(Entire letter is found at http://www.alphamin.org/LETTERS/MAINPAGE.htm  I will try to keep as much relevent material from James as possible but remove filler stuff to keep reading as short as possible but one can go to the link cited to get all of James comments so nobody can say I am taking things out of context nor not giving access to read the entire context--Something few LDS critics do.)

The vast majority of LDS, in my experience, harbor some doubts concerning the accuracy of the Bible, some going so far as to reject the Bible, for all intents and purposes, as a book that can be trusted.

Joseph Smith -- "The Book of Mormon, which we hold equally sacred with the Bible" (An Appeal., Evening and Morning Star, vol. 2 (June 1833-September 1834), Vol. Ii. August, 1834. No. 23. p.184)

Joseph Smith -- "You therefore, must reason from the Bible and the Book of Mormon, with great care and not pervert the meaning of God's sacred word." (To the Elders of the Church of Christ, Who Preach Good Tidings To the World., Evening and Morning Star, vol. 1 (June 1832-May 1833), Vol. I. July, 1832. No. 2.  p.14)

Brigham Young -- "We not only believe part of the Bible, but the whole of it, and the whole of the plan of salvation that Jesus has given to us. Do we differ from others who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ? No, only in believing more; we are one with them as far as they believe in him. Do we differ with regard to the practice of the Gospel that he has delivered to us? No, not as far as they really believe in and practice the doctrines taught by him. We believe all that any good man on the earth need believe. We believe in God the Father, in Jesus Christ His Son, our Savior. We believe all that Moses spoke and wrote of him, all that the apostles said of him, and all that Jesus himself has said, which was penned by his apostles and servants." (JOD, Vol.13, p.56)

Brigham Young -- "No Latter-day Saint, no man or woman, can say the Book of Mormon is true, and at the same time say that the Bible is untrue. If one be true, both are; and if one be false, both are false." (JOD Vol 1  p.38)

John Taylor -- "We have confidence in the Bible, and in the revelations of God." (JOD, Vol.11,  p.346-347)

Gordon B. Hinckley -- "If the Book of Mormon is true, the Bibble is true. . . .Together they declare the Kingship of the Redeemer of the world, and the reality of his kingdom.” (Conference Report, October 1959, Afternoon Meeting p. 119)

Gordon B. Hinckley -- "The Bible is the word of God, written by men. It is basic in Mormon teaching. . . .Supplementing the Bible, the Latter-day Saints have three other books. These with the Bible constitute the standard works of the Church. They are known as the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.” (What of the Mormons? [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1947], p. 26)

"What shall we say then, concerning the Bible's being a sufficient guide Can we rely upon it in its present known corrupted state, as being a faithful record of God's word We all know that but a few of the inspired writings have descended to our times, which few quote the names of some twenty other books which are lost,. ..What few have comedown to our day, have been mutilated, changed, and corrupted, in such a shameful manner that not two manuscripts agree. Verses and even whole chapters have been added by unknown persons; and even we do not know the authors of some whole books; and we are not certain that all those which we do know, were wrote by inspiration. Add all this imperfection to the uncertainty of the translation, and who, in his right mind, could, for one moment, suppose the Bible in its present form to he a perfect guide Who knows that even one verse of the whole Bible has escaped pollution, so as to convey the same sense now that it did in the original...There can be no certainty as to the contents of the inspired writings until God shall inspire some one to rewrite all those books over again....No reflecting man can deny the necessity of such a new revelation" (Orson Pratt's Works, "The Bible Alone an Insufficient Guide," pp. 44-47)

I have met a number of Mormons who were that "radical" in their view. But, I've also met others who would disagree with Orson Pratt, such even as Brigham Young, who, in response to comments such as those above by Pratt, said, why I make this particular remark is because this congregation heard brother O. Pratt scan the validity of the Bible, and I thought by the time he got through, that you would scarcely think a Bible worth picking up and carrying home, should you find one in the streets...The Bible is good enough as it is, to point out the way we should walk, and to teach us how to come to the Lord of whom we can receive for ourselves (Brigham Young, 10/8/1855, Journal of Discourses, 3:116).  So, as you can see, there are a lot of different attitudes toward the Bible amongst Latter-day Saints.

In addition Mr White incorrectly cites the reference to Orson Pratt by claiming its from "The Bible Alone an Insufficient Guide".  The actual name for that work is "".  He is not the only one that does this but Marvin Cowan in his book "Mormon Claims Answered" Chapter 3 (Review is found on this website) and Bill McKeever in his Anti-Mormon book "Mormonism 101" also refers to this source by that exact title.   I am sure there are other Anti-Mormon writers who also do the same.   Why is it that so many are misciting it?  Are they all getting together and purposely agreeing to miscite the full name or are they all copying from each other and none are really aware of full name and the contents of the work?  Hard to tell.

Why do they miscite this source and not give the name in full.  Its because they want to make the LDS faith look as bad as possible rather than accurately representing the LDS view.  The incorrect citation gives the impression that the Orson Pratt is attacking the Bible or at least does not think much of it.  The full name actually explains why Pratt views the Bible without continuing revelation is insufficient.  In LDS belief, continuing revelation is a critical component.  As far as the LDS are concerned "the Book of Mormon .....  One would be hard pressed to even remotely claim that LDS attack or look down on the Book of Mormon.  So though it might seem to be a petty point, in reality its a critical issue as  the shortened version leads on to believe the LDS view the Bible negatively whereas the actual full citation explains why Pratt says the Bible alone is sufficient.  The connotations are vastly different.  If not the case then clearly James and others could cite the full name.  How hard would it be to add the extra   words in their text?

Your objections to the accuracy of the Bible, Elder Hahn, are "common" in my experience, and I will do my best to answer them.  In my previous letter I noted a few passages from the Bible, such as Isaiah 40:8 and Proverbs 30:5-6. It seems obvious to me, Elder Hahn, that the Lord Jesus believed that the Scriptures were truly and really "the words of God," and this is perfectly in line with the views expressed in those Scriptures I just cited.

“I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.327).

 Jesus said, "have you not read what God spoke to you saying, `I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob"' (Matthew 22:31-32). Here the Lord Jesus refers to the written words of Scripture as the very words of God Himself You will not find the Lord Jesus ever "correcting" the Old Testament Scriptures, but each time He quotes the Old Testament writings, He accepts what they say without question, and expects all others to have the same attitude. A high view of the Bible is surely Jesus' belief. Do you believe that what you find in the Bible is actually God's words, Elder Hahn Or have you been taught that the Bible is not fully trustworthy, not fully accurate.

2.  Though Jesus quotes some of the Old Testament, this quoting does not mean he is making a claim that its perfect.  In fact the best one can claim is that the portions that Jesus quoted were correct in his day but most of the Old Testament he does not quote.  I could make the case the the passages in the Old Testament he does not quote are admissions from him that they were corrupted so he did not think they were worth quoting.   This of course is not true but the logic is just as valid as the one James uses for his defense.

3.  Even if Jesus was making a claim that the scriptures were perfect and had not been corrupted in his day does not mean they would or could not be corrupted after Jesus day.

4.  The scriptures Jesus would have been referring to are the Old Testament hence the New Testament verses would not be a part of these citations.  So James claims do not apply to the New Testament.

5.  Jesus actually does not say that the written words of scripture are the very words of God himself. The only words that Jesus is refering to in that passage is "I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob". He is not referring to every idle word in scripture nor every idle word is perfect. If it said "have you not read what God spoke to you saying, `I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" that it would have been just as correct though it in a shorter form.

6.  How in the world could Jesus have a high view of the Bible when the Bible canon was not created in his day and not one book in the New Testament had been written when he spoke these words?

7.  Usually when the Old Testament is cited in the New Testament, its the Greek version (LXX) which often does not read the same as the Hebrew version. So is James claiming that Jesus approved the Septuagint as being correct over the Hebrew?

8.  The Bible is generally trustworthy dispite the fact there are many errors and mistakes in it.  No verse in the Bible makes a claim that the scriptures would be fully accurate so I see no reason to believe in a premise that the scriptures themselves don't make.

There are two Scriptures that clearly present my belief in the nature of the Bible as God's Word. The first is 2 Timothy 3:1-17, the second is 2 Peter 1:20-21. Let me briefly review these passages with you.

Paul wrote to Timothy, "All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof for instruction, for training in righteousness, in order that the man of God might be complete, fully equipped for every good work." Yes, I know, that is not the King James translation -- it is my own translation of the Greek in which Paul wrote to Timothy in the first place.

Paul describes the Scriptures as "God-breathed." The term itself that is commonly translated as "inspired" literally means that the Scriptures find their origin, their source, in God Himself. They are like the breath of God Himself, coming forth from His mouth. Note, too, that the Bible is not here speaking of how the writers were led by God to write what they did, but that what they wrote was "inspired" or "God-breathed." God used men to write His Word, but He did so in such a way as to insure that what was written was word-for-word what He had intended from eternity past. The God of the Bible is big enough to use men to write His message, yet at the same time see to it that the resultant revelation is not mixed with error or untruth.

2.  There is no suggestion that the scriptures were given in a dictated word for word. That is not what inspiration or as James calls "God-breathed" has to mean. It only has to mean that God authored the thoughts or concepts but the writer had to chose his own words to portray those thoughts or concepts.

3.  Not every idle word that is found in the Bible is inspired by God.  Would we say the words that Jesus's accusers spoke against Jesus were words from God or God inspired them to say against Jesus?   If not then clearly not every word in the Bible is from God.

4.  This verse does not however refer to the Bible or what books should be in the Bible nor that it is inerrant. All it states is "all scripture" is "profitable." Mormons agree that all scripture is profitable, including the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. This verse does not give limits to just the Bible. A statement like "All vegetables are profitable for health and strength that a man may live long." This might be a true statement but it does not mean that vegetables are the only source of food that are good for health.

5.   "Note, too, that the Bible is not here speaking..." is nonsense as the Bible is not speaking this. Paul is speaking this.

6.  This verse teaches that scriptures play an important part in perfecting man of God. It does not say that they do it by themselves or they are the only thing involved. The Greek word teleios, translated in 2 Timothy 3: 17 as "perfect," more often means "complete," "whole," "ripe," "ready," or "initiated". This means that scripture is needed for us to be made whole or complete but its not the only thing the causes this to happen. Oxford University's James Barr states:

“The striking thing about 2 Tim. 3: 16 is not its declaration of scriptural inspiration but its unstressed and low-key application of it. It is not remarkable that it says nothing about inerrancy or historical accuracy, which were not an issue at the time or until many centuries later; but, more important, it says nothing about scripture being the foundation of the Christian faith, or the ultimate criterion of its genuineness, or the decisive factor above all others in the understanding of it. What it does say is that scripture is useful, profitable for the needs of the pastoral ministry.” (Barr James, canon, Authority, Criticism. Philadelphia, Penn Westminster Press 1983 p. 20 cited in Michael T Griffth "A Ready Reply Horizon Publishers p. 75)

So in conclusion, this passage has a lot to say but what it does say is nothing like James White thinks it says.

 2 Peter 1:21-22..."Knowing this first of all, that no Scriptural prophecy ever came about by the prophet's own personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever was borne by the will of man, rather, while being carried along by the Holy Spirit, men spoke from God." Again, this is my own personal translation of the original Greek.

Peter is discussing not the interpretation of the text, but the origin and surety of the text. He asserts that the prophecies of Scripture (and he is not speaking simply of prophecies in the sense of predictions of future events, but the whole proclamation of the truth of God) never came about simply by human impulse or through human thinking. God's revelation has never found its origin in the will of man. Instead, these men spoke from God while being carried along by the Holy Spirit of God. What they said came from God, and as they spoke these things, they were being carried along by the Spirit of God. Obviously, then, the Spirit of God would not have led these men into error in what they said as they spoke from God, would He We see, then, that the Apostles, just as the Lord Jesus, believed in the inerrancy of the Biblical text -- that what they wrote contains no errors, no untruths.

The Holy Ghost inspired the prophets on the topics or issues to write one. The writers however used their own words to relay the information to others in their writings. The Holy Ghost was not dictating to them word for word what to write. That is the way the word "inspire" is normally used. If a person is in inspired by a movie to write a book, the book he writes will contain those points that the writer felt inspired on. Another person may write it a little differently. The point is once again, the Prophets were inspired to write on certain issues but the words they used was up to them. The spirit was not dictating to them word by word. If it was, then inspire would not be the appropriate word to describe it but rather dictate.  This passage and 0% to do with Biblical inerrancy.

"We might agree to this point. You might be willing to say "yes, as the Bible was originally written it was the perfect and complete Word of God." But, then you'd be quick to add, "Things have changed -- the Bible has been changed, things have been lost. We can no longer say that the Bible is fully and completely the Word of God." That really seems to be your main objection if I am interpreting your last letter correctly. If so, you seem to be in line with a majority of LDS today. However, you might note that one of your own LDS scholars, James Talmage, was not quite as strident in his criticism of the Bible. Rather, he knew enough of the Bible itself to be much more moderate in his words:

"The Latter-day Saints believe the original records to be the word of God unto man, and, as far as these records have been translated correctly, the translators are regarded as equally authentic. The English Bible professes to be a translation made through the wisdom of man; In its preparation the most scholarly men have been enlisted, yet not a version has been published in which errors are not admitted. However, an impartial investigator has cause to wonder more at the paucity of errors than that mistakes are to he found at all" (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, pp. 236-237)

"The New Testament must he accepted for what it claims to he; and though, perhaps, many precious parts have been suppressed or lost, while some corruptions of the texts may have crept in, and errors have been inadvertently introduced through the incapacity of translators, the volume as a whole must be admitted as authentic and credible, and as an essential part of the Holy Scriptures" (Articles of Faith, p. 248).

It is interesting that Talmage would say "perhaps many precious parts have been...lost" and "some corruptions of the texts may have crept in" in light of the clear teachings of many of the early LDS teachers (such as Orson Pratt) as well as the direct statements of the Book of Mormon about the Bible:

Neither will the Lord God suffer that the Gentiles shall forever remain in that awful state of blindness [the book of Mormon originally read "awful state of woundedness"], which thou beholdest they are in, because of the plain and most precious parts of the gospel of the Lamb which have been kept back by that abominable church, whose formation thou hast seen (1 Nephi 13:32)."

"We are all aware that there are errors in the Bible due to faulty translations and ignorance on the part of the translators, but the hand of the Lord has been over this volume of Scripture nevertheless, and it is remarkable that it has come down to us in the excellent condition in which we find it." (Joseph Fielding Smith Doctrines of Salvation Vol 3 p. 191)

"We are not called to teach the errors of translators but the truth of God's word. It is our mission to develop faith in the revelations from God in the hearts of the children, and "How can that best be done?" is the question that confronts us. Certainly not by emphasizing doubts, creating difficulties or teaching negations...The clause in the Articles of Faith regarding mistakes in the translation of the Bible was never intended to encourage us to spend our time in searching out and studying those errors, but to emphasize the idea that it is the truth and the truth only that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints accepts, no matter where it is found." (George Q. Cannon Gospel Truth Vol 2 p. 249)

Of course, this passage only says that these "plain and precious truths" are withheld by the "abominable church," and not that they have been removed from the Bible, but many, many LDS believe this to be the case. 1 Nephi 14:10 says,

"And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which  is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth."

It is clear that the all churches other than the LDS Church must be actively "keeping back" many "plain and precious truths" of the Bible. How this is done is not stated by the Book of Mormon; but, popular belief amongst Latter-day Saints says that the Catholic Church removed whole sections of the Bible during the Middle Ages.

And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld that they did prosper in the land; and I beheld a book [referring to the Bible], and it was carried forth among them.

And the angel said unto me: Knowest thou the meaning of the book [Bible]? And I said unto him: I know not.

And he said: Behold it proceedeth out of the mouth of a Jew. And I, Nephi, beheld it; and he said unto me: The book [Bible] that thou beholdest is a record of the Jews, which contains the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto the house of Israel; and it also containeth many of the prophecies of the holy prophets; and it is a record like unto the engravings which are upon the plates of brass, save there are not so many; nevertheless, they contain the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto the house of Israel; wherefore, they are of great worth unto the Gentiles.

And the angel of the Lord said unto me: Thou hast beheld that the book [Bible} proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew; and when it proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew it contained the fullness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record; and they bear record according to the truth which is in the Lamb of God.

Wherefore, these things go forth from the Jews in purity unto the Gentiles, according to the truth, which is in God.

And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of a great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious ; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.

And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men."

But, you must know that the Bible has been translated over and over and over again. We can't know exactly what the Bible said originally, because it has been translated so often. As the Eighth Article of Faith says, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the book of Mormon to be the word of God.... You made the statement that the Bible has been "translated over and over and over again." In one sense, that is true, but I doubt you are thing of translation in the proper sense. Most Mormons, when they say this, mean that the Bible was translated from one language into another, and then from that language into another, and then into another, and so on.

In regards to the 8th article of faith, John Tvedtnes points out in his article "The Mistakes of Men: Can the Scriptures be Error-Free?"  that the term "translated" means to  "transmit" or "transfer" from the earlier English meaning in Joseph Smith's day. (Noah Websters 1828 dictionary).  It should not be referred to translating from one language to another.    We must interpret Joseph's word how he ment it in his day and not how we term it in our day.

When we speak of the history of the Bible, and how it came to us, we are speaking of the transmission of the text over time. For the first fifteen hundred years of the "Christian era," the text of the Bible was transmitted by hand copying, from one manuscript to another. We have today over 25,000 hand-written manuscripts of the New Testament alone, and over 5,000 of these are written in the original language of the New Testament, Greek.  Most of the time, when Mormons speak of the Bible being "mistranslated" in terms of the 6th Article of Faith, they are not referring to its actual translation, but rather they are alleging that there have been errors made in the transmission of the text.  Normally it is believed that passages, and even whole books, have been "lost" in the process of transmission, not in translation.

"This supposed assemblage of five thousand Greek biblical manuscripts includes the entire Bible, and most of these manuscripts are late cursive manuscripts. If we consider only those of the New Testament, we have about 341 uncial manuscripts (which are generally earlier than the cursive manuscripts). (The information in this section was compiled from Kurt Aland, et. al., Novum Testamentum Graecae, 26th ed., 7th corrected printing (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983), 684-702.) Of these, about 10% date before the time of Constantine, and only one dates to the second century. This second century manuscript (P52 = Rylands 458) is about the size of a postage stamp and contains only ten complete words. (Peter Thiede's redating of the Magdalen College fragments to the first century.(Carsten Peter Thiede, "Papyrus Magdalen Greek 17 (Gregory-Aland P64) A Reappraisal," Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 105 (1995): 13-20) would be wonderful if true, but his arguments have been demonstrated wrong.) (Klaus Wachtel, "P64/67: Fragmente des Matthäusevangeliums aus dem 1. Jahrhundert?" Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 107 (1995): 73-80. Thiede appears to be the papyrological equivalent of D. J. Nelson; Harald Vocke, "Papyrus Magdalen 17-weitere Argumente gegen die Frühdatierung des angeblichen Jesus-Papyrus," Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 113 (1996): 153-157.) Ninety-nine point seven percent of Greek uncial New Testament manuscripts come after the time period when accusations of textual corruption are rampant. [Gee notes that writers in the 2nd century were making these claims] If we included the cursive manuscripts as well the percentage of second century manuscripts would become even smaller. But further consider that only ten complete words of the New Testament are attested in manuscript form during the time of textual corruption, and not a single one is attested before that time. If we assemble all the manuscripts from the second and third centuries and just note those chapters where even a part of a verse is attested, we find that entire books are missing, including 1-2 Timothy, 1-2 Peter, 2-3 John and Jude. Of the twenty-eight chapters in the gospel of Matthew, there is no manuscript containing even a single verse of sixteen of these chapters before the end of the third century."

Translation is the process whereby one renders a passage in one language into the words of another language.

When we speak of supposed errors in rendering the original Hebrew or Greek texts, we are speaking of translation. When we speak of the allegation that passages of the Bible, even entire books, have been "removed," or that the text of the Bible has been corrupted over time, we are speaking of transmission.

You said that the Bible had been "translated over and over again." ... you seem to be saying that the Bible has gone through a process where it has been translated from one language into another, sort of like this: Hebrew to Greek to Latin to French to German to Spanish to English

Each of the English versions is based directly upon the original languages, and there is but one step between the original Hebrew and Greek texts to the English translation thereof. So, as you can see, we can know what the Bible originally said with reference to its translation from the original languages into English.

So, in a sense, I can say that I agree that the Bible is the word of God as far as it is translated correctly, in the sense that a purposeful and malicious attempt to mistranslate the Bible would not produce a result that I would feel obliged to call "the word of God." For example, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (Jehovah's Witnesses) produces what they call The New World Translation. This, I believe, is not truly "the word of God" for it purposefully mistranslates a number of passages that are relevant to the person of Jesus Christ, in an attempt to "smuggle" the doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses into the text of the Bible. I feel no obligation to follow this mistranslation as if it were the Word of God.

I do not follow Joseph Smith's "translation" of the Bible, for it has no basis in the manuscripts of the Bible that we have, and, in the case of his tremendous addition to the 50th chapter of Genesis, he was obviously attempting to "insert" a prophecy about himself in something that was written a full 3,000 years earlier.

(Side note on the 50th chapter of Genesis, though there is no manuscript evidence that supports it for the reasons said above there is enough outside evidence for me at least to suggest that JST is on track.  Their is a tradition in Judism, though much has been lost about it about a latter day figure who would prepare for the coming of the Messiah.  Many parallels to this last days figure or prophet and Joseph Smith exist and these parallels can't be connected to any prophet in the Bible.  This information will not be presented here however.)

I have often had LDS people say, when confronted with a passage that contradicted their own beliefs, "well, that must be mistranslated." I ask, "do you know what the correct translation is, then" "No," they reply. "Have you examined this passage in the original Hebrew or Greek" "No, I have not," they say. "Then how do you know it is mistranslated" I ask. "Because it contradicts what the LDS Church teaches," they reply. Only a handful of times have I met anyone who had done even a small amount of study on a passage that they alleged to be "mistranslated." If you ask me, Elder Hahn, James Talmage knew that the Bible was translated accurately in the English versions, and he also knew that the charges of gross corruption of the Biblical text, made so often by Latter-day Saints, have no basis in fact. That is why he was so reticent in his statements which I cited above.

"The following are two separate translations of the text as found in popular translations of the Bible. The KJV, and those Bibles which follow the more traditional reading, use the first line of text as an introduction, and then have Paul raising the subject of discussion:

KJV 1 Cor. 7:1-2 (also NIV) Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

In other words, as a response to the things which the Corinthians wrote to Paul, his response is “It is good for a man ….” It thus puts the concept of a man not touching a woman into the mouth of Paul. Other translations move the first line of text into the introduction, as the words of the Corinthians to Paul, as in the following text (REB also NRSV):

Now for the matters you wrote about. You say, "It is a good thing for a man not to have intercourse with a woman." Rather, in the face of so much immorality, let each man have his own wife and each woman her own husband.

In other words, the Corinthians asked Paul if it was good for a man not to touch a woman. And Paul responds negatively. Two completely different interpretations, both being absolutely correct translations syntactically from the exact same passage in Greek. Yet, it has a profound change on the message that Paul is giving in this passage of his epistle. In cases like the example above, where an original text (which might have given more information) is not available, the translation will largely be determined by the predisposition of the theology of the translator. In this case, it is the doctrine which determines the translation."

So the next question, obviously, is this: has the text of the Bible been changed and corrupted, as many allege? Or do we know what the original authors of the Scriptures wrote? We can speak all we wish of being able to translate the texts of the Bible accurately (and we can do so), but if the text has not been transmitted correctly over time, what does it matter

Recently, I heard a Christian talk host and a Mormon speaking about the Bible on a nationwide talk program. The Mormon said, "Well, the Bible has been translated many times, and we no longer know what it originally said because it has been changed." Sadly, the talk-show host responded not with accurate information about the Biblical text, but rather said, "Well, the Book of Mormon has been changed, too!" While he is correct that the Book of Mormon has undergone a good deal of specific, purposeful editing (the Doctrine and Covenants even more so!), that is not the point. Two wrongs don't make a right. The host should have responded by refuting the charge of "corruption" that was lodged against the Bible.

While it may be true that none of the 5,000 Greek manuscripts (as an example) of the New Testament read exactly like another, this in itself is not a very meaningful fact. That any hand-written document of the length of even one of the Gospels should read exactly like another would be quite remarkable, for the probability of misspelling even one word, or skipping one "and" in a whole book is quite high. But, despite this, it is amazing that at least 75% of the text of the New Testament is without textual variation; that is, 3 out of 4 words in the New Testament are to be found without variation in all the manuscripts we have.  95% of the remaining 25% of the text is easily determined by the process of textual criticism. Textual criticism is the process whereby, knowing the propensities of scribes in making errors and utilizing the incredibly rich amount of evidence available to us (the New Testament, for example, has far more manuscript evidence available for study than any other document of antiquity), the most likely original reading is determined from the possibilities presented by the manuscripts. That leaves but a little less than 1 1/2 percent of the entire text -- less than two out of every one hundred words -- where serious doubt as to the exact wording of the original exists. But note this well, Elder one thing that is not in doubt is that we do have the original readings available to us in the possibilities given to us by the manuscript tradition. What I mean is this: every reading that has entered into the manuscripts of the New Testament has remained there. While some might think that this is bad, it is not, for what it also means is that since no readings "drop out" of the text, the original reading is still there as well! Our task is not, then, impossible, for the original readings are still there -- we just need to recognize which of two or three possibilities it is.

2.  The above information does no address the issue or textual corruption and editing prior to the manuscripts that exists.  A man can take a document that is pure, make a copy but introduce corruption into the document and then use that document and have it copied over and over again while disgarding the original pure one.  Does examining copies of the corrupted documents lead one but to the original pure one that was disgarded?  Clearly not hence what James White presents above really does not address the central issue but is addressing a different one.

Many believe that large sections of the Bible have been "removed" or have been "lost" over time. Seemingly, given what the Book of Mormon says as cited above, this "editing" was done by the Roman Catholic Church, which, it is alleged, removed that which was not in harmony with its own beliefs. Aside from the fact that there remains much in Scripture that is not in harmony with Roman Catholic teaching (which, I guess, would mean they did not do a very good job in their "editing"), what is obvious is the fact that such a task of "editing" would have been simply impossible to do!

Why You have thousands of copies of the Scriptures, spread out all across the Roman Empire, from Spain to Egypt. How can any one man, or any one organization, gather up all these copies, including many buried under the sands in Egypt or in a clay pot in Palestine, change all of them, and then replace all of them Some may wish that God had not allowed for all these copies of the manuscripts to exist with their minor variations, but, in reality, we can see that this was a wonderful way of protecting the text! Any change in one manuscript shows up like a sore thumb when compared with the others! For example, if one person took a manuscript and attempted to "rewrite it" so as to teach a completely new doctrine, this one manuscript would be vastly different than those manuscripts found a thousand miles away. The change would be obvious to all.

When we read the New Testament, we can know that Paul wrote "For by grace you have been saved through faith..." (Ephesians 2:8); we can know what was originally written and can build our faith upon the sure revelation of God in Scripture.

Following cited from Kerry Shirts articles "The Bible, Unfortunately, Has Not Been Perfectly Preserved Through the Centuries" at http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/scriptur.htm; "Notes About the Bible" at http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/biblical.htm; The Bible or the Book of Mormon?" at http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/anton.htm; Daniel Thorpe in "No Evidences for the Book of Mormon? Look Again" at http://www.restorationhistory.com/rh/bom.html    Many more are cited and can be found there.

"For those who refuse to accept that God would have allowed the text to have been tampered with, I offer another theological perspective. God is a God of recovery. He is a God who allows things - his people, his nation, and even his word - to be lost and then found. This is the principle of recovery. The entire theology of redemption is one of recovering what had been lost." (Philip W. Comfort, "Essential Guide to Bible Versions," Tyndale House Publishers, 2000 p. 154)

"Scribes occassionally altered the words of their sacred texts to make them more patently orthodox and to prevent their misuse by Christians who espoused aberrant views." (Bart D. Ehrman, "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture p. xi).

"There were scribes who corrupted their texts for theological reasons..." (Bart D. Ehrman, "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture p. xii).

"A group of correctors working at Caesarea entered a large number of alterations into the text of both Old and New Testaments." (Bruce M. Metzger, "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration p. 46). "The whole of Matthew's Gospel as far as xxv, 6 is lost, as well as the leaves which originally contained John 6:50-58, 52, and 2 Cor. 4:13-xii, 6." (Ibid p. 46). "Unfortunately the beauty of the original writing has been spoiled by a later corrector..." (Ibid p. 47). "All known witnesses of the New Testament are to a greater or less extent mixed texts, and even the earliest manuscripts are not free from egregious errors..." (Ibid p. 246)

"The history of the text of the Hebrew Bible has been confused and obscured by an assumption, or rather a dogma, that the Hebrew text was unchanged and unchanging." (Frank Moore Cross, "The Text Behind the Text of the Hebrew Bible," p. 143).

"The number of errors [in the Bible]...amounts to about 6,000! It is absurd to try to make this factual reality conform to the popular impression that the Bible,...is totally error-free because God personally not only rendered it originally in true form, but has, over the past few thousand years, personally seen to it that the Scriptures continue to be his personal word." (Steve Allen, "On the Bible, Religion, & Morality", Prometheus Books, 1990, p. 52)

"No original biblical documents, such as Paul's letters, have survived...All we have are copies of copies of copies, and so forth. Because of mistakes in copying, later elaborations and even intentional alterations, surviving manuscripts contain numerous discrepancies..." (Daniel N. Schowalter, "Lost in Translation," in "Bible Review," Aug. 1995, p. 36)

"What fundamentalists insist is not that the Bible must be taken literally, but that it must be so interpreted as to avoid any admission that it contains any kind of error. In order to avoid imputing error to the Bible, fundamentalists twist and turn back and forward between literal and non-literal interpretation...In order to expound the Bible, as thus inerrant, the fundamentalist interpreter varies back and forward between literal and non-literal understandings, indeed he has to do so in order to obtain a Bible that is error-free." (James Barr  "Fundamentalism," The Westminster Press, 1978, p.40)

"We must not regard the bible as an absolutely perfect book in which God is Himself the author using human hands and brains only as a man might use a typewriter. God uses men, not machines, men with weaknesses and prejudice, and passion as ourselves, though purified and ennobled by the influence of His Holy Spirit... It (the Bible) is as a mine of precious ore is richer in one part than another... It is foolish to ignore the existence of the human medium through which the light has come..." (Rev. J.R. Dummenlow, Commentary on the Holy Bible, N.Y. MacMill 1960 p. 134)

"The original copies of the various books in our canon, as they came from the pen of their respective authors, were free of all errors and discrepancies is a pure postulate. The Bible nowhere claims that to be that case, and no autograph exists to allow the postulate to be tested. The text of Scripture as we now posses it, even in the best critical editions, contains errors and discrepancies." (Paul J. Achtemeier, The Inspiration of Scripture, Phildelphia: Westminster Press, 1980, p. 71)

"Other divergences in wording arose from deliberate attempts to smooth out grammatical or stylistic harshness, or to eliminate real or imagined obscurities of meaning in the text. Sometimes a copyist would substitute or would add what seemed to him to be a more appropriate word or form, perhaps derived from a parallel passage (called harmonization or assimilation.) Thus, during the years immediately following the composition of the several documents that eventually were collected to form the New Testament, hundreds if not thousands of variant readings arose." (Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, New York: United Bible Societies, 1975,  p. 16)

"A slip of the pen, an error of sight, and of hearing, or an error of memory on the part of a scribe or copyist, would be preserved and perpetuated with the same care as that exercised in preserving the best text. Subsequent copyists and translators would not only peretuate earlier errors, but would add some of their own. This kind of mulipication of manuscripts, extending down through the centuries, opened the door to untold possibilities of many kinds of errors in the text that was thus treated." (The Ancestry of the English Bible, by Dr. I. M. Price, p. 11)

"When books were copied by hand, as was everywhere the case before the invention of printing, every manuscript usually repeated whatever errors or alterations had crept into its immediate ancestor, the model from which it was copied. As time passed and as still more copies and copies of copies were made, certain family resemblances became obvious, though...copies belonging to other families were introduced sometimes into the line - with the result that a "mixed" type of text arose, whose errors or other peculiarities would be perpetrated...Such phenomena are found in all textual history - whether of secular or sacred books... Of the new testament writings the period of greatest textual change and alteration was the 2nd century...Of the abundant variations and disagreements between manuscripts (John Mill in 1707 estimated them at 30,000!) the vast majority are merely errors due to mistaken copying... The foregoing are accidental or unintentional alterations. More serious are the intentional alterations introduced by scribes...and owners of manuscripts, who wished to improve or to correct their text by reference to some other manuscript which they preferred...Finally, the work of revisers who worked in the interest of some dogmatic view..." (Frederick C. Grant, the Union Theological Seminary, New York, -The American Encyclopedia, vol. 3, p. 655-656)

"Today all but the most extreme Jewish and Christian fundamentalists recognize the complicated and heterogeneous origins of the Bible and that it contains statements that in any other literary work would be considered erroneous." (William H. Barnes, "Inspiration and Inerrancy," The Oxford Companion to the Bible, edited by Bruce Metzger and Michael Coogan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993) p. 304 as cited in Barry Bickmore's article "Does the Bible Claim to be Inerrant"at www.fairlds.org)

"The earliest New Testament manuscripts were very fragmentary and are therefore useless as evidence that the New Testament as we now have it reflects the original text of the books it comprises. The earliest nearly complete New Testament documents are the fourth century A.D. codices. There was plenty of time during the intervening centuries for corruption to enter the text." (Bruce Metzger (Professor Emeritus of New Testament Language and Literature at Princeton Theological Seminary) in The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration" cited in "A Bible! A Bible! The Canon and Ongoing Revelation"27-33 by John A. Tvedtnes and Matt Roper)