The Word Under Attack

EARLY HISTORY

Original languages

Most all agree the New Testament was written in Koine Greek.

The Apostle Paul wrote his pastoral letters to the various Greek churches in the Greek language, because that is what they mostly spoke and read.

As for Paul's Letter to the Romans (the early church at Rome), it might seem Paul would want to provide them a Latin text. However, a great many Greek speakers lived in Rome, so its just as likely he wrote in Greek.

As for Book of Hebrews, written to the Hebrews, it is a little more gray. After all we read in Acts 22:2, that Paul spoke to some listeners in the Hebrew language. So if it was best to communicate with Jews in the Hebrew tongue, and if Hebrews was written to the Jews, then it would seem it could have been written in Hebrew, before it was translated into Greek.
As for James, his letter was written to "the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad," which would be the Hebrew tribes, so once again, maybe Hebrew is the original language of James' letter.

Peter's first letter was addressed to the areas of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, mostly Greek.
John, in The Revelation, wrote to the 7 churches in Asia (modern-day Turkey), and that was mostly Greek in those days.

Here is a list of the possible initial languages:

Aramaic, Koine Greek (1st century), Byzantine Greek, Pontus Greek, Celtic, Latin, languages of 12 tribes (spread abroad), languages of the 7 churches of Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey)

ultimately, however, all books came to be written in Koine Greek, but the Latin (157 AD) and Aramaic (147 AD) remained for centuries (and still exist today), and of course, in more distant lands other translations were made.

So in the beginning, the various books of the New Testament were only sent to specific groups of believers, possibly requiring multiple language versions, but still Koine Greek could have sufficed in every case. Indeed, they would have also been written in Koine Greek.

What about the preservation of the scriptures?

It is well documented that the Jews, up until the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, preserved God's Word through the use of scribes under the auspices of the priesthood.

But what about the New Testament?
Did the Catholic church now have the new scribes and priesthood, but what about the Greek Orthodox church and its scribes and priesthood, or the African-Egyptian church or Aramaic churches? And what of the Antiochian scribes?
And what about the breakaways from the Catholic church, such as the Lutherans and the Reformation churches?
What about "oldest and best mss"? Is that true, or is it really the "oldest and best uniquely Catholic, Arian and Gnostic mss"?

What is amazing about the formation of the New Testament:

at first, various newly planted churches received one or two writings from Paul, or from other New Testament writers, but no one had all 27 books of the New Testament
then, as churches had resources and time, they shared copies with other churches of the few writings that they had
eventually, this distribution continued until most all churches most everywhere all had the 27 books of the New Testament
at first there were disputes about which letters and writings were inspired and should be recognized as "inspired"
however, when it was decided to canonize the Bible, those that did so had little choice but to adopt as "inspired" what most all churches agreed was "inspired" by virtue of wide-spread usage, and that which was no wide-spread was rejected as inspired.

What this tells us in retrospect is that God, in His providence, at first wanted selected, newly planted churches, to have texts meant primarily for them. Indeed, most of the writings indicate who they were written to. But also in the providence of God, God encouraged believers to share their texts with other churches until they all had copies of each other's writings.

Then we see where God, again in His providence, preserved His Word in official canonization by the vast majority of churches. The distribution of the New Testament continued until when the printing press came along, and within a few hundred years, Bibles were in printed form, in virtually every language of the world. Indeed, the "received text" Bibles produced number into the hundreds of languages. (See Received Texts.)

By way of a little background, at the time of the advent of the printing press, Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus and others were able to bring together from hundreds of texts from all over the world, including Greek, Old Latin and Aramaic, a composition of the New Testament that differed widely from the New Latin of Jerome of the Catholic church, and which was verified 100%, by 95% of the texts they had at their disposal. Hence, the term "majority text" came into existence, since the vast majority of texts agreed with their Greek compositions. Indeed, the composition of Stephanus is available from numerous sources, even today.

What the above means with respect to the providence of God is that God preserved His Word for the last 2000 years, in the form of what is now called the "received text". Indeed, this preservation has been miraculous.

What about the challengers?

Despite the miraculous preservation of the Word of God in the from of the "majority text" or "received text", there have been and are "challengers".

First to challenge the Word of God was the Catholic church. It is well-documented that during the first few centuries, the church at Rome (Romish church) produced quite a number of doctrines that it believed were "correct" either from the Bible or from the authority of the pope. Almost all of these doctrines are not in agreement with non-Catholic Christians. Nonetheless, the Romish church produced the New Latin of Jerome, to the exclusion of all others by decree of the pope.

Second, with the discovery of the Sinaiticus in the mid-1800s and the previous discovery of the Vaticanus in the mid-1400s, excitement arose among two Anglicans by the name of Hort and Westcott in the late 1800s. This brought on the next challenge to the "received text" (almost 1900 years old by then), when they produced their Greek New Testament. See H&W for their attacks on the Word of God.

Third, with the "itching ears" of others, came a desire to use the Hort and Westcott text in modern translations, and indeed, today, most all modern translations use this text to one degree or another, resulting in about 30 differing versions (without respect to which foreign language they are written in).

What is wrong with modernization? Nothing if it is accurate. But that is the problem, it often is not. And how does God feel about changes to His word that are not accurate? Consider these:

gender changes that actually change doctrine
relegating God's Words to the footnotes
merging singular and plural pronouns, so that over 15,000 times the meaning is ambiguous. How is 15,000+ ambiguities a better translation? And how much does that change doctrine?
using vernacular that are "overboard" and actually make the meaning harder to understand
not translating the Greek correctly or entirely
overly vague synonyms.

This begs an important question for all true believes: Why?

Keep in mind that the vast majority of users of most modern translations are told there is no significant difference between the "received text" and the "Hort and Westcott" text and thus no significant difference between their modern translation and say any other "received text" Bible in any language, other than "modernization". However this is simply is not true. They are either liars and/or very unknowledgeable.

In fact, it is a lie, whether deliberate or not.

However, as countless studies have shown, not only are there word differences numbering in the thousands (over 10000 words in over 5000 verses), there are doctrinal differences numbering in the hundreds. Many a defender of their modern translation will say:

"I do not see any differences. Even if some verses and passages are missing, it does not effect this doctrine or that. I can still derive this doctrine or that."

Huh? This is irrational. Ironically, many such a believer will also say,

"Received Text Bible believers are holding onto tradition, stubbornly. That is why they do not accept modern translations."

But who is really being stubborn, the one who holds onto the entire Word of God that proves certain doctrines are true, or the one who holds on to a partial/incorrect text and claims he/she can still derive a doctrine without proof from their own bible?

Then the "challengers" like to say that "neutral, naturalistic textual criticism" is a science that proves which test is accurate. What?

What about 2000 years of history? Did God preserve His Word for 2000 years only to have it changed in the last 40 years? (What kind of science is that, witch doctor science?)
As for the scholars, if they were neutral, then their translations would agree 100% of the time, but Nestle-Aland, United Bible Society, American Bible Society and Tyndale translations do not agree 100% of the time and actually vary quite "widely" (even excluding things like exact synonyms or word order)
As for "naturalistic", where is the Holy Spirit? Now God's Spirit preserved scriptures for 2000 years, and now there is a challenger in the last 40 years? Does that sound like the Holy Spirit would have given the non-Catholic churches the Word of God, and then changed it radically in the last 40 years? Yes, it is radically changed, and can be proven as such.
When one looks at the "handlers" (see Handlers), they are dubious at best and likely apostate at worst.

Perhaps Paul, concerned for those who opposed scriptures with false "knowledge" (science in some versions) warned Timothy this way:

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, guard that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and worthless chatter, and contradictions of knowledge falsely so called:

Certain pagan knowledge is false, for example, like that of the Arian and Gnostic beliefs of Alexandria, Egypt, of the 4th century, which can be shown to apparently have ended up in the Hort and Westcott Greek New Testament in about 2200 verses, which then has ended up in most modern translations, to one degree or another, btw.

Note that Paul was not against science or knowledge, but only that which was falsely called that. So, when is science or knowledge "false"? Well, most agree that it is false when it is motivated by an agenda, and is not neutral, or is based on key presumptions. However, there are many today who claim to practice neutral science with respect to textual criticism. But they simply do not! This is because humans are sinners, and immediately makes "neutral" impossible. In fact, had Jesus been a scholar, He would have been the only neutral one in history.

Indeed, many believe we are living in the last days or nearly so.

"Because there will come a time when they will not endure sound doctrine, but after their own lusts obtain to themselves teachers [of lust], because they have itching ears ["teased" ears]." 1 Timothy 4:3

Indeed, some modern translations, have gone through revisions that have included, via the choice of wording or dropping of words, phrases or verses:

permissive attitudes towards gays and lesbians (such as acceptance of "non-offending" behavior or "non-prostitutional" homosexuality or rejection "pre-marriage" homosexuality but acceptance of married sex)
rejection of the authority of God (gender neutral language)
rejection of the extra depth of meanings found in gender-based language, which is not being translated at all or correctly
dynamic equivalent instead of literal equivalent (not sure God would be happy with anything but a literal equivalent translation)
"easy-believerism" (rejection of the need to repent and surrender to make Jesus Lord of one's life, but simply to believe in salvation in Christ)
preaching of tolerance, while practicing intolerance, such as removal of the woman caught in adultery that Jesus said was worthy of forgiveness⁽²⁾
inclusiveness of non-born again believers in fellowship (tolerance of sin itself, instead of love the sinner, disapproval of the sin)
ecumenical beliefs beyond polite conversation (tolerance) to the point of fellowship in the faith (tolerating different doctrines).

In summary, the liberal theology of the "new age" church has overtaken some.

Here are some other examples of "challengers" to the Word of God:

the textual criticism handlers (See Handlers)
Mormon's "other" New Testament
Islam's Quran (Muslims sincerely believe in it as the Words of Allah, but Christians sincerely believe in the Bible as the Word of God (they call God Allah al ab, that is, "God the Father") )
self-pro clamed "prophets" claiming "new" words of God by special revelation
those that proclaim a translation must use only the original pronunciation of names of people, especially "God" or "Jesus Christ" or "Christians", etc

These are contrary to one or more of these New Testament verses:

1 Timothy 6:3-4 If any man teach otherwise, and does not accept the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the doctrine which is according to godliness; He has an inflated ego, knows nothing, but suffers with questions and word battles, from which arises envy, dissension, slander and evil suspicions.

2 Timothy 2:14 Of these things put them in remembrance, earnestly testifying to them before the Lord that they do not argue about words for no purpose, but to confuse the listeners.

Revelation 22:19 And if anyone 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.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes unto the Father, but by me.

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy from the past came not by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Peter endorsed Paul as writing the Word of God in 2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are uneducated and unstable wrest, as also do with the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Luke endorsed many of the writers of the New Testament in the Book of Acts, mostly Paul. (Luke authored The Book of Acts, by all accounts.)

(All Bible quotes are from the German Schlachter 2000 and translated into English.)