Are complete opposites exactly the same?

[Ordek Avci]

You are incorrect - Lot's daughters got him drunk and slept with him, he was unaware of it.

You got me. Don't know why I messed that up. My point was, and still is, that the Word of God, in it's inerrant and infallible form was given to us through errant and fallible men. No one, from Moses to John, was free from sin. So it should be no surprise and it does not devalue the work of sinners that have translated the Bible. You don't have to be a Christian to know Koine Greek or ancient Hebrew.

It is your logic that has fault. To use your own example, there would be no way for you to know conclusively what any book says unless you read all versions of them.

That is the exact opposite of my point. My point is that you can know what a text says without reading every version and without reading the original copy. When it comes to the Bible, I believe we can know what God intends for us to know by reading the English translations. Are they perfect? No, they are not. The affirmations that Scripture makes about itself cannot be carried over into their translations.

YWe are not talking about yall instead of ye, we are talking about the changing of doctrines from one book to another. Whether Jesus is God, whether or not homosexuality is sin, important information about adultery, these are important pieces of information that cannot be simply ignored.

What doctrines have been changed? Read the KJV, NASB, NIV, and then the ESV, and explain to me what doctrine has been changed. The language has been updated. There are some verses that will read differently. But the major doctrines have always been and will always be the same.

Which reminds me of an earlier question...

Are there such things as "minor theological implications" in the Word? Doesn't God show concern for the "jot and tittle"?

Yes, there are hundreds of minor theological implications. For one, not every doctrine is equally important. Paul makes this clear in Romans 14. There are some doctrines that you must get right or be out of the faith. There are some doctrines that believers can differ drastically on and still be members of the same church. Yes God is concerned with it all, but he tells us to each be convinced in his own mind, allowing for differences.

Should anyone trust your "general idea" theory?

This is one doctrine that I think we should all agree on. In fact, this same discussion gave birth to one of the great victories of orthodoxy. Nearly 300 evangelical scholars from a myriad of different denominations and traditions signed the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy in 1978. Article X reads:

WE AFFIRM that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

WE DENY that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

The autographs were inspired and, thus, inerrant and infallible. Copies and translations are not.

Is there another person more authoritative as to the meaning of Dante than you? Or can you say that there is nothing else to learn in any version of Inferno?

There are many people more authoritative than I when it comes to Dante, that's why I trust their translations and interpretations. There probably is something I could learn from different translations. And if I cared as much for Dante as I do for the Bible, not only would I more carefully research what the best translation was, but I would also take the time to learn Latin. As I care much more about God's word, I have studied the different translations and have taken a couple semesters of Koine Greek so I can compare for myself what the original manuscripts say. Does every Christian need to do this? No. God has put ministers, pastors, and elders in the church to be shepherds for his sheep. Part of that job of shepherd is doing the hard work to figure out which translation is most faithful to the original manuscripts and impressing upon the congregation the importance of reading a good translation. A layperson need not, though it would be helpful, learn Greek and Hebrew. A minister should study them carefully, Greek especially, and be able to understand and critique different translations. Then he can be sure that his flock is hearing the most faithful translation of the inerrant word of God and that his children are memorizing life giving words.

We did not get closer to the truth through man's scholarship, and I marvel that you could suggest it. Just think what you would state if you had the ability to see what will be done 100 years from now...perhaps we would be closer to the truth then.

Many of the doctrines that we hold essential were hotly contested in the formative years of the church. Man's scholarship searched for what God had to say about these issues. That brought us closer to the truth. There was a time when all the books of the NT were not gathered and written in one book. Man's scholarship gathered the inspired writings and bound them together to give us the full canon. That brought us closer to the truth. For hundreds of years the common man did not have a translation of the Bible which he could read for himself. Man's scholarship began translating the Bible into many of the world's languages. That brought us closer to the truth. And at one time we were all ignorant of who God was and what He had done for us. Someone had to read the Bible and explain it to us in a way we could understand it. That was man's scholarship and it brought us all closer to the truth. I pray that we continue our scholarship with all our might so that 100 years from now we can marvel at how far we have come in understanding God's truth.

EDIT: I believe the Textus Receptus agrees with far more manuscripts than the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus which do not agree with each other in almost as many places as they disagree with the TR and are the basis for the versions you describe.

Surely if you have studied text criticism at all, you know that simply having a larger number of manuscripts does not make them more correct.

At this point, I have to ask, what spawned these questions? Why the arguments here? This is a topic that was not even discussed until 150 years ago and even then the orthodox opinion was quickly and easily formed. This is one of the rare doctrines that has united the majority of the church throughout the ages.

[Deep Woods]

Jeremiah 5:31 The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?

The prophets prophesy falsely] The false prophets predict favourable things, that they may please both the princes and the people.

The priests bear rule by their means] The false prophets affording them all that their influence and power can procure, to enable them to keep their places, and feed on the riches of the Lord's house.

And my people love to have it so] Are perfectly satisfied with this state of things, because they are permitted to continue in their sins without reproof or restraint. The prophets and the priests united to deceive and ruin the people. The prophets gave out false predictions; by their means the priests got the government of the people into their own hands; and so infatuated were the people that they willingly abandoned themselves to those blind guides, and would not hearken to the voice of any reformer.

the false prophets, who flatter the people with promises of safety in sin

The aim of all false doctrine is to flatter men with the hope of exemption or freedom from punishment, harm, or loss in sin; and its result is to make them impudent and hardhearted, and thus plunge them into irremediable ruin.

False teachers may be known by these two marks: their lives are corrupt, and their doctrines flatter men with the hope of impunity and prosperity in sin.;

Those most dangerous seducers are the ones who suggest to sinners that which tends to lessen their dread of sin and their fear of God.

Jeremiah 6:16 Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.

Not the new ways..not the new versions...not the modern way!!!

But just like the people in the days of Jeremiah...people today want a new version of the Bible, a new way, a new style...a more modern way....people today will not walk in the "old paths" But they said, We will not walk therein. they know more than God and will make their own versions/paths.

[Ordek Avci]

But just like the people in the days of Jeremiah...people today want a new version of the Bible, a new way, a new style...a more modern way....people today will not walk in the "old paths" But they said, We will not walk therein. they know more than God and will make their own versions/paths.[/b]

Are you trying to imply that new translations of the Bible are attempts to lead people away from the Lord? Do you really believe that the prophet Jeremiah was talking about some old translation of the Bible versus a new translation in that passage?

[Gordon]

Unless the bible scholarship you have previously shown is a farce, you know very well that Deep Woods is speaking of application and not of specific context. You should not set up straw men.

As for the doctrines that are changed in the critical texts, I hesitate to answer only because I am not sure you hold the Word in the same reverence as others. While a majority of agreement does not show authority in manuscript, neither does an extreme minority of older texts that came from the areas that have been documented as hotbeds of false teaching. Giving every changed and ommitted verse would be useless if that is the case, because the changes would mean little to nothing to a person who does not hold God's Word as the only authority.

But.

In the interest of allowing all who are watching this thread to see the differences, and in hopes of them understanding what those differences mean, I will list a few things that should fully guage the gap between versions. Since we are speaking of manuscripts, I will quote from the only bible to be translated from the Majority/Received Text (Textus Receptus) using formal equivalence and contrast it with versions that are translated from the Wescott Hort and Nestle-Aland/UBS Texts using dynamic equivalence. For those readers who have not seen those terms before, formal equivalence is a word-for-word translation, where dynamic equivalence is a thought-for-thought translation. We either translated to the best English word, or we translated what God was thinking when He wrote the bible.

First some terrifying numbers.

The NASV and the NIV have removed the name Jesus from their pages many times. The NASV has removed Jesus 73 times, the NIV 36 times. Christ is removed in the NASV 43 times, and in the NIV 44. The name Lord is removed both the NASV and in the NIV 35 times. God is removed 33 times in the NASV, and 31 in the NIV. Perhaps these names mean nothing to you and they can add or remove as many as they feel - but there are no more important words in the bible for me.

KJV Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

NASV brackets that verse in order to cast doubt on it's truth. That verse is not in the NIV.

How many more would be required?

[Ordek Avci]

Unless the bible scholarship you have previously shown is a farce, you know very well that Deep Woods is speaking of application and not of specific context. You should not set up straw men.

Actually, if you read what he wrote, he says,

But just like the people in the days of Jeremiah...people today want a new version of the Bible, a new way, a new style

The assertion that Jeremiah was speaking against a people who wanted a new version of the Bible is wrong. Jeremiah was speaking against a people who would not follow in the paths of obedience. They were not translating the Bible. This discussion is over translations of the Bible, not over interpretations and obedience to the Bible.

As for the doctrines that are changed in the critical texts, I hesitate to answer only because I am not sure you hold the Word in the same reverence as others... Giving every changed and ommitted verse would be useless if that is the case, because the changes would mean little to nothing to a person who does not hold God's Word as the only authority.

Name calling is not necessary. If you have a refutation of something I have said, give it.

Since we are speaking of manuscripts, I will quote from the only bible to be translated from the Majority/Received Text (Textus Receptus) using formal equivalence and contrast it with versions that are translated from the Wescott Hort and Nestle-Aland/UBS Texts using dynamic equivalence.

This statement is very misleading. For one, the NASB and the NIV are not dynamic equivalence translations. In fact, the main criticism of the NASB is that it is too literal. The NIV is more towards the middle, but a dynamic equivalence translation would be the NLT or something like it.

And, for what it's worth, I don't think you could still claim the KJV is formal equivalence. The English of the KJV is so antiquated that it does not function as a formally equivalent translation anymore.

The NASV and the NIV have removed the name Jesus from their pages many times. The NASV has removed Jesus 73 times, the NIV 36 times. Christ is removed in the NASV 43 times, and in the NIV 44. The name Lord is removed both the NASV and in the NIV 35 times. God is removed 33 times in the NASV, and 31 in the NIV. Perhaps these names mean nothing to you and they can add or remove as many as they feel - but there are no more important words in the bible for me.

Obviously, there is no other name given by which man may be saved. Jesus is the most important word in the Bible. But the simple addition or deletion of the name Jesus into a passage does not make it more true. In fact, it may make it less true. So just stating that the word "Jesus" has been removed from a verse does not necessarily mean that verses meaning has been changed.

KJV Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

NASV brackets that verse in order to cast doubt on it's truth. That verse is not in the NIV.

It's bracketed because there is doubt as to whether it was in the original manuscripts. This is not someone's decision as to whether they want it in there or not, but simply a decision as to whether it was in the original manuscripts or not.

But again, taking this verse out of Acts neither changes the meaning of that passage, nor does it cast into doubt any major doctrine. There are many other verses that teach believing in Jesus as a prerequisite for baptism. There are many other statements of Jesus' divinity. Again, no major doctrine is lost, damaged, or changed by the different translations.

[Gordon]

If Jesus is the most important word in God's word, if the God of the universe gave us one word it would be Jesus, if there is nothing more important in the English language than that single word, as you claim to believe, then how could its addition or subtraction be a "simple" matter? It cannot be both penultimate and of no consequence at the same time. It cannot be the most sacred of words and slang at the same time. To a God-fearing Christian, that is. The lost can choose which words they like and dislike, and they can be the same words at the same time.

Jeremiah was speaking against a people who would not follow in the paths of obedience. They were not translating the Bible. This discussion is over translations of the Bible, not over interpretations and obedience to the Bible.

Obedience to what? Were they supposed to be obedient to the bible or old paths? Or are they the same? Are the old paths simply paths that were used to get to the market, or the stable, or the privy? Was God telling them to not damage the grass on either side of those paths? Were the people wanting paved roads instead? The people in this verse don't question what "old paths" meant. They do not say that Moses died so long ago that we cannot know that following the old paths are the right paths anymore. Or question that the writings of Moses existed or were questionable. Or that maybe the really old, old paths were better than the old paths, or ask which old paths he meant. They knew specifically which old paths were meant and said that they would not walk in them. They have no question because there was only one truth, eventhough there were some teaching other religions. There is a surety in both parties that we do not have today.

The people of Jeremiah's day did not want the comfort that God offers because they would have had to get it taking the old paths of the written word, they wanted new paths to get to the better destination. Adam and Eve wanted a different path, the people of Jeremiah's day wanted a different path, and the people today want a different path. Jeremiah did not use the term "different versions of the bible," and you know that we are not saying that he did. The point is that God's Word has been under attack from the begining.

Satan's first appearence in the bible, his first shot at humanity was what? "Yea, hath God said..." He did not give them alcohol, he did not get them to use drugs, he did not cause them to steal from each other, nor have Eve murder Adam, nor cause either to lie, or to use cuss words, or fornication - he asked, "Yea, hath God said..." This is at the heart of putting brackets around a verse. That is at the very foundation of questioning scripture. That is the question that Satan asked, "Yea, hath God said...?" You suggest these changes are small and that they are insignificant considering the bigger picture and don't damage any "major" doctrines. I would agree that they are small, but I would disagree that they are insignificant because we can see the immediate result of the changes to God's Word right there in scripture.

Satan questions God's Words that were spoken directly to Adam. Eve adds to, removes from, and softens God's Word all in one fail swoop. She subtracts "every", she adds "neither shall ye touch it," and she softens "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" with "lest ye die." Many say that the changes to the bible are subtle, and I would agree with that, but when Satan was called "more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made" why would you accept subtle changes in exchange for the exact words of God?

These were not major doctrines. These were following the simplest of God's commands. He had yet to even mention the Messiah even in type. That is eleven verses later. These little changes to so called "non-major" doctrines, these tiniest of infractions caused the fall of man.

It does not change Acts? Have you read Acts? The word "baptized" is in 19 verses in Acts, yes, many people "believe on his name" in Acts and then were baptized, but do you find any that specifically said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God?" The term "Son of God" is used MANY times in the bible - that is not in question. Do you find anywhere in the bible where anyone states this simple sentence and it is taken as justification for baptism? Even once? Are you seriously saying this changes nothing?

I find it at odds that you can say that the KJV does not use formal translation, in effect not being literal enough, for it's use of archaic language, but that the NASB is too literal when written in plain English. If you would like different versions to compare, there are literally a hundred different sites dedicated to it. The link even includes the NEW King James Version that was supposedly only published to "update archaic language." The NKJV also removes Jesus. I wonder what is so archaic about that word?

http://www.av1611.org/biblewrd.html

As for the language being outdated in the KJV, if you have done any serious study of textual criticism, you would see that the introduction to the original KJV did not use the language of the KJV because it was outdated when it was written. It was outdated by 200 years when the KJV was written and for 200 years after it was written and in wide use, there were "Great Awakenings," and "Great Revivals." It was only in the "Age of Enlightenment" did we find it too hard for our educated minds to use.

I have not heard the same argument applied to Shakespeare or Dante. I only find when it comes to God that man does not prefer the cadence and poetry ascribed to the "archaic" languages.

[Ordek Avci]

I have not heard the same argument applied to Shakespeare or Dante. I only find when it comes to God that man does not prefer the cadence and poetry ascribed to the "archaic" languages.

You don't hear those arguments about Shakespeare because he wrote in English. You do hear those arguments about Dante, hence new translations are being published year after year. Dante's works, like the Bible, was not written in English. Therefore, they must be translated. Translations are not perfect and eventually become outdated. That's why newer translations must be written. We have better scholarship to determine the true text and the true meaning of the text and we have a quickly and constantly changing language.

It's obvious that you believe the KJV to be the one and only true and inspired Word of God. If you truly believe that, then why start this thread? Why feign inquiry when you're just looking for an argument? What spawned these questions if you already have such a deeply entrenched position?

In all of this I think you are missing a fundamental truth that I assumed you would have picked up by now. In your second post in this thread you said, "One version says that we are not supposed to change God's word and another demonstrates that it is ok to leave out parts or change them. That seems to say two different things." I assume you are referencing the words of John in Revelation 22 that say, "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." I will agree that these words, which were actually spoken about the book of Revelation alone, should be applied to all of Scripture. But here's the thing... every translation adds words and every translation takes words away. You have to. There is no way to translate a verb from Greek to English without adding words. The simple phrase, "And it came to pass..." which occurs time and again throughout the Gospels is simply two words in Greek. That means whoever translated it added three words. Did the translator violate John's words in Rev. 22? No, he was simply writing a faithful translation of the Greek into English. In the same way, sometimes words have to be taken away in order for something to make sense. The simple fact that there isn't a one to one ratio of words in the original Greek and the translated English does not prove that the Bible has been changed. The KJV is an English translation. The best scholars of its time took what they considered the best Greek manuscripts they had and translated it into the best English they could come up with. To do so, they had to add words and take some words away. The link you provided shows these other translations in comparison to the KJV. That does nothing to disprove their credibility. Comparing one imperfect translation to another does not prove either one as being more faithful to the autographs.

It was outdated by 200 years when the KJV was written and for 200 years after it was written and in wide use, there were "Great Awakenings," and "Great Revivals."

Yes, some great movements of God have taken place since the KJV was written. But the greatest movements, the growth of the early church and the Protestant Reformation, both happened before the KJV. And the explosion of Christianity in the Global South, South America and Sub-Saharan Africa, and in Korea and China today, are all occurring in places where the Bible is not read in English at all.

So again my question is, why defend the KJV so strongly? Have you ever studied Koine Greek and Ancient Hebrew so that you can read the manuscripts for yourself and compare them with our English translations? And, agian, why start this discussion if you already have your mind made up?

[Gordon]

Shakespeare is difficult to read, but because it was written that way that is acceptable? Are you saying that Greek is easy to read? Why aren't we all reading it? The truth is, neither Greek, nor Hebrew, nor any new language is easy because of it's unique verbal structure, grammatic form and syntax - the "archaic" English is no different.

I asked if complete opposites are exactly the same. The simple, logical, plain answer should be "no." If there is only one truth, and this one truth can be completely known, then Christians should desire it.

And the simple truth is, there is only one truth, and it can be known. The truth is not different from one man to the next - only his perception. We will all be tried according to that one truth, no matter what our perceptions are and there will be no arguing.

If anyone looked at the link that is posted in a previous reply, they would notice that while all versions remove important words like Jesus, they differ greatly on how many, which ones, they remove. It is the same with the verses they remove and the words they simply change. Do not listen to anyone that says these words were "umimportant." Find for yourself the differences - the authors have not made a new edition for no reason, they found flaws in the other editions - despite the cover ups attempted by some, we should diligently find out why those changes were made or if they should be. Blindly trusting scholars who claim to love the name "Jesus" above all words in the English language but can still treat it like it is any other word, will lead you off of the path and into the ditch.

My defence of KJV makes little difference, and I would hope that a man would not use "KJV only" as a standard. Each man must search out the truth. Salvation comes through one man. There is only one God.

Truth can only be found in one place.

Whatever you search out and find, must be tested, and proved, to be the one truth.

[Ordek Avci]

Shakespeare is difficult to read, but because it was written that way that is acceptable?

Shakespeare was written in English, therefore we read it in English. There's no need to translate it. However, if I were living in Turkey or France or China and they wanted to read Shakespeare, I'd encourage them to read the best translation. I would not encourage them to read a translation that was hundreds of years old, difficult to understand, and not as faithful to the original as other translations.

Are you saying that Greek is easy to read? Why aren't we all reading it?

When did I say this? Most people don't read it because it's difficult. It would be best if every Christian could read the Greek and Hebrew for themselves, but the reality is that the vast majority of people can't. Therefore, it's up to those scholars who can to write the most faithful translations and for the rest of us to do our research and read the most faithful translations.

Find for yourself the differences - the authors have not made a new edition for no reason, they found flaws in the other editions - despite the cover ups attempted by some, we should diligently find out why those changes were made or if they should be. Blindly trusting scholars who claim to love the name "Jesus" above all words in the English language but can still treat it like it is any other word, will lead you off of the path and into the ditch.

First of all, there are no "authors" "making" new "editions." There are translators translated manuscripts into new translations. Your language is, perhaps intentionally, misleading. No one is rewriting the Bible. We are simply trying to figure out what the original autographs actually said and then to translate those thoughts and words into a form that conveys their message most faithfully into English. There are no "cover ups." All mainstream translations are done by multitudes of scholars whose works are open for anyone to inspect.

And again, removing words, even the name Jesus, from a verse does not mean you don't love Jesus. Sometimes words are not needed, they become repetitive and are better replaced with pronouns, or they may actually make a sentence wrong. Taking out the name of Jesus may actually make the text more true.

My defence of KJV makes little difference, and I would hope that a man would not use "KJV only" as a standard.

I agree it makes little difference, but probably not for the same reasons you think. The link you provided is from a website that is KJV only, so I can only assume you believe the same or at least have sympathy for that position. And their comparisons are to the KJV, which render them useless unless you see the KJV as inerrant and inspired itself. Again, it's not. Comparing one translation to another does not necessarily prove one to be better than the other because it fails to consider the original manuscripts and the thought process that led the translators to their decisions. The link is unhelpful and misleading.

Again I ask, why defend the KJV so strongly? Have you ever studied Greek and Hebrew so that you can compare the translations for yourself? Why start this discussion if you are already so entrenched in your beliefs?

[Deep Woods]

Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy. If he shall reject the book altogether; if he shall, in transcribing it, designedly strike any part of it out. It is conceivable that, from the remarkable nature of the communications made in this book, and the fact that they seemed to be unintelligible, John supposed there might be those who would be inclined to omit some portions as improbable, or that he apprehended that when the portions which describe Antichrist were fulfilled in distant ages, those to whom those portions applied would be disposed to strike them from the sacred volume, or to corrupt them. He thought proper to guard against this by this solemn declaration of the consequence which would follow such an act. The whole book was to be received--with all its fearful truths--as a revelation from God; and however obscure it might seem, in due time it would be made plain; however faithfully it might depict a fearful apostasy, it was important, both to show the truth of Divine inspiration and to save the church, that these disclosures should be in their native purity in the possession of the people of God. - Albert Barnes

Ver. 18,19 Omissions and additions are equally forbidden. Those who have committed this crime of tampering with the Bible, have generally professed to be Christians, hence their penalty is that their names shall be blotted out of that sacred register in which they believed them to be enrolled. - Charles Hadley Spurgeon- Spurgeon's Daily Devotional

Enthusiasts, pretenders to new revelations, bigoted sectaries, and imposing churchmen, on the one hand; with infidels and skeptics on the other, who reject the whole or part of scripture, or aver that it is of no consequence what men believe (which takes away all doctrinal truth at once), have abundant cause to tremble at this warning. Critics, who are continually proposing conjectural alterations, or expunging from, and adding to, the text of scripture, are in no small danger: and expositors have abundant cause to be cautious and humble. - Thomas Scott

Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Deuteronomy 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

[Ordek Avci]

All that sounds great Deep Woods, but, again, there's no way to translate something from Hebrew or Greek without adding, subtracting, and changing words. And even when it comes to the original autographs, where are they? We don't have them. Therefore, we have to sift through piles and piles of manuscripts and try to piece together what the originals actually said. As more manuscripts become available and as our scholarship improves, our understanding of what the original manuscripts actually said improves (changes).

There is no one single, authoritative copy of scripture in English that we can point to and say, "Do not change a word in that." Likewise, our best Greek New Testaments are put together from thousands of different manuscripts and pieces of manuscripts. We can't point to one single, authoritative copy of scripture even in Greek and say, "Do not change a word in that."

That does not mean we are changing any commandments, promises, or doctrines that God intended for us to have.