Scoffers have imposed the excuse of "being the bible was originally written in Hebrew and Greek, English translations of it are hopelessly inaccurate, perhaps-dishonestly aberrant, documents of malicious or ignorant fraud."

Others presumptuously claim that being what was the original Bible Text was copied over and over by different human authors subject to sinful diversions, fatigue, and distractions, inevitable human copying errors were committed and not performed - distorting the original Bible Text into an amalgamation of incessantly-revised non-trustworthiness.

Then there are those who facetiously claim that being none of the individual English Bible translations states exactly the precise same words, none of them can be relied upon.

Let's consider the above-mentioned objections one at a time, rather that mindlessly, flippantly, arrogantly, prejudicially, and unfairly "throwing the [proverbial] babe out with the [proverbial] bathwater" (a figure-of-speech allegorical and symbolic metaphor not to be taken literally).

(1) There is not one foreign-language [Hebrew or Greek] word which does not have an exact English-language word equivalent. Obviously, when Jesus is said to have said certain unusual Hebrew words in raising a dead girl back to life or exclaiming rejection by His Father when on His cross, the words are retained verbatim in English Bible translations.

That is not to say that all English captions of foreign-language speakers in movies and newscasts are always perfectly literal and not paraphrases.

Pseudo-scholastics blatter that the New Testament was written in a grammatically-inferior form of Greek.

On the contrary, the Greek of the New Testament sets the correct standard for and of what proper Greek grammar is and should continue to be.

(2) Being that the Text of The Holy Bible was indeed written over and over by different frail and fallible humans, does that mean that all of them were completely wrong and misleading, all of the time? Obviously not!

But which passages and wording can be trusted as we legitimately and understandably "cherry-pick" what is thought to be (and actually is) the best of the lot (as the Lord Himself determines what "best" is)?

First, common-sense logic. Mis-calling an 'elephant' an 'orange" is not logical. Apply that principle to Bible translations accordingly.

Second, comparative association. If a majority of news reporters in different newspapers called a certain car a 'Chevy,' but one stray and errant news reporter in a singular newspaper instead called the car a 'Ford,' what should the car probably be called? Apply that principle to Bible translations accordingly.

Which leads us to point three.

(3) If the gospel accounts of Matthew and Mark and Luke (and note that nowhere is it stated that scribes wrote them by dictation) were exactly identical, word for word, plagiarism would be suspected.

Not only that, but why have three redundantly-worded gospels? No crucial new or vital additional information would be given by such needless repetition.

It is obvious that the original autographs of the New Testament, written by their inspired apostolic authors, were comprised of only certain singular words without the addition of alternatives, synonymns, or whatever included.

Implausible it is to presume that at least one honest-and-studious copyist did not copy most of the exact words of the autograph, and at least another honest-and-studious copyist did not copy most of the exact words of that autograph, and there were many, many, many honest-and-studious copyists working independently at various time periods and different geographical locations (before the coming of the Xerox-type photocopy machine and no-bad-sectors computer flashdrives) -- whose copying, taken as a whole, revealed mistakes and needed corrections of the few errors of fellow copyists...so that the sum-total accumulated combination of all the honest-and-studious copyists infallibly preserved 100% of the entire Text of the original autograph.

Although there have been many different English translations of the Old-Testament Hebrew Masoretic Text of ben Asher, the original Text from and of ben Asher has not changed in the slightest from the 10th century when he wrote it, and the inerrant Greek Text of Scrivener (synthesized Text compiled from the previous texts of the Church of Antioch, Erasmus, Beza, Elzevir, Stephens), now known as the Trinitarian Greek Text, has not changed whatsoever since 1894 when he produced it.

All that amidst a plethora of changed and revised English-language translations of the Bible dating from 1900 to the present - some valid in parts, some invalid in other parts (according to exact translational equivalence).

Indeed, even the King James Version is lamentably inadequate in some parts of its contents, such as its use of the strange and weird euphemism: "abusers of themselves with mankind" in their rendition of First Corinthians 6:9...where they instead should have simply used the word: sodomites for equivalence with the Greek-Text word: arsenokoitai.

Regarding the parables of Christ, as alluding to 5000 fed from loaves and fishes, within which there were 4000 as it states in another gospel record, and pertaining to which there may have been two different feedings on different occasions of having different numbers of people fed....as to different English words in different English translations, read a similar comparison of the two following accounts, neither of which is in any way wrong or inaccurate or incomplete:

A guy ran on the roadside, wearing white tennis shoes, and happened to see a mopheaded young woman at a bus stop, exhibiting parts of her nude legs in capri slacks.

A man, jogging on the side of the street, came upon the sight of a non-ponytailed loose-long-haired teenager having some of her naked legs exposed with short pants.

Neither account above is errant, although both are told with different words. Similar it is with the accounts recorded in the New-Testament gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The Washington Post reporter's words may be somewhat different that the New York Times reporter's words concerning the same news story. Similar with the two slightly-different accounts given by Huffington Post compared with Politico, and that of NBC news contrasted with CBS news.

There is, of course, one best English word at the present time (instead of any close-to-the-meaning synonym or alternative word) to use for each foreign-language word of Hebrew or Greek to be translated, and all translators of all Bible translations have not, in various parts of their translations, always used the best word possible. Sloppy semantics, though, is easily detectable, and not to be used as a lame irrationalization to reject what the reader can easily ascertain and compensate for when comparing that passage in other Bible translations and academically-prestigious lexicons such as Brown-Driver-Briggs, Thayer's, Gesenius's, Strong's, etc.

How many different ways can a stopsign be described? Are any of those ways wrong?

Some can be - such as calling the shape of the stopsign a "square," or an "oval."

Apply that principle to Bible translations accordingly.

If the translated-into-English word is reasonably and logically true to the Hebrew or Greek word it is associated with, all is well. But if not, if presumptions of concocted "context" or "interpretation" have overridden the choice of word which should have been used (and the word itself always must take precedence over any presumed or concocted "context" or "interpretation"), other Bible translations expose such error.

Case in point is the Greek word ne(o)teras, which most translators incorrectly translated as: "widows" in their corrupt rendition of First Timothy 5:14....but for which the KJV, Wesley, and JB2000 translators instead stated the correct word: "younger women." It seems that most translators in their Bible translations presumed that the previous context of widows overrules the actual Greek word ne(o)teras, but in fact there is absolutely no use of the Greek word: ch(e)ras for widows anywhere in the Greek Text of that verse.

As has been stated in Holy Writ itself: "The word of the Lord remains forever." It does not instead state: "The variable contextual concoctions and presumptive interpretations of devious or capricious humans abides forever."

The Holy Spirit (who the worldly can neither see nor know) is the silent but potent Enforcer of correct Biblical wording preservation, and He is the means to determine which currently-available-at-the-time words and passages in whatever English translations are clearly valid...or instead are, at best, questionable - and at worst, plainly wrong.