Preservation: How and What?

The doctrine of preservation of the Scriptures has been hotly debated in recent years. Much has been written and said, but most of the rhetoric on the subject has been closely connected to defending or rejecting one view or another on the translation issue. The result has often been that important foundational questions have been overlooked in a rush to get to conclusion A or B in the translation debate.

Among the neglected questions are these: (1) what process did God say He would use to preserve His word and (2) what form did He say that preserved word would take? Both of these are subsets of another neglected question: What does Scripture actually claim (and not claim) about it’s own preservation?

The questions of process (“how”) and form (“what”) are at the heart of the controversy because nobody (among fundamentalists or conservative evangelicals) denies that the word has, and will, endure. The question of what Scripture actually claims is critical as well, for multiple reasons. For one, only a clear answer to that question can put us on the right track to answering the others.

Two general schools of thought exist regarding the how and what of preservation.

Discrete preservation

One set of views on the how and what of preservation holds that the word must be preserved in a form that is accessible and identifiable with certainty as the preserved form. In other words, preservation means there is an original language text one can identify as “the preserved text.” In most cases, discrete preservationists believe this must also extend to a translation—one existing (or future) translation in each language, which we can identify as “the preserved translation.”

A missionary I spoke with on the subject a few years ago offered the following observations:

I believe since we do not have a copy of the originals, and Scripture mentions God would preserve His word, we have to have His word in a translation. I believe the only translation that was preserved in the English language is the translation coming from the Textus Receptus; the King James Bible.

A more detailed and incisive variation of the view is expressed in this Bible college doctrinal statement:1

We believe … that the King James Bible is God’s preserved word in English. We reject any attempt to correct it with the Greek critical text as is done in the Revised Standard Version, New International Version, and the New King James Version.

We believe … that God’s Word was spread around the world by the Reformation Era Bibles and Bible translations made from them during the beginning of the modern missions movement (1700’s and early 1800’s). Tragically, for nearly two hundred years, the United Bible Society … has tried to replace these Received Text Bibles with corrupt translations.

… the Word of God in Spanish is to be found in the Reformation era 1602 Valera Bible and properly done revisions …

Book length cases for word perfect preservation in discrete form are now available as well (for example, Thou Shalt Keep Them: A Biblical Theology of the Perfect Preservation of Scripture edited by Kent Brandenburg, 2003) in addition to numerous articles and blog posts on the Web.2

Dispersed preservation

Another approach to the how and what of preservation emphasizes the challenge we face in looking for answers to preservation questions. For example, the writers of Bible Preservation and the Providence of God offer the following caution:

What is less clear is how God is preserving the Bible. Though the Bible describes a little of the process of inspiration, it does not describe in detail the process of preservation. Since God also chose in His providence not to preserve the autographs [originals], it takes more effort to understand the process. (Schnaiter and Tagliapietra, 33)

In the chapters that follow, Schnaiter and Tagliapietra detail their view of the process and form of preservation. In an appendix, Schnaiter summarizes as follows:

I believe that the presence of copyists’ errors or translator’s errors or publishers’ errors in every copy of the New Testament … justifies the conclusion that God has not preserved the precise wording of the text … in any particular manuscript or copy or translation, but that He has indeed preserved both wording and sense. The sense is preserved in every copy since each is generally unaffected by the wording variations. (Schnaiter and Tagliapietra, 285. Emphasis original.)3

James White describes a similarly complex process and form of preservation:

You see, if readings could just “disappear” without a trace, we would have to face the fact that the original reading may have “fallen through the cracks” as well. But the tenacity of the New Testament text, while forcing us to deal with textual variants, also provides us with the assurance that our work is not in vain. One of those variant readings is indeed the original. (White, 48)

To these writers, and many others, preservation is not something God does by maintaining a singular certainly-identifiable form, but rather, something He has done (and is doing) in a dispersed way in the manuscripts He has kept from extinction.

The Bible on preservation

To most of us the burning question is, “What does the Bible itself say about its preservation?” In particular, what does the Bible reveal about God’s preservation process and what does it reveal about the form in which His preserved word will reach His people?

Seven passages speak most directly and clearly about the enduring nature of God’s word. Those who believe God has preserved His word in each language in one translation based on the proper Greek text often cite one or more of these in support of their view. For summary purposes I list them here with brief excerpts (in the KJV).

  • Psalm 119:89 “forever … thy word is settled in heaven”
  • Psalm 119:152 “thy testimonies … thou hast founded them forever”
  • 1 Peter 1:24-25 “the word of the Lord endureth for ever”
  • Psalm 12:6-7 “thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever”
  • Psalm 119:160 “every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever”
  • Matthew 24:35 “my words shall not pass away”
  • Matthew 5:18 “one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass”

Analysis

In Psalm 119:89 we have probably the least helpful passage of the seven for discerning the how and what of preservation on earth. The Psalmist’s goal is to magnify the Lord by pointing out that His word is natsav, firmly fixed and unchanging, just as God Himself is. But the location is “in heaven.” Similarly, Psalm 119:152 reveals that God’s word is “founded” (yacad) forever. The idea again is a firm (and by implication, unmoving) placing. But we do not gain any information as to what we should expect to be able to hold in our hands and read.

Psalm 12:6-7 are a special case because what is meant by “them” in “preserve them” has often been debated. However, if we grant for the sake of argument that “them” refers to God’s “words” (in v.6), what we have again, is a promise that the words of God will not be destroyed by any evil generation (“from this generation” refers to the idle speakers, flatterers and oppressors described in 12:1-5). We do not have a promise here that the words will be accessible or identifiable with certainty.

In 1 Peter 1:24-25 and Psalm 119:160, however, we gain—by inference—a little information about God’s preservation of His word for readers. Peter describes the contrast between the short and frail lives of mortals and the eternally enduring word of God, quoting from Isaiah 40:8. The psalmist indicates that what will endure is comprehensive: not one of God’s judgments will be lost. But it’s the context of these two passages that is most helpful. In both texts, part of the point seems to be that God’s word endures for us. It endures in some form believers will be able to access from generation to generation.

With Matthew 24:35, we gain still more information. Here Jesus affirms that His own words will never pass away. And, though we have no details concerning the form or process of their preservation, we do have a hint regarding the location of their preservation. “Pass away” translates the Greek parerchomai, meaning a passing by or passing from. Jesus’ implication is that His words will continue to exist in the world where His followers live.

Jots and tittles

Matthew 5:18 might be the most important passage on the subject. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus assures His listeners that “one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass until … ” The statement actually includes two conditions, two “untils”: until heaven and earth pass away and until all (the law) is fulfilled. Here again, we learn more about what God will preserve: every iota and keraia, every smallest letter and smallest stroke. The verb parerchomai (pass from) occurs again indicating that the words will be preserved here below.

What has been promised

Discrete preservationists see in these passages a promise that every “jot and tittle” of Scripture will be available to every generation in a certainly-recognizable, written form. That is, believers of every age will be able to point to a copy and say with certainty, “Every jot and tittle is right here.” But there are several reasons to believe this is not what has been promised:

  1. The passages do not actually say there will be a recognized form with every jot and tittle perfectly preserved.
  2. Neither Jesus nor the other speakers or writers in these passages say that the word will be accessible for “every generation.” Even if a letter-perfect form of God’s word could be identified with certainty, the promises do not preclude the possibility that this form could be lost for some generations then recovered again (the fact that something has not passed away does not mean we must know exactly where it is.)
  3. None of those who heard these promises when they were given could point to a written form they knew to contain every preserved jot and tittle. That is, already multiple copies existed, and variations among them existed—not only in jots and tittles but (by Jesus’ day) in whole words. (When Jesus spoke, the Scriptures available were hand made copies of the Hebrew OT and Greek versions of the OT known collectively as the Septuagint).

Conclusions

A close examination of what Scripture claims about its own preservation reveals that God’s word is preserved forever independently of anyone’s access to it (“in heaven”). This examination also reveals, however, that every word—even every letter—will always be preserved, and at least potentially accessible, on the earth. Scripture does not claim, however, that its availability in word-perfect form will be without interruption or that God’s people will always be able to identify it with certainty. There is nothing close to a promise that a word-perfect translation of such a text will exist in English or any other language. (If we have no promise that the Scriptures will be translated at all we cannot possibly have any promises about the quality of translations.)

Some will object that if we cannot identify the perfectly preserved text or translation, we do not have preservation in any meaningful sense. But this argument is a distraction from facts we cannot escape. Whether or not we like the implications of what Scripture says (and doesn’t say), the Bible still says only what it says—no more and no less.

Case-making

One additional distinction is important here. The fact that we have not been promised a certainly-identifiable, perfect text or translation does not prove that we are without one. What that fact does do, however, is point the way to what kind of case must be made for a perfectly preserved text or translation. Such a case must consist of inferences from Scripture, historical data, other external evidence, and reasoning from these. In short, just as the case for preservation “somewhere in the manuscripts” derives from the silence of Scripture plus external data, the case for perfect preservation must also be made by appealing to external data. Divine authority cannot be properly claimed for either position.

Works Cited

Schnaiter, Sam, and Ron Tagliapietra. Bible Preservation and the Providence of God. Self published. Xlibris Corp., 2003.

White, James. The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? Minneapolis. Bethany House Publishers, 1995.

Notes

1 I regret that I can no longer identify the source of this quotation. Either I am misremembering the college that posted the statement or they have since replaced it with something more conciliatory. In any case, the view they described is not unique to them.

2 Examples include “The Modern Texts and Versions Have Produced the Fruit of Theological Liberalism,” “Reasoned Preservation of Scripture, “A Sniff Test for the History of Preservation of Scripture,” “Biblical Preservation: B. B. Warfield and the Reformation Doctrine of the Providential Preservation of the Biblical Text,” and many, many more.

3 In the book, the emphasis in this paragraph is in all caps rather than italics, probably because the section is a response to correspondence in which all caps occur frequently in reference to Schnaiter’s views.


Aaron Blumer, SI’s site publisher, is a native of lower Michigan and a graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He, his wife, and their two children live in a small town in western Wisconsin, where he has pastored Grace Baptist Church (Boyceville, WI) since 2000. Prior to serving as a pastor, Aaron taught school in Stone Mountain, Georgia, and served in customer service and technical support for Unisys Corporation (Eagan, MN). He enjoys science fiction, music, and dabbling in software development.

Discussion

[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.

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

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.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

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).

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

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.

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

[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

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

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.

My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com

Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin

For what it’s worth at this point, I’ve been reading Thou Shalt Keep Them edited by Kent Brandenburg, which is as thorough a case for perfect preservation as I’ve seen to date.

But even Kent’s book does not confuse where inspiration begins and ends. 2 Tim.3:16, 2 Peter 1:21 are clear about what is inspired. It is “prophecy” in written form. The assertion that there is no concept of originals can’t get off the ground because there is also no concept of inspiration extending beyond the original act on “men moved by the Holy Spirit.”

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

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.

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

[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.

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

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.

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

[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.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells