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 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 here).

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 KJV Only Debate blog.

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:

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.

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.

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 this article). 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....

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.

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.

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?

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 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,

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.

Whereas it is true that Scripture does not detail the process of preservation, it is not necessary that we understand it to believe it. We accept it as what E. F. Hills calls "the logic of faith." Few Fundamentalists, regardless of one's stance on the contemporary preservation debate, would contest the present canon (i.e. the 66 books comprising the Bible) as the complete and final canon of Scripture. Yet, the canon has not always been so firm; one only needs to read a little church history. And Scripture does not spell out the process of canonization either.

Let us go a step further and view canonization as part of the overall process of preservation. After all, it is apparent that God had to preserve the larger parts (i.e. the books) in order to preserve the smaller pieces (i.e. words). Thus, if we can have certainty in having all the inspired books culled from among the many spurious epistles, it is perfectly reasonable to posit that we can have certitude as to the words and meaning as well. Now comes the rub. The accepted academic pabulum is that the canon was established by church councils. I would strongly contest this on several grounds that I have neither time nor space to develop here. Suffice it to say that a casual perusal of church history will show that the canon was already pretty well established and accepted within the believing church, not necessarily the established church, by the time of the Council of Hippo (AD 393) and the Council of Carthage (AD 397). 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.

Finally, there is the question of the original autographs. This human (rationalistic) theory, without any Scriptural basis for inference, muddies the water considerably. Foremost, it assumes that only the original autographs are inspired. Would not an exact word-for-word, letter-for-letter copy be inspired? After all, what constituted inspiration? The papyrus? The writing from an Apostle's hand (Paul sometimes used an amanuensis)? Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume a few competent copyists made some perfect copies, especially of the shorter epistles. Would not these perfect copies, although perhaps no longer extant, be considered inspired? In such light, the original autograph theory seems a little silly and trite.

Of course, there is the question of meaning. If we had the original autographs today, would they mean the same to modern scholars as to the original recipients who read and spoke Koine Greek? Precise meanings communicated through written English by native speakers today is difficult enough, much less a two thousand year old language. Languages change with time and culture. Can we be sure that scholars have correctly recreated the Koine Greek language? Brother Andrew, the Dutch Bible smuggler, tells how he learned English from his teacher in Holland. As he was leaving for England, his teacher admitted that she had never been to England and had never heard English spoken. All her English was academic. When Brother Andrew arrived in England, he found that he could not understand the language. No scholar that I know has heard or spoken Koine Greek in its cultural context.

In sum, how God preserved is not important but to believe that He did preserve is. There are many things that we don't understand and some we do not need to understand. God has reserved some things unto Himself (Deut. 29:29). We possess what we need to know for "life and godliness (II Peter 1:3)" The problem is that we do not act in accord with what we do know.

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.

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.

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.

On the contrary, Bob, my reasoning is much more complex and involved than what you apparently understand it to be. It is difficult, if not impossible, to rigorously develop a complex argument within the context of a forum such as SharperIron. There are several reasons. First, I have only a very limited amount of time that I can devote to writing and posting on this issue in this forum. My life is consumed by other aspects of ministry including teaching, research, writing, etc. Second, the amount of space and time for reading is limited in this venue. Whereas a book has hundreds of pages to be thoughfully perused by the reader at leisure, one's argument on SharperIron must be stated in a few paragraphs to be read by folks on their lunch hour or between tasks. Furthermore, the book author has the time, space, and means (i.e. footnotes, etc.) of providing background, references, and cogent argumentation. Here, it is hit and run with the writer depending on the reader's prior knowledge and ability to make leaps from point to point. Third, lacking the continuity, size and format of a book-length presentation, it is extremely difficult to keep the discussion on track and address the specific points given the give and take nature of posting along with the time intervals between postings.

In light of these difficulties, it is my strategy to offer one, at the most two, points and stick to the points. This appears as simplification. (I would argue that simplication is a plus indicating comprehesion and the reduction of detailed complexity into understandable patterns. Simplification distills confusion into understanding. In fact, complexity may be viewed at a lower cognitive level in the recognition of many details but failing to comprehend and reduce the whole into a recognizable pattern. A good teacher simplifies the confusing morass of details into conprehensible ideas and concepts.) I offered basically two ideas:

1. Canonization is a part of preservation. If so, we must view the modern context of preservation in much the same light as we do canonization.
2. The original autograph theory has no Scriptural basis and does not adequately answer certain questions and explain the facts. It was a stop-gap protection by the Princeton theologians, et. al. against the threat of evolutionary refutation of Scripture.

Behind these two questions, or issues, lie difficult, involved, and serious questions about our understanding of God's sovereignty and working. Now, how do we explain the process of God's working in Joseph's life of using man's intended evil to bring about God's intended good (Genesis 50:20)? How do we explain the process of Romans 8:28? How do we explain the numerous allusions to God using the wicked to accomplish his purpose? Or for that matter, how do we explain the process of inspiration so that the individual vocabularies, styles, etc. of the human writers were preserved, yet God's perfect intent was written? I know of no satisfactory explanation although many have tried and floundered. So, is it unthinkable that God may have used Erasmus, Beza, et. al., although unknown to them and us, to preserve His Scriptures. How do you know? Must our modern scholarship and minds validate what God has done? (Is not this the epistemology of Modernism? We only accept what we can rationally establish.)

Now, Bob, I have utilized your method of asking unanswerable questions and raising difficulties. This can be done ad infinitum so that arguments become bogged down in details and go nowhere. The best way to explore these issues is to specifically address the points. That is precisely what I ask you to do without suggesting that the writer is a simpleton.

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.

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

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.

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?

Can we agree that language is culturally dependent? If so, can we accurately and definitively know and understand the language from a distance of time and space without experiencing the influence of the culture? Does vicariously viewing the culture through the eyes of writers give us the knowledge and feel of the culture and language or does it simply convey the perceptions of the author? The culturally-dependent problems should be readily apparent from native and non-native speakers of English. If so, how can we suppose that scholars working without primary sources and using a scant smattering of extant secondary sources of whatever origin can reconstruct the original primary sources complete with the faint inferences and slight nuances of meaning? This is analogous to the evolutionary reconstruction of complete skeletons, even whole races of man, from a few widely scattered bone fragments.

IMHO, it is more reasonable to posit the transmission of inspired texts within the Believing Church, which serves as the Divine repository of Holy Writ. This view emphasizes the concept of a "received text" preserved by the supernatural working of the Holy Spirit through the Believing Church as opposed to the establishmentarian church. The inspired, intended meaning of the Scriptures is preserved through both the words and the orthodox doctrine, teaching, practice, and interpretation of the Believing Church. (I expect an objection based on the variants. As they say in court, the variants are immaterial and irrelevant. Although often assumed, no one has reasonably established that slight variations break inspiration. It is begging the question.) The concept of a "received text" embodies something more than a word-for-word view, which, taken alone, is culturally dependent. There are cults, such as Christian Science, Mormonism, Jehovah Witnesses, et. al., who purportedly accept the words of Scripture but they define these words within their own religious subculture (i.e. paradigm--Perhaps we should use paradigm instead of culture, which speaks to a larger, general context. Can we say that the words of Scripture are paradigmatic or do they exist independently in any context or even in a vacuum?)

The concept of a "received text" is a reasonable position accepted by faith in a preserved text, but it is not a rationalistic position as is modern textual criticism. One must wonder why some of the early Fundamentalists, as well as many modern Fundamentalist, vigorously rejected and fought the scientific rationalism of evolution and the Higher Criticism but they embraced the Lower Criticism (i.e. textual criticism) based on the same methodology. If the Higher Criticism could not reconstruct and distill the essence of pure religion (i.e. uncorrupted, original Christianity as evolved from the Hebrew religion and surrounding cultures), why do we trust the same methodology to reconstruct and restore the original texts?

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.

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.

If you are referring to God's intentional meaning as verbally inerrant, I say a hearty "AMEN!" Would you say that the words are inspired as they convey God's intended purpose?

Whoa! Where is your support? Your conclusion is only supported by human observation and reason. How do you know from Scripture? Can you confidently say that a variant reading is not inspired although it retains God's intended meaning? How so? By observation, it would appear that Christ and the Apostles treated variant readings of the OT in the NT as inspired.

Now, do you mean true to the exact wording or true to the exact intentional meaning? How do you know?

Now, make the connection. Why is a variant wrong if the intentional meaning is preserved intact?

An argument from silence is weak.

I would state this a little stronger. I would say that Jesus and the Apostles approved textual variations in minor details as being true to the intentional purpose of God. IMHO, it casts an entirely different light on the problem of variants. Now, the only problem is to determine which variants are significant and which are not. We're making progress.

As to the matter of textual lines or families, it boils down to a question of epistemology. Do we accept through a reasonable faith the line received through the Believing Church in historical perspective or do we accept the line spawned by scientific rationalism. A third, more recent concept, is the idea of a majority text. (BTW, another poster alluded to the relatively recent nature of this debate. Of course, it is new because the idea of Scriptural transmission through the church was uncontested until the rise of Modernism (i.e. Modernity) and its epistemology of scientific rationalism or scientism in the 19th century. It came to a head with the Fundamentalists with the publication of the RSV.)

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.

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,

It seems to me that you're asking questions for which there are no answers this side of Glory. I do know, however, that God deliberately chose to use the times in which He worked [Gal. 4:4], that God has chosen to work through His chosen people [Israel and the Jews], and that He works all things together for His own glory [Book of Revelation, among other places]. From that I can safely conclude that God chose to use Hebrew and Greek [and Aramaic - don't forget that!] to give us His word when He did. I think I can also safely conclude that if God is working all things together in accordance with His will, then that would also govern His use of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek in the past to give us His word originally.

I agree with you heartily*. You’re right; we won’t know this side of Glory. If you don’t know, then it’s better to say that you don’t know the intricate workings of God in preservation. Yet, it appears to me that the state of modern Biblical scholarship, especially in the Fundamentalist camp, forces a grid of rationalist scholarship upon this sovereign working of God. It seems a small step for me to believe that if the Word of God “came not in old time by the will of man (2 Peter 1:21),” then its preservation is not necessarily by the will of man. What do you think?

*Note: My one reservation is to specify that in God’s choosing of the languages it was appropriate to the time and circumstances rather than the idea that His Word was eternally contained only in these languages.

Aaron, you are very perceptive. It does come down to our understanding of inspiration, which is definitely and specifically addressed by Scripture. The primary proof texts, such as II Timothy 3:15-17 and II Peter 1:20-21, are clear in specific points that these passages directly address. However, through the compiling of other Scriptures and making inferences, we developed a systematic theology of inspiration. According to our epistemology, we have inferred beyond the basic statements of Scripture to round out our systematic theology of inspiration (I am not being wordy but I am attempting to state accurately and specifically). Historically, Fundamentalists have held to a plenary verbal view of inspiration and I wholeheartedly subscribe to this view. Yet, our understanding of language has progressed since the affirmations were formulated by Warfield, et. al. We are facing issues and questions that the rationalistic model cannot adequately answer. We may need to modify our understanding of plenary verbal inspiration.

It is high time to revisit this important doctrine of inspiration and discern what Scripture really teaches. Although this is risky, we must realize the context that forged the present form of this doctrine. The veracity of Scripture was under dire attack by scientism and rationalism. Biblical Christianity has survived that war. The present issues are in regard to the subtle aspects of inspiration (i.e. the specificity, scope, and breadth) and its relationship to an implied preservation. Questions of where and how are being asked, now what.

Warfield, et. al. defended the inspiration of Scripture as infallible, inerrant, and authoritative using the rationalistic methods of their opponents. Their contribution is undenible and praiseworthy. Their intellectual model worked in their particular world but it was not necessarily the same as Scripture. Like Van Til, I believe that our knowledge is analogical to God's knowledge. Thus, our knowledge is tentative and changing as we achieve better perception and understanding of God's knowledge. God has revealed to us "all things that pertain unto life and godliness (II Peter 1:3)" but he has reserved some things unto Himself (Deuteuronomy 29:29). It behooves us to look into our formulation of doctrines and discern how much is our intellectual model and how much is actually specified by Scripture. What Scripture states is unchangeable and unquestionable but our inferences and articulations are open to question.

The problem is our espistemology. Our systematic theology is dominated by a grid of Western rationalistic thinking. Whereas I am not prepared to prove my thesis by a structured rationalistic argument, I will illustrate my point by my story of a personal journey. [Sounds very post-modern, doesn't it? :-)]

Well over a decade ago, I began reading a chapter per day in Proverbs. It was useful and practical to me in my daily dealing with people. My understanding of Proverbs, however, was the typical Western mindset of disconnected sayings with good advice for the practical aspects of life. There appeared to be lots of repetition. Approximately three years ago, I began an intensive study of Proverbs. After two years of study, I began to understand that Proverbs was an entirely different mindset from my Western, scientific mindset. After studying the Eastern pattern of thinking, I began to catch glimmers of ideas and patterns of things that I had missed. Western rationalistic thinking is a linear progression from A to B but Eastern thought is caught up in a spiraling climb from the most basic, concrete image to the lofty heights of meditative thought. Western thinking is much like reading a book from beginning to end (i.e. from premise to conclusion) but Eastern thought is more like the Internet, jumping from web page to web page pursuing a single thought. One of the best technical commentaries on Proverbs is A critical and exegetical commentary on the book of Proverbs a 19th century book by the liberal Crawford Toy. Although Toy achieved technical excellence, he failed to grasp the message of Proverbs. This speaks, I believe, to the limitations of rationalism in dealing with Biblical matters, especially spiritual constructs.

Our present doctrine of plenary verbal inspiration has some weaknesses, possibly errors or internal contradictions, in explaining translations and preservation. Most importantly, the present plenary doctrine of inspiration leaves out the necessary role of the Holy Spirit (John 16:13) in the understanding and intepretation of Scripture. We call this illumination but it is essential to the understanding of Scripture. We cannot rightly understand inspriation without understanding the illumination of the Spirit. The separation of the two is artificial, misleading, and necessary because of our epistemology of rationalism. Therefore, a rationalistic understanding or formulation of the doctrine of inspiration is fatally flawed because it can only deal with the physical evidence and it cannot explain the spiritual aspect. If so, would not this call for a new look at our epistemology?

(Disclaimer: I wholeheartedly believe that the Bible in its entirety is the inspired Word of God meaning that it is inerrant, infallible, and authoritative in all matters of faith and practice. By faith, I accept the Bible in its present form as such preserved by God through an unknown process. On the other hand, I do not accept any one formulation or articulation of doctrine on the same level as Scripture.)

Yes, this is an apparent contradiction but these exist because we are limited in knowledge and reasoning. There are many apparent contradictions that cannot be rationally resolved. Can we rationally explain the Trinity or how God inerrantly and infallibly inspired although retaining individual vocabulary and style? Now, are you willing to step outside 19th rationalism to consider other possibilities? Are you willing to argue that the original words were loaded with static semantic content so that they forever retained their original meanings? Meanings of words change. Does God's Word depend upon specific symbolization contained in an archaic written form? If so, how do we know? Our reason? Then, we are reverting to rationalism. Do we have enough data to make a good inference? Can our minds fully comprehend and solve the problem? How do we know what God is thinking? Do He tell us? Is there something special about Greek and Hebrew?

There is a difference, you see, between how we are debating this matter. I am willing to allow for apparent contradictions if two apparently contradictory statements seem to fit the data and I cannot resolve the two. On the other hand, you are arguing for a necessary acceptance of one and rejection of the other to achieve non-contradiction. Perhaps the problem is with the method.

No, I would disagree with this presentation. My point is that God's preservative acts are not dependent upon the intentional efforts of scholarship. Furthermore, even believing scholars are influenced by their secular colleagues. Even so, God is able to achieve his purpose through the weak and wicked efforts of men (Genesis 50:20).

No, again I disagree with the presentation. It doesn't compute for me. You are making it a debate between plenary verbal inspiration and idea inspiration. These are not competing entities in that one is wholly true and the other is blatantly false. Both contain something of the truth. It would be foolish to argue that God inspired the words without the ideas behind them. Of course, the words had to convey ideas. What is the use of words if they are meaningless? The whole emphasis on word inspiration is that they specifically and accurately portrayed the ideas meanwhile limiting the concepts to what God intended. (Sometimes, scholars go beyond what God intended by loading more semantic content into words than was intended.) Thus, we see idea inspiration contained within plenary verbal inspiration (word inspiration). The Believing Church, obviously, accepted idea inspiration within word inspiration.

Aaron, thank you for your time and critiques. You always stretch my capabilities.

Yes, you're absolutely right. No one is willing to discuss it but that is not to say that it doesn't need addressing. Perhaps you would care to expound your "rightly so." Please understand that inspiration is not under attack as with the Modernists. It is a question of how we understand and interpret inspiration.

There exists ample evidence that there is no consensus in our understanding of plenary verbal inspiration. Within memory, there has been the Rice-Custer controversy even within a fairly narrow scope of Fundamentalism. Read three different books on plenary verbal inspiration and you may find three differing views. Furthermore, part of the KJV controversy is based on what the factions understand the nature of inspiration to be. What must be emphasized is not that we are questioning any Biblical doctrine of inspiration as the Liberals did, but we are questioning a theological model, specifically the understanding and meaning of that model. A theological model, although based on inferences taken from Scripture, is not on the same level as Scripture. We must understand our loyalty is to Scripture and not some theological model that supposedly explains, correlates, systematizes, or simplifies it. Models are useful in helping to understand but they break down and can only be useful only to the extent that they explain and clarify. Furthermore, models are open to question and revision as our knowledge and understanding grows.

Which ideas? Warfield had many ideas and many are quite good. There are just a few that we would question. Furthermore, your quote is not an accurate statement; it should be the other way around. Rather, it is like saying, "Our belief in God is not based on what men can or have rationalistically proved."

Yes, ironic, perhaps, but it is not necessarily contradictory. Because the study of language is legitimate human endeavor, it is perfectly sensible to use the same to critique another human endeavor, the building of theological models. Where is the contradiction?

Post-modernism is a whipping boy. In fact, it is in some ways an extension of Modernism as well as its antithesis. BTW, Post-modernism is not bad because it is a rejection of Modernism but it is bad because it is not Scriptural. What was the traditional Christian view before Modernity? We are, I fear, flaying Post-modernism because it is in conflict with the tenets of Modernism that we hold dear, rather than because it is not Scriptural.

There is a difference between Rationalism and things that are reasonable. We can still be rational and reasonable without embracing Rationalism, which is a system of thought.

I don't think that I said, "God does not use scholarship." I did write: "My point is that God's preservative acts are not dependent upon the intentional efforts of scholarship." We are not challenging that God can use scholarship if He pleases. I am confident that He can. However, how do you know that He is? How do we decide that God is using scholarship? Which scholarship is He using because there is no unanimity? My argument is that we cannot place our faith in scholarship. It has no superiority over other factors including our faith in preservation. I have Brandenberg's book and need to read it. Thank you for your time.

Aaron, I realize that you are reading Kent Brandenburg's book and you may be using it as representative of the arguments that I am espousing. Well, I must admit that I haven't done all of my homework. I bought Kent's book sometime ago when I came across one of his posts and realized that we had some similar ideas. However, I never got around to reading his book. So, I really don't know how similar we may be. I do intend to read the book this weekend.

I came to my own views through a different route. Having a life-long interest in epistemology, my disenchantment with Modernity goes back to my colleges and the study of creationism and evolution. I was captivated by Gordon Clark's "operationalism" and began a serious reading of Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper on the philosophy of science. Over the years, I have come to understand the limitations of scientific methodology and operations research. My own background and interests lie in microbiology and biochemistry, thus placing me squarely in disciplines utilizing scientific methodology. It appears that most people in the humanities are overawed by the supposed intellectual force of the scientific method. Those who practice it must of necessity recognize its inherent weaknesses and limitations. As my own epistemological ideas, political philosophy, understanding of Scripture and other ideas grew, I began to see Modernity as man's own overblown intellectual confidence and self-aggrandizement. Today, I have generally rejected Modernity and Naturalistic Rationalism.

More recently, I have begun to find a few others who are coming to the same or similar conclusions. Most, whose thinking is still clothed in Modernity, have dismissed our ideas as unworthy of consideration, meanwhile failing to realize their own nakedness. Reading and listening to D. A. Carson on Post-modernism, I surprisingly found many of his assessments similar to my own independently formed conclusions. This sparked a new confidence and stimulated my thinking. Afterwards, I have found others, sometimes in surprising places, coming to a critical view of Modernism (Modernity) and its methods. Furthermore, there is the tacit admission of some Fundamentalist scholars that Fundamentalist arguments and views are based on the same rationalism as the Modernists. There is a discernible convergence toward a devastating critique upon our most cherished scholarship. IMHO, it is a matter of time before Modernity, Naturalistic Rationalism, and some of our revered scholarship is discredited and becomes passé.

Now, this pushes us out of our comfort zones. Too often, we see this in simplistic terms of either-or. It is not a pitched battle with the choice of sides being Modernism or Post-modernism. It is not rational thinking versus superstition anymore than it is reason versus faith. (Actually, I understand Kierkegaard's attempt to redefine faith (i.e. "Leap of Faith") as an effort to salvage rationalism and irrationally assign meaning to being before it took the fatal plunge into irrational "existentialism." After all, Existentialism is the rational end of rationalism.) The issues do not line up on these axes. Indeed, they are more complex and multidimensional. There are multiple options, not just the current ones accepted in the academy. What was the epistemology of the Believing Church before rationalism and Modernity swept us from our moorings? Of John, or Paul, or Luke?