Preservation: How and What? Part 3

Read Part 1 and Part 2.

Does the Bible teach that God’s people will always be able to point to a particular text1 of the Bible and know that it is the word-perfect, preserved text? Those who believe a particular choice of translations is “the biblically right” option, tend to answer (passionately) in the affirmative. But many who use other translations or simply prefer the KJV are not so sure. Who is right?

Points of agreement

Nearly all involved in the controversy are agreed that God has preserved His Word for us in some sense. Nearly all are agreed as well that Scripture teaches God will preserve forever, somewhere and in some form, every one of the words He inspired and that some believers will always have access to Scripture in some form. God’s ability to use imperfect sinners to perfectly preserve His Word is also not in dispute, nor is the fact that we should accept what the Bible reveals to be true regardless of the claims of the “science of textual criticism” or any “high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God” (2 Cor. 10:5, KJV).

It is also agreed that the Bible depicts human beings as both finite and fallen and prone to error in what they do, but that God overcame human fallibility when He inspired “holy men of God” to record the Scriptures (2 Pet. 1:21). This is where we come to a major fork in the road. Though we do not have equally direct and clear statements to the effect that God also ensures word-perfect preservation (see part 2), many believe a compelling case for this kind of preservation can be derived from less direct passages. The book Thou Shalt Keep Them (TSKT) is an important example.

The next two articles in this series aims to examine all of the relevant biblical arguments in TSKT to see whether we have sufficient grounds for believing God has continuously overcome the limitations of His servants so that they maintain a word-perfect, preserved text of the Bible.

Passages handled previously

TSKT has chapters devoted to several of the seven popular preservation texts I examined earlier in this series: Psalm 12:6-7 (TSKT, ch. 1), Matthew 5:17-18 (TSKT, ch. 3), Matthew 24:35 (TSKT, ch. 5) and 1 Peter 1:23-25 (TSKT, ch. 7). These passages clearly affirm a concept of preservation, but do not tell us to expect a word-perfect text to be available to every generation.

Though all of these passages would be consistent with the idea that we will always be able to access word-perfect copies of Scripture, “consistent with” is not strong evidence that God has chosen to overcome the human fallibility the Bible clearly teaches us to expect.

Other important passages

Perhaps recognizing that these often-cited passages are not sufficient to support their conclusions, the writers of TSKT look to several other verses as well. We’ll consider these individually.

“Every word that proceedeth”

But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. (Matt. 4:4)

Thomas M. Strouse handles this passage in TSKT’s second chapter and concludes the following:

The Lord clearly stated His belief in the availability of Scripture by assuming the accessibility of every Word. The Savior clearly stated His belief in the verbal, plenary preservation of God’s Words since they had been and were still preserved intact in His day. (p. 39)

But Strouse’s case proves to be weak on several grounds. First, the perfect tense of “it is written” (gegraptai), does not indicate anything about the future of what is written, as he asserts (p. 38). Rather, the tense indicates an action that occurred in the past and has produced a state that continues in the writer’s (or, in this case, speaker’s) present. The idea here is simply “it stands written.”

Second, Jesus describes the “every word” He has in mind as coming from the “mouth” of God, and uses the Greek rhēma (ῥῆμα) for “word.” Rhēma normally indicates spoken rather than written words.

Third, “proceeds” is in the present tense. The sense is “every word that is proceeding from the mouth of God.” Though continuation is not always part of the meaning of a present tense verb, the fact that “shall live” is future almost requires that sense here. “Man shall live now and in the future by every word that is proceeding from the mouth of God.”

Finally, the context is also significant. Deuteronomy 8:3, which Jesus quotes here, is a reminder to the children of Israel that they are dependent on God’s decrees for their well being. And in the immediate context, Jesus is responding to pressure from Satan to turn stones into bread (during a long fast).

These details do not prove that Jesus was referring to unwritten words, but together they do strongly suggest He was speaking of God’s continual commanding of what we need to “live.” He was emphasizing our dependence on the Father as well as the Father’s sovereign control over our lives. In Matthew Henry’s words:

It is true, God in his providence ordinarily maintains men by bread out of the earth (Job 28:5); but he can, if he please, make use of other means to keep men alive; any word proceeding out of the mouth of God, any thing that God shall order and appoint for that end, will be as good a livelihood for man as bread, and will maintain him as well.2

Jesus’ statement here does not communicate that He had access to an Old Testament text that contained every word originally inspired. The statement is even further from teaching that every generation of believers will have access to such a text.

“They have received them”

For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. (John 17:8)

In ch. 4, Strouse takes up the case once again, this time emphasizing the concept of a “received Bible.”

This essay will demonstrate that…the Lord Jesus is the Author of the received Bible mindset and expects His followers to be united around the received Bible movement throughout history. (p. 52)

The chapter’s argument is based in part on the view that “the words” Jesus says the Father gave Him are the entire “Bible canon,” and the same as the “all Scripture” of 2 Timothy 3:16—the same words Jesus said would never pass away (Matt. 24:35, p. 53). Furthermore, since all will be judged by these words (John 12:48), all of the “canonical Words” must be written and preserved. To judge men by anything less than “perfectly preserved, inscripturated Words” would be unjust (p.53).

Strouse then cites several references to believers “receiving” the word (pp. 54-55) and, in the process, gives “receive” a special meaning: something along the lines of “to get a hold of a copy of the entire Bible that you know is a word-perfect copy” (my words, not his).

A close look at the text, however, reveals that it does not support the conclusions Strouse draws from it. That Jesus is referring to the entire canon when He says “the words which thou gavest me,” is far from “presumably” true (p. 53), especially since much of the canon had not yet been written at the time. Plus, the words Jesus says His hearers will be judged by (John 12:48) refers most naturally to those He had been speaking to them personally. Other passages may expand on the content of what men will be judged by, but can we reasonably argue that every word of Scripture must be preserved, recognized and accessible in order for this judging to be just? How would someone be judged differently if Luke 9:3 reads mēte ana duo chitōnas, “not two tunics apiece” (Textus Receptus), rather than simply mēte duo chitōnas, “not two tunics” (Nestle-Aland 27th ed.)?3

What Jesus says in John 17:8 is simply that He has faithfully passed on the words He was given. Turning this into “every single one of the words of Scripture” is reading into the text. Even if we suppose that Jesus meant exactly that, the conclusion that He promises a word-perfect text for every generation does not follow.

“Thou hast known the holy scriptures”

In ch. 6, Charles Nichols argues that “inspiration implies preservation,” based on 2 Timothy 3:15-17.

15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Nichols summarizes his claim as follows:

2 Timothy 3:15-17 strongly suggests perfect, available, verbal and plenary preservation of Scripture just as it establishes God’s inerrant, verbal, plenary inspiration. (p. 68)

His argument asserts that “holy” (v.15) indicates “unadulterated, and pure from defilement” (p. 65). He argues further that the primary meaning of grammata (“scriptures” in v.15) is “letters,” therefore, Paul was pointing out to Timothy that Timothy had grown up having access to a letter-perfect Old Testament text (p. 66). On the basis of the relationship between v.15 and v.16, Nichols observes, “what God inspired is perfect. Therefore, the Old Testament was perfectly preserved to Timothy’s day” (p. 66).

Based on the sufficiency of Scripture expressed in 3:17, Nichols concludes that “Sufficiency depends on every writing God breathed” and “the availability of every writing is an obvious ramification of ‘all Scripture is profitable’ ” (p.67). His conclusion is that “the unadulterated Words, recorded up to or more than a thousand years earlier, were available to Timothy.”

A closer look

Several problems exist with this line of argument as well. First, “holy” (hieros, which Nichols says is synonymous with hagios) does not always mean completely pure. For example, 1 Corinthians 7:14 describes the children of believers as hagios.

Second, the passage does not say that Timothy “had access to” or “possessed” the “holy scriptures” but that he knew them. Unless we suppose that young Timothy knew every single inspired word of the Old Testament, “holy scriptures” in v.15 cannot have that meaning. Rather, it refers to the subset of the Scriptures Timothy had personally learned.

Verse 16, however, does specify that “all Scripture” is theopneustos (an adjective rendered “given by inspiration” in the KJV). Paul’s point is that the Scripture Timothy knew was powerful and sufficient because the Scripture that was inspired was powerful and sufficient. He does not say that what Timothy knew included every word originally given.

Third, even if Timothy had had access to a word-perfect copy of the Old Testament, what would this prove about what we have today?

The sufficiency argument based on 3:17 remains. Nichol’s reasoning is that if “all Scripture” is sufficient, missing any words would render it insufficient. But the reasoning is faulty. If I say “all of my money is sufficient to buy a hamburger,” I’m not denying that “some of my money is sufficient to buy a hamburger.” Granted, if the “some” is reduced to a small enough subset of “all,” it eventually becomes insufficient. But it is far from obvious that the discrepancies we find in the MSS cross that threshold.

Conclusion

Several passages and Bible-based arguments in TSKT remain to be considered. So far, its case for a biblical doctrine of word-perfect text preservation proves nothing beyond what is generally agreed: that God has seen to it that we have His Word today in a form that is sufficient to inform our faith and direct our obedience.

Notes

1 “Text” here means a complete Hebrew and Aramaic OT and complete Greek NT.

2 Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Matt. 4:4).

3 Of course, not all manuscript differences are so minor, but a vast quantity of them are. TSKT’s preservation argument here requires that every pronoun and qualifier be preserved in order for God to judge justly.


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 worked in customer service and technical support for Unisys Corporation (Eagan, MN). He enjoys science fiction, music, and dabbling in software development.

Discussion

[] Paul’s point is that the Scripture Timothy knew was powerful and sufficient because the Scripture that was inspired was powerful and sufficient.
In discussion on an earlier article in this series someone asked if I though the “Scriptures” of 3.15 referred to something different than the “Scriptures” of 3.16. At the time, I had not studied the question closely. What I’m suggesting here is that they both refer to the Scriptures themselves, the autographa. But there is a distinction between the two verses based on the word “all” in v.16 which is not in v.15.

Timothy “knew” some of the verbal, plenary inspired Scriptures … just as we do today regardless of what Hebrew or Greek text underlies the translation we are using.

The word-for-word inerrant quality of what God inspired is not in dispute in anything I’ve written.

As for what kind of proof is necessary. There are really only two possibilities that matter here.

a) God said He would do it

b) External evidence

Either way, we must have a reason for believing something. But if we have the first, we have no need for the second. My thesis is simply that we do not have the first.

The whole effort to cast the preservation debate as a choice between a modernistic/rationalistic way of thinking vs. a “logic of faith” way of thinking is a fantasy.

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.

Aaron,

I think you get this right. Timothy had access to the Scriptures in the same sense we all do - in either a translation or a copy of a copy of a copy…. (edition). To the degree that the copy we have is faithful to the original, we can claim to have an inspired copy. The originals are what were “given by inspiration”. We wouldn’t say that every copy of the originals is “given by inspiration” or “breathed out by God”. But the original words are. The original message is. Inspiration extends to the words and letters. But here in 2 Tim. 3 we don’t have a promise that every copy will be equally perfect to that degree.

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.

[Aaron Blumer] The sufficiency argument based on 3:17 remains. Nichol’s reasoning is that if “all Scripture” is sufficient, missing any words would render it insufficient. But the reasoning is faulty. If I say “all of my money is sufficient to buy a hamburger,” I’m not denying that “some of my money is sufficient to buy a hamburger.” Granted, if the “some” is reduced to a small enough subset of “all,” it eventually becomes insufficient. But it is far from obvious that the discrepancies we find in the MSS cross that threshold.
I thought this was really good, Aaron. This is where the rubber meets the road. It just isn’t true that the nature of the differences we find between the various Greek editions is such that only one or the other can be useful, and even more— that one or the other must of necessity be Satanic and corrupted to the point of it being unfit for use at all. That is just not the case.

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.

[Aaron Blumer]
[]

The whole effort to cast the preservation debate as a choice between a modernistic/rationalistic way of thinking vs. a “logic of faith” way of thinking is a fantasy.
Thanks for saying this. I get so tired of people framing theological arguments using straw men. “Either you are 1611 or you are a liberal rationalist” gets used way too much. It also exhibits the fallacy of the excluded middle. Just because I don’t believe in the KJB doesn’t mean that I don’t believe in preservation.

As Bob mentioned above your sufficiency argument was good. Here is another rubber-meets-the-road place: can a person get saved after reading a [inert the translation you love to hate here] version? I have a dear brother who constantly wants to attribute translations to the Satanic realm and yet he has to admit that “even the meanest” versions point to a clear way of salvation by repentance of sin and faith in Christ.

Jon Bell Bucksport, ME "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and

RP.. haven’t got time today to answer everything, but I’ll pick out a couple of important ones.
Well, I think that I asked this question and I don’t buy your answer. It flies in the face of the plain fact that there is no signifying distinction. As much as this portion has been exegeted, dissected and analyzed, can you provide a single scholarly source
Well, for one thing, depending on a scholarly source would sort of be following the modernist, rationalist paradigm, wouldn’t it? I’m half kidding about that.

But I don’t need a scholar for this point and you don’t either. The distinction rests on two things…
  • the word “all” in vs.16 and
  • the unlikelihood that Timothy had every word of the OT committed to memory
On the second point, you pointed out that “some” is not in the text (Timothy knew “some” of the Holy Scriptures). This is true. Are you prepared to produce a scholar who says Timothy knew all of the Old Testament? I have taken it for granted that most readers do not need proof that Timothy did not “know” every word of the OT.
why did the Fundamentalist fight the Liberals/Modernists so hard over the doctrine of inspiration.
This is a very good question as well. I can’t speak for those who were involved in the fight, but for my part, I’d join the fight today because

  1. The Bible clearly teaches the doctrine of inspiration… we cannot deny it without becoming completely arbitrary in what we choose to believe and not believe
  2. Even without every word preserved, having no inspired words to pursue (by comparing the mss) would a dramatically different situation.
    To illustrate, suppose the Mona Lisa were destroyed in a museum fire. Would it make sense to say “Well, we don’t have any perfect copies that are exactly like the original so there’s no point in claiming DaVinci painted it?” It doesn’t follow.

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.

RP… one last time: is there any evidence at all that in these articles that I’m employing some kind of naturalistic-rationalistic system (or paradigm or epistemology or whatever) aside from the fact that I disagree with you about preservation?

That accusation has been repeated ad nauseum (and that’s getting close to literally true at this point) and you’ve observed that I have not disproved it, but I don’t have to disprove it. The one who makes the assertion is the one who must supply the argument.

Absent that argument, as far as I can tell, your thinking is basically this…
  • We know Aaron is wrong about preservation because his thinking is naturalistic.
  • We know Aaron’s thinking is naturalistic because he is wrong about preservation.
Anything about that look circular to you?

If there is any other evidence that my thinking is naturalistic, etc.—please lay it out.

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.

Aaron,

I’m completely with you on this one:
That accusation has been repeated ad nauseum (and that’s getting close to literally true at this point) and you’ve observed that I have not disproved it, but I don’t have to disprove it. The one who makes the assertion is the one who must supply the argument.
RPittman has attempted to shoot down every argument of yours by claiming it is not based entirely in Scripture. Therefore I would like to hear from him
  1. What is his real position on this issue?
  2. If he prefers one translation above the others (or rejects all others) how does he get to that position without using any evidence or arguments not found in the pages of Scripture?

MS -------------------------------- Luke 17:10

[RPittman]

  1. I believe that God has miraculously preserved His revealed, inspired Word in a line of texts, loosely known as the Received Text, from the time of inspiration until the present.
  2. I believe that we have God’s inspired Word present in written form today.
  3. I believe that the Believing Church is the recipient, conservator, transmitter, guardian, and preserver of God’s Word.
  4. I believe that God’s preservative power and acts are presupposed in our acceptance of canonization and inspiration.
  5. I believe that the same reasoning that leads us to plenary verbal (The Bible does not say plenary verbal) inspiration with the inferences of inerrancy, infallibility, etc. are applicable to establishing the doctrine of preservation.
  6. I believe that the KJV is God’s inspired Word in the English language.
  7. I do not believe or accept Original Autographs Theory, Modern Critical Text Theory, etc. These are either reactions or products of Modernity (read Modernism).
  8. I reject the epistemological tenets of Modernity (i.e. Modernism) and naturalistic-rationalism (i.e. scientific rationalism).
    And I am prepared to vigorously defend every one of the above. What more would you like to know?
This is right in line with what Aaron is writing about. How do you do #1 and #6?

It seems like the same process that the Roman church used in producing the TR was used in producing other compendiums of the MS evidence. It seems like the same processes that were used in producing the KJV are able to be used in producing other good translations. Lastly, it seems that if there is 1 translation that is God’s inspired Word (presumably to the exclusion of other good translations) for a people group in a certain time (1611 [or 1769 or whatever] to the present) that each people/language group in each time must have the same level of inspiration/revelation/preservation.

[Also as to my earlier post. I was not seeking to set up a straw man but simply relaying a straw man that I have heard so often used by KJVOs: “If you don’t believe in preservation exactly like me then you don’t believe in preservation.” I am not accusing anyone in this discussion of doing that but simply stating that it has been done before.]

Jon Bell Bucksport, ME "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and

1. He does not live up to the requirements that he places on the preservationists (i.e. Their arguments must be entirely based on Scripture.) (Note: Perhaps this is the source of your misunderstanding.) I, personally, do not require that every argument be entirely based on Scripture except that Aaron must meet the same requirements that he places on the preservationists. The point of the argument is consistency.

2. He is not consistent in following the requirements of his chosen epistemological methodology (i.e. Modernity) including verifiable, replicable, and observable. I do not think that every idea must be verifiable, replicable, and observable but I do insist that Aaron be restricted to these requirements if he is going use scientific epistemological, which he naively calls observations, to correct theological interpretation.
On #1, I have not said the perfect text view must argue only from Scripture. I’m just responding to their efforts to do so in TSKT because I believe the biblical case is the most important question. But as it turns out, I have argued entirely and only from Scripture. Haven’t quoted external sources or referred to them (I guess I footnoted a couple of books in part 2 where I was summarizing views, but these are not part of my case). It just isn’t there.

On #2: I’m still waiting for a basis for this claim. Please show us where I have used “scientific epistemological, which he naively calls observations, to correct theological interpretation.” If you can’t actually supply any evidence for your assertion on this point, it’s only fair and honest to stop making it. I’m tempted to offer a $1000 reward to anyone who can find a naturalistic or external argument in any of the three articles I’ve written so far on this topic.

Roland, you keep constructing distorted versions of my claims and responding to those instead of what I’m actually saying. But your constructs don’t even resemble my position anymore, and I think most readers can see that. There isn’t much point in continuing to do that. I can’t defend what I don’t really believe and if you succeed in arguing against what I’m not saying, my actual claims are still unanswered. So it’s just not an effective approach.

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.

[RPittman] Well, Jon, you gotta help me here in order to at least understand. …Then why did you bring it up if it doesn’t apply to those posting here?
[Getting a little aggravated but attempting to remain charitable.]

Here’s some help, Mr. Pittman. One. Tell me how you can posit #1 and #6 on your list. You don’t have to write a book. Just give the outline. A leads to B leads to C or whatever epistemological method you want to use. Two. I minister in an area that is full of other “frame of reference” and so I have heard a lot of the arguments but not one of them that avoided the problem that we are discussing here, namely the Bible teaches preservation but does not tell us exactly how that works. Three. You still sound as if you are asking us to just accept on faith that God has miraculously preserved his word exclusively in the KJV and the TR without any rational proof or evidence from scripture or church history or any kind of objective standard. Four. Thanks for admitting that there could be another miraculous translation as good as the KJV—so how would we recognize it? Five. I brought up the straw man because it was germane. Six. As for not answering questions, my whole post was about wanting (honestly interested in wanting!) to hear your explanation of how I might know where God’s Word was residing if I was a non-english speaker now or say prior to 1500.

Jon Bell Bucksport, ME "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and

Mr R Pittman; you stated thee following:

1. I believe that God has miraculously preserved His revealed, inspired Word in a line of texts, loosely known as the Received Text, from the time of inspiration until the present.

2. I believe that we have God’s inspired Word present in written form today.

3. I believe that the Believing Church is the recipient, conservator, transmitter, guardian, and preserver of God’s Word.

4. I believe that God’s preservative power and acts are presupposed in our acceptance of canonization and inspiration.

5.I believe that the same reasoning that leads us to plenary verbal (The Bible does not say plenary verbal) inspiration with the inferences of inerrancy, infallibility, etc. are applicable to establishing the doctrine of preservation.

6. I believe that the KJV is God’s inspired Word in the English language.

7. I do not believe or accept Original Autographs Theory, Modern Critical Text Theory, etc. These are either reactions or products of Modernity (read Modernism).

I reject the epistemological tenets of Modernity (i.e. Modernism) and naturalistic-rationalism (i.e. scientific rationalism).

And I am prepared to vigorously defend every one of the above. What more would you like to know?



I am ready to read your defense. Sounds interesting! Since you state each of these with absolute certainty as a belief or doctrine, there must be scriptural revelatory authority that you feel backs each of these principles. Would you be so kind as to keep it simple. Please just list at the end of each principle the applicable scripture references that you feels backs that belief.

Thank you

I think I’m starting to lose my mind so I’ll have to wrap up my involvement in this thread … soon. The repetitiveness is driving me nuts but I’m not quite “there” yet.
[RP] So, please define your own paradigm. What is your epistemological system?
For purposes of the present discussion, it’s just this: Bible says it, I believe it. Bible doesn’t say it, I might or might not, depending on where other evidence points.
[RP]

  1. Why haven’t you addressed my refutation of your analogies?
  2. Why haven’t you commented on my clear contradiction of your interpretation of II Timothy 3:15-17?
  3. Why haven’t you answered whether the Scriptures (text) of II Timothy 3:15 that leads us to salvation is the same Scriptures (text) II Timothy 3:16-17 that guides us in Christian obedience?
  4. Why won’t you deal with the canonization-preservation-inspiration issue?
  5. Rather than simply denying or calling upon me to offer proof, why haven’t you stated your epistemology?
On 1… the analogies just illustrate, as you correctly pointed out. Your refutations boiled down to essentially this: “I don’t find them convincing.” That’s fine. Someone else might. As for the hamburger one, the analogy was to illustrate a bit of logic: it does not follow that if all of A is sufficient for B, a subset of A is therefore insufficient for B. But I really think the analogy (or one like it) is an easier way for most people to see the logic. I’ll actually have more to say on that subject in the next article because TSKT has a chapter that depends entirely on the “all is sufficient, therefore some is insufficient” fallacy.

On 2… On 2 Tim.3:15-17. Your response on that seemed to completely miss what I had actually said about the passage. So all I can do is repeat my view: The word “all” appears in v.16, indicating every word of Scripture. The word “all” does not appear before “Scriptures” in v.15; plus, Timothy is said to have “known” the Scriptures. So in v.15, every word of Scripture is not meant—because Timothy did not “know” every word and it doesn’t say “all.” (It also doesn’t say he had access to anything more than what he “knew.” Presumably he did, but we cannot presume that what he had access to was every inspired word. The passage does not say this.)

On 3… I don’t see any relevance. But yes, “Scriptures” in both v.15 and v.16 refer to what God inspired, and both the subset of that Timothy “knew” in v.15 and the totality of it that is theopneustos in v.16 are sufficient for salvation and the full furnishing of the man of God in 15 &17.

On 4… canonicity is another subject and I may get to it eventually. I have already answered it to some extent in previous discussion threads in this article series. Inspiration I have already affirmed repeatedly. The doctrine of inspiration does not depend in any way on a person’s views on preservation and canonicity because inspiration refers to what God did in giving us the Word and both preservation and canonicity have to do with things that happen later. (Even TSKT is quite clear that inspiration only refers to how God originally gave us the Word. p.240. I have no disagreement with the authors at all on that point.)

On 5… you have stated (I’ll drop “accused” since that seems to distract you) that my case against perfect text preservation is based on naturalistic thinking. You have shown no evidence of that at all. The honest thing to do is either back it up or stop repeating it. The only “epistemological paradigm” etc. that matters here is the one that I’ve employed in the articles, which is simply that the Scriptures mean what they say and do not mean what they do not say. So my method is to interpret the Scriptures using the grammatical-historical method and reason to conclusions based on what is written.

If you cannot offer any reason for your claim that these articles are naturalistic or modernistic etc., we have to guess as to what your reason is. The most likely scenario is that your only reason for thinking my case is modernistic is that I disagree with your position—which takes us back to the circularity problem. You have denied that your thinking is circular, but haven’t given me any evidence of any alternative.

So… all I’m asking for is some reason for the modernism/naturalism assertion. Why?

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.

[RPittman]
[Aaron] I think I’m starting to lose my mind so I’ll have to wrap up my involvement in this thread … soon. The repetitiveness is driving me nuts but I’m not quite “there” yet.
No, not yet. But you are perturbed to have your comfortable way of thinking disturbed.
Oh, is that it? LOL People have been doing that all my life!

I thought it was from not having my question answered. Just one… why do believe my case against perfect preservation is naturalistic/rationalistic/modernistic? Why should anyone else believe it is? (Sounds like two questions, but they’re really just different ways of asking the same thing)

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.

Aaron you have the patience of Job.

Of all the unconvincing arguments for the TR/KJVO (or KJVP) view I’ve heard, this ranks right up there. If you could call it an argument at all.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

Job… well, probably more stubborn than patient.

I’d really love to see a few folks help Roland out here. There are probably some other perceived (or real) problems in my case, but we’re not hearing from many perfect text preservationists. Kent Brandenberg tells me he will be posting some responses at his blog pretty soon, so we’ll get some additional criticism there I’m sure. Would be nice to see more here, though.

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.