of proper names and numbers, the incredible accuracy of the New Testament comes into irrefutably sharp focus.

Thus, the declaration of "50,000 errors in the Bible" leaves a grossly exaggerated impression. Those who make such statements are either purposely attempting to mislead their unsuspecting listeners or are honestly ignorant of the concept of textual reconstruction. It is extremely unlikely modern reconstructed texts contain any significant differences to the original text. Even the staunchest of skeptics have yet to identify a single modified Biblical doctrine attributable to scribal error - or anything else.

Ironically, as each new manuscript is discovered, more validation is given to existing manuscripts - but the total number of variations also increases. In other words, a high number of Bible variations is probably more indicative of the great number of Biblical manuscripts (24,000) than it is of Biblical textual corruption.

(Specific charges of so-called Bible contradictions will be investigated in a coming article.)

What If a "Mistake or Two" Exists in the Reconstructed Text - Can We Really Trust the Bible?

Some people have suggested that, in spite of the incredible accuracy of our modern Bibles by virtue of the many manuscripts we have to work with, there still exists the mathematical possibility, albeit tiny, that an error may have
somehow crept into the final text of what we call "the Bible."

Does that mean we should no longer take seriously the Bible's message?

Consider the following illustration. Imagine for a moment that you somehow found an ancient, hand-written scroll containing a map with instructions to the location of what you believed would be priceless treasures on a sunken ship
somewhere in the Gulf of Mexico. With joyful anticipation you make travel arrangements to locate the treasure when you get a phone call from an expert you've confided in. He has bad news: your map may be a 3rd generation copy of the original, which means there is the tiny possibility it could contain errors.

Would that stop you? Would you suddenly rush out and cancel your plane reservations?

Most sensible people probably wouldn't.

Yet too many today, when it comes to their only valid spiritual map from earth to heaven, are only too eager to flippantly lay aside this priceless Guide for fear of a rare misspelled word. Unfortunately, the consequences for making this fateful decision could be disastrous.

Tossing out the baby with the bathwater is never a good thing.

But What About Bible Translations - Are They Accurate?

If the reconstructed Greek texts are essentially accurate, what about the translations made from those texts? Are they accurate too?

By and large, the answer is a resounding "yes." As far as English Bible translations are concerned, many translators have done an absolutely phenomenal job of paying meticulous attention to detail to ensure that our English Bibles are as
close to the original thought as is humanly possible.

Of course, there are various types of translations on the market. Some define themselves to be mere paraphrases, others have attempted to construct word-for-word translations, and others fall somewhere in between. The bottom line is, serious Bible students probably need multiple translations since comparing translations - just like comparing manuscripts - gives one the greatest opportunity for not "losing anything in the translation."

Misunderstanding #3: Failure to Remove Prejudice and Pre-Conceived Motives From Truth Searching

To find truth, one's own motives must not be allowed to cloud rational judgment and honest logic; nor should religious traditions or preconceived opinions be allowed to influence one's quest for truth. And while some allegations of Biblical errors emanate from honest, misinformed individuals, others show the unfortunate signs of seedy theological motivation.

Muslims are a prime example. Because they actually claim to accept the entire Bible as truth, they find themselves perched in a precarious position: Either they must make a valid historical case that Bible manuscripts have been massively
altered - or they must abandon Islam entirely.

This is because the Bible clearly attests its completeness - in other words, it claims to be the final revelation from God. No other revelations will follow it. This doesn't leave much room for the Koran (or any other such-like "revelation from God") since the Koran came rather late to the party - 500 years late, in fact. And just as bad for Muslims is the Bible's repeated
identification of Jesus as the promised Messiah. Since the Koran does not recognize Jesus as the Messiah, the Koran glaringly contradicts the very Bible it claims to authorize. (13)

Thus, many modern Muslims have "bought in" to baseless charges of gross Biblical inaccuracy. Muslims claim the original Biblical books were 100% accurate, but the manuscripts were all tampered with by unscrupulous Greeks who purposely altered the Bible to make it sound like Jesus was the Messiah and to make folks doubt the Koran. They further assert that the only part of the Bible which perhaps can be trusted are those portions which do not disagree with the Koran, a book they believe is infallible.

Muslims also believe all manuscripts of the Koran are also infallible, since Allah, they insist, guided the copying process to ensure 100% accuracy. This creates yet another logical difficulty for Muslims, who now must explain how those who copied the Koran were guided by Allah to prevent human error - but those who copied the Bible (which they also believe came from Allah) were not guided by Allah but instead plagued with a severe case of "blunderitis." Furthermore, to get
every manuscript to match, early Muslims destroyed every conflicting copy of the Koran, such that today no Muslim can be certain the Koran is even similar to that which Muhammad originally wrote. Did Allah guide only the hands of certain copyists?

Obviously, while we certainly respect our Muslim friends, such Islamic charges are plainly devoid of credible evidence.

Conclusion

The rumors of massive Biblical inaccuracies and contradictions - which still actively circulate in some circles today - may well represent the biggest snow job since the last Mt Everest blizzard.

Yet the Bible continues to be the number one best seller year after year after year - much to the vexation of the thinly veiled, theologically motivated, logically vacant campaigns against its integrity.

Attacks upon the Bible, instead of thwarting its popularity, have resulted in closer examination into the Book which has again emerged unscathed and stronger and more popular than ever from the baseless attacks and groundless conspiracy
theories.

We close with the timely words of Frederic Kenyon: ".no fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests upon a disputed reading.", and, "...the general result of [24,000 Bible manuscript] discoveries strengthen the proof of the authenticity of the Scriptures, and our conviction that we have in our hands, in substantial integrity, the veritable Word of God." (14)

-------------

PAST ARTICLES:
Atheism: Is It Logical?
Evolution: Did it Happen?
Scientific Foreknowledge: Proof the Bible is From God?
Biblical Prophecies: Proof the Bible is From God?
Messianic Biblical Prophecies: Proof Jesus is the Messiah?
Bible Accuracy: Are Charges of 50,000+ Bible Errors True?

ARTICLE REFERENCES:
(1) Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict, p 18.

(2) McDowell, p 16.

(3) McDowell, p 20.

(4) The Papyrus reeds (which grew from 3 - 10 ft tall) were sliced and arranged lengthwise and crosswise, water applied, pressed, dried, rubbed smooth, and then rolled up in sections usually of 5 x 9" to about 9 x 15" and lengths of about 20 to 30 ft. Authors would typically write in columns as narrow as 3". By the 4th century AD, papyrus was replaced by parchment (dried animal skins) due to its greater durability, although papyrus remained in wide-spread use until the 8th or 9th century.

(5) Apparently 9 men penned (on papyrus) the 27 books of the New Testament (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter, Jude, and the unidentified author of Hebrews, possibly Barnabas). Every author was either an apostle or a direct associate of an apostle, and divinely inspired and all were universally accepted by early Christians (which is why their writings were copied and considered so valuable). Of these 9 men, 4 were among the original 12 apostles of Christ (Matthew, John, Peter, and Jude). Paul (also considered by early Christians to be an apostle of Christ), Mark (also called John Mark, who had accompanied Paul on part of his first mission campaign), Luke (a physician / historian who also accompanied Paul on portions of his mission campaigns), James (the brother of Jesus, not an apostle), and the author
of Hebrews - round out the remaining authors. The Catholic Bible contains several additional books sandwiched between the 39 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament which were added into the Bible 1500 years later and thus are not accepted by many as legitimate inclusions.

(6) Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27; 1 Peter 1:1; James 1:1; 2 Thessalonians 3:14; 1 Timothy 1:20-21; 2 Timothy 1:13 - Several letters were not written to individual churches, meaning they were circulated to many congregations. For example, Peter addressed his 2 letters to numerous congregations spread across Roman provinces Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia to be exact. James wrote his epistle to "the 12 dispersed tribes of Israel" - in other words, to Jewish Christians who had been scattered across the Roman empire due to persecution. There is only one logical way Christians could read these books addressed to them: by circulating the original, or obtaining copies of copies. It is also very possible the originals were copied initially several times and distributed in original form.

(7) All other writings fell by the wayside as a set of 27 books began to settle in as the complete New Testament. Other inspired, redundant books (such as Paul's letter to the Laodicean church, not extant) also fell off due apparently to its redundancy of teaching to other existing books.

(8) Colossians 3:9; John 8:44; John 10:1; 1 John 2:21; Revelation 21:8.

(9) Deuteronomy 4:2; 1 Corinthians 4:6; Revelation 22:18-19.

(10) Neil R. Lightfoot, How We Got the Bible, p 92. Of course, the first Christians were Jews, and Jewish scribes were famous for the extreme and painstaking measures they took to avoid scribal slips of addition, modification, or omission.
Jewish Biblical copyists were so accurate that some have actually suggested their hand-written copies were more accurate than those produced on modern printing presses. Why? Because Hebrew scribes literally counted every verse, word, and even every letter in each book. They even went to the absurd extreme of counting the number of times each letter was used in each book. They calculated middle verses, middle words, etc, etc - to the point of the ridiculous. Every count reportedly had to total correctly in each new manuscripts or the entire document was destroyed. By contrast, even modern printing presses occasionally fail to copy a letter, chop off the top or bottom of a page, leave out a page, or due to poor printing render part of the text difficult to read. This was not the case with Jewish scribes. Every manuscript copy was examined and re-examined with a fine-tooth comb. Therefore it is logical to conclude that the first Christians - who were entirely Jews, and who considered the Bible's message the greatest treasure on earth - labored for the same squeaky-clean accuracy as their scribal predecessors.

(11) F. F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments, p 178.

(12) McDowell, p 44.

(13) 2 Timothy 3:16-17; Revelation 22:18-19; Deuteronomy 4:2; 1 Corinthians 4:6; John 8:24; Matthew 16:13-18.

(14) Frederic G. Kenyon, Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, p 23, and, The Story of the Bible, p 113.

Copyright © Christian Internet News Report 2002.