Grief

What is grief from the Christian perspective?  In order to answer that question we must first understand what grief is.

Grief is defined as:

Keen mental suffering or distress over affliction or loss; sharp sorrow; painful regret or a cause or occasion of keen distress or sorrow. –Dictionary.com

Grief is an emotion that expresses distress from an affliction or loss.  Grief therefore, can be experienced in various different ways. For believers in Christ, there are some things we have to bear the grief of and there are other things we should not be grievous about.  Therefore, I am not going to tell you that you dear reader should never experience grief in your Christian walk, that would be unrealistic and impractical.  Instead what I hope to achieve through this article is to provide you with some guidance on how to deal with the emotion of grief.  More importantly, I hope to share with you how God deals with grief and how Jesus deals with grief, that hopefully it will shed some light on this topic that all of us can glean some strength from.

How does God deal with Grief?

Many believers, many people are surprised that God can even experience grief. He does and has experienced grief.  Here is a scripture when God became grievous of His creation of mankind:

“And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.”-Genesis 6:6

What does this mean? It means that God was very distressed about losing mankind to the ways of sin and disobedience.  It does not mean he was angry.  Here we see the word “repented” used with the emotions of the Lord.  The word “repented” in this verse, as it applies to God, our creator, does not mean that God made an error and was upset about it.  It means that God changed his mind about how he created mankind and He decided to judge the entire human race at that point of time. Before he executed His judgment upon all mankind, He searched and found one righteous and peace-loving man, who did not use violence to justify the ends of his means in life. That man was Noah, and God saved him and his family as He cleansed and restarted the world via the great deluge, the flood. He did so because Mankind had gotten so out of control with vengeance killing and the Sons of God (the line of Shem) committing unholy marriages with the daughters of men (of the line Cain, the murderer of his brother Abel) [Read Genesis 5 and 6].  Before the earth became consumed with violence and unholy marital relations, He wiped out all but 8 souls from that generation.

So how does this tell us how God deals with grief?  It tells us that when God is grieved enough he options to find one man and through him save the human race and the planet.  Before you begin to believe that all those souls are eternally lost or have the become evil spirits that now plague mankind, believe me the Bible does not teach any such thing about them.  What the Bible does teach is that Jesus, after his death and during his burial in the earth, during those 3 days and 3 nights, went down to Sheol, the holding place of the condemned and preached to them redemption (1 Peter 3:19, 4:6; Matthew 27:52+53). Those souls of the spirits of men, who anticipated the redemption of God accepted Jesus and rose from the dead and entered into the heavenly Jerusalem and many in Jerusalem saw it.  Those people who rose from those graves, were the ones who never heard Jesus preach on the earth they died before Jesus was born, they all heard the message of redemption in Sheol,  many believed and received salvation, then the arose from the dead before Jesus did and went on before him into the New Jerusalem which appeared in Heaven. I therefore, submit to you that all the saints of the former dispensations who knew of the forth coming of God’s redemption for them, through Christ, was of those who accepted the message and rose from the dead.  

So how does God deal with grief? He takes corrective action to relieve Himself of the loss he has experienced.  What did God lose?  He lost the cream of his creation, the apple of his eye, the love of his life, His companions, His friends, He lost the many souls of Mankind to sin, disobedience and death.  How did he choose to relieve himself of such a loss? The Apostle John tells us how:

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”-John 3:16

For the members of Mankind were not able to save themselves as a whole, entrapped by the sinful nature and the spirit of disobedience through the fear of (Hebrews 2:14+15) death and were on the path to eternal condemnation, that He sent Jesus, his only begotten Son, his image, born of a virgin, pure and without sin to become the sacrificial lamb for the sin of the world.  This illustrates that to overcome grief, God chose to love us and redeem us all, even those who died in the flood and those yet unborn.  Showing that what the Apostle Peter wrote about the Lord and his promises is true.

“The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”- 2 Peter 3:9

For those who were asleep before the Lord Jesus appeared on the earth, believed in hope of redemption promised by God and because of that faith in that hope, God through Christ, raised them up redeemed.  Giving all of us hope that are suffering grief that whatsoever God has promised he will accomplish.   All we have to do is keep believing in his promises.

How does Jesus deal with Grief?

Jesus being fully man, experienced grief during his ministry. Here are some scriptures illustrating when Jesus experienced grief and how he dealt with it.

Mark 3:1-6 [vs 5]-The Healing of the Man with the withered Hand on the Sabath

“And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand. And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him. And he saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth. And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace. And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other. And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him.”

The passage we just read shows Jesus was grieved and angry, that  He experienced two separate emotions at the same time.  He was angry because of their silence, their lack of response to his question.  According to the Pharisees interpretation of the Law, if a cow or a lamb fell into a pit on the sabbath day, they couldn’t pull the cow or lamb out until the sabbath had passed.  However, the Pharisees overlooked this and allowed people to pull their livestock out of a pit on the Sabbath day because the livestock would be offered to them for atonement for breaking the Law.  What Jesus was saying since the religious leaders allowed the livestock to be saved on the Sabbath day, how much more should healing a man’s withered hand be allowed to be done on the sabbath day?  Isn’t a man of more value than livestock?  When the people did not respond to Jesus’ question he was angry that they would allow a man to suffer on the Sabbath day in comparison to saving their own livestock on the Sabbath from danger.  He was grieved because they were lost in their unbelief.  Remember this act was done inside of a synagogue, a place where the Pharisees have taught the people that Jesus was a law breaker because he performed miracles on the Sabbath day and among other things.  Jesus was angry because they did not respond. He was grieved because the people of the synagogue did not believe.  Now the man with the withered hand believed and did as Jesus bid him and he was healed as a result.

This shows that Jesus grieves when there is no faith in the people in his acts to heal and deliver.  It is because that they are lost without having faith in Christ. So how does Jesus deal with grief?  He finds one with faith in his ability to heal and performs a miracle.  Miracles can make unbelievers into believers all by one witnessed act. Yet it takes faith in Jesus to make miracles happen.  He performs miracles right in front of unbelievers in the hopes to turn them into believers.

Luke 7:11-17 The revival to life of a widow’s dead son.

And it came to pass the day after, that he went into a city called Nain; and many of his disciples went with him, and much people. Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with her. And when the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her, and said unto her, Weep not. And he came and touched the bier: and they that bare him stood still. And he said, Young man, I say unto thee, Arise. And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he delivered him to his mother. And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That God hath visited his people.

In this passage of scripture we find Jesus dealing with the grieve of a widow who lost her only son.  The economic impact of such a lost upon the widow was such that she would not be able to provide a living for herself.  Let me clarify,  back then women were provided and protected by the men in their families.  When a wife loses her husband due to death, she becomes a widow. The Law stipulates that if a woman becomes a widow, must have her eldest Son take care of her.  In this case the man that was being carried out of the city dead was her only son. She had no other relatives, herself being a widow she had no one to provide for her.  The woman was grieving over the lost of her son because there was no provision in the law for her care, unless a kinsman marries her.  I repeat, the story does not tell us if there were surviving relatives, but she was weeping concerning her loss. This story does not lend to us the extent of her plight, but her weeping tells us that see was not a young widow because her son was not a boy, but a full grown man. Who would desire, to care for an old woman with no surviving relatives?   What did Jesus do? Jesus stopped the procession, comforted the widow in her grief, and raised her son back to life.  Jesus restored her provision to her, he returned her son to her, she did not need to worry about being cared for anymore and see had her son back

So how does Jesus deal with grief? If there is faith present he performs miracles and restores hope to the hopeless.  This teaches us that we must retain hope when suffer loss.

I remember when I lost my job, my family, my first wife, my car and my home all in single year.  I suffered grief for many days. Grief is very painful emotion, It can drive a man to do harmful and destructive things if not handled properly and kept in perspective. Yet it is good for a man to grieve,  For It makes a man appreciate what he once had, that which may have taken for granted.  It can make a man reset his values and bring his life into perspective.  Sometimes grief is experienced everyday a man remembers his loss. Sometimes it goes away, being something or someone he does not grieve over anymore, for whichever which way a man deals with his grief he must confront it with hope and purpose.  Hope of a better tomorrow, hope of a better life.  In my despair, in my grief over losing all that I held dear and to an extent still do, I found hope.  I simply told God through Christ,”…If you are real you will raise me up out of this place. I have faith that you are God and nothing is impossible to you, if I believe. Here is where the rubber meets the road, either you’re God or you are not God. If you are not God I will remain homeless and I will not live for you anymore, but if you prove that you are God I will continue to live for you and your glory…”  Well, long story short, God did raise me out of homelessness.  I now have a new wife, a new family, a new home and a new job and now I am serving God in whatsoever capacity I can.  I will preach his Gospel, I will teach his people and I will glorify his name forever.  Do I still grieve over that which I have lost? I would be lying if I said that I didn’t grieve each and every day, because sometimes pain of loss does not go away, but I meet it with hope and the promise that one day everything will change and I believe that God can make that happen, through Christ.  I learned that I cannot go on living grieving about what was.  I can make a new life with God’s help, and with his help I did. So that one day  when I draw my last breath of life, my family , both past and present, can look at my life and say that I was good man, that I was a real Christian.

The Power of Praise, The Power of Joy

Grief can not only be overcome with hope and purpose, it can be subdued by finding new joys. The power of praise should also not be underestimated for the bible states:

To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be glorified.-Isaiah 61-3

This scripture shows what God provides when we are grieving, we mourn when we grieve, but God provide us with these things: Beauty, Joy and the Garment of Praise. It is amazing that your really don’t see the beauty of life until you suffer some sort of loss.  When I saw the beautiful life I had before I became homeless, I thanked God, not for the loss, but rather for the opportunity of enjoying the life he had given me and repented from not appreciating it more. I take nothing for granted today because I experienced the loss, it has made me a better person. I did not allow my grief to cause me to do harmful things in the name of vengeance.  In my loss, I learned the true power of forgiveness and the freedom it gave to my soul and I praise God for it. When grief is properly dealt with, a believer in Christ, matures, he grows up and is taken to another level in his relationship with God.  I began to thank God for the little things, before long I was praising him for the great things he has done in my life.  So whenever I feel the pain of grief, I remember those things He has done for me and I praise him the more. 

The moral of this lesson is you do not have to stay in a grievous condition, which left unchecked can lead you into doing very harmful and vengeful things.  Things you will regret doing.  Or even prevent having the things that have been causing you grief, give you pain all your life.  Once you tap into the hope and purpose of your life and couple that with gratefulness and praise, you can experience new joys and joy can subdue your grief. Follow it up with the power of forgiveness and you can live again. 

You also can experience the joy of life everlasting with God. How? You can choose to accept the free gift of salvation provided by a loving God through the shed blood of Jesus. How?  Just recite the following prayer with all your heart:

Dear heavenly Father,

In Jesus’ name, I come to you now as a repentant sinner.  I confess all of my sinfulness to you and ask you to forgive all of my sins for Jesus’ sake. Wash away all of my sins by the blood of your Son Jesus.  For I now believe that Jesus died for my sins according to your Holy Word, the Bible and that he was raised from the death according to the Bible.  I now invite your Holy Spirit to come and live inside of me and make me your child. I promise to strive to live holy everyday with the Help of your Holy Spirit and by studying the Bible every day. I thank you Lord for saving me.

If you have recited the above prayer with all sincerity, I welcome you the Family of God! Right now the Angels of heaven are rejoicing because you have repented and believed in the hope of all men’s salvation.  Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God.

The next thing you need to do is find a bible believing church, so that you can grow up in Christ and in God. To become what God designed you to be.  Isn’t that exciting!?!

The Bible Changed?

There has been the idea that the Bible has been changed, in that the original scriptures now reads differently in message and purpose. The reason for this change, as claimed by the opponents of Bible credibility, was due to the repetitious manual duplication of Holy writ over time.  In that, words were changed, exchanged , re-arranged and replaced during this repetitive copying. This is the challenge we will address in this article and prove that no such thing happened.

Now Some of the opponents of Bible credibility have presented extracted passages of various portions of the Bible from various translations in order to prove their point.  Once again  under further investigation, like in many previous cases, the opponents of Bible credibility used either a false English translation in comparison to a true and accurate translation or used an older English translation of a original Greek or Hebrew word in comparison to an updated English translation of the same original Greek or Hebrew word. For example:  In an very old King James Version English translation of the Bible that I read when I was 8 years old, there is a passage in the book of Exodus that speaks about when Moses descended from the mountain where God's presence was. The passage read that Moses descended from the presence of God with "horns" poking out from his head. (Exodus 34:29) Now in the more up to date translation of the same passage it reads:

 "..when he came down from the mount, that Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him.  And when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh him."  

What happened? Why was there a change from the older English translation of the King James version of the Bible?  Why was it changed from the way it was originally written?  I was 14 years old when I got a hold of a modern King James Version of the Bible and read the updated version of the passage.  I was determined to find out why it was changed.  So I investigated why there was change between the two King James English Versions of the Bible. What I found out was that there was no change in the words of the original languages of the scriptures from whence the two passages were translated into English.  No, rather it was human error in the translation of the older King James Version English translation of the scriptures. When the older translation of the original languages of the scriptures were translated into English, they did not know what those words actually could be properly translated in the English of their day, so they translated the words according to the sentiment of the day. I did some research and discovered that found that the time when the older English King James Bible was translated, there was great feelings of antisemitism, that is, there was a deep hatred for the Jews. Why? There was this idea that was propagated that the Jews killed Jesus, the Christ.  So  I concluded that the translator back then translated the text according to the sentiment of day.  Was it a correct translation? No, it wasn't. This translation of the phrase and those like it was proved as a wrong translation eventually by some scholarly work done by some fair minded, truth seeking Christians.  The Christian scholars proved that the Jews did not directly kill Jesus, even though the Jews solicited and persuaded the Pagan  Roman authority at the time to have it done.   Now there is a lot less antisemitism because of these corrections in the English translation of the original copies of the scriptures..  This also proves that just because a translation is older, does not mean that it is more correctly translated than a more modern translation. It also proves that a change the original languages of the Bible was not the cause of the change in the passages of the English King James Bible.   What cause the changes? In brief: Cultural perception and understand of a word. You see, American English is very different for the English of the King Jame Bible.  Even though they are related as American English is an off shoot of 16th Century English, some words have changed in concept and meaning between the two cultures.  For instance, the word "Let" in the Bible  doesn't mean the same today as it did when the King James Bible was first translated.  In the 16th century world of England, the word "let" meant to prohibit or to prevent, but in American English the word "let" means to allow or permit.  Why don't we take a look of a passage in the new testament  that uses the word "let" and apply the two different cultural definitions and perceptions:

For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 2 Thessalonians 2:7

At first glance, this verse would appear to be saying according to the American concept and definition of the word "let" that the mystery of sin is already at work and only he who now permits sin will continue to permit it until he is stopped and taken out of the way.  

Now the King James English is not 21st century English, it is 16th Century English and the the passage above reads according to 16th century English definition and concept that the mystery of sin do already work: Only he who hinders and prohibits sin, will do so until he is stopped and taken out of the way. 

This is the reason for up to date English translations of the original language of the Bible, to prevent the misunderstanding of the intent of the Biblical author. This shows that what was written is not necessarily what the text means.  For modern English readers of the verse under discussion to understand it properly, they would  have to look at how a 16th century Englishman would have understood the verse.  This also proves that the original languages from whence this verse is translated did not cause nor do not cause the miss-understanding of the text, neither did the translation, rather it was the reader of the text being no careful to evaluate the verse read it according to his current understanding of the 16th century English words used in the verse. The problem is that many Americans read the scriptures according to their own cultural understanding  and not the according to the culture of the translation. I feel that this is one of the reasons why there is many denominations of Christianity in America.

How do we know then with any assurance that the modern English translations of the copies of  the original scriptures were not translated with some sort of prejudice of the translators?  This is a fair and honest question, a question that I myself had. So I went on another investigation into the Bible translation process, and this is what I have found out, Looking through some Bible translation history documents and just recently videos.  I discovered that  the King James version is not a word for word translation. The website http:\\www.christian.stackexchange.com,  a theologian  named Richard provides us the following information:

The King James Version or Authorized Version as it was originally known, was translated by a group of 47 scholars.

It was actually a thought-for-thought translation, rather than word-for-word translation. The idea is that they tried to take the original meaning of the text (not just the individual word) and translate that into the (then) common language.

Compared to modern paraphrase translations, the King James version is almost a word-for-word translation. However, there were places where the scholars explicitly rejected the word-for-word translation in favor of wording that would make more sense to the contemporary English reader of the day.

Here's an example in Romans 5:2-3

2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;

The words "rejoice" (in verse 2) and "glory" (in verse 3) are the same word in the original text. A word-for-word translation would have given the same word for those in both cases.

Having said all of this and in light of today's translations, it's commonly accepted as a word-for-word translation. If you compare this, for example, to a thought-for-thought translation or a paraphrase, this translation is much closer to the original text (dramatically so in the case of a paraphrase).

While the original text scholars intentionally rejected word-for-word translations, it's commonly accepted as a word-for-word translation when compared to thought-for-thought or paraphrase translations.

This information provided by  the post of  Richard the theologian at the Christianstackexchange.com website,  shows that the intent of the translators was not to change what the original scriptures stated or insert words that did not exist in the original scriptures, rather they attempted to capture the concept of the original scriptural passage and translate that concept into the English of their day in the 16th Century, in order get as near to the meaning and ideas of the original scriptures as possible.  There was no intention to mar or to distort the original scriptures.   

 A very long time ago, when I had the opportunity I kept a vigil watch over the production of  the New International Version  English Bible,  also known as the N.I.V. English version of the Bible.  I saw that the Bible publisher used committees of theologians from the Jewish faith and the Christian faith for each book of the new Bible they intended to translate and to publish.  They would release one book at a time to see if the public would accept the new translation or would there be outrage from the pulpits of American churches and synagogues.  With each release there was an explanation for why they translated a word or a phrase differently than that of other Modern English translations,  however that did not stop the criticisms from the religious communities. There were a great many accusations laid at the translators feet, one of which was changing the scriptures from their original meaning.   To see if there accusations were true, I would go out and purchase a book of the new translated  Bible every time one was published and compared it to the King James Bible I had in my possession.  I asked myself this same question concerning each of them: What changes to the text did this Publisher allow the translator to make and on what grounds? I read  that part which came with each release  which was an explanation of the text, why certain words were translated  differently and why was it better than what the King James translation of the Bible presented in this new version of the scriptures.  

Not at one time did the issue of changing a concept or a word because of the translator's perception, perspective or prejudice was used.   The cited reason was always, what best presented the scriptures to the understanding of the common people was their goal in translating the original scriptures.  I was also comforted from the fact that each translator signed an oath to the readers of their intent and purpose in bringing in a new translation into the American culture was without bias or prejudice with each release of a portion of the new translation.  Therefore,  I have great confidence in the N.I.V. English Bible today, that it is one of the most up to date Bible readable and understandable translations ever assembled.  Now we also have the English  New King James Version Bible, also known as the N.K.J.V. Bible, which combined the readability of the N.I.V. English Bible with the authoritative style of the English K.J.V Bible.  I have all three bibles in my possession and is very confident that the concepts are consistent between all three of them and they  with the original copies of the scriptures.  

In a previous Facebook post, some time ago,  I responded to an opponent of the English King James Bible who deliberately changed the words of a English Bible text to make it say what he wanted it to say and claim it came from the K.J.V. of the Bible.  I pulled up my English K.J.V. Bible and found that he was miss-representing the K.J.V. Bible at a particular verse.   What I did was posted the actual K.J.V. verse in question and corrected his miss-quote.   Bible credibility opponents love to fool Christians with a good sounding self-paraphrased quote from the Bible.   I was not fooled by the person and demonstrated how the concept and the ideas of the original translated scripture was not changed through all 3 different  Bible English translations by posting all three English versions in my possession of the particular verse. Then he used a false translation and claimed that the Bible was in fact changed.  I pointed out to him that the translation he used was a false translation of the Bible because it did not follow the testimony of the Apostles and early church fathers.

A false translation is a Bible that is translated into English but the original concept of the original scriptures is not preserved in the translation. Instead, another alternative translation is inserted according to the beliefs and prejudices of those who published it or altered it.  For example: The New World Translation is a false Bible translation, in that the concept of Jesus as the only begotten Son of God is removed and the concept as Jesus being a separate God  is propagated through its texts. The Book of Mormon, which presented as another testament of Jesus Christ,  is a false testament, even though it is not a direct translation of the established original scriptures, it is written in the King James Bible translation style.  This was done to give it a "king James" kind of feel  to the readers of its contents. All in all it is a fabrication that tells of Jesus coming to the Americas, just before his ascension to bring the good news to the native Americans.  This all sounds good and plausible because after his crucifixion and resurrection  he appeared to the disciples while they were locked inside a closed and secured room. So why couldn't Jesus have appeared to the native Americans and preached the Gospel to them?  The reason Jesus did not come to the Americas to preach the Gospel  to the native Americans is because he did not need to come to the Americas to preach the Kingdom of God to the indigenous peoples of the Americas. Jesus assigned all believers with  the task of spreading the Gospel of the Kingdom to all nations starting from Jerusalem.  This concept that the book of Mormon presents makes it seem that Jesus believed that his disciples would fail in bringing the Gospels to the native Americans and had to do it himself. We all know that isn't the truth and there were countless Christian Missionaries that successfully preached the Gospel to the native Americans. Think about it,  if Jesus believed  that his disciples would fail in carrying out his great commission, why did he commissioned the Apostles with the task of preaching to the world the Gospel?  Also there are no archaeological discoveries to  confirm the contents of  the Book of Mormon when it speaks of people, places and events. The point is,  because there is so many accurate reproductions of the English translations of the original scriptures  that a false bible is real easy to identify. 

What also makes me so confident that the English King James Bible is accurate in its translation from the original scriptures?  I was made confident because when a English bible is published, each book is translated by a separate and distinct committee from another.  After each committee is finished translating the particular book of scripture into English,  the books are assembled together without regard to cross textual consistency.  Which means without changing the contents of one book to correlate to the contents of another book. This creates the appearance of a discrepancy when a New Testament character quotes Old Testament scripture, for example: In Isaiah 53:5  there is a phrase that says "...and with his stripes we are healed...." This phrase  of scripture is quoted by the Apostle Peter, but in his letter it reads, ".. by whose stripes ye were healed...." (1 Peter  2 :24 ) Is this a miss-translated verse in the Old Testament or is it a miss-quoted verse in the New Testament? The answer is that it is neither. Both English translations are true to its expression in the language it was translated from.  What this supposed variation shows is the revelation that the Apostle Peter had concerning the Isaiah 53 prophecy.  He looks at the prophecy as being fulfilled in Christ and quotes it according to that revelation. He quotes it in the past tense, looking back at the Cross where Jesus was crucified. With this understanding, the supposed discrepancy disappears.  This is also true with many other New Testament quotes of Old Testament scriptures.

Finding all this stuff out about the King James Bible translation and other modern English translations that are consistent with the testimonies of the early church and the Apostles of Christ. I was impressed with the thoroughness of the various bible committees  and concluded that no malicious attempt to change the bible was possible.  As explained before, if someone attempted to change any of the original concepts, without justifiable explanation,  of the English Bible it would be quickly identified as a fake bible and by and large rejected by many Churches and Christians.  

The only question that is left is this: Have the original copies of the scriptures been changed through the repetitive copying of them?  The logical answer is yes, but the factual answer is no.  Why is it logical to believe that the original copies of the scriptures have been changed due the repetitive copying of them.  It is logical to think that as those who copied the first document, also known as the autograph,  and then repeatedly copied the copy of the copy, that over time as they became more removed from the autograph, the first original document composed, that some words could have been changed, re-arranged and replaced.  The fact of the matter, that is not what happened at all concerning the reproduction of the holy scriptures. What did happen was exact replicas of the autographs were reproduced.  How could this be?  First, please understand that there were no copying machines when the first copies were produced. What they had were men that were trained as scribes. Their job was to produce an exact replica of the autograph or the exact copy of the autograph for people who were willing to pay a good price for it if they were a foreigner, it was free if they were an Jewish leader or a Christian.  In order for them to properly do this they had to adhere to strict copying policies and techniques. If a error was made and discovered, the document produced by the scribe was destroyed and he had to start all over. There was no tolerance for error in copying the autographs of Holy writ. No incorrect copies of any authorized  Old Testament and New Testament scriptures were allowed to survive. Add to this the popular demand for exact copies of the autographs of  the original scriptures and you find that thousands were reproduced, the ones that were not distributed were stored in various places on papyrus paper scrolls.  These copies were generated during the first two centuries of the Church and circulated throughout the known Roman world.  Even though all these exact copies were reproduced, the papyrus that they were written on began to decay and rot away. So more vigilant efforts were performed to preserve the copies of the autographs as time moved on.   I must state here that the original copies of the holy scriptures are among the most well preserved set of books in the world.  This why we have exact copies of the autographs dating from the first and second centuries of the church still with us today.  It is from these exact copies of the autographs, which have long since decayed away, that modern English translations including the King James Bible are translated from.  

Now the icing on the cake is that one of the oldest complete Bibles discovered, Codex Sinaiticus, which was written in one of the original languages and dates back to the early 4th century, when it was translated into modern English, it confirmed that no changes were made in concept or purpose in the words  bible since that time.  If that wasn't enough, a theologian took up the challenge that the bible was changed and did something completely different.  He took the 800 plus pieces of literature which were  the autograph copies of the early church fathers and using only their quotes of the New Testament reassembled the entire New Testament to the letter. He didn't even use the known Codexes of the Bible and was able to produce an accurate copy.  The Old testament, on the other hand  has had a incredible record of authenticity and accuracy over the centuries, insomuch that the ancient city of Nineveh was found just using the geographical references provided within its pages.  The Kingdom of the Hittites  was discovered just where the Bible said they would be.  Archaeology has confirmed the the Bible many times and has given us reason to believe its contents as accurate and authentic. Think about it,  if a story in the bible was just made up and presented as fact, it would never be confirmed by archaeology . So has the Bible changed since its inception?  Many have tried and failed to change its contents to suit their beliefs.  Just remember in order for a fake Bible to be created there must be an authentic one to emulate. 

The last evidence is the Apostles and the many disciples who died to preserve the original scriptures.  If they died for false scriptures, then they were all fools, because they died for what they did not know was false. Even worse If they knew it was false and persisted in the propagation of that which is false, they are guilty of being co-conspirators in a mass con scheme of the likes the world have never seen and willingly died for it.  Or they just lost their minds and gave up their lives preserving that which is not authentic or accurate.  Regardless of any of those possibilities they never recanted their testimony  and preserved the holy scriptures until the day of their death. They left a standing testimony of scriptural accuracy and authenticity that still effects us today  and all who believe because of their sacrifices and testimonies preserved in the holy scriptures have the assurance that what is in the Bible is true when responsibly translated into whatsoever language it needs to be in order that the Great commission of our Lord would be accomplished.