Original Bible?

[longdistancerunner]

I am particularly interested in what is taught in CoC universities and preaching schools, as well as other sources, about what is the original bible? I have always seen preachers talk about different translations and translation errors so I assume they acknowledge there are ancient texts. What is the ancient text that is gone to in order to determine what the scriptures says?

[agricola]

There is no single 'original text' of anything. Every existing ancient text is a copy of some earlier text, sometimes a copy of a copy of a copy -= dating back through multiple 'generations' of copiers.

The Dead Sea documents were (are) a treasure trove of ancient COPIES of earlier texts - and since there are often multiple different copies (or at least fragments of multiple copies) we can look at those and literally SEE interesting differences between copies which existed next to each other, at the same time, by different scribes - or by different scribes copying different originals.
Most of the differences are what you'd expect - things like minor spelling errors, and occasionally missing words, or even a missing line or two.

You can even sort of tell that there were OLD errors, that persisted over generations into all existing copies (or almost all) in antiquity - here is one very interesting one, although - frankly - it makes next to NO difference in the Biblical book itself.

Take a look at Genesis, chapter 4 verse 8 in the KJV:

Now Cain [e]talked with Abel his [f]brother; and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him.

Now look at the AMENDED version in the NIV:

Now Cain said to his brother Abel, ‘Let’s go out to the field.’[d] While they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.

See that line I highlighted in bold print? THAT SINGLE LINE is missing from almost EVERY ancient Torah scroll. The NIV ADDED that phrase because IT STILL EXISTS IN THE SAMARITAN TORAH.

[agricola]

Honestly, dropping 'let us go out into the field' hardly makes a substantive change in the story - but it is still a 'missing line'. AND it is a line missing from ALL the copies of the Torah (there are over 50 represented, but almost none of them are complete) in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are the oldest existing copies. That line is missing in ALL modern Torah copies (which are still copied by hand individually). It was dropped sometimes a VERY long time ago, and every copy since that time is missing that line.

The other variations between the KJV here and the NIV which are in English word choices were translator choices - the text is not different.

[agricola]

Remember, there is no 'original Bible' without considering the original INDIVIDUAL BOOKS which were included. Every book in every Bible has its own history or composition and copying history.

The books existed for centuries - being copied over and over again - before anybody at all decided to officially choose some particular books to label 'authoritative' and which particular books to ignore.

They didn't choose from originals - they COULDN'T. No originals existed. They had to chose which of several COPIES of EACH book would be their 'official' choice.

Ehrman does a pretty good job going over the differences in early COPIES available to the committees putting together a 'canonical' set of books for the New Testament. He doesn't attempt to cover the Jewish scriptures or Old Testament as such, however.

Dick Friedman does a little of that kind of work, though - Who Wrote the Bible? (actually, the Torah) and The Hidden Book in the Bible and some others, talk a little about the kind of thing you are asking about, but that isn't really his exact focus.

[longdistancerunner]

There is no single 'original text' of anything. ...
You can even sort of tell that there were OLD errors, that persisted over generations into all existing copies (or almost all) in antiquity - here is one very interesting one, although - frankly - it makes next to NO difference in the Biblical book itself.

There are some that make a real difference like the passage in Mark on the handling of serpents and drinking poisons, it is not in earlier texts, and this passage has killed multiple people. Also it is commonly thought that the subservient role of women attributed to Paul is an interpolation and was not present in earlier texts we do not have now. That passage is totally out of context and is diametrically opposed to Paul's other writings (we assume Paul wrote them but don't know of course). It is thought a scribe added them in.

Jesus teachings on divorce are different some say adultery is cause for divorce and remarriage, others do not say that.

There are also real differences in versions of Paul's epiphany and Jesus' birth and death, so there are differences that are real and not trivial.

But the question is what is taught to preachers in CoC universities. I have heard it said multiple times there are no errors in the Bible whatsoever, it is inerrant and if you think there is an error then your thinking is wrong. So once you admit there could be errors you are going down a slippery slope to question everything aren't you?

[longdistancerunner]

Interesting perspective from Statement from East Side Baptist church, I haven't seen the CoC take this hard a line: "We believe God not only inspired every word, but has preserved them through the ages. We believe the King James Version is the preserved Word of God for the English-speaking people."