Why the Bible is the Word of God: Trustworthy, Transmitted Reliably, Inerrant and Infallible

Matthew 5:17-18 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” (NASB)

Introduction:  The words that are my life                                                                         Hostile critics of virtually every age have attempted to discredit the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek manuscripts, translations and versions as having little or no connection to the original autographs or manuscripts that left the hands of the apostles and prophets. As a pastor, I am constantly pouring over the text repeatedly, prayerfully and studiously asking the following questions: What is it saying? What does it mean? Where is Christ in this text? And how do I apply it to my life? Whether exercising in the discipline of textual criticism, or consulting commentaries – the words of the Bible are my life, because they connect me to the life, voice and Person of Jesus Christ. Spiritual and physical life hang upon whether the words before me are words of God or words of men. (1)

Discerning the pattern of criticisms against the Bible                                               There is a discernable pattern that seems to be consistent in looking at all of the criticisms of the Bible that are witnessed both from past and contemporary criticisms.

1.  Doubts about the Divine authority of the Bible as God’s Word                                               2. Historical reliability criticisms                                                                                                          3. Doubts about the manuscripts of the Bible                                                                                     4. Attacks on the Bible’s inerrancy                                                                                                       5. Attacks on the Bible’s infallibility

I offer the following reasons as to why you can believe and trust that the English version or translation you are studying, reading or applying is the word of God, in as much as they faithfully represent the words penned by the prophets and the apostles under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The below reasons are given to respond to the above five-fold pattern of criticisms typically marshalled by opponents of Biblical authority.

1. Jesus says so. This may strike some readers as a “so what” statement. However when the reader realizes how high of a view of scripture Jesus operated by in the course of His earthly ministry, it strikes this blogger as odd that the authority, reliability and inerrancy of scripture should be treated as of secondary concern by those claiming to be Christians. In the text above, Jesus is asserting that not one “jot” or “tittle” or “smallest letter” or “least stroke of the men” shall pass away.  Those statements refer to the characteristics of the original Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament as they would had been in the mind of God and penned by the original authors.  Let the reader note just how small of differences there are between the letters in Jesus’ illustration:

a. The jot or “smallest” Hebrew letter being the “yod” (י)

b. The “smallest stroke” being the little tale distinguishing the “daleth” (ד)  (the ‘d’ sound in the Hebrew) and the caph (ך) (the ‘k’ sound in Hebrew).

Jesus’ statement is fascinating due to the fact that He and the apostles would had been utilizing the Greek translation of the Old Testament (The Septuagint) rather than the Hebrew.  The copies of the Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament were used mainly by the Scribes and Pharisees in the first century. By logical extension,  Jesus’ comments on the Divine authority of scripture referred to those copies (and of course the Greek translation, the Septuagint). Though the original manuscripts of the Hebrew Old Testament were gone, their authority as God’s inerrant, inspired word would carry down through the copies that were faithful to the original wording.

Thus according to Jesus, there was no essential loss of God’s words or message from the original autographs of the original Hebrew/Aramaic texts to the Greek translations. Differences in the manuscript copies – yes.  Loss of God’s words and meaning,  no.  As we carry forward in this post, the reader will get a chance to see more specifically what I mean by such statements.  Clearly Jesus taught that the words in the manuscripts He had access to were reliable and faithful to what would had been the wording of the original text. This first reason addresses criticisms #1,#2 and #3 listed above. 

2. Dead Sea Scrolls. For the Hebrew Bible, the oldest manuscripts that had been known up until 1947 were documents such as the Aleppo Codex and Leningrad Codex of the early Medieval period. In 1947 the world of scholarship was historically altered when a shepherd boy hunting for some goats through a rock into a cave and heard a shattering of pottery.  To the shock of the scholarly community, that cave, located in the vicinity of the Dead Sea, contained well preserved documents of the ancient Qumran Jewish community.  For the next several years, 11 such caves would yield a treasure trove of manuscripts and copies of every Old Testament book (except Esther). Chief among them is the famous “Isaiah Scroll”, which upon close inspection was discovered to be within 95% agreement with manuscripts such as the Leningrad Codex, despite the fact that both are separated by some ten centuries! A specific example is comparing Isaiah 53 between the Dead Sea Scroll manuscript (1QIsaa) and the Masoretic Texts of the early Medieval period.(2) Clearly the preservation of God’s words made it through a thousand years of time. This particular observation can be used to address criticisms #2 and #3 above. 

3. The overall agreement between the copies and translations of the Old Testament. Whenever one studies the Septuagint (LXX), the Hebrew Masoretic text, the Samaritan Pentateuch and Aramaic Targums, the discovery is made that in cross comparison situations there is virtually over 95% agreement. In Old Testament textual criticism, the bulk of issues surround solving differences of harmonization. Having studies Hebrew for some twenty years, I can tell the reader first hand that when one studies the literature, the texts themselves and compares with English translations sold in today’s bookstores, there are no worries. This point addresses criticism #3 above.

4. The overall agreement between the copies and translations of the New Testament. In the world of New Testament textual criticism, one finds even stronger agreement.  In typical comparative studies of ancient documents, if one can attain even 90% agreement between manuscripts and find dozens of such documents for a given writing, there is a general good feeling about the reliability and preservation of the writing of that philosopher or sage.  In the case of the Old Testament we have roughly over 3,000 manuscripts examples of the Hebrew text alone, and somewhere in the neighborhood of 95% agreement.  For a document numbering over 500,000 words and with a textual history spread across three millennia, the preservation of the Old Testament is quite remarkable.

In the case of the Greek New Testament and its ancient versional witnesses, we have roughly 15-20,000 examples (with nearly 5700 Greek manuscripts stretching from the 2nd century all the way into the post-reformation period). Weighing in at over 138,000 words, our certainty of the New Testament’s wording we have today has been shown from the science of textual criticsm to be in line with what would had been the original text by by over 99%.  Furthermore, even between a manuscript such as Codex Siniaticus (325 A.D), which is considered part of the older Alexandrian textual tradition, versus, say Erasmus’ Greek New Testament, based upon available Byzantine Greek manuscripts of the middle ages, there is only 2% difference in terms of the variations between the manuscripts.

The differences and variations between the thousands of Greek manuscripts (5688 as of this writings) are expected for hand-copied texts. However through the science of textual criticism, we can determine well within 99% certainty what the original text looked like. Imagine if you had a copy of a photograph that was within 99% of the original event. No one would doubt that what you have is a virtual repoduction of the events or people photographed. Not one doctrine of Christianity is compromised or altered. Hence we can say with conviction that the Bibles we have today carry the authority of infallibility and inerrancy that would had been the original autographs.  This point answers criticisms #3, #4 and #5 listed at tbe beginning of this post.

5. God cannot lie, which is why we state that the original manuscripts were without error. This point is important, being that whenever we say a document is God’s word, we are saying every word, and every part of that document is always true and trustworthy (stating of inerrancy and infallibility in positive senses). (Titus 1:2) You cannot derive reliable, trustworthy copies from error laden originals.  Too often hostile critics point out the variants in manuscript copies as proof that the original texts had to had been error filled themselves.  However their hasty generalization lies in the fact that those differences derive not from the original sources, but the process of copying itself. Furthermore, variants of spelling and word order do not equal factual and reporting error on matters of history, personages or general scientific facts.

Would not the textual stream of both Old and New Testament reflect far less stability if that were the case? The remarkable stability of the textual streams of Old and New Testaments in comparison to other documents of antiquity demonstrate that the source documents were indeed reliable and without error. Again I point the reader back to point one and in how Jesus Himself treated the copies of the scripture in His day. This point addresses criticisms #3, #4 and #5 listed above.

6. The early church fathers deemed the Bible’s of their day to be the words of God, and were keenly aware of the variants in the manuscripts.

Here is a demonstration of how the historic Christian Church from the very beginning has held to the flawless character of the scriptures (i.e inerrancy) as rooted in the flawless character of God who cannot lie:

1. Clement of Rome: “The utterances of the Holy Ghost” (95 A.D)
2. Clement of Alexandria “Receive from God through the scriptures” (150-211 A.D)
3. Origien notes that the authorship of the Holy Spirit precludes mistakes of the human authors (185-250)

4. Irenaeus “Scripture is the perfection of God’s words” (200 A.D)
5. Polycarp “Scripture is the voice of the most high God” (65-155 A.D)
6. Tertullian “writings and words of God” (160-225 A.D)

7. Samuel Rutherford “Bible is surer than a direct oracle from heaven” (1600-1661)
8. Luther notes that the “scriptures are the throne upon which Christ presides over His church” (16th century)
9. Richard Baxter (1615-1691); Calvin (1483-1546); Knox (1509-1564); Wesley (1714-1770) all affirm this doctrine.

Many of the above church fathers have notes in their commentaries where they cite knowledge of different readings and the process they undertook to determine which words were most likely the original.  Having personally read many of their writings, it is very interesting that these men arrive at the conclusion that not one word of God has been lost in the 1500 year hand-copied transmission history of the New Testament (or the even longer transmission history of the Old Testament). This point addresses points #1, #2 and #3 above.

7. The manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments have a paper trail to trace back which readings are most likely original vs which one’s had been possibly introduced by earlier scribes

It can be asserted by this blog author that whether looking at a Hebrew manuscript or a Greek New Testament document, that numerous notes are found in the margins whereby we can trace the previous copiers of that document.  In the critical editions of the Hebrew Bible that I own, there are marginal notes called “qere” (that which should be read) and ketiv (that which should be written) that are given when the scribes were not certain of pronounciation or spelling. The scribes of the Hebrew manuscripts chose to include all variants so that future generations could do the work of textual criticism and arrive at the proper understanding of which was the most likely reading.

In the New Testament manuscripts we see much the same phenomena.  In manuscripts such as Siniaticus and Vaticanus (early 4th century) and others, we have different markings, scribal notations, and a system of identifying which scribe was the first to copy, the second, the third and so on (called in the literature an “aleph scribe”, 2nd or “b” scribe and 3rd of “c” scribe and so on). In critical editions of the Greek New Testament, such as the Nestle Aland 28th edition, the reader can consult appendices where all of these minute and voluminous details are spelled out.  Furthermore, with efforts being done right now to digitize every Greek manuscript and fragment by organizations such as the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, readers all over the world can see the evidence for themselves.

Keeping all of these details in their proper perspective can enable specialists and non-specialists alike to avoid the extreme skepticism of those scholars that doubt the reliability of the Bible.  Paper trails, whether in the world of banking, housing or Biblical studies gives evidence and proof of authenticity and reliability of the documentation.  Even within the manuscripts themselves, as time went forward, the knowledge of variants between the manuscripts prompted scribes to preserve all of them.  Why? To  have a paper trail and to assert the belief that not one of God’s words had been lost in the copying process. This addresses criticisms #2 and #3 above.

8. Not one of God’s words have been lost

It has been estimated that in the citations of the church father’s alone we have over a million words of New Testament text quoted. Furthermore, with the thousands upon thousands of manuscripts, copies and translations in existence (and still being discovered!), the fact of the popularly cited statistic of over 200,000 variations between the manuscripts is not seen to be as big of a deal in comparison to the total amount of combined pages and folio leaves of manuscripts with which we have to work.  Whether in the Old or New Testament, we certainly are always aiming to get back and recreate as closely as possible the original autographs of the Old and New Testament.

However in reflecting upon these thoughts, it is comforting to know that in surveying the entire textual history of the Bible, the reader can rest assured that among the oceans of variants, therein lies every word of God and meaning. As scholar Dr. Wayne Grudem has noted in His Systematic Theology: “For most practical purposes, then, the current published scholarly texts of the Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament are the same as the original manuscripts. Thus, when we say that the original manuscripts were inerrant, we are also implying that over 99 percent of the words in our present
manuscripts are also inerrant, for they are exact copies of the originals. Furthermore,
we know where the uncertain readings are (for where there are no textual variants we
have no reason to expect faulty copying of the original).”(3) This point answers criticisms #3, #4, and #5 above.

Conclusion:                                                                                                                                     It is the hope of this blogger that the above post has proven encouraging and useful to the reader in understanding that the Bibles we have today can still be deemed the word(s) of God.  Eight reasons for believing the Bible to be the Word of God were given in response to the following five types of criticisms that are typically marshalled by critics of the Bible:

1.  Doubts about the Divine authority of the Bible as God’s Word                                               2. Historical reliability criticisms                                                                                                          3. Doubts about the manuscripts of the Bible                                                                                     4. Attacks on the Bible’s inerrancy                                                                                                       5. Attacks on the Bible’s infallibility

Furthermore, knowing the status of the long transmission history of the Old and New Testament, this author can say with full confidence that the Bibles was have today carry with them the authority of being the inerrant and infallible word of God.  They do not merely contain the words of God, but are so. With whatever variations there are among the manuscripts, such differences bow their proverbial knees to the Christ of whom the words that God has seen fit to preserve down to our generation speaks forth and clearly portrays.


(1) For readers who must know, by the grace of God I obtained a Bachelors of Science in Bible from Lancaster Bible College in 1996 and a Master of Arts in Christian Thought from Biblical Theological Seminary in 2002.  I was taught two years of Greek and one formal year of Hebrew during my time at Lancaster Bible College.  For over twenty years I have weekly engaged in the study of the Bible in both its original languages and English translations and versions.  I have attempted to read and study virtually every Greek and Hebrew Grammar that has been published in the past twenty years to maintain the competency required for working with the Hebrew and Greek Texts in sermon preparation, site reading and textual criticism.

(2) Isaiah 53 in the Hebrew text has roughly 200 words, with only 17 variations, mainly in stylistic and spelling differences, from what is scene in the Dead Sea Scroll version of Isaiah 53. The reader must remember that both manuscripts are 1,000 years apart!

(3) Dr. Wayne Grudem. Systematic Theology. Zondervan. 1994.


About pastormahlon

By the grace of God I was converted to saving faith in Jesus Christ at the age of 10 and called into the Gospel ministry by age 17. Through the Lord's grace I completed a Bachelors in Bible at Lancaster Bible College in 1996 and have been married to my beautiful wife since that same year. We have been blessed with four children, ranging from 7-18 years of age. In 2002 the Lord enabled me to complete a Master of Arts in Christian Thought at Biblical Theological Seminary, Hatfield PA. For nearly 25 years I have been preaching and teaching God's Word and have been studying the original languages since 1994. In 2016 God called my family and me to move to begin a pastorate at a wonderful Southern Baptist Congregation here in Northern New York.
This entry was posted in Apologetics, Biblical Inerrancy, Biblical Infallibility, Greek New Testament study, Hebrew Text/Translation, Jesus' relationship to the Bible, Preservation of the Biblical Text. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s