Preservation: How and What?

I have been processing this issue in my mind for a while now, and have not come to any firm conclusions. Both sides make good points.

One thing I have observed though is that the “debate” is not in the spirit of “come on guys, this is a very important topic with huge implications, lets sit down and try to resolve it. Here’s what I believe, what do think?” I have a hard time clearing away the nastiness and partisanship to find the truth. One side tends to be shrill and the other side doesn’t seem to take some of the other side’s valid concerns seriously.

Well, I take that back, there are more than two sides in this debate, which is perhaps why it is so complicated.

Thanks for the article Aaron, and the tone in which it was presented.

I also appreciate the stab that Aaron is taking to discuss (amiably) this topic. I contacted him to get some information on the first footnote, and apparently although he has the original documentation with the quote, the particular school that he’s referring to has since either modified that statement or has changed their position, so he’s not sure about which school it is, and the paper that had the quote was separated from the school’s name. Since that’s the case, I agree with him that it would not be fair to put the name of the school (if he is indeed remembering the school correctly) out in public.

I think, Schaitel, that a lot of this debate got off on the wrong foot because it was a knee jerk reaction to the flood of new translations coming on the market in the ’60s-’70s [although the roots for it began in perhaps the late ’40s or early ’50s, according to a doctoral thesis I read on it in Grad School]. Rather than discussing “How has God preserved His Word?”, the reply was a “The King James is God’s Word and all the rest are bad copies” (or something like it) without an serious evaluation as to where the eventual consequences of where that position would lead the holders; perhaps it was just a “Hey, I’ve grown up on the KJV, love it, use it, and don’t see any need to replace it” mentality either. I don’t know.

I’m looking forward to the day where the issue is dead and has a silver stake in its’ heart, so we don’t need to discuss the KJV aspect of it anymore. I fear, though, that maybe that’s a day that only my great great great great great grandkids will see. Preservation, of course, is a CRITICAL doctrine, and we all have to work through that at some point.

I think this is a great summary of the issue, Aaron. Thanks for posting this. The discrete view (I had to look up that term, btw), would argue (obviously) that there is more from the Bible to consider. They’d point out Is. 59:21, which intimates the word will be in the mouth of God’s people. They would also reason from passages like Matt. 4:4 that Christians have to have the entire Word (each and every word) available and accessible, else we can’t possibly live the Christian life we need to. If we can only live by God’s Word, God is obligated to provide that Word, the reasoning would go.

Ultimately I think we end up reading our view into Scripture, to some degree, on either side of this issue. It’s important to stop and hear what Scripture itself says, and your post is great at helping us do that. In addition, I’d say the idea of “word” being an audible word from God, His message or plans is also important. In our age of printed Bibles on every shelf and in every store, we think of “word” as “book” or “Bible”. But often in Scripture that is not what is meant by the term. If you look in Acts the term often refers to the message of the Gospel. The “Word” spreads, grows and accomplishes things. Of course the Bible is living, but it is the message of the Gospel itself that actually accomplishes this. 1 Pet. 1 even defines “word” there as “the gospel preached to you”. William Combs makes this point in his excellent article on preservation (available online [URL=http://www.dbts.edu/journals/2000/combs.pdf] here[/URL] ).

I think it is really helpful to see how Scripture itself handles the matter of textual variations and quotations. Scripture often gives parallel accounts that are direct quotations that are different in exact word order and other particulars. Moses recounts the history of Israel in Deuteronomy, and he quotes what he said at various times in the history. If you compare what Exodus has for Moses’ statement, it often does not match up with Deuteronomy’s account. The synoptic Gospels and other sections of the New Testament also provide examples of one account given to us in more than one form. Then later passages in the Bible quote earlier ones. The prophets quote from the Pentateuch, and the NT epistles and Gospels quote from the OT. These quotes reveal that often loose quotations are considered equivalent and as authoritative as the exact word-by-word original Scripture. This is really important, because this quality of the Bible must be allowed to influence how we think about differences among manuscripts and between various Bible versions. Are word differences a really big deal? Well, how does the Bible exemplify what we should think about word differences? Is authority tied to a specific exact quotation or rendering of the Word, or is it tied to the nature of the quotation (quoting from God’s word)? — These kinds of observations and questions are important for those who would consider Scripture’s witness in relation to the Bible controversies of today.

Thanks again for the post. I’ll be linking to it from our group [URL=http://kjvodebate.wordpress.com/ KJV Only Debate blog[/URL].

One exegetical detail that sometimes gets lost in these debates is the meaning of God’s “word.” Due to our contemporary (and correct) habit of referring to the Bible as “God’s Word,” the tendency is to assume that whenever we see a reference to “the word of God” or “your word,” it is a reference to the Bible, or the portion of Scripture complete at this time. I’ll have to run through some resources for confirmation, but I’m pretty sure that especially in the OT, the use is many times rather referring to specific statements and promises of God.

An example of this evangelical tendency is Isaiah 55:11. Young’s commentary, for example, spends that portion almost exclusively in discussing the divine power of the Bible, abstracted from the immediate context. Steveson has a footnote explaining how this passage is still true even when Christians don’t always see “fruit” from their evangelistic labors. Now, I’m all for healthy sytematic theology, but I think the NET Bible got this right:

“In the same way, the promise that I make does not return to me, having accomplished nothing. No, it is realized as I desire and is fulfilled as I intend.”

32 )tn Heb “so is the word which goes out from my mouth, it does not return to empty.” “Word” refers here to divine promises, like the ones made just prior to and after this (see vv. Isa 55:12-13).

33 )sn Verses 8–11 focus on the reliability of the divine word and support the promises before (vv. 3–5) and after (vv. 12–13) this. Israel can be certain that repentance will bring forgiveness and a new covenantal relationship because God’s promises are reliable. In contrast to human plans (or “thoughts”), which are destined to fail (Ps 94:11) apart from divine approval (Prov 19:21), and human deeds (or “ways”), which are evil and lead to destruction (Prov 1:15–19; 3:31–33; 4:19), God’s plans are realized and his deeds accomplish something positive.

Errors similar to this one perennially dog discussions of preservation.

[Bob Hayton] I think it is really helpful to see how Scripture itself handles the matter of textual variations and quotations. Scripture often gives parallel accounts that are direct quotations that are different in exact word order and other particulars. Moses recounts the history of Israel in Deuteronomy, and he quotes what he said at various times in the history. If you compare what Exodus has for Moses’ statement, it often does not match up with Deuteronomy’s account. The synoptic Gospels and other sections of the New Testament also provide examples of one account given to us in more than one form. Then later passages in the Bible quote earlier ones. The prophets quote from the Pentateuch, and the NT epistles and Gospels quote from the OT. These quotes reveal that often loose quotations are considered equivalent and as authoritative as the exact word-by-word original Scripture.

Bob, I am SO glad you brought that up. One of the reasons why I wound up where I did on the topic of preservation is that I noticed this as well. When Jesus got up and quoted the Isaiah passage in the synagogue, He used the scroll that they had and didn’t correct it or argue over it’s veracity. He took the scroll that they had, used it as the basis for His sermon, and sat down. Here’s the passage that I’m referring to:

[Luke 4:16-28] 16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read. 17 And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written,

18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,

because he has anointed me

to proclaim good news to the poor.

He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives

and recovering of sight to the blind,

to set at liberty those who are oppressed,

19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

20 And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. 21 And he began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” 22 And all spoke well of him and marveled at the gracious words that were coming from his mouth. And they said, “Is not this Joseph’s son?” 23 And he said to them, “Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, ‘Physician, heal yourself.’ What we have heard you did at Capernaum, do here in your hometown as well.” 24 And he said, “Truly, I say to you, no prophet is acceptable in his hometown.

That, combined with the fact that Paul gives instruction for his epistles to be read in all the churches, makes me believe that the power of the Word isn’t necessarily in each individual printed copy - but in the power of the Holy Spirit to use it for correction, reproof, and correction as we study, memorize, and cherish it. That doesn’t mean we can all use whatever we want, but that it is important not to get tied up in whether or not the ___________ text type is best; after all, there weren’t different text types in Paul’s day…just various copies, made as means were made available, and whatever was memorized. And not all of those sayings and re-copies would be identical - yet that was not a problem for the church. What is the more needful thing is to communicate the Truth in God’s Word to all people - saved and nonsaved.

I would rather have the people in my church reading 5 different Bible Translations for their Bible Study and each getting something from it than have everyone studying from the NKJV [for example] and struggling to make sense of it.

Jay,

It’s funny you bring up Luke 4. That was the main passage on my mind. Here is a simple chart comparing the OT, LXX and NT at that passage:

http://fundyreformed.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/lxx2.jpg

Here are a few conclusions of observing that Jesus read out of a scroll. Luke gives us what was in the scroll, not the words of Jesus at this point. He says Jesus read where it was written…..

1) a synagogue Jesus attended did not have a proper KJV Only approved Bible.

2) Jesus felt it was fine to use such a Bible.

3) God inspired Luke to quote from said Bible, with no implications in Luke’s gospel indicating that there was anything wrong with such a Bible.

4a) Concluding from this, we could say a translation that poorly captures the sense of the original text, is still a Bible worthy of use.

4b) And another conclusion could be that obeying the message of Scripture is more important than stressing over its exact wording.

4c) A third potential conclusion would be that the Masoretic text only approximates the Hebrew original, and the LXX and other translations help us get closer to the readings that were in use and used by Jesus and his Apostles in NT times.

(see further discussion on Luke 4 in a blog debate starting [URL=http://kjvodebate.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/king-james-only-believers-an…] here[/URL] , if you are interested for more. I don’t want to bog down the discussion of Aaron’s article here)

Two must reads for some comprehension of this subject are: 1. “King James Onlyism, A New sect,” James D. Price; 2. “In The Beginning, The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture,” Alister McGrath.

James Price was Executive Editor and Chairman of the Executive Review Committee of the New King James Version. He has a PHD from Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate Languages. He has taught for over 25 years.

Alister McGrath is Principle of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, and Professor of Historical Theology. A world renown historian.

It would be difficult to maintain the KJVO or KJVP position after digesting the information provided in these two excellently researched books.

The heart of this issue is the subject of preservation as Aaron has pointed out. The problem is the process of historiography. How do we know history and what are the facts of history?

The problem is that beginning with David Otis Fuller in the 1970s, there have been differences in the facts presented regarding preservation history involving textual criticism. We who are not textual critic scholars often fail to grasp our lack of knowledge and our need to be able to recognize scholars who have spent their lives on the subject and the research methodology. We must accept the facts of others who have done the first hand research. Some Pastors have attempted to become textual and translation experts overnight and write a book on the subject. This has contributed to the rise and perpetuation of unsupported historical facts and concepts.

God has evidently allowed the preservation evidence to be part of the normal process of history and historiography. Perhaps this is so because it keeps the historical facts of the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Christ as that which stands at the forefront of factual and provable human history. The original historical documents are verifiable based on the massive historical data from manuscripts, versions, and writings of early fathers. This places Christianity within the arena of the normal process of human history and historical research.. It can be asserted that the evidence of the historical facts of the NT stands within the normal common law legal rules of evidence in which multiple duplicated documents, of various sources, may be presented to prove the content and facts of a prior document not now available due it being destroyed. Such evidence is allowed especially when the original documents were destroyed through no fault of those seeking to rely on such evidence. Copies may be presented. If handwritten, multiple copies may be compared.

However, if one were to claim that documents can be relied upon to be conveying accurate history because the documents are the subject of a special divine intervention that has preserved every word, then logically the person or force behind that special intervention act would need to testify as to its occurrence, His ability to do such a thing, and which exact document or documents have been so preserved to exactly represent the destroyed original. Absent the personal testimony of the divine preserver, those seeking the truth of the original document need to then go back and resort to using all the documentary evidence available. They then need to evaluate, prioritize, and collate the evidence within the realm of the human historiography process. I find no statement from the divine preserver pointing to any set of documents, or translated version, as that which has His special intervening divine preservation. Absent that, it all becomes human evaluation, but evaluation that becomes convincing based on the massive weight of historical evidence.

Christianity is Christ. The coming, teaching, death, burial, and resurrection of Christ are purported to have occurred in real human history with meaning for all human existence and history. Christianity must therefore stand within the reality of human life and history. The true God has promised to preserve His word. However, the promises of preservation, that are themselves seen in alleged preserved documents, give promise of substance being preserved without specificity as to exact sources to look to find that preservation. This puts preservation outside of the voice and revelation of God as we seek that preserved word. Fortunately the documentary evidence, and verifiable human textual process, leaves us with a massive amount of historical evidence. At the end of the process we can say that the substance of God’s words to men has been preserved. No doctrine is in doubt due to the lack of the preservation of the substance. God has kept His promises.

The implications of an alternative method, which seeks to confirm preservation apart from a historical evidential stream, is that God has intervened in history and enlightened us to certain sources, or a translation, that have his supernatural care apart from others like sources and translations .However we cannot look within the revelation of scripture for that which points with specificity to such sources, so we look to outside scriptural evidence and seek to put together such a truth. In so doing some claim to arrive at a doctrine from God concerning His word without a word from God to support that doctrine. The doctrine is derived from our human reasoning concerning facts which are known only by historical human analysis. So we have a plethora of arguments about the character and belief of some textual critics, and the different facts that may have been involved in textual history and the making of modern translations. All this to prove an alleged divine doctrine without one divine word on the subject. Many Bible colleges and churches have a doctrinal statement that includes the assertion of the KJV being the preserved word or God for the English language or other words to that effect. Many of these list various scriptures after each article of their statement giving scriptural evidence for their belief. However, no one lists a scripture that specifies a textual type, certain manuscripts, or a translation. They assert a doctrine, stand behind it as from God, but never cite a word from God supporting their choice of textual history or translation.

Aaron has rightly pointed out the heart of the KJVO debate. It is preservation. They acknowledge this. It is a preservation view asserted as a divine “doctrine” of preservation. These recent KJVO doctrinal assertions regarding preservation are new. By their own admission, this is a new doctrine that arose in the 1970s. For certain reasons I will not go into possible reasons it has spread, mostly among Independent Fundamental Baptists of a certain type. This is a doctrinal assertion. It is a doctrinal assertion that allows for divine superintendence of human processes to the same degree as original inspiration. It is an effort to have divine infallibility moved past the Apostolic approval and inscripturation to other men of much later history. Such a doctrine becomes similar to a doctrine of later divine intervention with additional revelation.

A new book on this subject asserts the KJVO position but calls for a more civil tone among those who differ. The book is “A More Sure Word, Which Bible can you trust,” by R.B. Oullette, a Michigan Pastor. It has a forward by Paul Chappell of Lancaster Baptist Church and President of West Coast Baptist College. It is certainly good to see them desiring a less caustic atmosphere in the discussion. The book acknowledges that this issue is recent and arose in the 1970s. However, it is disheartening to see the same method of argumentation and attacks that are the same in obvious factual errors. The book indicates a lack of awareness of well established facts of textual history. It does not even understand what the so called “Textus Receptus is or its sources. This appears to be typical of our problems with regard to presented historical facts on this subject. The author then elevates his historical conclusion to the level of a divine doctrine. This is what makes the issue involve often passionate argument, and rightly so! The Doctrine of truth in God’s word is important.

Great thoughts on this. I appreciated how Kevin Bauder made a similar conclusion in the book he co-edited on the topic (One Bible Only? Examining the Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible [Kregel] ). It really is a big deal to create a doctrine without a Scriptural warrant.

As to Chappell’s endorsement of Oullette’s irenic book, I find that somewhat ironic. Chappell’s college requires its graduates to sign a pledge that if they ever change their beliefs in the KJB, that they mail their diploma back to the school. I’m not sure how that isn’t quite caustic!

[Aaron Blumer] What if some archaeologist digging around in Turkey or Rome or Jerusalem finds a well preserved manuscript dating solidly to, say, 2nd century, that matches TR perfectly? Of course, you’d have to say “Which TR?” but let’s suppose it perfectly matches what Erasmus settled on, even with the portions reverse engineered from the Vulgate. What does it do to the debate?

Personally, I think I’d still say “We don’t have a promise of a discrete word perfect text or translation we can certainly identify” but I’d very inclined to say “Based on external evidence, I think we have a word perfect preserved text.” I’d still have to say “I think,” because what if they find an older one two weeks later that is more along the lines of Sinaiticus or Vaticanus? External evidence is like that. Never know what might turn up.

I would agree, Aaron. We are bound to be honest in dealing with the evidence. In God’s providence we have a lot of evidence and new finds largely strengthen the overall conclusions. For instance, Tregelles, the conservative Bible believing textual critic (some will say that’s an oxymoron, I know…), came to a similar conclusion on passages like 1 Tim. 3:16, 1 John 5:7 and others before the printing of Vaticanus and the discovery of Sinaiticus (see [URL=http://www.bible-researcher.com/dogma.html this article[/URL] ). The conclusions of Westcott and Hort have been reinforced by the new papyrii that have been unearthed (like P66 and P75).

I say this and then note somewhat humorously that the NKJV is the default translation of Sharper Iron. So 1 John 5:7 looks different there than in my ESV :) Fundamentalists sometimes don’t like to ruffle feathers much….

[Bob Hayton] As to Chappell’s endorsement of Oullette’s irenic book, I find that somewhat ironic. Chappell’s college requires its graduates to sign a pledge that if they ever change their beliefs in the KJB, that they mail their diploma back to the school. I’m not sure how that isn’t quite caustic!

Clarification was provided to me on this. The official statement that must be upheld by graduates is:

That the Bible is the fully verbally inspired Word of God, and that God has preserved His Word in the King James Version for the English speaking people.

There is some room in that statement for variations from their official view. It still does go out of its way to uphold the KJV, but I wanted to add this clarification.

Thanks,

Bob

It seems to me like we end up going over and over the same territory, to some degree.

I want to propose a different way of looking at the question.

When various councils got together to decide which books would be in the canon, they did not invite the “textual scholars” or seek for the most ancient texts. Not to say that those things are wrong, but maybe we need to look for different criteria to decide this question. Maybe usage, preponderance of texts, etc. are of more value than previously considered. I am not saying all this because I have a particularly strong point of view on the question, but I just don’t know if we are going about all this the right way.

Steve,

Good point. Usage of God’s people is an important point. I know some who make a case from the Bible that God’s people accept God’s word, and they would reject spurious text forms as assuredly as they would reject spurious books. I can agree with that in principle, but when you apply it to the text debate it becomes more difficult. Printing first came into prominence at the time the TR was released in a hasty manner. Available manuscripts were used, and from this the first available vulgar translations (translations into the common tongue) were made. German, French, English Bibles and more came on the scene.

But if we go back further than this time frame, we are back into history and textual history at that. What did God’s people use in Egypt, Spain, Rome or Antioch at the times from A.D. 100 to 1400? That matter is up for debate and textual scholars and manuscripts have a big role in answering that question. Prior to the Reformation, in the West the Vulgate was accepted by almost all (John Wycliffe translated his English Bible from this) as the authoritative text. Prior to that was the Old Latin and what we now know as the Western Text. In the East and North Africa this is a different story. The evidence was destroyed en masse by the invading Islamic armies.

Going back to the Reformation, they realized the Greek was better than the Latin. But they didn’t have many available Greek manuscripts at the time. Did the people of God use the best available texts at their disposal, or did they purposely reject other manuscripts by using the current text of the day? Scholars at that time already began the process of comparing manuscripts, and leading church leaders did not accept the TR in its entirety as perfect. Luther rejected 1 Jn. 5:7 which Erasmus added in a later version of his text although he clearly said in his notes he doubted its genuineness. Calvin and Turretin also discussed the textual merits of various texts, as did later exegetes.

So yes, church history does weigh heavily in this debate. But it is not an easy matter to find and apply the judgment of history.

There are so many other good books on the topic. I do want to write more on it some day. But for now I’m a busy father of four girls ages 6 and under….

I think the NKJV is a fine translation, and appropriate given the audience of Sharper Iron too. I was just taking a stab at some humor….

The trouble is that today getting people to standardize would be super-complicated in some ways due to all the fragmentation of today’s audiences. What was different in earlier times was the ability to have a catholic (with a small “c”) group that could meet and speak with some credibility and the followers in general would get behind it. I suppose smaller groups or fellowships do this that are KJVO, for example.

Could a fellowship and/or denomination choose a preferred version at least? Or would we cause more fragmentation by even bringing it up? I’d just as soon not bring it up in most fellowship or denominational settings because I think (within a narrow range that I’m assuming serious Christians would think credible) English Bible versions or even preferred Greek texts are generally unworthy of splitting over. It seems to me that in earlier days church was able to reach consensus based on what was right or best or had the “ring of truth”. Do today’s believers have the nobility to get beyond their parochial interests to do what is best? Does it cost more than it is worth for us?

In fact, there is a sense in which it is not in many people’s best interests to do so. If we standardized, what would be the value of so many trying to churn out more and more translations.

As I think more about it, maybe there are some criteria we could apply to translation and translations that would give them some sort of standardized stamp of credibility at least. What makes a translation credible? We ought to be able to grade translations on their “literalness” or to what degree they are “sense translations” or have been paraphrased with specific examples. There are certainly examples in many translations also of theological bias (for instance, the decision to transliterate “baptize” than to translate “immerse”, in many versions, even in the KJV).

In terms of texts, I think the manner in which texts have been classified are not clear for many and there is a need to step back from some of the dogmatism on all sides of the textual arguments. I don’t want to go beyond my very limited understanding (I’m also raising a family and working a job and I’m 15+ years out of school). To me, anyone who says they know which text is the preserved text is overconfident. But I don’t necessarily trust the work of the textual critic either.

[Aaron Blumer] What if some archaeologist digging around in Turkey or Rome or Jerusalem finds a well preserved manuscript dating solidly to, say, 2nd century, that matches TR perfectly? Of course, you’d have to say “Which TR?” but let’s suppose it perfectly matches what Erasmus settled on, even with the portions reverse engineered from the Vulgate. What does it do to the debate?

Let’s stand that on it’s head - what if we tomorrow, for example, found out that all the TR manuscripts were absolutely totally corrupted and worthless? How would that affect our Bibles and our view of preservation?

Aaron,

You had to know this was coming:

Over at SharperIron, perhaps the most well-known fundamentalist blog and forum on the internet, the owner/editor, Aaron Blumer, a very decent Christian man, has written an article on preservation. He separates positions on preservation to two, and one of them, what he calls the discrete position, is the one we take. I wouldn’t call it the discrete view, nor do I think it should be called that, but it is what Aaron thinks of it. I believe he is being far, far more fair than most on this issue. However, he does not represent our position fully and therefore not accurately either. He references our book, but what he writes doesn’t seem to have interacted with it much (in the comment section, you will see that Aaron hasn’t looked at our book–ooops!). I will be answering his post here at my blog…. ([URL=http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2010/01/heads-up-on-preservation-ar… Kent Brandenburg[/URL] )

It will be interesting to see his response.

Here’s a link where you can buy his book. It tries to make an exegetical case for “perfect preservation”. I remain unconvinced but it is one of the best books out there making this case.

[URL=http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2008/04/you.html http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2008/04/you.html[/URL]

[Aaron Blumer]

I’d be happy to hear some suggestions for a better word that captures the idea of “in one place, distinct and identifiable.”

I don’t know if that is the best term to describe this view, however. They view it as something which has always been accessible throughout time, due to God’s miraculous preservation. “Discrete” tends to bring up the image of re-inspiration or some second work to get some wholly new thing. Advocates of TR Onlyism, such as the authors of the book Kent edited, don’t think it is a new thing. They think in time God brought the right words to get used in the creation of the TR and in the printing of the English Bible and Greek TRs. But that all along the true words were available to God’s people in good manuscripts that they had access to (not that there was one clear cut copy with all the words in that one copy). Maybe “complete” preservation would work, to convey preservation of the complete Word of God as being discernible in its entirety. Or their own term “perfect” preservation.

[Bob Hayton] Here’s a link where you can buy his book. It tries to make an exegetical case for “perfect preservation”. I remain unconvinced but it is one of the best books out there making this case.

[URL=http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2008/04/you.html http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2008/04/you.html[/URL]

My view on this book is similar to Bob’s. I got the first edition (I think it was 2003), and since I was trying to understand the direction my then church had taken (becoming strongly KJVO from a position of acceptance of and friendliness to translations like the NASB) over the years prior to when this book was published, I read it twice thoroughly, the second time taking notes. I liked the approach — taking the argument almost entirely from the scriptures. Since my pastor at that time was one of the contributors to that book, it gave me even more reason to want to read and understand it.

Ultimately, though, it didn’t convince me either. For an example of one of what I thought to be weak arguments, in the chapter on Ps. 12:6-7, it presents the view that “words” are referred to by “them” because of a special case of gender disagreement in the Hebrew. Even though there were other examples of gender disagreement pointed out, and compared favorably with this passage, there was no clear evidence presented that such gender disagreement HAD to be in play in these verses, such that “them” could not refer to men. This is just a single example.

Similar to what Aaron presented above, though, with or without Ps. 12:6-7 being on the side of preservation, I still believe in a doctrine of preservation anyway, but not in the sense of perfect preservation in a single manuscript. If you are one of those for whom this topic is either very interesting or something that is currently affecting your church or fellowship with other churches, you should probably read it to fully understand the side of the perfect preservationists. However, in the end, I thought “Thou Shalt Keep Them” still fell short of convincing me that their view is the correct one.

Bob I think you bring up a good point. I know Dave Cloud (and I assume Kent B.) would not want to be associated with KJVO, of the Ruckman/Riplinger variety. I actually read a suggestion once of distinguishing them from KJVO (who say the KJV is superior to the Greek and Hebrew) by being called Preservationists.

We have to remember that much of their understanding of the issue is that Satan and is demons are real and that there is and has been throughout history attempts to destroy humanity (in the garden), the nation of Israel, the line of the Messiah, the Messiah himself, the church, and the Word of God. Therefore there is not just an idea of God preserving the Bible so that it exists, but that it exists in a reliable, dependable, uncorrupted fashion. So I believe one of the disconnects between the different sides in the debate are due to fundamentally different worldviews. In what I have read from the perspective of textual critics, they talk alot about text and methodologies but not so much about the spiritual dimension of the whole thing. The question if the Bible and preservation is not simply a historical curiosity, it is not all academic.

I would like to see better distinction between the different factions of what is called KJVO because I believe there are some very reasonable people making reasonable points that should be taken seriously, but they often get lumped in with others that are more extreme.

I have also observed there is a part of the worldview of various KJV Only that see themselves as the pure ones, the holdouts who are the remnant, who are faithful to God while the rest of Christianity apostatizes. The use of other bibles is a litmus test issue for many of whether or not you have drunken the devils kool-aide.

schaitel,

Assuming we are to factor in the reality of demonic devises (and I have no doubt that at every turn they have sought to dismantle, corrupt and influence in some negative fashion the perpetuity of Scripture) along with the necessary academic or scholarly issues, how would those holding to a form of KJVO you describe as “very reasonable people making reasonable points” respond to the application of this principle when examining the translational shortcomings of the KJV?

Could not those pointing out some of the translational issues say just as well, “Look at the evidence that it is not as trustworthy and demonic forces have obviously introduced some obfuscation and inaccuracies and therefore it certainly cannot be the preserved Word of God”? The problem I see is that regardless of the validity of the spiritual considerations regarding subterfuge by demonic forces, it does not negate the translational issues with the KJV (and if this question is determined to be out of bounds regarding the special rules for discussion then may it be pardoned and moved to its appropriate location with the hope of it still being answered).

Schaitel,

You bring up an excellent point yourself, here. As a former KJVO, the loose, flippant treatment of KJV Onlyists coupled with not much effort to distinguish between varying degrees and types of KJV onlyists, put me off. When I read James White’s book on the issue in Bible College, the fact that he picked Riplinger and Ruckman as two of his three KJV Only examples really gave me cause to doubt his story. Taking care in distinguishing what the reasoned KJV view actually is, is at least a charitable duty, and at best a tactic which may win some to our side of the debate.

This is not to downplay Alex’s valid point that Satanic activity could be posited as behind either side of the Bible debate. But where preservation comes into play here is worth noting. Since God promised to preserve His Word, they argue, why should we expect to find it buried in the sand 1800 years later? Wouldn’t we rather expect to see it in the hands of God’s people down through the ages? And from a certain vantage point, the TR would have a good claim to being that revered traditionally used text, which would seem to be how we think God would preserve His Word.

RPittman said things far better than what I said above, but I think we are making the same point. I agree that usage by the believing church is a far better way of establishing what has the “ring of truth” than the vast majority of the arguments heard today. I also agree that we do not need to know (and indeed don’t know) the exact process by which Scripture is preserved. It is oversimplification to call it the “church history” argument. It is how what was and was not correct was sorted out through usage.

I’m not KJVO and in fact received my textual criticism instruction at Central. Through all that it was not any clearer to me how I should know what is and is not the proper text and not have it be subjective. I do wish we could settle down enough to make a translation that deals in modern language that we all can agree on.

[Bob Hayton] Schaitel,

You bring up an excellent point yourself, here. As a former KJVO, the loose, flippant treatment of KJV Onlyists coupled with not much effort to distinguish between varying degrees and types of KJV onlyists, put me off. When I read James White’s book on the issue in Bible College, the fact that he picked Riplinger and Ruckman as two of his three KJV Only examples really gave me cause to doubt his story. Taking care in distinguishing what the reasoned KJV view actually is, is at least a charitable duty, and at best a tactic which may win some to our side of the debate.

I think one should give White a break. Sociologists describe this kind of thing, and it’s very common, not something I’m inclined to reproach someone for. Recognition of distinctions in complex systems depends on ingression in the system and familiarity with one’s whereabouts in the system. Fundamentalists, for example, tend to have no social or theoretical interaction with “liberals.” So “liberal” is a very clear, meaningful category for them. But, almost any “liberal” could justifiedly take umbrage at the lack of distinctions Fundamentalists make in calling so and so a “liberal.” Similarly, but in the opposite direction, usually only people who have been personally involved in certain social environments in Fundamentalism become away of the minute distinctions KJV types make among themselves. These are very important to them, but they seem invisible or utterly inconsequential to an outsider (this whole process is that of “fractalization,” which has been beautifully described in Andrew Abbott’s Chaos of Disciplines, if anyone is interested).

Depending on how scholarly something is supposed to be, I am more or less willing to regard someone as blameworthy for not attending to these minute distinctions, but I think one could argue that White was not working at the level of ingression that would require him to parse all of these things; someone internal to the debate would be the person to do that.

Finally, a quick note on topic. There is a fundamental ontological problem that one has to face in thinking about the inscripturated Word of God, viz. what exactly is the Word of God identical to?

If only the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts on which it was written count as the Word of God, then we necessarily have never hard complete access to the word of God, and every translation involves a distortion, to some degree, of the Word of God. Even perfect preservation views could not help this position - the logical outcome is something like the Islamic doctrine of the Q’uran, which is eternal, immutable, and unstranslatable.

The only sensible alternative to the above view (which is wrong and borders, if not actually is, idolatrous) is to identifiy the Word of God with the meaning expressed in Scripture, which means one could translate it into a conceivably infinite number of languages, cultures, and time-periods, and always have the Word of God in its entirety. If one denies this view, one has a real problem, one much bigger than fuss over English translation. If one affirms this view or a variant (which most of do in our practice and our refusal to say that translations give us “less” of the Word of God than the originals), then the whole translation issue becomes an entirely different issue with different priorities and concerns, and the KJV issue becomes relatively trivial.

But the implications of this view are deep and closely related to insights in missiology that have only recently become prevalent. And that involves other, even more controversial, topics that I am not going to touch.

[RPittman] My argument is simply that God preserved the canon through the acceptance and use by the believing church, not the determination of some ecclesiastical gathering. God preserves Scripture through His believing church although the precise means are not, and need not be, apparent. It is only necessary that we believe and trust in His preservation. If we must have rationalistic proof (i.e. using the methods of scientific rationalism), then it is not of faith.

[Steve Newman] I agree that usage by the believing church is a far better way of establishing what has the “ring of truth” than the vast majority of the arguments heard today. I also agree that we do not need to know (and indeed don’t know) the exact process by which Scripture is preserved. It is oversimplification to call it the “church history” argument. It is how what was and was not correct was sorted out through usage.

Those who would follow Pittman’s reasoning claim this whole debate is much, much simpler than this thread would make it out to be. All you do is accept that perfect preservation of God’s Word is promised (or demanded by the very fact of verbal inspiration). Then you look at the usage of the believing church to find which texts or text-forms should be assumed to be the preserved Text.

The problem with this should be apparent. What exactly constitutes “usage” and what should we decide is the “believing church”? There was a believing Aramaic-speaking church. Somewhere along the way they died out or became much less influential. We have found some Aramaic Scriptures dating from he 3rd to 6th Centuries. Should we allow this “usage” to influence our determination? Or what about the pervasive use in the West of Latin? And the acceptance of the Latin Vulgate? How about the prevalence of Byzantine Greek as used by the Eastern Orthodox church? Are they “believing”? What about other church’s usage?

When we come to the invention of the printing press, the Vulgate was spurned in favor of going back to the source — namely the Greek New Testament. But what Greek New Testament was available? The Greek used in the Western Church prior to its use of the Vulgate and contemporary with its use of “Old Latin”? Or the Greek texts used in the African church which produced such theological giants as Augustine and Athanasius? Or the Greek texts that Origen took with him to Syria?

As it happens, Erasmus threw together a Greek New Testament in his haste to get it to the press. His focus was really on the revision of his Latin translation, and he wasn’t too concerned about the Greek New Testament. Once in print, the demand was huge, as ministers and scholars wanted to see the Greek New Testament and study from it. At the time there was only basically one Greek New Testament text available, as editors all worked off of Erasmus’ text revising it slightly and keeping presses running to supply the great demand. Now this “usage” of the Greek New Testament caled the TR, was it a determinative kind of “usage”? As in the believing church of the time intentionally rejected other forms of the Greek New Testament? Or was it a usage of what was available at the time?

As the church and believing scholars like Beza, Mill and Bengel, matured in the Reformation faith and had less of a battle for survival on their hands, they turned studying the particulars of the Greek New Testament again, and started including variant readings into the NT text. Eventually Lachman would produce an alternate Greek text based on what were widely considered superior Greek manuscripts. Tregelles and Tischendorf led the way in looking for more Greek manuscripts and we come to today where the believing church largely uses the modern Greek Text of Nestle-Aland. But today, as in the Reformation era, the production of translations from the Greek text is not enslaved to every textual decision by the text editors. Just as Luther departed from the TR in places in his translation, the NASB and ESV depart from the modern Greek text in places too, guided by a traditional reverence for certain readings that have attestation.

So if we just limit “usage” to use of the only available printed Greek Text for a couple hundred years, in only one region of the world where it was available, by the church there, we get one story. If we open up to other historical periods and other geographical areas, the picture gets more complicated and it isn’t an open-and-shut-case any longer.

When we seek to determine what the original manuscripts were, doesn’t it come down to one’s philosophy of textual criticism?

Personally, I’m of the mind expressed by Alan Cairns in his excellent article on Textual criticism in his Dictionary of Theological Terms.

God, who inspired the NT, has providentially preserved its text in the great number of ancient witnesses still available. Over 90% of the NT text is beyond dispute, down to the smallest details. As for the remainder, some 85% of the MSS agree in presenting a common text. The common text is strongly corroborated by the witnesses of ancient versions abd quotations from church fathers and is the authentic representation of the orginal text. Despite the variations in the ancient manuscripts, we may ascertain the authentic reading in every case by following the testimony of the overwhelming majority of the ancient witnesses. This objective approach will establish the traditional text of the NT as the authentic text.

I prefer this to the method used by others (i.e. older is better. etc.) That means I often get shot at from both sides as i hold to the last verses of the Gospel of Mark but have my doubts about I John 5:7.

Thank you for your indulgence. And, BTW, I’m Geneva (1599) Preferred.

Ron,

I can appreciate your position in the middle. However, when it comes to “majority”, we again have to ask, what kind of a majority are we referring to. If we take all pre-printing manuscripts of the Bible in any language, the “majority text” actually is in the minority. There are almost 3 times as many Latin manuscripts as Greek. And when we look at the Greek language only, we need to consider geographies where the texts come from. Since the Byzantine area was the only area in the world that spoke and used Greek as the common language from A.D. 450 up to A.D. 1453, it is to be expected that a majority of Greek texts would hail from Byzantine and be very similar. For a thousand years, both the scholarly texts and the common everyman’s Bibles would both be Greek. So every Bible copied in that area would be Greek. Contrast that to other regions where the common Bibles were Latin or Aramaic or Syriac or Gothic or Coptic, etc. In those regions there were some Greek texts used by scholars or monks in universities or monasteries. But the pervasively copied texts would be in other languages. So it isn’t really fair to just count up the total of texts we have today and say we’ll side with the majority of the Greek. In fact, it wasn’t until the ninth or tenth Century, that the majority of Greek manuscripts became Byzantine in nature. And of course by then, it was the large numbers of Eastern Orthodox scriptoriums and monasteries that perpetuated the text in use in the Eastern Orthodox Church, which over the next five to six centuries became the dominant text type, numerically.

For more on this take on “majority” I’d recommend scanning my three part series called [URL=http://kjvodebate.wordpress.com/2009/05/20/majority-rules-fact-or-ficti… “Majority Rules! — Fact or Fiction?[/URL] (posted at my group KJV Only Blog).

Joseph, You are quite correct that we should “give White a break”. Of course, as a KJV Onlyist, I didn’t want to. Reading the book again, I think he did a fairly good job, and his arguments are valid even though he doesn’t understand the movement as well as one steeped in it might. You bring up some good points. Still I think it is true that we who do know the movement should take care to represent it well, especially given that misrepresentation will be an excuse by others to ignore any points we bring up.

[Joseph] If only the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts on which it was written count as the Word of God, then we necessarily have never hard complete access to the word of God

Correct. We don’t have complete access at that point. However, I don’t know of too many people (none actually) who reside in the original texts argument that use the expression “only the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts on which it was written count as the Word of God”. This seems to be a significantly flatfooted description of their view regarding the original texts and translations.

[Joseph] and every translation involves a distortion, to some degree, of the Word of God.

Your choice of the word distortion is telling. This categorizes every (your word) translation as lacking fidelity which is not necessarily the case though it may not possess the fullness of what is present in the original languages. Hence the use of the word distortion only really serves to construct a point that does not fairly exist.

One may say, “Sally went to the store” while one might point in the direction she went. Pointing in the truthful direction is not a distortion nor lacking in fidelity due to its imprecision. It is not as precise as the original statement but it is not a distortion.

[Joseph] The only sensible alternative to the above view (which is wrong and borders, if not actually is, idolatrous) is to identifiy the Word of God with the meaning expressed in Scripture, which means one could translate it into a conceivably infinite number of languages, cultures, and time-periods, and always have the Word of God in its entirety. If one denies this view, one has a real problem, one much bigger than fuss over English translation.

The problem with this view is that it is right that we can and should identify the Word of God with the meaning expressed in Scripture but it is idealistic to a grave fault to imagine any two languages possess sufficient equivocations which enable them to convey absolutely what is present in another language.

While it is true that some, maybe most (for the sake of argument), languages possess sufficient development to enable a translation from the original languages that maintains fidelity to meaning and sufficient equivocations are present which will enable the student to learn a great deal of bible doctrine with accuracy, they will not and cannot discover without the help of the language of the originals, all that is present in those texts.

I realize there are limitations to what can be discussed in a forum. I also am not saying that everyone takes a simplified take on this. Some do, others like yourself, apparently, don’t. I am saying that it is an over-simplification to say it all boils down to what the church has used. Did the church use the best available text or translation? Or did they ratify a particular text or translation through its use of it? And are we only caring about the English speaking church of the last 400 years or other churches in periods before printing (and afterward)? Does the fact that the Chinese church uses a particular Chinese version mean that they are ratifying it as being the best version? I am not aware of a good TR-based translation being available in Chinese. To limit the question to English only, is to ignore God’s working in other places. Too often this is what’s done (in my opinion) in these debates.

As for how the KJV could have been accepted for so long without rivals, the same could be said of the use of the Latin Vulgate prior to the creation of the Textus Receptus. That was used for 6-800 years without rival. And prior to the Vulgate, the believing church preferred the Greek Septuagint to the Hebrew OT as a basis for translation. This was why Jerome’s Latin Vulgate was not immediately adopted by the church. Usage alone can’t settle the matter, I would contend. Other factors in this could be the novelty of printing. Once printing was possible, and once a widely accepted (not favoring one particular party in the church like the Geneva Bible did) standard text was printed, it was easier to just go with what they had then to make a new version or revision. Even then there were major revisions done to standardize the text but they only dealt with minor issues of spelling and some errors in the KJV text. The printing served to solidify the text of the KJV and it became accepted as the norm. Other reasons could be given, too.

Anyway, I doubt we’ll convince each other in this forum. I was just bringing up some counterpoints to your post.

Blessings in Christ,

Bob

It seems that most arguments seeking to present the scriptural basis for preservation will include Matthew 24:35 amongst the “proof” texts. However, every time I examine Matthew 24, I’m struck by what appears to be a gross oversight of the context in which Jesus says it. He’s discussing with the disciples at length the details surrounding the tribulation and his return. So when he finally makes the statement that “heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away,” he appears to be emphasizing the certainty that all these things he just described will take place. I fail to see any connection here to some sort of promise that the inspired words of scripture are going to be preserved on our behalf, but rather, Jesus seems to be emphasizing the certainty of the details surrounding the tribulation and his return.

Thoughts on this anyone?

[Steve L] It seems that most arguments seeking to present the scriptural basis for preservation will include Matthew 24:35 amongst the “proof” texts. However, every time I examine Matthew 24, I’m struck by what appears to be a gross oversight of the context in which Jesus says it. He’s discussing with the disciples at length the details surrounding the tribulation and his return. So when he finally makes the statement that “heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away,” he appears to be emphasizing the certainty that all these things he just described will take place. I fail to see any connection here to some sort of promise that the inspired words of scripture are going to be preserved on our behalf, but rather, Jesus seems to be emphasizing the certainty of the details surrounding the tribulation and his return.

Thoughts on this anyone?

Bob and I both mentioned this earlier, though not in connection to this verse. Many times in both OT and NT, “word” refers to a specific promise, prophecy, message, etc. In fact, “word of God” usually refers to a specific message rather than a body of canonical literature. We meet the phrase in 1 Samuel 9:27, where Samuel is revealing to Saul “the word of God,” and it isn’t a parchment copy of the Torah. In the NT, we do find the OT scripture referred to as the word of God (Mark 7:13) , but that is hardly the exclusive referent. Many times it refers to Jesus’ own teaching (Luke 5:1); sometimes perhaps specifically the gospel message (Acts 8:14).

So, the word of God is “what God says,” and it can refer to the smallest intelligible unit or to the whole canon of Scripture, and oftentimes to revelation that was never canonized. We correctly call the Bible the word of God because God said it; however, it is incorrect to think that “word of God” equals “Bible.” When interpreting a singular occurrence of “the word of God,” it is proper procedure to look for a plausible narrow referent (a particular message warranted by the context) rather than jump to the conclusion that Jesus or the author suddenly interjected a point of bibliology into his discourse.

I hold that inspiration was specifically God’s moving on the human authors of Scripture and so superintending their work that the result is God’s very word, in the style and thought of the human author. The resulting autograph was the inerrant, inspired Word of God. By extension, and I believe we do see this in Scripture, faithful copies of the autograph are considered “inspired” to the degree they are faithful to the inspired original. The message is inspired, the original words are “inspired words”. But the copy is not superintended by God in a direct way as were the autographs.

I’m not sure I follow exactly Pittman’s point in this question:

[RPittman] If we had the original autographs, would we understand them today as they did in the cultural and language context 2000 years ago where Koine Greek was the spoken and written language?

It may be to say that if we agree we wouldn’t understand the autographs in an equivalent way, that this is why God chose to preserve His Word in other language families like English. This would presume we could know the English of 1611 in an equivalent way today, which I don’t think we all would equally be able to do. Furthermore, there is a loss in translation which is inevitable, and this is why the believing Church has always prized the study of Greek and Hebrew by its ministers.

This does bring up a good point, however. The differences over understanding the Scripture are bigger and weightier than the differences between competing conservative Bible versions. If you study the history of doctrine and doctrinal controversies, you will find few doctrinal fights decided or spurred on by textual variants. Invariably we disagree in our hermeneutics and exegesis over portions of Scripture that are agreed upon and virtually identical between say the KJV or the NASB. Textual variants do matter and are important to study, but they are not the make it or break it factor. The fact that the believing church has differing interpretations yet remains orthodox on the central cardinal doctrines, gives us hope that competing manuscripts and versions also remain orthodox in a non-threatening way.

I would say we wouldn’t be able to infallibly interpret and understand the autographs. We would be prone to worshiping them, possibly — which (in God’s wisdom) may be one reason they weren’t preserved for us.

[RPittman]

Aaron, I respectfully disagree. You need to support your assertion. Unless, you are willing to make a referent difference between the “holy Scriptures” (ιερα γραμματα) in II Timothy 3:15 and the “all Scripture” (πασα γραφη) in II Timothy 3:16, then inspiration did extend to a present copy of the Scriptures, probably in translation (i.e. The Septuagint). On the other hand, I can find no support whatsoever that Paul was writing about original autographs, which were no longer extant. Whereas one may say there is “no concept of inspiration extending beyond the original act,” it is hard to envision Paul speaking of a nonexistent inspired original when he makes present application founded on inspiration. The dots don’t connect.

This is a good and important point. The authors of Scripture, like everyone in the early church, had no interest whatsoever in the “original manuscripts,” as evidenced in the practically canonical status the Septuagint held in the early church. Even Augustine, for example, was very reluctant about Jerome’s project to dispense with the much beloved Septuagint (and the so-called Old Latin Bible(s)), given its traditional status. Indeed, Jerome’s Vulgate, the first scholarly attempt to produce an OT translation faithful to all the known Hebrew manuscripts, took roughly four-hundred years before it was well received.

Conservative scholars (e.g. Silva) are obviously aware of these problems (e.g. the Septaguint differs dramatically in some areas from the original texts, not the least of which differences are a longer version of Jeremiah), but I don’t think they are well-taken account of in theological discussions of inerrancy, inspiration, etc. among most conservatives.

The “received text” proponents have the virtue of consistency: churches have always been conservative in their reaction to new, more (professedly - and often actually) faithful translations (e.g. Jerome again is a good example - very hostile reactions to the Vulgate all around), so their advocacy of the Textus Receptus is traditional, in the sense that it eschews the newer, more critical work in text-criticism and translation.

[RPittman]

[Bob Hayton]…But the copy is not superintended by God in a direct way as were the autographs.

We are in substantial agreement except possibly for the last sentence. I am not comfortable with the word choice of “direct way,” which almost seems to connote a kind of dictation theory. Rather, I understand the inspiring influence of the Holy Spirit to be beyond the consciousness and conscious effort of the human writer (II Peter 1:21). IMHO, this is neither direct nor indirect influence but it is a third means beyond the realm of ordinary human experience. Basically, I tend to agree with Van Til that our knowledge is analogical to God’s knowledge and there is no common human experience analogous to this. Furthermore, other than one’s own rational reasoning, which of necessity must make a few leaps and bounds, I do not see how one can limit inspiration to the original autographs. How does one know?

I think in a sense you are just dressing up a second-inspiration or re-inspiration view here. The act of inspiration was limited to “holy men of God”, the apostles and prophets who authored Scripture. Their writings are inspired, and when copied accurately the copies are derivatively inspired. The act of copying Scripture is not the same as the act of authoring Scripture. The Spirit’s direct role is only seen in the latter. The former falls under God’s providential control of human history. At stake in this discussion is how exactly Scripture teaches that this inspired body of words and documents is to be preserved. Just as some churches in some places obviously accepted non-canonical Scriptures, so some likely accept non-original words. It’s obvious and quite apparent that the reception of canonical books is far easier of a matter than the reception of the exactly correct words and spelling of those words contained in the books. Likewise it is much more important to accept the correct books, than it is to receive certain passages or readings in those books. Thus we can trust God’s providential directing of history would more surely work through His Church to assure the canonical books were received by the Church (although some difference of opinion still exists among those who claim the name Christian). To assume that a body of manuscripts received by the Church which has the presence of many textual variants is equal to the product of God’s direct inspiration of the original Scriptures is bordering on the absurd in my view. Scripture attests to its error-free state when given from God. The copies of the manuscripts speak to the opposite.

I contend that the product of God’s inspiration was verbally inerrant. The product of preservation is not verbally inerrant. I take from this observation, as well as from Scriptures statements about the written Scripture, that copies were not directly inspired by God in the same sense the originals were directly inspired.

Now, both have an authority from God. But the copies are authoritative only to the degree they stay true to the autographa. So the LXX reading in many places is clearly wrong and a problem. So are the Western and (I would contend) Byzantine additions to the text, and any other errors too. The resultant texts are similar enough and close enough to the autographa to be authoritative, but they can’t qualify as perfect copies of the autographa.

God never promised to preserve perfect copies of the autographa, either (in my view).

Now I do look at the OT quotations in the NT and see that textual variations in minor details are not all that big a deal. Jesus and the Apostles could use as Scripture, copies or translations that were not perfect in every minor detail. So this is insightful for the question at hand. I would just contend that the Reformation Church’s acceptance of the TR and the English Church’s usage of the KJV is not such that it ratifies this one text over and above all others. Instead it was the use of the best available text at the time. We can still see God at work today, and we have a much better text than they did. And this process of ascertaining the correct text in the smaller matters of textual variation is such that the believing Church has always been working on this. Augustine and Jerome and the like were working toward a better text. The Reformers and their children began the work of collating and editing the text. And the believing church today continues that work.

[RPittman]

[Jay C.] Let’s stand that on it’s head - what if we tomorrow, for example, found out that all the TR manuscripts were absolutely totally corrupted and worthless? How would that affect our Bibles and our view of preservation?

Then your faith and Christianity is totally corrupted and worthless. And inspiration means nothing. Of course, how would you know that the TR manuscripts are “absolutely totally corrupted and worthless?”

Well, since that’s a favorite attack of KJV-Inspired guys on the Alexandrian text or on Westcott and Hort, I figured I’d turn the tables and just put it out there as a hypothetical. I don’t know how you could tell for sure, but what’s good for the goose is also good for the gander, so to speak. If the inspired TR text guys can demand answers for that accusation [of the CT] , then surely it’s fair for CT guys to ask it of the TR guys as well.

If someone thinks that the church of Christ and Christianity rise or fall on whether or not you’re using the TR text, they have a low view of Scripture or God.

[RPittman] One of the objections to an inspired preserved text is the difficulty in conveying an accurate meaning in translation. On the one hand, it is fairly easy to translate the description of a simple physical action such as “The boy threw the ball.” On the other hand, the subtle interaction of human relationships laden with emotion and connotation is difficult. So is theological language and concepts. However, much of Scripture is narrative and meaning is contained in action rather than nuances of words. Scripture is down-to-earth and practical as pertaining to “life and godliness (II Peter 1:3).” Philosophical and theological terms are minimal. Even the theological terms may have theological import only because of the load assigned by academicians. Greek and Hebrew scholars plumb every word for any nuance or subtlety of meaning with the ardor of Bible code fanatics looking for some esoteric meaning hidden from a normal reader. The result, IMHO, is semantic overload. The question is how much is God’s intended meaning or how much is the accommodation to the human writer’s style and vocabulary or how much is the scholar’s imagination? Also, perhaps academic language study has attained a life of its own so that a grid of language theory is imposed upon Scripture. Could it be that we make translation more difficult than what it ought to be? Do the problems exist in conveying the meaning of the text or do they exist in our minds and methods?

1. While your description of scholars as “Greek and Hebrew scholars plumb every word for any nuance or subtlety of meaning with the ardor of Bible code fanatics looking for some esoteric meaning hidden from a normal reader” might be true is some instances (and I would say less than the majority with ease) one thing is for certain it is not true of all, therefore this form of vilification fails to provide a prescriptive rule and thus cannot rightly be used as a weight in arguing against the proper exercise of the use of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts or for preserved inspiration in translations.

2. As to your question, “how much is God’s intended meaning or how much is the accommodation to the human writer’s style and vocabulary or how much is the scholar’s imagination?”, while it is a valid question it appears you have either an incomplete response or inconclusive response yourself. And for a case based on this inquiry, unless one has a de facto assumption that their personal determination regarding God’s intent is a sufficient answer, being unanswered damages any platform for furthering such arguments and no doubt few would take such a self-serving position seeing it would be unraveled quickly (I will revisit the question with a second response below).

My personal response is that God intended every jot and tittle (one might retort to this response that this jot and tittle reference is, in context, a reference to the law to which I would say indeed but it also reveals God’s disposition regarding even the smallest grammatical element in his Word or communication to man because here he specifically references an object of grammar). While scholars are not infallible nor we who also have possession of God’s Spirit for enlightenment and discovery, the problem certainly is not with discovering God’s intent regarding whether he really meant to have an aorist tense, participle, jot, tittle and so on, he did, rather our problem is in discovering its proper use. The problem lies with our eyes not God’s lips (you did not present your case this way, I know, but I believe it ultimately ends up here, thus the proposition).

If we are what is being described as “overly scholarly” then it is not the fault of the perfect intent of God in determining every jot and tittle is the nature of his superintending his communication through man, rather the misuse of a tool provided by God.

_______

Now one might follow with, “how, then, did he intend every jot and tittle”? Okay fair and even more on the road to enlightenment. And that is where the rules of interpretation are established and applied which brings us back to the original consideration and response:

1. “How much is God’s intended meaning?”…all of it

2. “How much is the accommodation to the human writer’s style and vocabulary?”… wherever it exists in Scripture, all of it.

3. “How much to the scholar’s imagination?”…none of it, our imagination is not a permissible tool for theological discovery.

Finally, you ask if we make “translation more difficult than what it ought to be?” to which I offer some thoughts.

First, if we do not accept the reality of the difficulty of translating from one language to another which already exists in all processes of translation, Scripture or no Scripture, then we begin as lazy students, inconsiderate gatekeepers and lend aid to deny the author the respect due in discovering his full communication.

Secondly, some do add to their difficulty no doubt and some of those, in adding to their difficulty, actually do come away with a misapprehension of the true meaning of a text, again whether it be Scripture or some other document. But those that add unwarranted complexity don’t stand as evidence that the general process and necessity of thoroughly knowing the original language and the subsequent language for the translation are not essential. They simply stand as evidence of overreaching.

Finally, let’s take the most ideal circumstances for those favoring English translations or any other language which is that it is not as difficult as it is treated to translate to another language and good intending scholars have added too much complexity and that God, in most parts (or as you said “much of Scripture is narrative and meaning is contained in action rather than nuances of words” a claim I would like to see validated however) has the intention of an idea being communicated and so long as that idea is passed on we do not have to investigate the original languages, what do we do about the inevitable exceptions?

What do you do when you are, at some point no matter the ideal circumstances as described above, forced to investigate the language of the Greek and Hebrew in some passage? The only thing one can do is concede that attempting to prescribe as a rule that translations are sufficient, in and of themselves, to contain all of the inspired and preserved communication of God is not possible otherwise you would not refer to such sources and treat them as a greater authority.

RPittman,

I’m bowing out of this conversation for now. I think we’ve both made our positions clear and won’t be able to convince one another otherwise. In the interest of preserving my time and not getting bogged down in an endless and fruitless debate, I’ll need to bow out.

Blessings in Christ,

Bob

[RPittman]

Alex, please forgive me but I am unable, due to time constraints, to answer each of your questions or points in detail. I will offer a few general ideas on this last section. I favor translations in the language of the people. Is not this the spirit of the Reformation and the dissenters throughout church history? When we make Greek or Hebrew the authority, we shut up the Scriptures from the people. There is a ruling elite, the Greek and Hebrew scholars, similar to the Roman Catholic establishment who claimed sole authority to interpret the Scriptures. Let each man read for himself and believe. Thank you for your comments.

Certainly, but your proposition, though earnest, suffers greatly from appeals based in rationalism and equivocations.

1. To state that, “when we make Greek or Hebrew the authority, we shut up the Scriptures from the people” is to deny the very source from which translations are derived. Obviously Bible translations are based on and in another source, the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.

2. I am not sure what you mean when you invoke the spirit of the Reformation. I don’t know of any element in the Reformation that expressed a denial of the Greek and Hebrew texts as authoritative. It is spirited to invoke the Reformation, no doubt, but its application as an appeal here is at best, ambiguous.

3. Referring back to shutting up the Scriptures because the Greek and Hebrew remain the source of exegetical/interpretive authority, you seem to have ignored the acknowledgment by almost all here of their (translations) faithfulness and adequacy for a great deal of doctrinal understanding. I, myself, earlier stated that:

[Alex Guggenheim] While it is true that some, maybe most (for the sake of argument), languages possess sufficient development to enable a translation from the original languages that maintains fidelity…will enable the student to learn a great deal of bible doctrine with accuracy, they will not and cannot discover without the help of the language of the originals, all that is present in those texts.

So sweeping claims that the Scriptures are “shut up” simply because ultimately our interpretive authority rests in the Greek in Hebrew is an exploitation and exaggeration of the point with a circular basis in reasoning. Obviously they are not shut up but to conclude that because a translation provides for a great deal of learning and doctrinal apprehension we are now freed from our exegetical obligations or that because we have an exegetical obligation our translations are rendered impotent is to depart from a reasonable consideration of the facts of the matter and introduce extremes that don’t exist in any case.

4. Finally, your attempt to parallel, due to their alleged similarity, Greek and Hebrew scholars and the RCC is a disservice to scholars universally and certainly an indictment on Greek and Hebrews scholars drawn up but not substantiated anywhere. The RCC’s claim of sole authority of Scriptural interpretation has nothing to do with scholarship, rather it has to do with the RCC’s doctrine of apostolic authority (succession) that only through this succession, exercised by the Pope and college of bishops, can the Scripture be rightly interpreted. While they may subsequently offer some scholarly arguments, they begin with the doctrine that no others are ordained or permitted by God to interpret Scriptures.

No such position within Evangelicalism is commonly forwarded. Those in the Evangelical circle do not begin with the view that only certain people of apostolic succession are permitted to interpret. Rather, they subscribe to a different hermeneutic that eschews proprietary interpretation. But within that hermeneutic they do rightly identify those who are trained and those who are not. But even if, in the most extremist case where somehow the English translation became elevated to be equal in its authority with the Greek and Hebrew Bible, it would still require people to know and understand and possess some degree of scholarship in English, particularly when it comes to diagramming a sentence so that we may properly identify its grammatical parts and determine its intended meaning. And once again you introduce the necessity of scholarship which defeats your very argument.

But this is not the case, however I present this English, equal with the Greek and Hebrew, only to demonstrate the fallacy of your objection. To lump in Greek and Hebrew scholars and to suspect them guilty of the RCC doctrine of proprietary interpretation because they seem similar is frankly a fainéant argument. The two, in fact, could not be further from similar.

BTW it is understandable that no one has time to respond to all points of all posts. It just so happens I have more time this week for responding myself.