I think that is like saying, “If we don’t have a perfect creation, then we don’t have a perfect God”.
But I’m getting ahead of myself.
Okay…
That statement in the title… I said that to myself about 12 years ago.
You see, I was raised up in an environment where people believe that the word of God is perfect. And by the “word of God” we mean the Bible, both the Old and New Testatments.
“The law of the LORD is perfect…” — from the Psalms
… By “perfect” we mean no errors, even the very words are exact and without errors.
“one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled”
But if you are very familiar with the Bible, you already know that there are lots of Bibles in the world. I mean, there are lots of different translations of the Bible. In English for example, there are these: KJV, RSV, ESV, NASB, HCSB, NIV, NLT, ERV, BBE, CEV, TLB, etc.
And there are a few passages where they say different things. Compare for instance I John 5:7-8 in KJV and ESV:
KJV:
1Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
1Jn 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
ESV:
1Jn 5:7 For there are three that testify:
1Jn 5:8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.
See the difference?
Either the KJV translators added something to the Bible, or the ESV translators ommitted something from the Bible, right? (Or did they?) And adding or ommitting something from the Bible is prohibited in the Bible itself (in the last chapter of Revelation and in other passages). Tsk tsk!
Some people regarded this as a very serious matter. And I did consider this a very serious matter.
My father has a copy of the book which relates to this matter: “The Answer Book” by Samuel Gipp. I read it a few years ago, and I was convinced — we have a perfect Bible, and it is in the King James Version of the Bible. Yehey!
(There is also this study book titled “English Bible: Manuscript Evidence” but I was not able to finish it)
But a few years after that, I started to ask, “Why do most Christians not care whether or not there are major differences in the readings of bible translations. Some verses are even missing in modern translations. But most Christians seem to be okay in using any Bible they want to use.
“Why are most Christians not KJV-onlyists when it seems like the KJV-Only camp has answers to almost any question you throw at them. Why is it hard for most Christians to change their minds on this issue?”
“Is peer pressure the reason for this not-caring attitude? (There are lots of people in the world who are afraid to change their minds because of peer pressure!)”
Perhaps… Perhaps not…
“But if we do not have a perfect Bible, as what the Bible itself claims to be, then the God of the Bible must not be perfect either!”
“I’m confused about this… Christianity is impossible!… The standard is too high… It must be impossible!… The source of its teachings is not perfect…“
Ooooo… “What if I try to become an enemy of Christianity, and use this issue of ‘the imperfect Bible’ to convince people that the God of Christianity is not perfect and that Christianity is not true?” 
“I will become the worst enemy of Christianity…“ (as if that was possible) 
Haha, funny — I would rather have been an enemy of Christianity than change my mind on this issue. Tsk tsk! It’s really hard to change ones mind, most especially if the change involves something very foundational to ones belief system.
But peer pressure might be one of the reasons why changing my mind on this issue was hard!
Perhaps?… Perhaps not…
I think it’s not. I was really convinced in my mind that the KJV translation was perfect. It was not just peer pressure because had somebody gave me another answer as to why there are differences in the readings of different bible translations, the changing of the mind might have not been that hard. (are you sure?)
Now, the first major thing which made me reconsider my stand on this issue is when I and my father attended a “KJV Conference” in Davao in 2006 or 2007 (or 2008, 2009? I can’t remember the exact year). During the Q&A session, the lecturer (and the one who financed the conference) said something like this (not exact words), in a somewhat-concerned-and-somewhat-loud kind of voice:
“You can ask any question… Just don’t humiliate me here because I spent a huge amount of money for this conference. I brought the choir here in Davao from Cebu, and … “
Hmmm… Is he hiding something? Perhaps the KJV-Only advocates do not have answers to all questions you throw at them, like I thought they did … I wonder what those questions are on which they do not have answers…
Many years later, when YouTube is everywhere, I saw this debate by James White and Jack Moorman: Should We Exclusively Use The King James Bible?. In that debate Dr. James White said that the 1 John 5:7-8 in the KJV Bible, also called the “Comma Johanneum”, is not found in any of the early Greek manuscripts of 1 John (that is in about 47:00 mins in the video). He said that it was only added in the third edition of what is now known as the “Textus Receptus”, the Greek text compiled by Erasmus in the 16th century.
This is Dr. White’s statements regarding that:
The Comma Johanneum… is not in the first two editions of Erasmus.
… The early church never used that text as a proof text for the doctrine of the trinity. There are people who summarized the belief by words similar to that. But the doctrine of the trinity is in no way, shape or form, dependent upon that.
And my biggest concern is this: is that if we include the Comma Johanneum in the New Testament, we are saying that the Greek manuscript tradition can become completely corrupted for 1500 years and lose vitally important doctrinal material.
No one who believes in a Majority Text theory whould ever support the Comma Johanneum because the Majority Text does not contain it either.
It is a much later edition. It is found only in Latin manuscripts. And only in very late 14th century and beyond Greek manuscripts. And if we include it, what we’re saying is that text in the New Testament can be thoroughly corrupted.
Hmmm… From what I learned in the past, this Textus Receptus is the text where the KJV Bible was translated from! (Or the main text used by the KJV translators)
Too bad, right?! Too bad… “I think I need to change my mind on some foundational things.”
The good thing is that Dr. White did not stop there. Seems like he is also saying that these what they call “textual variations” in the manuscripts has an advantage from the viewpoint of Christianity.
In about 42:00 minutes in the debate, Dr. James White said this:
Why couldn’t God avoided textual variation?
…
… a manuscript tradition that goes all over the world.
You know why that is so important?
You know what you hear my Muslim friends say?
“Oh you all put the deity of Christ in the New Testament”
“You all put the resurrection in the New Testament”
Folks, that is absolutely impossible!
There was never a time when anyone had control over all the manuscripts of the New Testament …
…
… for if we only had one manuscript then we would have to trust that whoever controlled that one manuscript never tampered with it.
That’s the problem the Muslims have. They have a revised text. They have to trust that Uthman got it exactly right.
We actually have the better situation. God provisionally has provided us with a solid foundation for believing in the inspiration and accuracy of the New Testament.
There you go…
The textual variations are not a disadvantage to Christianity!
For now, I have to say this: “In a perfect world, we would have a perfect Bible. But we are not living in a perfect world. We might not have a perfect translation of the Bible, but that does not mean that we don’t have God’s word. The Bible is still one of the most preserved writings in the world, if not the most. That still means God preserved his word, even in an imperfect world.”
(The next question would be, “How would we know whether a specific verse of the Bible has been corrupted or not?”)
Update, August 31, 2023
While rereading what I wrote in this blog post, I remember something I read from the NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible just a few weeks ago. It has this section titled “Hebrew to Engglish Translation Chart”, with the subtitle “Description of meaning of Hebrew words that have no exact Equivalent in English”
It has an entry for the word “perfect”.
It reads:
[“perfect”] Refers most often to the idea that animals for sacrifice are without defect. As a description of a person, it describes then as blameless — having no obvious faults or besetting sins. God’s laws and ways are so described, but this is never used as an attribute descriptor of God himself…
The word “perfect” is never used as an attribute descriptor of God himself!
Interesting.
