Steven Anderson vs. Colby Martin on Bible Translations

The Bible has been transmitted by believers for two thousand years. The Old Testament (OT) even longer than that. Copies of copies have been made by devout men of God, and the manuscripts used in certain translations (such as the 1611 KJV), were a millennia removed from the originals. Furthermore, the Bible has been translated many times; there have been some translations of translations, and many have referenced the "telephone game" to describe the alleged issue with the preservation of the Bible. However, do these facts mean that Christians have no idea what the original authors of the Bible wrote in the autographs (the original documents of the NT and OT)? Is there any way for Christians today to know if we have reliable and authentic documents?

I've seen Christians with reasonable views on the preservation of Scripture, and I've seen some Christians with very strange views that are a bit disconnected from the data. The important thing is that we ground our views pertaining to preservation on the evidence, thereby giving us the ability to give a reasonable defense of the Scriptures as Christians.

1st Peter 3:15 says, "but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, but with gentleness and respect" (NASB, my emphasis).

Now more than ever, with the full spectrum of attacks against God's Word coming from the Right and the Left, we must be familiar with the facts on the ground concerning Bible translations and the preservation of the Scriptures, so we can "make a defense" (NASB) or "give an answer" (as the KJV is phrased) to those who attack God's divinely preserved and inspired Word.

This article is a critique of the "Progressive" Christian take on Bible versions and the preservation of the Scriptures, as detailed by Colby Martin in his recent YouTube video (link below). [1]

"...and I went on to talk about how there's no such thing as this unaffected pure transference of information like from the mind of God directly through this [Bible] into your mind. People tend to think they can just pick up, like, an English Bible, they can read it, they can see what they find there, and they can just deduce: Oh, now I clearly and plainly know what is truth, this is what the Bible says, which means this is what God says, therefore I believe this thing because God said it and it's true, because it's in the Bible..." - Colby Martin [1]

​There are so many problems with this philosophy of skepticism. If Christians can't just pick up their English Bibles and understand what God is saying to them in the message of His Word, then Christianity would be completely meaningless and purposeless. If we do not have the divinely inspired Word of God, then we have nothing, and our faith is meaningless.

He also says it is circular reasoning around time 1:20-1:40, to say that the Bible is our ultimate source of Truth.

And it is circular reasoning at some level, and every Christian should be open about that. We are claiming to have the divinely inspired Word of God. We place our faith in Him and in His Words, and that is where we find our salvation, faith, and sanctification as He washes us in His Words day by day.

It is circular reasoning to say "we believe in the Word because of the Word" in an ultimate sense. But that doesn't mean there aren't good reasons to believe in the Word from an evidential standpoint.

At some level everyone has faith. We can't know all the information there is to know on any topic. But, we can learn as much as possible, and then place our faith in something that is true — as Frank Turek would say — beyond a reasonable doubt.

In particular, pertaining to the history of transmission of the manuscripts of the New Testament (NT), we have a wealth of evidence proving that these manuscript are very reliable and have not been corrupted from generation to generation.

We now have 5800 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, comprising a total of 2.6 million pages of text.[2] Some of these are small portions of manuscripts, just mere fragments, but New Testament manuscripts are on average around 450 pages.[3]

From a strictly evidential standpoint, it is clear that the message of God's Word has been preserved, and the core doctrines of God have been delivered to each generation of Christians through copies of his original inspired manuscripts, or the translations of these copies into the various languages of different groups.

Now, there are a few areas where there have been copyist errors in transcription and errors in translation, but because God has preserved such a wealth of manuscripts, we can look through them all, using logic, reasoning, and good faith, to discover the original words inspired by our great God and Savior Jesus Christ. This is a process known as textual criticism (the science of comparing differing manuscripts to decipher the original writing of an ancient work).

The areas where there have been copyist or translation errors are very few, and they are well known. For English speakers, for example, the King James Bible has been the go-to for 400 years. And in this translation, which has changed little in its various iterations, one can just about count all the "errors" in the King James translation on one hand. You know there aren't many errors when you can essentially recall them all by memory!

And what are the nature of these "errors"? A few verses that are duplicates of other verses. A few words/verses that could be better translated. And unfortunately, a few words that are mistranslated. And perhaps, if you took the most conservative view towards the reconstructing the likely original text, the best you could argue against is the controversial long ending of Mark, and the story of the woman caught in adultery. These are the only passages that have been disputed after a thorough look into the manuscript evidence, and even with these, there are large amounts of evidence that these are the original writings of the authors of the NT.

So while Colby Martin and other skeptics — such as Bart Erhman — like to claim that we can't know for sure what the original authors wrote in the original documents of the Bible, a reasonable view of the evidence for the Bible says otherwise.

As a thought experiment, if you removed everything from the Bible that is disputed by the earliest manuscript evidence, and you translated everything as conservatively as possible — like is done with the NASB and the ESV, not that they removed the disputed passages, but put them with brackets and made corrections for the mistakes in the KJV — you wouldn't lose a single doctrine of God's Message. All His commandments, guidelines for living, and Scripture for every doctrine in the Bible, are still intact and well supported!

It is a lie to say that we don't know what God's Truth is, or that we can't know His message in any English translations. We can compare the translations to the earliest manuscript evidence and discover exactly what God's Word says. It is not a secret or an unknowable mystery. From a NT perspective, God's Word has been preserved in the manuscript tradition for two-thousand years, and it is exactly those primary documents in the original language that we can use to hold modern translations accountable. That is how we know what a good translation is, those that accurately represent the likely reading of the original manuscripts, all worked through the process of textual criticism. It's what the KJV translators did, and it's what the makers of the NASB and ESV did as well.

Here is a great article that explains how we know the Bible has not been corrupted: https://apologeticspress.org/3-good-reasons-to-believe-the-bible-has-not-been-corrupted-5196/ [4]

So the verdict is out, it's been out — there are many excellent translations and God's Word has not been corrupted! And the more manuscripts we discover, the more it turns out that what Christian's have had for generations is overwhelmingly correct.

Interestingly, Steven Anderson is actually much closer to having the right mindset about Bible translations than Mr. Martin. Colby essentially makes the argument that we can't know what the Bible says about anything for sure, while Steven Anderson makes the argument that everything in the KJV is perfect and needs no corrections.

While God's message in the KJV is perfect, there are a few areas where the words used in translation are not, and there are certain places where verses do not belong, but we know exactly where those places are and they do not affect doctrine.

So while I completely disagree with cultic KJV onlyists, they at least see Scripture for what it is — God's Word.

While we may disagree with the translation of a handful of places in the Bible, at the very least, common ground can be found for Christians on the basis that we can read an honest English translation and come away with all of God's doctrine.

The issue I have with the Steven Anderson philosophy on Bible translations is that it has no ability to make a defense or give an answer for the Scriptures because it refuses to look at the evidence for how we know the Scriptures are reliable! If Steven Anderson did take an honest look at the evidence, he wouldn't be a King James Onlyist. He would have to admit that there are errors (albeit quite small) in the King James Version of the Bible, and would have to apologize to all the people he has called unsaved and demonic because they took a reasonable and evidence-based approach to understanding the history of transmission of the Bible.

Instead, the Steven Anderson crowd says the following: I have faith in God's Word, the King James Version is God's Word, therefore any deviations from the KJV are wrong. While the KJV is God's Word, and it possesses the perfect message of God, it is a translation of God's Word, made from manuscripts preserved in the manuscript copies, given to us in history; of course, there is always a potential for error when translating those manuscript copies. The only way we can know if the translation is accurate is by a comparison of the translation with the preserved manuscripts in the manuscript tradition. This is how we can prove that translations, such as the New World Translation of Jehovah Witnesses, are in error with regards to the deity of Christ. It is also how we prove that the King James Version of the Bible is an accurate translation. For Steven Anderson and the King James Only crowd, if they do not engage at the level of the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic manuscripts, they have no way of making a reasonable defense of the Scriptures.

That is the beauty of looking for the truth in any matter. Truth disproves all sorts of falsities, whether those attacks come from progressive or regressive Christians.

A great book that uses critical evidence to disprove the claims of KJV Onlyism is The King James Only Controversy by James White.[5] What's awesome about that book, is that since it teaches you the rich history  of transmission and preservation of the manuscripts of the Bible, it also teaches you how to refute the claims of progressive Christianity.

Cite: Faucett, D. (2022). Steven Anderson vs. Colby Martin on Bible Translations. Science Faith and Reasoning. Retrieved from https://www.sci-fr.com/articles/steven-anderson-vs-colby-martin-on-bible-translations​ 

References:
​1. Colby Martin YouTube Video on Bible Translations. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPlCRFl-L2c 
2. Bell, S. (2018). Testing the Historical Reliability of the New Testament. Josh McDowell Ministry.  Retrieved from https://www.josh.org/historical-reliability-new-testament/ 
3. Taylor, J. (2012). An Interview With Daniel B. Wallace On The New Testament Manuscripts. The Gospel Coalition. March 22, 2012.  https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/an-interview-with-daniel-b-wallace-on-the-new-testament-manuscripts/ 
4. Miller, D. (2015). 3 Good Reasons to Believe the Bible Has Not Been Corrupted. Apologetics Press. Retrieved from https://apologeticspress.org/3-good-reasons-to-believe-the-bible-has-not-been-corrupted-5196/
5. King James Only Controversy by James White Amazon Link: https://www.amazon.com/King-James-Only-Controversy-Translations/dp/0764206052/ref=sr_1_1?crid=23Y34XE7SA6TM&keywords=king+james+only+controversy+james+white&qid=1656537896&sprefix=king+james+only+%2Caps%2C162&sr=8-1