Do the Differences in Text Affect Doctrine?

Introduction

If you have been around churches like ours for any amount of time, you know that there has been a battle waged surrounding bible translation. You probably will have heard if not made statements like some of these:

David Daniels with Chick Tracts Publications advertises:

If the NIV says Jesus lied to His brothers, What else is in there? See what’s been removed from over 250 verses! See the deletions that change doctrine!

KJV Apologetics Press which has put out a lot of AI generated content lately on facebook makes a similar claim:

NIV attacks Jesus Christ in 30 ways…

David Sorenson in his book Touch not the Unclean Thing essentially makes the same claim though a little bit more responsible with his words:

A standard defense of the critical text (and versions based thereupon) is that though it has differences with the Received Text, no doctrine is eliminated or changed. On its face, that statement is more or less true. However, in the critical text and its concomitant translations, major doctrine is weakened or diluted.

I appreciate David Sorenson’s gentler more honest approach to this debate. He acknowledges that no doctrine is changed, but his central claim is that doctrines are weakened or diluted. (If you happen to pick up his book to study, I have a review of the book by James Snapp Jr who is not a CT supporter, but is heavily involved in these issue which points out errors in the book.

However, when I look at the evidence that men like these put forward, I believe they are still missing the mark. They are missing the truth or making false claims. Tonight, I want to specifically address the claim that the CT and modern bible translations attack or change the doctrines of the bible. I have stated before that I personally do not hold to the CT or most modern translations for reasons I haven’t gone into yet, but it is important to be honest and fair in our evaluation. We must resist the urge to believe conspiracy theories and ignore evidence to the contrary.

We must also remember that you cannot determine truth in this issue by lining up two English translations side by side and comparing them. If you are going to compare them, they must be lines up next to the original text. Let’s use this example:

Imagine two artists were commissioned to make a copy of the Mona Lisa. Both artists are very skilled at their job and were chosen by the Louvre. After weeks, months, longer? they finally finish their copies of the Mona Lisa. How would we determine which one was better? Would I take the copy of my favorite artist and then compare it to the other? No, if I want to see which one is the best copy of the Mona Lisa, I must look and compare it to the original painting.

Yet two often we make value judgments about translations by comparing them to the wrong thing. So tonight I am going to humor those who wish to make their comparisons this way for a second and just make a comparison straight accross between the CT and the TR using the KJV and the ESV translations from their respective texts.

I will not go into an exhaustive verse by verse answer to every argument that the differences in text affect doctrine because there is not end to the lists that people make. However, I will be looking at three test doctrines because they will develop our main point in answer to this question.

The Deity of Christ

The first doctrine that other versions are often accused of attacking is the deity of Jesus. The claim is that if a verse changes a word from God to anything else it must be attacking the fact that Jesus was God. This is a serious claim if it is true and it makes sense.

If I were talking to someone and they never were willing to say Jesus was god I might question them. If I am used to a verse saying God but another translation does not, it would make me skeptical. It is possible that some scribe didn’t like the deity of Jesus so he changed it whenever he came across it, but is that really what happened? Let’s take a look at a couple examples that David Sorenson gives and then evaluate if they are true or not.

1 Timothy 3:16 “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”

1 Timothy 3:16 ESV

Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.

I put both of these verses so you could see what has changed from the KJV to the ESV and these verses do in fact represent a difference in the Greek text. So did the CT and the ESV attack the deity of Christ. Just comparing side by side, I could understand you thinking so. But think with me for a second. If there was a systemic effort to remove the deity of Christ:

Why are there still references to the deity of Christ in the CT? If a scribe was attacking the deity of Christ, you would expect every reference in his copy of the text to show this change, but it doesn’t. This verse for some reason doesn’t say God, but other verses do claim that Jesus is God in the same texts. He must not be a very consistent attacker if he is trying to attack the deity of Christ.

Why does the book of Jude in the CT have more references to the deity of Christ than the TR? In a moment, we will look at some evidence that shows passages in Jude where the CT specifically says Jesus was the God who delivered them out of Egypt, but the TR does not. If we are using the same logic, we would have to argue that in these verses the TR is attacking the deity of Christ. Let’s look at the verses then explain.

Jude 5 “I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.”

Jude 5 ESV

Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.

The Critical text here makes it clear that the God who delivered Israel out of Egypt was in fact Jesus while the TR leaves it open to just be a reference to Jehovah. Later on in

Jude 25 “to the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.”

Jude 25 ESV

to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.

The critical text actually adds information about the deity of Jesus that the TR does not have. If I were to be consistent with the arguments made by men like David Sorenson and Chick Publications, I would have to argue here that the TR and the KJV was trying to attack the deity of Christ, but that is an unfair argument. If we were asking which one affirms the deity of Christ here we would have to take the CT, but that isn’t the question we should be asking.

My point here is that while the verses are changed and the doctrine of the deity of Christ may be diminished in that specific verses, it is slander to accuse the the CT and bible translations of attacking the deity of Christ when in fact in some places, it is more explicit than even the TR. If we are going to have a position on which is better it must be based on truth and not lies.

The Doctrine of Hell

The second doctrine that some accuse the CT of attacking is the doctrine of hell. The argument goes like this, Liberals don’t like a real eternal hell, so they tried to remove it from the bible. Someone who makes this claim will probably take you to.

Mark 9:44 “Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.”

This verse is omitted in the CT.

Does this mean the CT does not teach an eternal hell. Notice that the exact same statement is made in Mark 9:48. The Critical text seems to have removed the verse because it seems to have been repeated multiple times. They assume it is more likely to add to the bible than take away so the extra verse must not be authentic.

Mark 9:48 ESV

‘where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’

The passage doesn’t remove the doctrine of eternal punishment in hell; rather it eliminates how many times it has been repeated.

I want you to turn to Matt 25:46.

Matthew 25:46 ESV

And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

If the critical text were trying to remove the doctrine of an eternal hell, why would this verse still be in their bible? Again they must not be very consistent or maybe it isn’t about removing doctrines or attacking them. Maybe men we might disagree with just saw the differences differently.

The Doctrine of Salvation

What greater doctrine could we talk about than the doctrine of salvation. This one should strike pretty hard. If the doctrine of salvation is being changed we want to know and fight back against it. The claim here is that the blood is removed from modern bible. Take a look at:

Colossians 1:14 “In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:”

Colossians 1:14 ESV

in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

This specific passage, seems to leave out the words through his blood. I would agree that in this specific passage it diminishes the doctrine that redemption is through the blood. Is the blood of Jesus essential for our salvation? Of course it is. However, this is different than saying it attacks or removes the blood from the bible. In the CT and modern bible versions you will find this phrase in Eph 1:7.

Ephesians 1:7 ESV

In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,

It is not logical to say a scribe who wanted to remove the blood from the bible took it out in Col but left it in in Eph. He is at best inconsistent if that were the case. It would take a lot of illogical speculation to come to that conclusion.

Go Back to Col, notice just a few verses ahead in Col 1:20

Colossians 1:20 ESV

and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

The blood still appears in the same context as the verse that Sorenson claims is an attack on the blood. I am not arguing that they were right to removed the words, that is a conversation that would require looking at the Greek texts and practicing textual criticism, but I am arguing that we must look at this evidence fairly.

Conclusion

The variances do often change whether a specific passage teaches a certain doctrine or possibly diminishes its strength, but that does not justify the slanderous charge that the differences in text were then driven by a desire to remove these doctrines from scripture. If that were the case, we would expect the change to be made everywhere where it could possibly show up in a manuscript. As the evidence has shown in some passages the CT is actually more affirming of the deity of Christ than the critical text is. Going back to our conclusion from last week, we must be fair. I personally disagree with the choices the CT made but it is technically a lie to say, Modern bible versions or the Critical text remove the doctrine of ….” Do you want to be guilty of a lie?

If we are going to defend the reading in our translation, we must go back to the original text to do so and defend the reading choices there. It is fair to say that some of the verses I would use to defend a certain doctrine are changed and can’t be used as easily, but we cannot go beyond what is true. It is very important that Christians not give in to slander and lies merely because it serves their agenda. By using such tactics we are ourselves aligning ourselves with Satan. Now I know many who say things like this and they honestly believe these arguments because they have not truly looked at the evidence. Those are just honestly mistaken and repeating things they heard. But there are some like Sorenson, David Daniels, Sam Gipp, Gail Riplinger who have done enough research that they know. These men and women have made themselves liars. When they should know the truth, they have allowed a bias to blind their eyes. So my challenge to us tonight is to be truthful and fair about this issue. We can disagree about which reading is correct, but let’s disagree honestly.