Ehrman Project Blog

"Is the original New Testament lost...?" I'd say it is, except for the Authorized King James Version, translated by British scholars 401 years ago... There must have been some original texts remaining at that time, since the New Testament was translated
from Greek, while the Old testament was translated from Hebrew. None of the modern "evangelicals" want to admit this fact, because they want to "re-translate" what was actually completed 401 years ago--under the pretext of "making it easier to understand".
Actually, they would just like to put their own little "spin" on things to make it fit their narrow little view of theology...! Actually, they aren't re-translating--they are re-interpreting...! If you don't know the difference, you'd better learn...!

P.S: I was just wondering, why does the word "inerrancy" have the same ring to it as "idiocy"...?

"Question--Engage--Respond" Gosh, I don't see much of that happening...! As I once heard a wise man comment, "You don't draw much water from an empty well...!"

The Original New Testament is by no means lost. Do we have any of the original autographs? No. This is true. However, this is why textual criticism exists. It is the task of textual critics to discern the original reading of the text with the available
evidence and manuscripts. All the manuscripts we have agree on the 99% of the major variant passages, and where they disagree heavily, no major Christian doctrine is at stake. If you want more information on this, read a book co-authored by Dr. Wallace called
REINVENTING JESUS, or read Geisler and Nix INTRODUCTION TO THE BIBLE.

Harlan, I guess that what you are trying to say is that 401 years ago after the King James Version was translated all of the copies of the Greek and Hebrew texts were destroyed so that they are no longer available to modern scholars? This, of course, is
not the case all of the Greek and Hebrew texts that were available to the scholars working on the KJV are still available today.

No Mr. Carpenter (the other one), I am not saying that the manuscripts from which the King James Bible was translated were destroyed. Don't put words in my mouth! I am saying that anything that remains of those manuscripts is quite fragile after four centuries,
and what remains of them is obviously quite valuable--and stored securely in British national archives, unavailable to to anyone except curators for handling. Obviously, your people have no access. To claim otherwise is idiotic. Perhaps even the Anglican hierarchy
are forbidden access--for obvious reasons. That established, my question to you is how did all the so-called new-English "translations" come to be...? Obviously there are no manuscripts older or more authoritative than those in English archives. To assert
otherwise is absurd...! So my question is simply, how did all the "new English" versions get "translated"...? Are they not in fact re-interpretations obtained directly from the Authorized King James Version...? To claim otherwise would be complete fabrication
and misrepresentation--so don't even go there...! I know the excuse is that new versions are "easier to understand". High school and college students worldwide are often often required to study Shakespeare--the language of the King James Version. So how hard
can it actually be...?

The most obvious problem with trying to counter Dr. Bart Ehrman's theses is language. Obviously, Dr. Ehrman enjoys some degree of knowledge in several ancient language, i.e. Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, etc. He likely is even conversant in those languages.
Most theologians like to flaunt their knowledge of a few key words, but could no more carry on a conversation, or actually articulate a text than they could fly to the moon. Not so Dr. Ehrman--as is abundantly apparent. I actually speak a second language,
and can understand enough of several others to read a little, so I know what I am talking about. If you're going to dispute anything Dr. Ehrman asserts--better go back to school...!

Harlan, I'm looking at my copy of the New International Version. In the Preface it states quite clearly in the first paragraph that this version is a "completely new translation" "using the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts." Also you need
to keep in mind that the primary Greek text used in the KJV was the Textus Receptus which was mainly based on 12th century Greek texts which are not the oldest or best texts.

Let me quote Joshua Carpenter, above: "Do we have any of the original autographs? No." Then he goes on to make the excuse, "However this is why textual criticism exists." What I am trying to say is that if you compare the alleged New International Version
with the King James version, word by word, verse by verse, chapter by chapter--except for a change of wording here and there--they match too closely to be coincidence...! Your New International Version is a direct re-wording of the King James Bible--no question...!
It is not a translation--period...! I know it, you know it, and anyone who takes the trouble to compare the similarities can see it...! Like all the rest of the "new translations" it is a hoax...! Don't feel bad, the Jehovah's Witnesses did it to--only theirs
is even less credible.

I know you guys are rock-headed die-hards. Believe me, I know the symptoms. You aren't convinced, so here's a little exercise for those of you who aren't too lazy or stubborn to investigate. Get on-line--I don't care where, just do it...! Find your favorite
scripture--your choice--in your favorite "new translation". Type in the same scripture chapter and vers(es)for search, then put a hyphen, and follow that with KJV--or type it out, to be more accurate--King James Version. Now compare the two texts. Here is
a list to start with: John 3:16; Psalm 23; Luke chapter 2; Ecclesiastes chapter 3; and the list goes on and on... It appears to me that the NIV is kindergartnerization of the King James Bible--for the mentally challenged. Worse--it makes mockery of one of
English literature's most beautiful, graceful and beloved pieces of art...! Think about it, before you go out praising the beauty of some inferior piece of literature...!

True, the KJV is truly beautiful language. But please keep in mind that it was written that way because that was the form of English that was in use at that time. Unfortunately most of the words usede in the KJV are now archaic and do not carry the same
meaning than they do knw. The best example is the word charity, in the 16th century it meant love, in the And as 21st century it does not carry that meaning. Also As i stated before the KJV did not use the best Greek texts to translate the New Testament. Modren
translations utilize older texts that are more accurate to the originals. And as to the similarty of word usage between the KJV and other translations is that they are both base on the Greek text.

John: Forget the beautiful language thing. Forget the fact that many colleges (not seminaries) require study of the King James Bible in English class (My college did...!). The fact that the dummed-down NIV text paraphrases the King James Version, verse-by-verse,
chapter-by-chapter, book-by-book, Genesis to Revelation, is evidence it was copied. You can't argue with that...! If you could show something in one version which does not exist in the other--that would be evidence of real translation. Until you can show me
that SOMETHING--you are blowing smoke...!

Oh by the way John, charity is still one of the definitions of love. The English language hasn't changed that much...!

I have to say that I went to a State University and the Bible didn't show up in the curriculum. But as I said before since both are based on the Greek text they are naturally going to say the same things. If you were reading two different translations
of Don Quiote you would expect the texts to be similar. Therefore your request for evidence makes no sense.

John: I'm sorry your college didn't offer the Bible as an English course. I'm also sorry that you can't spell Don Quixote... But that's neither here nor there. Similarities I can understand--but when the two translations allegedly came from superior and
inferior texts, how in heaven's name do the English texts (disregarding the archaic word forms as you claim) come out lock-step word-by-word, verse-after-verse, all the way from Genesis to Revelation...? That is too big a coincidence...! It's a good thing
you're not a lwayer. You'd never win a case...! Wake up and smell the roses...!

And John: What kind of reasoning is that--Two Greek texts, one good and one not so good, as you claim--are naturally going to say the same thing...? The burden is still upon you to prove that NIV was not a rip-off of the King James Version...!

Sorry John...! This could go on for days... I remember a heated debate in my home town between members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and their Jehovah's Witnesses counterparts when I was a kid...! It lasted for several days. It even
attracted media attention, and was a big story for awhile. Today, there are 7,000 LDS members in the little town. The Witnesses hardly have enough members for one little congregation, and they are fast losing ground... Nobody won the debate--but I think you
can figure out who won the war...! It has been instructive, but it is time wasted...! Goodbye...!

And so another "new Bible" supporter slinks away into oblivion, because his NIV is the King James Bible--plagiarised in grammar-school English...!

Let's see... Maybe I can re-write Shakespeare, claim it's my own, and nobody will notice. Where to start...? "Out, out, brief candle...! Life's but a walking shadow; a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage..." Too old-fashioned...!
Gotta give it modern appeal... "Blow out the damned candle--I have a headache...!" Good start...!

This going to be my last comment on this subject. Look at Matthew 5:44 in both the KJV and NIV texts. You will find that the KJV includes the phrase bless them that hate you, do good to them that hate you. This phrase does not occur in the NIV or other
translations because it is not found in the older Greek texts, but it is in the texts used for the KJV. By the way, at my university the Bible was covered in the Religious Studies department(which was my major) and of course we sent a lot of time on the Bible
Hebrew and Greek in seminary.

John: All that means is that your people left something out--period. Maybe somebody got sloppy, and by the time they discovered it, it was too late to do anything about it. It happens all the time in journalism (with which I also am acquainted). And a
project like that isn't any different than anything else in this world. You can claim "inerrance"--but that's a thin excuse, lob discredited...!

John: If you had an extra chapter, a missing chapter, a changed sequence of books, an extra book, or a missing book or text--anything but one book right after another, in lock-step with the King James Version you would something...! All you people did
was copy and plagiarize the King James Version--obvious, blatant, and stupid--right down the line...! One missing fragment of a sentence or phrase is an editorial oversight--period, nothing more...! You count on the people of the world being stupid enough
to fall for your forgery. Unfortunately, a good many are that gullible--or you wouldn't have a following...!

John, before you embarrass yourself any further, go to Wikipedia and look up "plagiarism". Read it carefully because you will see the obvious counterfeit nature of the New International Version Bible sticking out like a sore thumb...! You can't copy something
that close without forgery being obvious...! You are trying to discredit Dr. Bart Ehrman on this site, but he has all you people dead to rights...!

John: Reiterating--the New International Version of the Bible IS a dumbed-down forgery of the Authorized King James Version. Admit the fact, and move on...!

Allow me to quote from Wikipedia regarding the translation of the New International Version: "The translation is a balance between word-for-word and thought-for-thought." He doesn't specify the source. But he continues in the same paragraph, "Familiar
spellings of traditional translations were generally retained." Comparison of the text of the NIV with King James Bible, verse-by-verse, chapter-by-chapter, Genesis to Revelation, reveals the identity of the "traditional translations" he meant. He should have
more correctly stated "traditonal translation"--singlular...! Case closed...!