Can Scripture Be Altered?

When seeking truth, it’s natural to ask how we can be sure we are hearing God’s voice accurately. One helpful way is to consider not only what Scripture says, but also how it is translated. Every Bible translation involves choices, and those choices shape how readers understand key passages.

Most translations are produced by large, publicly known committees whose work can be compared across languages and manuscripts. The New World Translation is different in that its translators were not publicly identified, and several of its renderings are unique among major translations. This does not automatically make it wrong — but it does make comparison valuable.

Rather than assuming motives, a simple question can guide the process:

Do the translation choices arise from the original text, or do they reflect the beliefs of the group producing the translation?

This is not a criticism. It is the same question scholars ask of any translation.

Sometimes a translation adds words to clarify meaning. Sometimes it chooses a less common rendering. These choices may be helpful — or they may shift the meaning in ways that deserve a closer look. Comparing translations is not an act of disloyalty; it is part of seeking truth with an open Bible.

For example, when a translation consistently renders certain verses in ways that support a specific doctrinal system, it can be helpful to compare those verses with the broader manuscript evidence or with multiple translations. The goal is not to “catch” anyone, but to understand Scripture as clearly as possible.

This is why returning to Scripture itself is so important. The Bible provides a stable reference point — a “square” that does not shift. Like a grid square on a map, it helps us stay oriented. If our navigation drifts even slightly, we may feel confident while still moving off course.

The longer someone spends in Scripture, the clearer its message becomes. But when anything — whether tradition, emotion, or organizational teaching — rises to the same level as Scripture, it becomes harder to distinguish God’s Word from human interpretation.

The principle is simple and freeing:

• Teachings that fit fully within Scripture can be embraced with confidence.

• Teachings that extend beyond Scripture should be examined carefully.

• Practices outside Scripture can still be meaningful, as long as they do not claim Scriptural authority.

• And translations should always be compared, not assumed.

This is not about criticizing any group. It is about encouraging every person to let Scripture speak for itself — to let the Bible be the standard by which all teachings and translations are measured.

The question remains gentle but important:

Does Scripture guide the organization — or does the organization guide how Scripture must be understood?