In a recent Bible class on John 8:1-11, our teacher prefaced the study by saying that it is generally accepted that this passage was not original to the gospel of John. He indicated that the story probably was true and passed down orally, and perhaps jotted down as a note in a copy of the gospel by a scribe. Over time, the distinction between the note and the scripture was lost, and the note was incorporated in John’s gospel.

This explanation has bothered me, and I am trying to determine for myself from the scriptures whether or not I can believe the above explanation.

Jesus makes this statement:

Matt 5:17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. 18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished. (NASB)

Most Christians today agree that the scriptures are inspired (2 Tim 3:16). However, the footnotes in most of our Bibles suggest that God has not preserved the Bible. These footnotes bring into question passages by stating that the oldest and most reliable manuscripts do not contain the passage in question. This leaves one feeling as if we just don’t know for sure what the original said in these passages, which spills over to doubt with regard to the rest of the Bible.

This leads some to conclude that while the original scriptures were inspired, what we have in the Bible today is only partially inspired (those parts that agree with the originals). Since we do not have the originals, we are beholden to the wisdom of scholars or our own wisdom to determine what is inspired and what is not.

The answer we get from our leaders is agreement that we have lost the perfect and complete Word of God, but that every important doctrinal concept is supported by text where there is no disagreement among legitimate manuscripts. This is a comfort, but also disturbing.

This view would seem to contradict the implications of Matt 5 above. Jesus’ statement clearly applies to the written Word and not simply to the expressed word of God. It seems unlikely to me that the Jews of that time had the original manuscripts for all of the Law and the prophets. It is more likely that they had copies of copies of copies, etc., of the originals. Yet Jesus states that what they had at that time was pure to the “smallest letter” and “stroke.” This would seem to imply that God preserved His word to that time.

If God protected and preserved the Old Testament to the “smallest letter” and “stroke,” it would seem strange for Him to not extend that same protection to the New Testament.

If He has not preserved and protected the New Testament to the “smallest letter” and “stroke,” how can we claim that we have the inspired word of God?

Have we gone terribly wrong somewhere?

---

Gary Laguna

Yes, that is the answer I have already received from others.

However, how can one believe Matt 5:17-18 and also believe the above explanation?

---

Gary Laguna

Whilst I fully agree with much of what has been said in response to the intial enquiry, I find it difficult to see either The Message or JW translations of the Bible as being ones that we cannot learn the basic and important truths about God and His plan and purpose from. I have read both versions and the state of man an his relationship with God can be clearly found in them just as it can be in every other version I have ever looked at. The way of salvation can just as easily be shown from either of these versions as it can from any other. It is only when we start to get into matters of theology and theological issues that we find arguments are raised about whether one translation is better than another. Actually the way I have come to see it, God is not one bit interested in all the theology that has been built out of the Scriptures. He is more concerned about whether or not we have submitted to His Son Christ Jesus and made Him Lord of our lives. This I know:"In every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him." (Acts 10:35) and this is not dependant upon which version of the Bible we accept or reject.
May God be true and every man a liar (Romans 3:4)

In this modern time, we have available (through fairly recent discoveries), much older NT manuscripts than King James had when he authorized his version.

Like Brent, I agree that there are many surface differences because of careless errors by scribes - and there are the obvious difficulties in word choices that comes from translating anything from one language to another. But there are also translation differences because many modern versions are simply trying to "update" the KJV, while other translations have made an effort to go back to older manuscripts with the thought that the older the manuscript, the closer to the original source, the more "accurate" it is. (May or may not be so - I'm not an authority. But that does sound logical to me.)

Like Brent I also agree that there is absolutely NO ERROR in the Bible. These are ALL surface issues. Not one doctrine of the early church has been affected by any of the differences in the accepted modern translations.

I DO NOT agree with Brent regarding The Message. It is not - and should never be construed as - a translation of the Bible. It is not a translation (and does not claim to be). It is simply a paraphrase. It should not be used by any serious student of the Bible as a tool for Bible study.