Posted on 12/02/2003 4:06:02 PM PST by Federalist 78
(Ventura, CA) - Any objective social analyst would conclude that the United States faces its fair share of moral and spiritual problems. A new research study from the Barna Research Group'suggests that a large share of the nation's moral and spiritual challenges is directly attributable to the absence of a biblical worldview among Americans.
Citing the findings from a just-completed national survey of 2033 adults that showed only 4% of adults have a biblical worldview as the basis of their decision-making, researcher George Barna described the outcome. "If Jesus Christ came to this planet as a model of how we ought to live, then our goal should be to act like Jesus. Sadly, few people consistently demonstrate the love, obedience and priorities of Jesus. The primary reason that people do not act like Jesus is because they do not think like Jesus. Behavior stems from what we think - our attitudes, beliefs, values and opinions. Although most people own a Bible and know some of its content, our research found that most Americans have little idea how to integrate core biblical principles to form a unified and meaningful response to the challenges and opportunities of life. We're often more concerned with survival amidst chaos than with experiencing truth and significance."
Not Just Any Worldview
The research indicated that everyone has a worldview, but relatively few people have a biblical worldview - even among devoutly religious people. The survey discovered that only 9% of born again Christians have such a perspective on life. The numbers were even lower among other religious classifications: Protestants (7%), adults who attend mainline Protestant churches (2%) and Catholics (less than one-half of 1%). The denominations that produced the highest proportions of adults with a biblical worldview were non-denominational Protestant churches (13%), Pentecostal churches (10%) and Baptist churches (8%).
Among the most prevalent alternative worldviews was postmodernism, which seemed to be the dominant perspective among the two youngest generations (i.e., the Busters and Mosaics).
For the purposes of the research, a biblical worldview was defined as believing that absolute moral truths exist; that such truth is defined by the Bible; and firm belief in six specific religious views. Those views were that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life; God is the all-powerful and all-knowing Creator of the universe and He stills rules it today; salvation is a gift from God and cannot be earned; Satan is real; a Christian has a responsibility to share their faith in Christ with other people; and the Bible is accurate in all of its teachings.
The Difference a Biblical Worldview Makes
One of the most striking insights from the research was the influence of such a way of thinking upon people's behavior. Adults with a biblical worldview possessed radically different views on morality, held divergent religious beliefs, and demonstrated vastly different lifestyle choices.
People's views on morally acceptable behavior are deeply impacted by their worldview. Upon comparing the perspectives of those who have a biblical worldview with those who do not, the former group were 31 times less likely to accept cohabitation (2% versus 62%, respectively); 18 times less likely to endorse drunkenness (2% versus 36%); 15 times less likely to condone gay sex (2% versus 31%); 12 times less likely to accept profanity 3% versus 37%); and 11 times less likely to describe adultery as morally acceptable (4% versus 44%). In addition, less than one-half of one percent of those with a biblical worldview said voluntary exposure to pornography was morally acceptable (compared to 39% of other adults), and a similarly miniscule proportion endorsed abortion (compared to 46% of adults who lack a biblical worldview).
Among the more intriguing lifestyle differences were the lesser propensity for those with a biblical worldview to gamble (they were eight times less likely to buy lottery tickets and 17 times less likely to place bets); to get drunk (three times less likely); and to view pornography (two times less common). They were also twice as likely to have discussed spiritual matters with other people in the past month and twice as likely to have fasted for religious reasons during the preceding month. While one out of every eight adults who lack a biblical worldview had sexual relations with someone other than their spouse during the prior month, less than one out of every 100 individuals who have such a worldview had done so.
Some Groups Are More Likely to Have a Biblical Worldview
Adults who have a biblical worldview possessed a somewhat different demographic profile than those who did not. For instance, individuals who attended college were much more likely than those who did not to have this perspective (6% versus 2%, respectively). Married adults were more than twice as likely as adults who had never been wed to hold such a worldview (5% versus 2%). Whites (5%) were slightly more likely than either blacks (3%) or Hispanics (3%) to hold this ideology. One of the largest gaps was between Republicans (10% of whom had a biblical worldview), Independents (2%) and Democrats (1%).
Residents of Texas and North Carolina were more likely than people in other states to have a biblical worldview. Among the states in which such a worldview was least common were Louisiana and the six states in New England. The nation's largest state - California - was average (i.e., 4% of its residents had a biblical worldview).
Attributes such as gender, age and household income showed no statistical relationship to the possession of a biblical worldview.
Some Churches Are Helping People
The research found that one of the most effective methods of enabling people to develop a biblical worldview is by addressing seven critical questions that consistently lead to beliefs and behaviors that are in tune with biblical teaching. Outlining that process in a new book he has written as an outgrowth of the research, entitled Think Like Jesus, Barna also noted that many churches are already helping their congregants to implement such a way of addressing daily challenges and opportunities.
"The emphasis of these churches is to not only teach biblical perspectives," according to Barna, "but also to help people connect the dots of the core principles taught. Rather than simply provide people with good material and hope they figure out what to do with it, these are churches whose services, programs, events and relationships are geared to weaving a limited number of foundational biblical principles into a way of responding to every life situation. The goal is to facilitate a means of interpreting and responding to every life situation that is consistent with God's expectations. These are not perfect people, but once they catch on to the critical principles found in the Bible and train their minds to incorporate those views into their thinking, their behavior varies noticeably from the norm."
Research Source and Methodology
The data described above are from telephone interviews with a nationwide random sample of 2033 adults conducted during September through November 2003. The maximum margin of sampling error associated with the aggregate sample is ±2.2 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. All of the interviews were conducted from the Barna Research Group telephone interviewing facility in Ventura, CA. Adults in the 48 continental states were eligible to be interviewed and the distribution of respondents coincided with the geographic dispersion of the U.S. adult population. Multiple callbacks were used to increase the probability of including a reliable distribution of adults.
The data from the 2003 survey was compared with figures on worldview possession compiled from Barna Research Group surveys conducted in 2002 in order to assess the reliability of the new data. The 2002 surveys also showed that just 4% of the aggregate population and 9% of the born again segment had a biblical worldview. Other repeated measures were compared, producing virtually identical results to the current measures.
"Born again Christians" were defined in these surveys as people who said they have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today and who also indicated they believe that when they die they will go to Heaven because they had confessed their sins and had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior. Respondents were not asked to describe themselves as "born again." Being "born again" is not dependent upon any church or denominational affiliation or involvement.
The Barna Research Group, Ltd. is an independent marketing research company located in southern California. Since 1984, it has been studying cultural trends related to values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviors. If you would like to receive regular e-mailings of a brief overview of each new bi-weekly update on the latest research findings from the Barna Research Group, you may subscribe to this free service at the Barna Research web site (www.barna.org).
Residents of Texas and North Carolina were more likely than people in other states to have a biblical worldview. Among the states in which such a worldview was least common were Louisiana and the six states in New England. The nation's largest state - California - was average (i.e., 4% of its residents had a biblical worldview).
Standout States on Basic Attitudes and Values
Religion: States ranked by responses to questions about importance of prayer in daily life, belief that everyone will be called before God on Judgment Day, and belief in the existence of God.
Has Louisiana ranked third and California scrapping the bottom.
Social Values: States ranked by responses to questions about social beliefs and values such as homosexuality, acceptable content for school libraries, the role of women, the issue of day care, AIDS, family and marriage, and ideas about good and evil.
Has Louisiana among the Most Traditional and California dragging the bottom.
Where do you get that ?
Nowhere is it stated that the Methodist Church commisioned this study.
One can be conservative politically and still not possess a biblical worldview.
On the other hand, note that even a minority of those identifying themselves as "born-again Christians" have fidelity to the most basic doctrines of the church and faith.
This is a serious problem for the Christian Church in America, which is what this survey is about.
It is NOT about politics.
People's views on morally acceptable behavior are deeply impacted by their worldview. Upon comparing the perspectives of those who have a biblical worldview with those who do not, the former group were 31 times less likely to accept cohabitation (2% versus 62%, respectively); 18 times less likely to endorse drunkenness (2% versus 36%); 15 times less likely to condone gay sex (2% versus 31%); 12 times less likely to accept profanity 3% versus 37%); and 11 times less likely to describe adultery as morally acceptable (4% versus 44%). In addition, less than one-half of one percent of those with a biblical worldview said voluntary exposure to pornography was morally acceptable (compared to 39% of other adults), and a similarly miniscule proportion endorsed abortion (compared to 46% of adults who lack a biblical worldview).
RLK, having read your essays, I know that, although you do not affirm a faith, you have written about the important role that traditional religion plays sociologically in this country.
I thought this might interest you.
It substantiates what you have written about the decline of our culture.
Using this definition, I absolutely have a biblical worldview.
Something that's puzzled me for a while is: How is it that other Christians don't share such fundamental beliefs?
That said, I'm sure I'll still be working on thinking like Jesus 'til the day I die ...
One can be conservative politically and still not possess a biblical worldview.
That would be an exception and not the rule. One can be liberal politically and claim to possess a biblical worldview. This is a serious problem for the Christian Church in America, which is what this survey is about.
Indeed! It is NOT about politics.
Highlighted text from article in post #1 and link can be correlated with FT October 2001: America Fifty/Fifty & Conservative states and liberal states.
The Avalon Project : Washington's Farewell Address 1796
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?
How is it that other Christians don't share such fundamental beliefs?
Study To Show Thyself Approved Unto God (2 Tim. 2:15)
Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.Acts 17:11
"Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God but not according to knowledge. Romans 10:1-4
All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (2 Timothy 3:16 cf Psalm 19:7; John 17:17; Revelation 22:18,19)
My People are Destroyed for Lack of Knowledge – Hosea 4:6
Jude4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
| Year | Language | Translator(s) | Work |
| Before 450 AD | Teutonic/Saxon | ||
| 450 AD | Old English/Saxon | ||
| 680 | Caedmon | Paraphrases and poems of Creation, Exodus, Incarnation, Death and Resurrection of Christ | |
| 700 | From Latin | Aldhelm | The Psalter |
| 700 | From Latin | Egbert | Matthew, Mark, Luke |
| 674-735 | From Latin | Venerable Bede | John |
| 870-901 | Latin to Anglo Saxon | Alfred the Great | Ten Commandments; parts of Exodus; passage from Acts |
| 950 | Latin to Northumbrian | Aldred | Interlinear gloss of Latin to Northumbrian in the Gospels |
| ? to Old English | The Wessex Gospels | ||
| 1000 | Latin to English | Aelfric | 1st 7 books of OT; other OT passages |
| 1066 | Normal Conquest | ||
| 1100 | Middle English | ||
| 1200 | Teutonic vocab. with Norman syntax | Orm(in) | Poetic paraphrase of the Gospels and Acts |
| 1320 | Southern dialect of English | William of Shoreham | Psalter? First "literal" translation into English |
| 1320-1340 | Latin Vulgate to North English | Richard Rolle | Literal translation; The Psalter |
| 1380 | Latin Vulgate to | John Wycliffe | The New Testament |
| 1388 | English | (completed by Nicholas of Hereford) | The Old Testament |
| 1395 | John Purvey | Revision of Wycliffe’s translations into smoother English — First complete Bible in English | |
| 1454 | Gutenberg | [Invention of moveable type] | |
| 1500 | Modern English | ||
| 1526 | Greek to English | The New Testament — the basis for all subsequent revisions from 16th cen. to today! | |
| 1530 | Hebrew to English | William Tyndale | The Pentateuch |
| 1531 | Hebrew to English | Jonah | |
| 1534-1536 | Revisions of Old and New Testament | ||
| 1535 | Vulgate, Luther’s German, other Bibles to English | Miles Coverdale | Complete Bible — based on Tyndale’s work |
| 1535 | (Borrowed from French versions) | John Rogers (a.k.a. Thomas Matthew) | Tyndale and Coverdale’s OT combined with Tyndale’s revised New Testament. Controversial notes and prologues. |
| Year | Language | Translator(s) | Work |
| 1539 | Greek to English | Richard Taverner | Improved Rogers’ New Testament |
| 1539 | (A revision of Rogers’ work) | (directed by Coverdale) | The Great Bible (so called because of its size); approved by the King of England). Received with great prestige; considered authoritative by Church authorities. |
| 1557 | Based on Tyndale’s work, revised with new Greek analysis | (directed by John Knox; primary translator was William Whittingham) | The Geneva Bible - New Testament. Introduced italicized words; divided chapters into verses. |
| 1560 | The Geneva Bible - Old Testament with revised New Tesament. 140 editions before 1644; more popular than Bishop’s Bible (1568) and KJV (1611). First work of a committee of translators. | ||
| 1568 | (Hebrew and Greek work in comparison with The Great Bible) | Committee of bishops | The Bishops’ Bible - Revision of The Great Bible. Could not usurp the popularity of The Geneva Bible. Not printed after 1602. Official basis of the revision of 1611. |
| 1582 | Latin Vulgate to English | Richard Bristow, William Allen (and William Reynolds?) | Rheims New Testament. Roman Catholic work motivated to combat the Protestant Bibles. Poor English. Republished in 1600, 1621, 1633 |
| 1609/10 | Latin Vulgate to English; new Vulgate manuscripts | Gregory Martin (d. 1582), William Allen | Douay Old Testament. More an English reading of Latin than a translation into English. Second edition in 1635 |
| 1611 | Hebrew and Greek to English, guided by Bishops’ Bible (basis for KJV) | Authorized by James I; committee of 54 men, 47 of whom did the revision. | King James Version. A revision of Bishops’ Bible with translations from Hebrew and Greek with reference to Tyndale, Coverdale, Rogers, Geneva, etc. Numerous revisions. |
| 1718 | Latin Vulgate to English | Cornelius Nary | Revised translation of the New Testament. |
| 1730 | Robert Whitman | Revised Rheims New Testament | |
| 1749/50 | Latin Vulgate to English | Richard Challoner | Rheims-Douay-Challoner Bible. Second edition of the Rheims-Douay Bible. Almost a completely new translation from Latin. |
| 1762 | Dr. Paris | Revision of KJV | |
| 1769 | Dr. Blayney | Revision of KJV (differs from 1611 edition in at least 75,000 details — spelling, typos, etc.). Basis of today’s KJV. | |
| 1880 | Greek NT to English | ed. by R.L. Clark, Alfred Goodwin, W. Sanday | The Variorum Bible. Revision of KJV; |
| 1881 | Greek; revision of KJV | Committee (European and USA) | Revised English Version. New Testament. (Revised KJV) |
| 1885 | Hebrew; revision of KJV | Committee (European and USA) | Revised English Version. Old Testament. (Revised KJV). Entire Bible printed in 1898. |
| 1901 | Hebrew, Greek | American committee | American Standard Version. |
| 1946 | Committee | Revised Standard Version. (Revised KJV) |
From the arrival of the Angles and Saxons in Britain until the time of Wycliffe, there was no complete translation of the Bible into English. The partial translations that existed, as well as Wycliffe's, were based on the Latin Vulgate, a translation from the Greek and Hebrew made by the Church father Jerome in the late 4th Century AD. The general illiteracy of the masses, the high cost of books, and the preference of the Roman Catholic authorities that the entire Bible remain in the hands of the clergy and scholars combined to prevent a complete English translation until Wycliffe.
The chart ignores the existence of several Scriptural traditions. In the Roman Catholic Church, up until the time of Vatican II, all authorized venacular translations of Scripture, such as the Douay-Rheims, were based on Jerome's Latin Vulgate. The Vulgate, in turn, used a family of manuscripts drawn from Alexandria, Egypt. The Eastern Orthodox churches favored manuscripts from the Antiochian school. With the fall of Constantinople, many Orthodox scholars fled to Italy and elsewhere in Western Europe, bringing their Greek skills and their manuscripts with them. From those manuscripts and from the Hebrew Scriptures that had been preserved by the Jews, the Dutch scholar Erasmus compiled a Greek and Hebrew Scripture known as the Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus was the basis for Luther's German Bible and all the English Bibles used by Anglophone Protestants until the late 19th Century, including the KJV. With regard to the Reformation era Protestant English Bibles, all are essentially similar. Indeed, the KJV was essentially a revision of Tyndale's Bible, but one with the royal imprimatur. The principal difference between the KJV and the Geneva Bible was the absence in the former of the strongly Calvinistic and anti-monarchical footnotes in the latter, as might have been expected from a Bible approved by a High Church Anglican king.
Additionally, the differences between the 1611 KJV and the 1769 "revision" mainly centered on the changes in orthography, grammar, and spelling that took place in the 158 year period. There was no new translation involved, just such items as the replacement of "f" for "s" or "u" for "v". It is no different than changing a text written by a Briton and Americanizing word spellings like "labour" or "centre" for popular reading in the U.S. Virtually all the 75,000 changes you cite revolve around those items.
Your chart also fails to note the development of textual criticism in the late 19th Century and beyond. Westcott and Hort, two English scholars, pioneered in this area. Textual criticism was based on the concept that, by comparing manuscripts by their frequency and age, one could develop the most accurate rendering of the original autographa. The Revised English Version, the American Standard Version, and the Revised Standard Version are not revisions of the KJV, as your chart inaccurately states. They represent independent translations based on the critical text, and not the Textus Receptus on which the KJV and the other Reformation era Bibles are based.
Your chart also fails to note the development of English Bibles after 1950. It ignores the New International Version (NIV), the most popular translation among evangelicals, as well as the New Revised Standard Version and the New American Bible, translations favored by mainline Protestants and Roman Catholics, respectively. All three of these Bible versions, as well as other translations like the New American Standard Bible (NASB), derive from modern critical texts and not from the Textus Receptus or the Latin Vulgate.
Finally, your chart does not deal with different theories of translation: word for word, such as the NASB and the KJV, vs. dynamic equivalence (NIV) and thought for thought, as found in the New Century Version.
In summary, your chart reflects little of the actual history of English translations of the Bible, the derivation of the underlying manuscripts, and theories of translation. The chart is hardly reflective of "serious study" of Scripture.
We must also recognize that all English translations used by churches within the pale of orthodox belief translate John 1:1 nearly uniformly:
NASB: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
KJV: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
New King James Version: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
New Revised Standard Version: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Third Millenium Bible: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Douay-Rheims version: "In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God."
RSV: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Good News Translation: "In the beginning the Word already existed; the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
New Living Translation: "In the beginning the Word already existed. He was with God, and he was God."
The Good News Translation: "In the beginning the Word already existed; the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Young's Literal Translation: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Weymouth New Testament: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Wycliffe New Testament: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
21st Century King James Version: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
English Standard Version: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
NET Bible: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God."
New American Bible: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Here we have 17 translations, both Catholic and Protestant, drawn from the Textus Receptus, the Latin Vulgate, and modern critical texts, spanning from the 16th to the 21st Centuries, and using all three major translating methods: word for word, dynamic equivalence, and thought for thought. All translations either use the same words or convey the same idea.
Greek, like any othe language, has its particular grammar and structure. From the footnotes to the NET Bible:
"Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of qeov" (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous qeov" in John 1:1c (D. B. Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father while distinct in person from God the Father.. sn And the Word was fully God. John’s theology consistently drives toward the conclusion that Jesus, the incarnate Word, is just as much God as God the Father. This can be seen, for example, in texts like John 10:30 ('The Father and I are one'), 17:11 ('so that they may be one just as we are one'), and 8:58 (“before Abraham came into existence, I am”). The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God; rather it affirms that the Word and God are one in essence."
The footnote to the New American Bible makes a similar argument: "In the beginning: also the first words of the Old Testament (Genesis 1:1). Was: this verb is used three times with different meanings in this verse: existence, relationship, and predication. The Word (Greek logos): this term combines God's dynamic, creative word (Genesis), personified preexistent Wisdom as the instrument of God's creative activity (Proverbs), and the ultimate intelligibility of reality (Hellenistic philosophy). With God: the Greek preposition here connotes communication with another. Was God: lack of a definite article with 'God' in Greek signifies predication rather than identification. "
The structure and grammar of the koine Greek language, the context of John 1:1 within the Gospel of John, with its emphasis on the equality of Jesus Christ and the Father, and the tradition of the Christian churches all argue for the standard translation used by orthodox churches.
The point of the survey is that what you believe affects how you act. If you didn't think that was accurate, you probably wouldn't be hanging around this site.
The usual formulation is that the Bible is accurate in its plenary form, i.e., in the orignal manuscripts. The objection that the scriptures have gone through many significant changes since the originals is speculative skepticism, at best. It is based on assumptions that human error would have, over time, in all cases, radically distorted the message. But what is remarkable about the "versions" is their exceedingly close similarity. There are no "major revisions" that have been discovered. If I were to ask you how the differing versions affect basic beliefs (let's take , for example those outlined by Barna above), you'd have a very hard time showing how one version is in harmony with those beliefs, while another leads to a different place.
If you're not just taking potshots,and are interested in pursuing an understanding of how this works, I'd recommend Clark Pinnock's "Biblical Revelation," or something by Rene Pache. F.F. Bruce's "The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable?" is a good short introduction to the subject of biblical manuscripts and assessing their accuracy.
Virtually all evangelical scholars believe there are errors in the text as we have it, but these are almost entirely copyist errors, (mis-spellings or substituting, say, "calf" for "bull" etc. This is why a basic principle of evangelical interpretation is that it is unwise to base any major teaching on a single passage. "Scripture interprets scripture."
Skeptics through the centuries have argued that the text would have evolved over such a long time. The fact is, they DID NOT evolve. With the passage of time, we have found ever more ancient manuscripts, and what is striking is how exceedingly accurate they are. The major modern translations are all based on the earliest manuscripts, not the latest. When the translators examine the original language manuscripts, highest weight is given to 2 factors: How close it is in time to the original, and is it well-attested (number of copies extant, which implies an earlier original source).
Albert Schweitzer (among many others) used to be an advocate for the idea that the scriptures had gone through a long gradual transformation over time. This was an argument based on speculative skepticism rather than knowledge. No serious scholar today holds this view. Unfortunately, on the popular level, there are a lot of skeptics who repeat Schweitzer's assertions, unaware that this is no longer a serious position. If significant changes occurred, it had to be very early on.
1). You make the mistake of thinking that each translation was an extension of the previous one. Not so. Recent translations basically chuck all the other recent translations and head straight for the most recently-discovered ancient stuff. The new translations are based upon, say, the King James, only in that there may be some attempt to adopt language of a literary high quality, when it proves faithful to the ancient Greek.
2. Style and wording may change (that's why the Bible keeps going through translations, to keep up with modern, evolving, common speech). That doesn't mean the message has changed. If you were correct about this< you would be able to point to many ways in which the "RSV" or the "NIV" view, say, the Crucifixion or the Ressurrection quite differently than in Sinaiticus, but the plain fact is, the modern translations are in fact excellent renditions of the most ancient texts available --and those are very old, indeed. To complain that the King James uses "Thou", where some modern translation uses "You" is to misunderstand the whole point of translation.
You forgot baptism. There were no unbaptized Christians in the first century, fwiw.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.