International Bible Teaching Ministries
Bible
Question 1: Why was the Bible written?
ANSWER: That we might understand the will of God (Ephesians 3:2-6), believe it, and be eternally saved (John 20:30-31).
Question 2: How were the books of the Bible gathered into one volume?
ANSWER: All Scripture was given by inspiration of God (II Timothy 3:16). Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost (II Peter 1:21). These inspired revelations were recorded by inspired men to reveal God's will, so that man could understand the mystery of Christ (Ephesians 3:2-5). As these inspired documents were written, they were often distributed among God's people (Colossians 4:16). The exact details of the gathering of these documents are not known. However, that these documents were assembled by man under the direction of God cannot be denied! Though the Bible was written by about forty men over a period of sixteen hundred years, it is without contradiction. It is historically, geographically, and scientifically accurate. Its prophecies are amazingly fulfilled in every detail. It is a Book of books, the message within containing "all things that pertain unto life and godliness" (II Peter 1:3)!
Question 3: How is the Bible translated into the many languages today?
ANSWER: Many different groups and organizations endeavor to prepare translations today. Some do so for religious purposes, some for financial gain. As well, many different approaches are taken. The primary concern of each of us today should be whether or not a translation accurately reflects the original God-inspired words! If the words in the translation have been accurately translated, they are just as inspired as the original words! If they are not accurately translated they are not inspired, as were the originals! Inaccurate translations or commentaries about the original words do not represent Inspiration! Therefore, since they do not, they are not of God (but of men) and must be avoided under all circumstances!
Question 4: In the first lesson of the correspondence course it says that the Bible has a theme, a plot, a conflict, a climax, and a conclusion. What does this mean?
ANSWER: In the lesson where these words are found the writer is showing that the Bible consists of sixty-six books written over a period of 1600 years by about forty different authors. When all of these were put together (by direction of the Holy Spirit) it made up one complete and thorough volume, the inspired Word of God. Each of these books was necessary to reveal the total will of God to us. If one of them were missing, we would have an incomplete volume and Bible. Further, it was necessary that all of the sixty-six be included to reveal all the characteristics of a well-written, complete book, that is; a theme, a plot, a conflict, a climax, and a conclusion. The "theme" of the Bible is God's plan of salvation for man through His Son; the "plot" is Satan's plan and activities to bring about the destruction of man; the "conflict" is the warfare between good and evil; the "climax" is seen in the establishment of the church of Christ for which He died, and wherein evil can be overcome; the "conclusion" is that the faithfully obedient follower of Christ will win the victory over this world and enjoy heaven in eternity!
Question 5: Why should we examine the Bible?
ANSWER: Because we are commanded to do so (II Timothy 2:15). Because it can make us complete (II Timothy 3:16). Because in it are all things that pertain unto life and godliness (II Peter 1:2-3). Because we will be judged by it (John 12:48).
Question 6: How old is the Bible?
ANSWER: The Old Testament in written form is about 3,500 years old. The New Testament in written form is about 2,000 years old.
Question 7: How many ancient manuscripts of the Bible exist compared with ancient secular writings?
ANSWER: Briefly, for comparative purposes, Homer wrote his Iliad about nine hundred years before Christ. Today there are 650 manuscripts of the Iliad in existence. In contrast, there are 5,358 manuscripts (whole and fragments) of the New Testament in existence today!
Question 8: How widely has the Bible been distributed?
ANSWER: It has been distributed into all the world in written form, and by radio and television. It has also been translated into more than 1,000 different languages.
Question 9: How accurate is the Bible in matters of science?
ANSWER: It is completely accurate in matters of true science. However, it often disagrees with the many unproven theories of man. But, when a matter of science has been proven to be true through appropriate experimentation and observation, and if the Bible has already spoken on the matter, the Bible and Science have been shown to be in total agreement.
Question 10: What does the Bible say about the earth and its support?
ANSWER: In Job 26:7, the Bible says that God (at the creation) “hangeth the earth upon nothing” and in Colossians 1:17-18, we learn that "by Him all things consist." Put together, these verses teach that the earth was created and put in place by the power of God, and by that same power it remains in place!
Question 11: Why doesn't the Bible say anything about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD?
ANSWER: The Bible deals at length with the destruction of Jerusalem (Matthew 23:37 through 24:35; Mark 13:1-31; Luke 21:5-33). Although the year of 70AD is not specifically mentioned, Jesus said that it would occur during the generation that lived at that time (Matthew 24:34). A generation is understood to be about 40 years. Given the time when Jesus preached and was crucified (30AD to 33AD), added to the 40 years, we see a time period totally in agreement with that attested to by historians down through the ages, even those who lived during the destruction, such as Josephus!
Question 12: If the Bible was written after 70AD, why didn't God's people talk about it?
ANSWER: Most scholars agree that all of the books of the New Testament were in written form prior to 70AD, with the exception of the books of Jude and Revelation. Most also agree that Jude was written within a few years of 70AD. The book of Revelation, according to other Christian writings, was completed in the latter part of John's life, and toward the end of the reign of Domitian. His reign ended in 96AD. God’s people did (and do) talk about the Bible (John 20:30-31; Ephesians 3:3-4; Colossians 4:16; II Peter 3:16; et al, to say nothing of the early “church fathers” who wrote prolifically about the Bible.
Question 13: Some say the Bible is full of lies (contradictions). Is this true?
ANSWER: No! His word is truth (John 17:17) and it is impossible for God to lie (Titus 1:2). There are no untruths, contradictions, or inconsistencies in the Bible, in spite of the fact that about forty different inspired men wrote it over a period of one thousand six-hundred years; one of the many proofs of its inspiration. Men have made such foolish charges from the beginning, but none have been able to provide proof of their false allegations.
Question 14. How did the Bible have its beginning?
ANSWER: The Bible had it's beginning in the mind of God (II Timothy 3:16-17; II Peter 1:21). Through inspiration of the Holy Spirit, inspired men were guided into all truth (John 16:13; John 17:17). All truth as written by these inspired men makes up the Gospel of Christ, or the power of God (Romans 1:16), through which "He hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness" (II Peter 1:3). If we have been given all things that pertain unto life and godliness, it follows then, that which we have been given is complete. James 1:25 refers to the law of Christ (New Testament) as the perfect or complete law of liberty; a law to which none may add or subtract (I Corinthians 4:6; Galatians 1:6-9; Revelation 22:18-19) without the curse of God!
When the last inspired writer of the New Testament laid aside his pen for the last time, the Bible was complete, final, and everlasting!
Question 15: Is the New International Version too dangerous to be used in our classrooms?
ANSWER: Yes! It is filled with mortal error, i.e., it teaches and supports false doctrine that can result in loss of the soul. It does this by avoiding the English equivalent of the original Greek words. Those responsible for the book simply substituted words and phrases (sometimes in the text, at other times in the marginal readings) to propagate Calvinism, including the ungodly doctrine of salvation by faith alone! In Romans 10:9-10, they teach that one is saved simply by believing and saying, "Jesus is Lord." It uses the phrase "sinful nature" (twenty-five times) for the Greek word ‘sarx,’ which in the King James Version is accurately translated as "flesh" (For example, see Romans 8:1). This is another obvious attempt to further the "fatal doctrine" of original sin. It also implies that man sins by nature; that he cannot refrain from sinning! Psalms 51:5, as well, is a travesty in translation and clearly shows the denominational bias involved. In this place they transfer the sin of the world to the child to promote their error!
(Time will not permit a review of the many other errors involved in the ungodly NIV. For a more in depth study of this and other versions, I would recommend contacting brother Robert Taylor who preaches for the church in Ripley, Tennessee. His work in this field is scholarly, yet easy to follow and understand).
Be cautious of those who use the argument in support of the NIV that the ASV, KJV, and NKJV also contain error. It is true that there are a few mistranslations and copyists' errors. However, these are insignificant and do not teach "fatal error."
To conclude: an eldership blunders greatly in promoting the use of any inaccurate translation either in the classroom or the pulpit. Most often they are brought in under the guise of "needing" a modern language translation. Why not use an accurate modern language translation, such as the NKJV? Why jeopardize the souls of the flock by feeding them fatal error? It makes no sense at all, unless (1) the eldership does not care enough to investigate the matter or (2) they are sympathetic toward the false doctrine taught. In either case, their right to serve is, at best, questionable!
Question 16: Which is the better version, the King James or the Revised Standard Version?
ANSWER: The Revised Standard Version contains error that is fatal to one's soul should it be believed. In Romans 11:20, the word “only” is added to teach "but you stand fast only through faith." This addition changes the Word of God (Revelation 22:18-19) and promotes the false doctrine of salvation by "Faith only" (James 2:24). The RSV also uses the pronouns "Thine" and "Thou" when referring to the Father, but "you" when referring to Jesus. This practice appears to be an attempt to cast doubt on the divinity of Christ (John 5:23). One of the more blatant intentional errors in this version is the translation of the Hebrew word "Almah" in Isaiah 7:14 as "young woman," which would cause one to believe that the passage was not in reference to Christ, as is clearly taught in Matthew 1:23. As well, the RSV contains many other errors, any one of which would provide evidence that it cannot properly be referred to as the Word of God.
The King James Version, The New King James Version, and The American Standard Version contain no fatal errors. It is therefore recommended that one of these be used in your studies.
Question 17: What about the “Good News Bible?” Is it a good translation?
ANSWER: No! There are very few so-called Bibles that are worse than this one. It cannot even be accurately referred to as a “translation,” since it does not express the English word or words that are equivalent to the Greek words of the original. It is a paraphrase expressed in terms that reflect what its authors believe the inspired writers meant to say. Therefore, it is not God’s word, but rather has its source in the minds of men. That this is the case is clearly indicated in the preface of the misnamed Good News Bible: “Consequently there has been no attempt to reproduce in English the parts of speech, sentence structure, word order, and grammatical devices of the original languages.” Since the Bible teaches verbal (word for word) inspiration (Ephesians 3:3-4), we can only logically conclude, based on the above quote, that the Good News Bible is not, nor does it represent, the inspired Word of God. In gross error, it, among many other errors, attempts to eradicate many of the references to the “blood” of Christ (Acts 20:28; Romans 3:25; Romans 5:9; Ephesians 1:7; Ephesians 2:13; and others). It wrongfully changes the day of worship from the first day of the week to Saturday (Acts 20:7). It employs the use of vulgar and earthy language in Acts 8:20. It contradicts the Bible by teaching the false doctrine of salvation by faith only (Romans 1:17). These are just a few of many reasons why copies of this book should be reserved for the trash pile or, better yet, as fuel for the fire!
Question 18: I am having difficulty with what appears to be contradictions in the Bible. Can you help?
ANSWER: Surely, there are things in the Bible that are difficult for us to understand and just as surely we need to be careful not to “wrest” those things to our own destruction (II Peter 3:16). Without doubt, the Bible is inspired of God (II Timothy 3:16-17). As such, there can be no contradiction or error, though admittedly there are difficulties. However, with the right attitude and respect for the inspiration of scripture, these difficulties, with thoughtful study, are easily removed.
As you study these difficulties, approach them with the following thoughts:
1. Very often the same English word will have two different meanings. For example. “cleave” may mean to “separate,” or it may mean to “stick to.” The context will determine the author’s intent! Paul tells us in Galatians 2:16 that we are not justified by works. James says in 2:24 that we are justified by works. Obviously, the two inspired writers are each talking about different types of works; the meaning of “works” then is to be determined by deeper study of the context of each passage under consideration.
2. We also need to harmonize accounts of statements and actions that may, at the first appear contradictory. Example: Matthew 27:5: Judas hung himself; Acts 1:18: Judas fell headlong and burst asunder and all his bowels gushed out. There is no contradiction. What is said in one passage does not exclude what happened in the other. The fact is that both passages, when studied together and harmonized, relate to us a more full account of what actually befell Judas.
3. Sometimes individuals will assume that two different accounts refer to a single action because of similarities that exist between the two. This is not always the case. Example: Luke says Jesus fed 5000 (9:14). Mark says Jesus fed 4000 (8:9). Contradiction? No! By studying further, we learn from Matthew 16:9-10 that there were two different occurrences.
4. Often different names are used to describe the same thing. Example: Matthew 15:32 refers to a woman who was a Canaanite. Mark says in 7:26 that she is a Syro-phoenician. No contradiction. She was both!
5. We must also realize that some statements in the New Testament were made to people who lived under the Old Testament and some were made to those who lived (and are living) under the New Testament. Example: Statements made by Christ on the cross to the penitent thief who lived under the Old Law can not be properly used to refute the New Testament doctrine of the necessity of baptism unto salvation.
6. Different purposes of the various writers also must be considered in accounts of the same action, because their emphasis is often different. Example: In discussing salvation in Romans 5:1, Paul is emphasizing “faith.” However, in Chapter 6, he is emphasizing “baptism.” Different, but complimentary! When Matthew speaks of two demoniacs (8:28) and Mark speaks of one (5:2), there is no contradiction. Mark simply focuses on the most prominent of the two. You may say a policeman gave me a speeding ticket, yet there may have been two policemen in the patrol car. When your wife relates the account to her friend, she may say two policemen gave us a ticket. No contradiction, only two different accounts!
7. Symbolism is sometimes confusing as well. Example: John, the baptizer, was not actually “Elijah” (Matthew 11:14), but symbolically he was Elijah, because he came in the spirit of Elijah (Like 1:17)!
8. Some today will also try to understand spiritual things in the context of physical things or will try to understand events of the first century in the context of current events. Example: Trying to understand the Godhead and eternality in a physical context is impossible, or trying to understand the biblical concept of baptism in the light of modern day (denominational) thinking and practice will result in error.
9. Also to be considered is the different ways of keeping time. The Jews often took a part of a day as standing for the whole. Without this knowledge, it would be impossible to see that Jesus was in the grave three days. It would appear contradictory, but certainly, as the Jews reckoned time in the first century, the account is shown to be true and accurate.
10. Note as well that not all of the inspired writers presented biblical accounts chronologically, which accounts for assumed contradictions in sequential arrangement.
11. Misunderstanding relative to “when” certain events took place sometimes causes confusion. Example: (I Peter 3:19) Some have foolishly presumed that this passage teaches that Christ while in the Hadean world, at that time preached the gospel to those who were also there. Such is totally improper! The passage is saying that the eternal Christ (See also Verse 18) went through Noah and preached by him, prior to the flood, to the spirits that are “now” in prison!
Hope this will help in your studies. If you have some specific passage that is giving you trouble, please feel free to communicate and we'll do our best to be of help.
Question 19: The word “Bible” is also not found in God’s Word. Why do we call it the Bible?
ANSWER: The word “Bible” is derived from the Greek. Ancient books were written on the Byblus or Papyrus reed. From this word “Byblos” came the Greek word for “book,” which is “biblos.” In fact in Matthew 1:1, the Greek word for “book” here is “biblos.” As the books were written, Christians began to refer to them as “The Books,” or “The Biblia.” This designation was later usually qualified by an adjective, such as holy or divine, since “The Biblia” was made up of divinely, inspired Scripture and is, in fact, often referred to as “The Scriptures.” Thus, we see the development of the phrase, “The Holy Bible.” By past and current definition, the Bible is said to be the book of sacred writings of the Christian religion, containing the Old and New Testaments.
Question 20: I believe that King James Bible was based on the poor Vulgate Bible and that it is, therefore, a poor translation. I also believe that the NIV and the NASB are better translations than the KJV. Comments?
ANSWER: The King James translators did not rely solely upon the Vulgate, as you suggest. There were 47/50 of the best Greek scholars of the day selected to prepare this translation. This translation was based on all available Greek manuscripts, with the Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza texts that were partially based on the Vulgate (These three texts came to be called the Textus Receptus). As well, other translations that were available were also used. In my 56 years as a Christian, you are the first person I ever heard to even imply that the KJV is a poor translation. Indeed, it is not, but, rather is recognized by the scholarship of this world as a highly accurate and reliable Bible, based on, as best as was possible, a word (English)-for-word (Greek) concept! This is not to say that it or any other translation is perfect. However, it is safe to say that it contains no fatal error; error that would cause one to be lost!
To suggest that the NIV is a “good” translation is to call your research on the matter into question. There is absolutely no comparison between the two. In the preface to the NIV it is said of the “translators,” “they have striven for MORE than a word-for-word translation.” In other words, instead of accurately translating the Greek word into the equivalent English word, they are going to tell us what they think the author meant to say! Such is not a translation, but, rather, a commentary, based on what the fallible, human “translator” thinks. The preface also says, “The first concern of the translators has been the accuracy of the translation and its fidelity to the THOUGHT of the biblical writers. How can these men be sure they know the thought of the biblical writers? Surely, they do not claim inspiration! How can the reader know that their preconceived and pre-adopted theology did not creep into the text? The fact of the matter is that they can’t and, indeed, their theology is found to be present! The book is filled with mortal error, i.e., it teaches and supports false doctrine that can result in loss of the soul. As noted, it does this by avoiding the English equivalent of the original Greek words. Those responsible for the book simply substituted words and phrases (sometimes in the text, at other times in the marginal readings) to propagate Calvinism, including the ungodly doctrine of salvation by faith alone (James 2:14-26)! In Romans 10:9-10, they teach that one is saved simply by believing and saying, "Jesus is Lord." It uses the phrase "sinful nature" (twenty-five times) for the Greek word ‘sarx,’ which in the King James Version is accurately translated as "flesh" (For example, see Romans 8:1). In fact they “translate” the word ‘sarx’ in over forty different ways! Why? By what authority? This is another obvious attempt to further the "fatal doctrine" of original sin. It also implies that man sins by nature; that he cannot refrain from sinning! Psalms 51:5, as well, is a travesty in translation and clearly shows the denominational bias involved. In this place they transfer the sin of others to the child to promote their error! The word “idou,’ translated, Lo, Behold, Look, See, appears 213 times in the New Testament, but 107 of those time it is simply left out of the NIV. Why? Did they feel this was not a word provided by inspiration? Did they stand in the place of God to remove that which the Holy Ghost provided through inspired men? Apparently, God needed the word, but the NIV “translators” did not! In Matthew 18:22, the NIV says “seventy-seven times.” The KJV, NKJV, NASB, and the Interlinear all say, “seventy times seven.” In Mark 14:6, the same versions translate the Greek to “good work” or “good deed,” but the NIV says, “beautiful thing.” Why? This is not what inspiration says! In Matthew 5:17, Christ did not come to “abolish” the Law. Yet in Ephesians 2:13-15 it says that Christ “abolished in His flesh (death) the law.” Which one is in error? Why the necessity of these “translators” to change Luke 12:25, “And which of you by taking thought can add to his stature one cubit?” to read “Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?” Why didn’t they just translate it word-for word as stated by inspiration? Why the necessity of telling us what inspiration “meant” to say? How did they know? Prove if you would, how they knew to change the above! No, friend, the NIV is not a translation. It is a very poor commentary designed to teach the doctrines of its commentators! These are but a few of the errors contained in the NIV. The list is nearly endless!
There is no doubt that the NASB is a much better version than the NIV. I’m surprised that any would even count them comparable. Nonetheless, even this translation is slanted theologically, pointing to Premillenialism, e.g., In Isaiah 2:4 and Micah 4:1, the translation reads: “established as the chief of mountains,” rather than “on” the chief of mountains. In the margin, they say it literal means “on.” Why not use the literal meaning? Why change it? The cross-reference to Revelation 5:2, “This is the first resurrection,” directs the reader to I Thessalonians 4:16, thus, without warrant, supporting the “rapture” within Premillenialism! This translation also contradicts itself in Matthew 5:17 and Ephesians 2:14-15. The Greek in these two passages is different. Why translate them with the same word and make them contradictory? Acts 10:43 states, ‘through His name every one who believes in Him has received forgiveness of sins.” It should have, ‘will or shall receive’ forgiveness of sins. To be fair, this correction was made in the 1977 edition!
Many other difficulties could be shown in both of these translations, difficulties that do not appear in the King James, the New King James, and the American Standard Versions. There can be no doubt that these three versions far excel mostly over the NIV, but also to a lesser degree over the NASB.
Question 21: Why does the Bible not indicate all of the disciple's activities?
ANSWER: In what God has provided, He "hath given us all things that pertain unto life and godliness" (II Peter 1:3). If “all” has been provided, then nothing more is needed! We must be careful not to be overly concerned about that which has not been revealed, lest it take our focus from that which has been revealed. There clearly are some secret things that belong only to the Lord, our God (Deuteronomy 29:29).
Question 22: Should the books between the Old and New Testament be considered a part of God’s Word?
ANSWER: The group of books to which you refer is properly called the “Apocrypha.” This word means “hidden” or “concealed.” It is so called because the books are of doubtful and spurious origin. The inspired writers of the New Testament did not recognize these books as scripture, nor did the religious and historical writers who lived for hundreds of years after the completion of the New Testament! There are literally hundreds of quotations by the Lord and the writers of the New Testament from the Old Testament, yet there are none from these books. It is significant, too, that the Jews never recognized them as a part of the Old Testament. They are throughout self-contradictory and contradictory to obvious truths found in the other inspired writings. These and many others reasons attest to the fact that they do not constitute a part in God’s Word.
Qustion 23: Following is a response to a brother who believes that “only” the KJV is God’s Word. He takes issue with the logo that appears on the NKJV and pronounces it to be wrong because the words are “harder” and differ in some instances from the KJV. He also denounced the ASV and all “other” modern versions, but only deals with the NKJV versus the KJV.
ANSWER:
Dear brother,
We have received the information sent by you regarding the various translations and in large part are in agreement. However, not totally! We certainly stand opposed to the modern versions you discuss, and many others, because they are no more than denominational commentaries designed to promote a particular doctrine or theory. They are not word-for-word translations. However, we do believe that the KJV (which I use primarily), the NKJV, and the ASV are word-for-word translations, thus we recommend the three.
Some positions you have taken appear to be somewhat radical, e.g., the logo of the NKJV. This logo has nothing at all to do with the content of the translation or its authenticity. Your subjective beliefs about the logo are not evidence of the intent of the translators or the printers! Secondly, your statement that the KJV is a result of God’s promises to keep His word true forever implies that before 1611 none had access to God’s Word. If they at that time had no access to God’s Word then it must be the case that God’s Word was not kept forever. May I, respectfully, suggest to you that the Greek New Testament is also God’s Word and that it clearly existed prior to 1611? When that Greek New Testament is accurately translated into English, no matter the name of the translation, then it is the case that we have God’s Word in English.
Your “hard word” versus “easy word” analysis is, as well, quite subjective. It is the opinion of most scholars that the NKJV is much easier understood, in large due to the updating of many antiquated words in the KJV that have lost their original meaning, e.g., “conversation” meaning lifestyle as opposed to communication. All versions have some irregularities, e.g., the KJV’s use of the word “easter” (Acts 12:4). However, though irregularities also exist in the NKJV and the ASV, there are no fatal errors contained in them as in many of the modern versions.
It is also significant that your comparisons assume that the KJV is the standard upon which to evaluate all other translations when in reality it is the Greek New Testament that is the standard. Changes in words, omission of words, or addition of words as compared to the KJV really authenticates very little. Neither are general statements as to numbers of omissions and/or additions, as compared to the KJV, the issue. The question is, “Does the translation accurately reflect the Greek words in English words?” You fail to deal with this question in your communication. You also fail to deal with this question as relates to the ASV.
Your allegations that the NKJV demotes Jesus Christ and the Trinity while supporting New Age ideas are purely speculative and assumptive and, I suppose, understandable given your strong feelings about the KJV. My own preference is, indeed, the KJV! However, after some degree of research, I cannot in good conscience hold or subscribe to your position. I believe you to be in error on the matter.
In Christ,
David M. Amos
Question 24: Why did they use scrolls?
ANSWER: Books, as we know them today, had not yet been developed. Scrolls were made up of rolls of papyrus, parchments, or animal skins and wrapped around rods of wood, ivory, or bronze. It was the best way developed to that time of maintaining and storing written material and works of art. Books, as you and I know them, were first used in China about 1000 years ago and about 500 years ago in Europe.