National Pastor Survey Results

The faulty model

For years, “Supernatural Bible change” discussions have relied on subjective examples: Someone provides a “fill-in-the-blank” memory quiz question, and the participant invariably gets it wrong the exact same way as everyone else. This can be repeated with approximately 10 to 15 familiar passages with virtually anyone who knows their Bible almost without exception. The Christian Bible change community has observed this consistent reaction for nine years now.

But once the participant learns that they are incorrect, instead of being shocked, they somehow manage to reframe it as trivial by saying something like, “Oh yeah—now I remember.” So not only do the majority of people get a significant number of familiar passages wrong the same way as everyone else when they shouldn’t, they also display an irrational indifference to what amounts to a catastrophic memory failure.

Many of these passages are so familiar that the inability to remember them correctly seems like something more akin to early-onset dementia than forgetting where you left your keys. The response from most people should be utter astonishment, not a cavalier reframing to run-of-the-mill misremembering.

We find this inability to acknowledge the obvious to be more of a phenomenon than the phenomenon itself. Jesus describes this egregious lack of discernment in Mark 8:18: “Having eyes, do you not see? And having ears, do you not hear?” This “fill in the blanks and hope for the best” approach is therefore generally unproductive because every mismatch can be waved off as normal memory error.

Our debate model

That is why we are presenting a groundbreaking evidence-based approach to this very polarized topic. Our model will help to establish a completely objective basis for debate on this topic. The premise is simple:

SBCO International has conducted two surveys that seek to measure the level of unified misremembering of Bible scriptures that is clearly taking place in our world today. We have completed an international survey and a national pastors survey. Our surveys show consistent unified misremembering across various demographics, with rates often reaching as high as 96.7%.

CLICK HERE  to see full results of both of our surveys.

The reader doesn’t have to take our word for it, because this observation can be repeated by anyone using our 20-question online Bible Quiz at alteredbible.com. The reader can use that simple resource to get whatever sample size they need to draw their own conclusions. The reader can also easily use Google Forms as I did to create a more robust survey and collect data themselves. Once the reader sees the same kind of unified misremembering themselves, they will be forced to make a decision. Are you going to answer the question that this ministry is bringing to the body of Christ or not?

Average amount of misremembering

Additionally, I have included two independent studies that were conducted to determine the average amount of misremembering in a given situation. Both of these studies found that the average false-memory rates are between 20%–30%, depending on the task and stimulus. The significant discrepancy between our findings and the findings of these two studies provides a strong indication that something unexplainable seems to be taking place.

CLICK HERE to see these two studies

Unified misremembering

It is also significant to note that in addition to unusually high rates of misremembering, our data clearly shows that everyone is also misremembering in the same way. And misremembering and misremembering in the same way are two entirely different things. There has to be a cause for this unusually high rate that is also highly correlated.

So what’s the cause?

The Questions

1) If the average rate of misremembering is approximately 25%, why did the pastors in our survey misremember at rates as high as 96%? (Note: It’s not just 30 pastors. Our international survey has 107 respondents in 9 countries, and the results are virtually identical.)

2) If they were simply misremembering, they would be misremembering differently, so what caused dozens of pastors to get multiple verses wrong in the same way?

3) As an example, 29 out of 30 pastors all chose the same wrong answer for Job 1:21. How is that possible?

If you claim repeated misquotes from pop culture overwrote the pastors’ memories of the 7 different familiar passages shown below, then please explain the following:

4) Why were the 7 alleged misquotes more influential on the long-term memories of 30 pastors than their constant exposure to the correct renderings in their Bibles?

5) Can you produce any evidence that these 7 specific passages are misquoted somewhere, and often enough that they could possibly overwrite the memories of 30 pastors?

6) And even if you could, can you explain why the pastors wouldn’t recognize them as being inaccurate to the text and reject them? If you can recognize a misspelled word in a letter, why didn’t they recognize and reject the misquotes?

If the church cannot provide a rational explanation for this unified misremembering, then they will be forced to admit that they have no objection to our testimony. Once all objections are removed from our testimony, we can then engage in a respectful discussion regarding the 25 underlying theological reasons why the Bible can be changing without there being any controversy. It is at this point that we can also introduce a variety of additional corroborating evidence such as residual evidence, flip-flops, expert testimony, and prophecies foretelling the event.

CLICK HERE to see 25 theological reasons why the Bible can be changing.

Summary of the responses from pastors in our survey

Key: 

• “29/30” means 29 out of 30 chose the same wrong answer. “Correct: 1/30” means 1 out of 30 chose the correct answer
• “(KJV)” The KJV designation after a chapter and verse reference indicates that this is a change that either only takes place in the KJV and not in other versions, or what is remembered by everyone is only the KJV version that no longer exists. The old English phrasing that is remembered by so many would only typically appear in the KJV version. For this reason, the unified misremembering of a KJV-only rendering could not be caused by version confusion because it would never have appeared in any other version. Example: You would never see “The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away” in the NIV or NAS or any modern version.

• Chapter and verse references that do not have the KJV indication indicate that the rendering provided as “Actual” appears that way in the KJV and all modern versions either identically or with only minor variations. We call these universal passages. (See description below) Because the renderings of universal passages are the same across all versions, they could not be cited as the source of the confusion. In other words, how could the pastors be confused by versions if all the survey questions are the same in every version?
• I also did not include any passages that are changed in one gospel but still as everyone remembers it in a different gospel. An example of this would be Luke 6:49. Luke’s version now contains the unfamiliar wording of earth and stream instead of sand and wind that you find in Matthew 7:26.

Understanding the seven different types of universal changes

Each survey answer below will be labeled with a “Universal Type” (UT) of either 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7. Example: The rendering for Genesis 8:11 is (UT#1) because the KJV and all modern versions are essentially identical.

1. Universal – Key words have changed and the change is identical in the KJV and across all versions with virtually no exception.

2. KJV Only – Key words have changed in the KJV but there is virtually no change in the other versions.

3. Universal Varied – Key words have changed in the KJV and modern versions. The modern versions have variations but all are still different than the KJV.

4. Universal Mixed – Key words have changed in the KJV and modern versions. Some of the modern versions are the same as the KJV while others are not.

5. Universal Unique – Key words have changed in the KJV and modern versions and they are all different from each other.

6. Inter-book variation – A familiar version still exists in one book of the Bible while a new, unfamiliar version of the same thing appears in a different part of the Bible.

7. Inter-version variation – A familiar rendering still exists in one version of the Bible while a new, unfamiliar rendering of the same thing appears in other versions of the Bible.

CLICK HERE to see examples and images of the different types of changes

Pastor Survey Results Summary

Job 1:21 (KJV) — Type: KJV Only

• 96.7% (29 out of 30) chose the same wrong answer: “giveth / taketh”
• 3.3% (1 out of 30) chose the correct KJV answer:
• 0% chose the remaining/third option
• Actual (KJV): “And said, Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.”

Version Confusion: Pastors could not have been confused by versions because all modern versions have removed the King James vernacular, such as “thees and thous.” You would never find a rendering like that in the NIV or NASB. The only place they would have encountered the rendering “The Lord GIVETH and the Lord TAKETH” would be in the KJV. The rendering “The Lord GIVETH and the Lord TAKETH” doesn’t exist anywhere. So, if the rendering that they all remembered is not in any other version, how could they be confused by versions?

Modernization Confusion: Pastors could not be confused by modernizations or variants because the 1611 Cambridge and 1769 Oxford have the same rendering as any authorized KJV that we have today. In order for them to be confused by modernizations or variants, it would have to be one way in the source text and different in today’s rendering, and it is not. They are the same. So, if it’s the same, how could they be confused by modernizations, variants, or misprints? Misprints and publishing errors don’t exist for these examples. Can you produce even one misprinted Bible that has the rendering “The Lord GIVETH and the Lord TAKETH away”?

Inter-book Confusion: The rendering that everyone remembers does not appear as everyone remembers it in any other book of the Bible.

Conclusion: The survey results eliminate version confusion, modernization, misprints, textual variants, and familiar renderings elsewhere in the Bible as explanations for the pastors’ responses. Therefore, the pastors’ shared memory of “The Lord GIVETH and the Lord TAKETH away” must have come from one of two sources: either they were all exposed to the same rendering outside the Bible, or the Bible itself was the source of that long-term memory—supporting the conclusion that the text has supernaturally changed.

Matthew 7:1 (KJV) — Type: KJV Only

• 73.3% (22 out of 30) chose the same wrong answer: “lest ye be judged”
• 26.7% (8 out of 30) chose the correct KJV answer: “that ye be not judged”
• 0% chose the remaining/third option
• Actual (KJV): “Judge not, that ye be not judged.”

Version Confusion: Pastors could not have been confused by versions because modern versions have removed all King James vernacular, such as “thees and thous.” The only place they would have encountered the rendering “Judge not lest ye be judged” would be in the KJV. There is no version that contains the rendering that 22 pastors chose. So, if it’s not in any other version, how could they be confused by versions?

NOTE: There are no widely used versions that contain the exact rendering “Judge not lest ye be judged,” but there are two rarely used versions that contain the word “lest.”

• NASB 1977: “Do not judge lest you be judged.”
• Aramaic Bible in Plain English: “You shall not judge, lest you be judged.”
• Tyndale’s 1526 New Testament has Matthew 7:1 as: “Judge not lest ye be judged.” However, Tyndale’s revised
• 1534 New Testament changed it to: “Iudge not that ye be not iudged.”

Modernization Confusion: Pastors could not be confused by modernizations or variants because the 1611 Cambridge and 1769 Oxford have the same rendering as any authorized KJV that we have today. In order for them to be confused by modernizations or variants, it would have to be one way in the source text and different in today’s rendering, and it is not. They are the same. So, if it’s the same, how could they be confused by modernizations, variants, or misprints?

• 1611 Cambridge: “Iudge not, that ye be not iudged.”
• 1769 Oxford: “Judge not, that ye be not judged.”
• Inter-book Confusion: The rendering that everyone remembers does not appear as everyone remembers it in any other book of the Bible besides Matthew.

Conclusion: The survey results eliminate version confusion, modernization, misprints, textual variants, and familiar renderings elsewhere in the Bible as explanations for the pastors’ responses. Therefore, the pastors’ shared memory of “Judge not, lest ye be judged” must have come from one of two sources: either they were all exposed to the same rendering outside the Bible, or the Bible itself was the source of that long-term memory—supporting the conclusion that the text has supernaturally changed.

Isaiah 11:6 — Type: Universal

• 76.7% (23 out of 30) chose the same wrong answer: “The lion will lay down with the lamb”
• 23.3% (7 out of 30) chose the correct KJV answer: “The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb”
• 0% chose the remaining/third option
• Actual KJV: “The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.”

Version Confusion: Pastors could not have been confused by versions because the KJV and all modern versions render this first phrase the same way: “The wolf also will dwell with the lamb,” with only minor variations. There are no versions that render it as “The lion will lie down with the lamb” or any variation including the word “lion” in the first part of the verse. It is the first part of the verse that everyone is reciting from memory, not the later mention of the “young lion.” No one answers “young lion” when asked, “Who lay down with the lamb?”

Modernization Confusion: Pastors could not be confused by modernizations or variants because the 1611 Cambridge and 1769 Oxford have the same rendering as any authorized KJV that we have today. Additionally, since this is a Universal change, we confirmed that the source texts for most modern versions match what we have today.

Here are the renderings from the four possible source texts:

• Westminster Leningrad Codex: “The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb”
• Hebraica Stuttgartensia: “The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb”
• 1611 Cambridge: “The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb.”
• 1769 Oxford: “The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb.”

Inter-book Confusion: The rendering that everyone remembers does not appear as everyone remembers it in any other book of the Bible besides Isaiah 11:6.

Inter-verse Confusion: Isaiah 65:25 says, “The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock.” This rendering does not say anything about the lion lying down with the lamb, which is what everyone remembers.

Conclusion: The survey results eliminate version confusion, modernization, misprints, textual variants, and familiar renderings elsewhere in the Bible as explanations for the pastors’ responses. Therefore, the pastors’ shared memory of “The lion will lie down with the lamb” must have come from one of two sources: either they were all exposed to the same incorrect rendering outside the Bible, or the Bible itself was the source—supporting the conclusion that the text has supernaturally changed.

Genesis 8:11 — Type: Universal

• 63.3% (19 out of 30) chose the same wrong answer: “an olive branch”
• 36.7% (11 out of 30) chose the correct answer: “an olive leaf”
• 0% chose the remaining/third option
• Actual KJV: “And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.”

Version Confusion: Pastors could not have been confused by versions because the KJV and all modern versions render Genesis 8:11 using

the same two words, “olive leaf.” There are no versions that render it as “olive branch.” So, if all the versions are the same, how could they be confused by versions?

Modernization Confusion: Pastors could not be confused by modernizations or variants because the 1611 Cambridge and 1769 Oxford render Genesis 8:11 using the words “olive leaf,” and both the Westminster Leningrad Codex and the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia render Genesis 8:11 using the same two words, “olive leaf.” In order for them to be confused by modernizations or variants, it would have to be one way in the source text and different in today’s rendering, and it is not. They are the same. So, if it’s the same, how could they be confused by modernizations?

Inter-book Confusion: The rendering that everyone remembers does not appear as everyone remembers it in any other book of the Bible besides Genesis 8:11.

Conclusion: The survey results eliminate version confusion, modernization, misprints, textual variants, and familiar renderings elsewhere in the Bible as explanations for the pastors’ responses. Therefore, the pastors’ shared memory of “And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive branch” must have come from one of two sources: either they were all exposed to the same incorrect rendering outside the Bible, or the Bible itself was the source—supporting the conclusion that the text has supernaturally changed.

Hosea 4:6 — Type: Universal

• 56.7% (17 out of 30) chose the same wrong answer: “My people perish for lack of knowledge”
• 43.3% (13 out of 30) chose the correct answer
• 0% chose the remaining/third option
• Actual (Most versions): “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge”

Version Confusion: Pastors could not have been confused by versions because the KJV and all modern versions render Hosea 4:6 using the same word, “destroyed.” There are no versions that render it “perish.” So, if all the versions are the same, how could they be confused by versions?

Modernization Confusion: Pastors could not be confused by modernizations or variants because all source texts render it the same way as it appears in modern versions.

• Westminster Leningrad Codex: “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge”
• Hebraica Stuttgartensia: “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge”
• 1611 Cambridge: “My people are destroyed for lacke of knowledge:”
• 1769 Oxford: “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.”
• 
  

In order for them to be confused by modernizations or variants, it would have to be one way in the source text and different in today’s rendering, and it is not. They are the same. So, if it’s the same, how could they be confused by modernizations?

Inter-book Confusion: The rendering that everyone remembers does not appear as everyone remembers it in any other book of the Bible besides Hosea 4:6.

Conclusion: The survey results eliminate version confusion, modernization, misprints, textual variants, and familiar renderings elsewhere in the Bible as explanations for the pastors’ responses. Therefore, the pastors’ shared memory of “My people perish for lack of knowledge” must have come from one of two sources: either they were all exposed to the same incorrect rendering outside the Bible, or the Bible itself was the source—supporting the conclusion that the text has supernaturally changed.

2 Corinthians 12:10 — Type: Universal

• 43.3% (13 out of 30) chose the same wrong answer: “I am weak, He is strong”
• 56.7% (17 out of 30) chose the correct answer
• 0% chose the remaining/third option
• Actual (Most versions): “Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.”

Version Confusion: Pastors could not have been confused by versions because the KJV and all modern versions render 2 Corinthians 12:10 using the same wording: “for when I am weak, then am I strong.” There are no versions that render it as “for when I am weak, then He is strong.” So, if all the versions are the same, how could they be confused by versions?

Modernization Confusion: Pastors could not be confused by modernizations or variants because all source texts for 2 Corinthians 12:10 render it the same way as it appears in modern versions. Greek/English comparison on Bible Gateway: “For when I am weak, then I am strong.”

• 1611 Cambridge: “for when I am weake, then am I strong.”
• 1769 Oxford: “for when I am weak, then am I strong.”

In order for them to be confused by modernizations or variants, it would have to be one way in the source text and different in today’s rendering, and it is not. They are the same. So, if it’s the same, how could they be confused by modernizations?

Inter-book Confusion: The rendering that everyone remembers does not appear as everyone remembers it in any other book of the Bible besides 2 Corinthians 12:10.

Conclusion: The survey results eliminate version confusion, modernization, misprints, textual variants, and familiar renderings elsewhere in the Bible as explanations for the pastors’ responses. Therefore, the pastors’ shared memory of “for when I am weak, then am I strong” must have come from one of two sources: either they were all exposed to the same incorrect rendering outside the Bible, or the Bible itself was the source—supporting the conclusion that the text has supernaturally changed.

Exodus 12:23 — Type: Universal

• 53.3% (16 out of 30) chose the same wrong answer: “the death angel”
• 46.7% (14 out of 30) chose the correct answer: “The Lord”
• 0% chose the remaining/third option
• Actual KJV: “The LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians … and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.”

Version Confusion: Pastors could not have been confused by versions because the KJV and most modern versions render Exodus 12:23 using the same words, “The Lord.” There are virtually no versions that render it “Death angel,” except for a few obscure and rarely used versions.

• NLT — Exodus 12:23: “He will not permit his death angel to enter your house and strike you down.”
• EASY — Exodus 12:23: “He will not let the death angel come into your houses.”
• GNT — Exodus 12:23: uses the closely related phrase “the Angel of Death.”

By contrast, KJV, NKJV, ESV, NIV, NASB, and several others use “The Lord” and “the destroyer,” not “death angel.”

Modernization Confusion: Pastors could not be confused by modernizations or variants because all source texts render it the same way as it appears in modern versions.

• Westminster Leningrad Codex: “For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians”
• Hebraica Stuttgartensia: “For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians”
• 1611 Cambridge: “For the Lord wil passe through to smite the Egyptians”
• 1769 Oxford: “For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians.”

In order for them to be confused by modernizations or variants, it would have to be one way in the source text and different in today’s rendering, and it is not. They are the same. So, if it’s the same, how could they be confused by modernizations?

Inter-book Confusion: The rendering that everyone remembers does not appear as everyone remembers it in any other book of the Bible besides Exodus 12:23.

Conclusion: The survey results eliminate version confusion, modernization, misprints, textual variants, and familiar renderings elsewhere in the Bible as explanations for the pastors’ responses. Therefore, the pastors’ shared memory of “For the Death Angel will pass through to smite the Egyptians” must have come from one of two sources: either they were all exposed to the same incorrect rendering outside the Bible, or the Bible itself was the source—supporting the conclusion that the text has supernaturally changed.

In order to validate the authenticity of our survey, we offer the following corroborating data:

1) We will provide receipts and screenshots showing the survey instrument and raw export data to support the survey’s authenticity. There was no need to go to the added expense of using a third-party survey firm with an audit trail because anyone can easily duplicate our results using our free online 20-question Bible quiz at alteredbible.com. You can run a similar quiz yourself with your own respondents and compare your results to ours.

2) We have a third-party, peer-reviewed study that produced almost identical results to our National Pastor Survey. The existence of this peer-reviewed study makes it much harder for the unconvinced to attempt to claim that our data is fraudulent or inaccurate. The peer-reviewed study’s final averaged probability was approximately 1014. This means the magnitude and coherency of the misremembering in their study is almost identical to ours.

CLICK HERE to see peer-reviewed study findings.

3) There are two studies that indicate that the average amount of misremembering is approximately 25% while our studies show misremembering rates as high as 96.7%

CLICK HERE  to see two studies

4) In addition to our National Pastor Survey, we conducted a second international survey with different respondents and different demographics. This second survey also produced unified misremembering results that were almost identical to the National Pastor Survey. These findings also help to corroborate the National Pastor Survey results and show that this is happening worldwide across all demographics. And because the rates of misremembering are so similar between the two groups, it dispels the idea that our testimony can be explained by confusion because of biblical illiteracy. If that were true, the levels of misremembering would be much lower among content experts and it wasn’t.

CLICK HERE to see both surveys

The Questions

1) If the average rate of misremembering is approximately 25%, why did the pastors in our survey misremember at rates as high as 96%?

2) If they were simply misremembering, they would be misremembering differently, so what caused dozens of pastors to get multiple verses wrong in the same way?

3) As an example, 29 out of 30 pastors all chose the same wrong answer for Job 1:21. How is that possible?

If you claim repeated misquotes from pop culture overwrote the pastors’ memories of the 7 different familiar passages shown below, then please explain the following:

4) Why were the 7 alleged misquotes more influential on the long-term memories of 30 pastors than their constant exposure to the correct renderings in their Bibles?

5) Can you produce any evidence that these 7 specific passages are misquoted somewhere, and often enough that they could possibly overwrite the memories of 30 pastors?

6) And even if you could, can you explain why the pastors wouldn’t recognize them as being inaccurate to the text and reject them? If you can recognize a misspelled word in a letter, why didn’t they recognize and reject the misquotes?

Response options

1) Answer the question – Provide a rational, alternate explanation for the unified misremembering.

2) Don’t answer the question or ignore the question by changing the subject.

3) Admit that you do not have a rational explanation

A summary of #2 non-responses

1) “This survey is irrelevant or nonsense”

2) “I only base my beliefs on the Bible”

3) “You are a wolf in sheep’s clothing, a deceiver, a charlatan”

4) “You are attacking God’s word”

5) “You are in rebellion against God’s word”

All of these #2 responses are just an attempt to dodge the question and it demonstrates an egregious lack of integrity if you claim to be taking this seriously. If you are provided with this much detail, and you claim that this evidence is somehow irrelevant to this conversation, then you betray the ideal of being a truth-bearer. If you refuse to go down into the weeds and properly support your own answers, you are either guilty of gross negligence or you are complicit in the cover-up. If your doctrine convinces you that 1+1 = 5, then your doctrine is wrong. I am not basing my position on human memory; I am basing it on the objective nature of math. Every time you try to explain away unified misremembering by suggesting they are just confused, you are making my case not yours. How many times do I have to tell you this?

If what you are saying was true, they wouldn’t all be misremembering the same way. Get it? What you are saying isn’t possible, so stop making a fool of yourself and publicly stating that it is possible. Do you believe that anyone could win the Powerball Jackpot 6 times in a row? What kind of man or woman of God are you, that you could allow yourself to gaslight yourself and everyone around you on this topic? I’m sorry, but your doctrine is wrong. The word is preserved, but your Bible is not.

None of these #2 responses above explain how the verified misremembering is taking place. And as I keep doing this with one pastor after another, how long will it be until your followers start asking the same question that I am?

A summary of #1-type answers

Unreliable memory explains why people may get something wrong differently at rates of approximately 25%; it does not explain why content experts would get multiple familiar passages wrong in the same way at levels of 96.7%. Would you agree with that?

And are you willing to defend your explanation in detail, question by question, without changing the subject once the weakness of the explanation is challenged? What is causing pastors to repeatedly provide the same incorrect answer across multiple passages, at rates as high as 96.7%?

Given that our findings have been corroborated by a third-party, peer-reviewed study, and given that anyone can replicate this themselves through our online Bible quiz, are you willing to accept our data as legitimate and proceed in good faith and answer our question?

Many will just keep repeating the same mantra, “the human memory is unreliable,” but that is not an answer. God created truth, order, and mathematics, and if the numbers expose the weakness of your argument, you do not get to change the subject and call that faithfulness. You have no biblical permission to dodge an honest question. If the evidence is false, refute it. If the math is wrong, correct it. If there is a better explanation, provide it. But if you can do none of those things, then stop calling the people who noticed it deceivers. A shepherd does not run from the facts; a shepherd deals with the truth directly. When you evade the question, everyone watching learns something important: not that the evidence is weak, but that you are unwilling to deal with it honestly. We are not asking you to agree with us. We are asking you to explain the data. If you cannot explain the convergence without changing the subject, then your objections to our testimony have collapsed. And guess what is confirmed in the mouth of two or more witnesses?

CLICK HERE to see probability calculation

Exploring possible rational explanations

It’s not version confusion…because all of the questions in our survey were carefully chosen to ensure that they were either KJV-only or universal, which means that they were the same in every version. So, if every question in our survey is rendered the same way across every version, how could the pastors have been confused by different versions?

CLICK HERE for supporting information

It’s not modernizations or variants… because we also confirmed that every single question in our survey is identical in every modern version to the source text from which it was derived. Example: Every Authorized KJV renders Isaiah 11:6, “The wolf will dwell with the lamb.” And if you go back and look at the 1611 Cambridge KJV, all five revisions and the 1769 Oxford edition, they also say “The wolf will dwell with the lamb.” That means that the pastors were not confused by modernizations or variants. If that claim were correct, the current version would show changes compared to earlier versions, and it doesn’t.

CLICK HERE  for supporting information

It’s not misprints. The misprints hypothesis is a “Hail Mary” fantasy. I’ve never seen a Bible that has a misprinted Isaiah 11:6 where it says, “The lion will lay down with the Lamb.” If misprints were causing the confusion, they’d have to be everywhere. This is not a discussion about misquotes from pop culture; we’re talking about misprinted Bibles. And we’re not pointing to a Bible with a printing error of one or two passages. We’re talking about Bibles that would have to be filled with printing errors from cover to cover. They don’t seem to exist at all, and they certainly don’t exist in any quantities that would have any significant impact on our long-term memory. I’ve been doing this for nine years and I’ve never seen a misprinted version of the passages that appear in my survey.

CLICK HERE for supporting information

Job 1:21, Luke 6:49, Genesis 3:19, Mark 5:27, Luke 5:24, Genesis 7:9, Isaiah 11:6, John 1:41, Matthew 7:1, Hebrews 6:1, John 12:24, Genesis 8:11

It’s not publisher variations…because we confirmed that the questions in our survey are rendered the same way across all publishers that we could find.

It’s not misquotes from pop culture… because this far-fetched fantasy is impossible to support if you just stop and think about it for two seconds.

So what if you come across a misquote? Don’t you know your Bible?

If you saw somebody on Facebook saying, “There is no God,” would you suddenly become an atheist?

If the source of unified misremembering was actually misquotes from pop culture, then everyone would be misremembering differently, not the same way.

Can’t you recognize a misspelled word when you see it? Then why wouldn’t you recognize a misquote and reject it? The truth is, you could see and hear a misquote 1,000 times a day for 10 years, and it still wouldn’t change your memory of Scriptures you’ve memorized for decades. And if you are honest about this, you would have to admit that you can’t remember the last time you ever saw or heard a misquote. This argument is a lie. Explain why the occasional and infrequent exposure to misquotes would somehow have a greater influence than the pastors’ consistent and long-term exposure to the correct renderings. The average aggregate exposure of a pastor to the correct renderings is somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 hours a day, 7 days a week for decades.

Ironically, anyone making this claim has to include themselves in the list of people that have been ruthlessly brainwashed by these alleged misquotes. If this is your answer for the observable repeatable measurable phenomenon of worldwide unified misremembering of the Bible, then you have to include yourselves in the list of people who are operating with what amounts to mid-level dementia. So the same people who claim that we’re just confused because we’re biblically illiterate are the same people that are forced to admit that they themselves are biblically illiterate.

Our survey didn’t show one pastor misremembering one passage. Our survey showed upwards of twenty-eight pastors misremembering twelve passages. The pastors in our survey showed a very high rate of unified misremembering for all of the passages below, not just one. Can you produce any evidence that misquotes exist for all of these passages on all of the major

social media platforms and that they appear often enough and prominently enough and on an ongoing basis to somehow justify the

idea that they could be overcoming all of the pastors’ continual exposure to the correct renderings?

Job 1:21, Luke 6:49, Genesis 3:19, Mark 5:27, Luke 5:24, Genesis 7:9, Isaiah 11:6, John 1:41, Matthew 7:1, Hebrews 6:1, John 12:24, Genesis 8:11

CLICK HERE for supporting information

I think it’s becoming obvious that this can’t possibly be the explanation for what we are clearly documenting. The idea that the entire world, including content experts, is bamboozled by misquotes on social media, songs, children’s books, tapestries, prayer journals, and movies is a fantasy. If naturalistic explanations like confusion from versions, modernizations, variants, misprints, or misquotes from pop culture are all eliminated, then our testimony deserves to be considered rather than dismissed. It is then that we can move on to discussing the theological basis of why the Bible can be changing.

CLICK HERE to view 25 reasons why the Bible can be changing