This is the second part of a two part article.<\/p>\n
The doctrine of the preservation of Scripture has become controversial within Christianity especially among many conservatives.\u00a0 While it is abundantly true that God has preserved His Word and that God\u2019s people, in hundreds of languages, have the Word of God in their hands, some have limited preservation to one language group, even to one translation within that group.\u00a0 Having grown up in the midst of that controversy, I have heard good and gracious men on both sides, and unkind men on both sides.\u00a0 The wonderful preservation of the Bible should not divide us but rather unite all who name the name of Christ, in whatever language they may speak, and with any translation which faithfully translates those original languages into their own language.<\/p>\n
McCune touches the real issue\u00a0 when he says, \u201cThe work of preserving Scripture has been and basically is a providential, as opposed to a miraculous, work.\u201d14<\/sup>\u00a0 This has been a dividing issue within the doctrine of preservation.\u00a0 If we have a perfect, errorless translation today then preservation would have to involve the miraculous.\u00a0 If preservation, however, is a matter of God\u2019s providential protection, using fallible men who make errors, then we cannot expect a perfect translation.\u00a0 That is why the translators of the KJV wrote, \u201cBut the difference that appeareth between our translations, and our often correcting of them, is the thing that we are specially charged with.\u201d15<\/sup><\/p>\n The treatment of the preservation of our Bible is therefore partially negative and partially positive.\u00a0 For those of us who still use the KJV, we must realize that it is not a perfect translation (indeed none are), but at the same time rejoice that God\u2019s Word has been preserved in this and other faithful translations.\u00a0 I will give five reasons why I think this view of preservation is correct.<\/p>\n 1. Miraculous preservation\u00a0 contradicts Biblical cessationism.<\/span>\u00a0 Most conservative Bible believing people believe that the miraculous gifts of the Spirit such as healing, tongues, prophecy, and infallibility, ceased when the New Testament was completed.\u00a0 This has been our interpretation of passages such as 1 Cor. 13:8-13.\u00a0 The revelatory and sign gifts ceased with the passing of the apostles including the miraculous inspiration of Scripture (see 2 Cor. 12:12).\u00a0 This is why we do not allow charismatic gifts in our churches and also why we do not accept cultic claims that more\/other Scripture has been written.\u00a0 If we allow miraculous preservation beyond the completion of the New Testament, we have nothing to say to Mohammad or Joseph Smith when they claim to have received a miracle from God.<\/p>\n Jude said that the Faith was \u201conce for all\u201d delivered to the saints (Jude 2).\u00a0 Like the Incarnation of the living Word, the written Word came once as well.\u00a0 In Psalm 68:11 David wrote, \u201cThe Lord gave the word: great was the company of those that published it.\u201d\u00a0 God gave it through miraculous inspiration but it is published through men who are called \u201cgreat\u201d but not infallible.<\/p>\n 2. Miraculous preservation obviously did not happen.<\/span>\u00a0 This is a fact with which all of us must grapple.\u00a0 There is no perfectly preserved manuscript or translation of a manuscript.\u00a0 That is, of the 5000+ New Testament manuscripts that exist, no two of them are exactly alike.\u00a0 Of all of the English translations of the KJV or any other translation, no two editions of them are alike.\u00a0 The documentation for this statement is abundant.\u00a0 For example, D.A. Carson says, \u201cno manuscript agrees perfectly with any other.\u201d17<\/sup>\u00a0 Daniel Wallace is referenced by Ed Glenny pointing out that the most similar manuscripts disagree six to ten times per chapter!18<\/sup>\u00a0 No text family, including the TR, can claim unanimity either.\u00a0 Even in the TR, no two manuscripts agree.<\/p>\n This forces us to ask some pertinent questions.\u00a0 Did God miraculously preserve all the manuscripts with all their differences so that every one of them is perfect?\u00a0 Yet how could even two things that differ both be perfect?\u00a0 Did God preserve only one manuscript out of the 5000+ and it alone is the perfect one?\u00a0 If so, no Bible is based on it.\u00a0 And which one would that be?\u00a0 Which one of the thousands of manuscripts that make up the TR is the perfect one?\u00a0 This seems unlikely also.\u00a0 In addition, did God preserve one English translation perfectly?\u00a0 Again, which one would that be?\u00a0 Even in 1611 there were two editions of the KJV and those differed in over 2000 places.19<\/sup><\/p>\n It is not enough to say that such differences were printers\u2019 errors and obvious mistakes.\u00a0 To say that is to admit that God did NOT miraculously preserve manuscript or translation, and that we must practice textual criticism at any level of preservation.\u00a0 What is also clear is that if any one of those manuscripts or translations is perfect, then nothing before it or after it was or is perfect since nothing before it or after it agrees with it in every detail.\u00a0 Therefore, miraculous preservation cannot be sustained by the historical evidence.<\/p>\n 3. Miraculous preservation is not presented in any Biblical text<\/span>.\u00a0 Does the Bible actually say that God will preserve His Word in a particular manuscript or translation?\u00a0 It would not be hard to find the word \u201cpreserve\u201d in a verse, but the question would be whether that verse is talking about miraculous preservation.\u00a0 For example, Psalm 12:5-6 is often quoted because it mentions \u201cthe words of the Lord\u201d and also the word \u201cpreserve.\u201d\u00a0 Yet it is begging the question to conclude that this verse proves miraculous preservation of the Bible.\u00a0 It is actually promising preservation of the people of God as God\u2019s Word has promised.\u00a0 Matthew 24:35 says, \u201cHeaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.\u201d\u00a0 But does that mean miraculous preservation?\u00a0 It is actually a promise to tribulation Jews that God\u2019s covenants with them will not be rescinded in the midst of tribulation judgments.<\/p>\n Kutilek is right when he says, \u201cA careful examination of the \u2018proof texts\u2019 set forth in support of perfect preservation in the KJV demonstrates that NONE of them is talking about the copying or translation process of transmitting Scripture.\u201d20<\/sup>\u00a0 This is where many believers choose to differ because we all have the right to interpret for ourselves.\u00a0 But I have had to also consider this with the previous point and ask myself, if these verses promise a miraculous preservation, where is it?<\/p>\n 4. Miraculous preservation is not the historic position of the church.<\/span>\u00a0 Although one may find a believer somewhere in history that held to miraculous preservation, it would be fair to conclude that such a position has escalated among a few in the late twentieth century.\u00a0 My experience has been that some are uncomfortable unless their position is farther to the \u201cright\u201d than anyone else\u2019s and this position seems to make one more conservative than others.\u00a0 Perhaps this position seems to make one identified with the good fundamentalists at the turn of the century who fought against the liberals for the integrity of God\u2019s Word.\u00a0 But miraculous preservation is not what the early fundamentalists stood for.<\/p>\n The voices of fundamentalists have been quoted by a number of writers on this issue.\u00a0 Rolland McCune concludes, \u201cHistorically, fundamentalists have held that the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible pertained to the autographs only,\u201d21<\/sup>\u00a0 There is an informative booklet published by Mount Calvary Baptist Church in Greenville, SC that quotes well-known fundamentalists and conservatives on this issue.22<\/sup>\u00a0 Space does not permit me to quote each of these men but the list of 31 men includes John Smyth, John Owen, John Wesley, F.H.A. Scrivener,\u00a0 C.H. Spurgeon, A.T. Pierson, D.L. Moody, F.B. Meyer, Alexander Maclaren, C.I. Scofield, Oswald Chambers, R.A. Torrey, G. Campbell Morgan, H.A. Ironside, Noel Smith, John R. Rice, Bob Jones, Sr., and Bob Jones, Jr.\u00a0 Bob Jones, Jr., writes, \u201cThere are other good translations in the midst of all the bad ones.\u00a0 Unfortunately, there are no perfect ones, including the Authorized Version, as evidenced by the many corrections and amendments that have been made through the years.\u201d23<\/sup><\/p>\n 5. Providential preservation, however, is abundant in Scripture and history.<\/span>\u00a0 If we can understand the preservation of Scripture in the context of God\u2019s providence, we can affirm and rejoice in the fact that God indeed has preserved His Word and that we can call our Bible the Word of God.\u00a0 Through His control of history and people, God has seen to it that we can have confidence in proclaiming any good translation as the Word of God.<\/p>\n The Scripture does promise this kind of preservation.\u00a0 Rolland McCune presents what he calls \u201csufficient preservation.\u201d\u00a0 In referring to Matthew 5:17-18 on the \u201cjot\u201d and \u201ctittle\u201d he writes, \u201cHere the references to the \u2019smallest letter\u2019 . . . are hyperbolic, indicating the inalterability and thus the continuing authority of God\u2019s entire revelation. And, if this revelation has continuing authority, the implication is that the text will be sufficiently preserved so that it may continue to govern each generation of believers.24<\/sup><\/p>\n In addition to Scriptural promises, the facts are clear that no other book even comes close to the reliability of the Biblical text, whether Hebrew, Greek, or English.\u00a0 We can be more sure of what Jesus said than any other figure in history.\u00a0 Geisler and Nix give this example:<\/p>\n Next to the New Testament, the Iliad has more extant manuscripts than any other book (543 papyri, 2 uncials, and 188 minuscules for a total of 643).\u00a0 Like the Bible, it was considered sacred, and experienced textual changes and criticism of its Greek manuscripts.\u00a0 While the New Testament has about 20,000 lines, the Iliad has about 15,000.\u00a0 Only 40 lines (400 words) of the New Testament are in doubt, whereas 764 lines of the Iliad are in question.\u00a0 Thus the 5% corruption of the Iliad stands against the less than 1% of the NT text.25<\/sup><\/p>\n J. Gresham Machen, who loved and used the KJV, showed in his writings that it was not a perfect translation.26<\/sup> Concerning the preservation of Scripture he went on to say,<\/p>\n No, my friends, these things did not come by chance.\u00a0 God did these things.\u00a0 He did not do them by a miracle.\u00a0 But it was just as much God that did them as it would have been if He had done them by a miracle.\u00a0 He did them by His use of the world that He had made and by His ordering of the lives of His creatures.\u00a0 Very wonderfully and very graciously, according to our view of the Bible, has God provided for the preservation, from generation to generation, of His Holy Word.<\/p>\n What is the result for you, my friends?\u00a0 The result is that you can take down your Authorized Version from the shelf, the version hallowed, for many of you, by many precious associations, and be very sure that it will give you good information about that which stood in the autographs of the Word of God.27<\/sup><\/p>\n Translation is the process of transferring the meaning of one language into another.\u00a0 If the meaning is properly transferred into the second language, we may say that we have what the original writer intended to say and therefore have his words.\u00a0 At Pentecost, when the people from 18 different countries heard the disciples speak, each in a different language, they replied, \u201cwe do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God\u201d (Acts 2:11).\u00a0 They did not hear with the same letters, words, and syntax, but they heard the meaning in each language\u2019s letters, words, and syntax.<\/p>\n The translators of the KJV wrote in their preface,<\/p>\n The very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession . . . Containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God: as the King\u2019s speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King\u2019s speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere.28<\/sup><\/p>\n Our English versions, and all other language versions, are translations done by fallible men who do their best to transfer the meaning from the original languages into another language.\u00a0 The original writing, done by the hand of original writers, is what was inspired.\u00a0 That was the miracle of God which gave us the very Word of God without error.\u00a0 Each translation is good in as far as the meaning of the original is transferred.\u00a0 Therefore any translation that faithfully gives the meaning of the original writers is and should be called the Word of God.<\/p>\n In 1876 a Baptist pastor in New York named John Quincy Adams printed a book titled \u201cBaptists Thorough Reformers.\u201d\u00a0 Spurgeon used the book as a text in his Pastor\u2019s College.\u00a0 Adams wrote, \u201cLet it be remembered, that the Bible which we possess is a translation.\u00a0 The words of our English version are invested with Divine authority, only so far as they express just what the original expresses.\u201d29<\/sup>\u00a0 Adams warned of a growing error in his day, \u201cIn England and America the English version, which is acknowledged to have many defects, is made the standard, instead of the original.\u201d30<\/sup><\/p>\n Conservative believers, especially Baptists, have always understood what a translation is.\u00a0 It is not the original manuscript nor can it be.\u00a0 Those were written under miraculous inspiration in original languages.\u00a0 A translation is a human attempt to transfer the meaning, as best as fallible human beings can do, into languages that people now speak.\u00a0 When this is done in a good and honest way we should rejoice that we have the Word of God in that language.<\/p>\n And So . . . .<\/p>\n The words of the great prince of preachers, C.H. Spurgeon, should suffice as a conclusion.<\/p>\n No Baptist should ever fear any honest attempt to produce the correct text, and an accurate interpretation of the Old and New Testaments.\u00a0 For many years Baptists have insisted upon it that we ought to have the Word of God translated in the best possible manner, whether it would confirm certain religious opinions and practices, or work against them.\u00a0 All we want is the exact mind of the Spirit, as far as we can get it.31<\/sup><\/p>\n From the revelation to the inspiration to the preservation of God\u2019s Word, God\u2019s people can rejoice in the reliability of our translations.\u00a0 No other book in the world has ever come close to the credibility of this Book.\u00a0 No other book has been so studied, scrutinized, criticized, translated, printed, and read as the Bible.\u00a0 You can hold high the translation you use and say, \u201cthus saith the Lord.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Notes:<\/p>\n 14. Rolland McCune, 49.<\/span><\/p>\n 15. The Translators To The Readers, The Bible, Authorized king James Version With Apocrypha (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997) lxiv.<\/span><\/p>\n 16. This fact is noted in almost any book on textual matters.<\/span><\/p>\n 17. D.A. Carson, The King James Version Debate (Grand Rapids:\u00a0 Baker Books, 1979) 18, 26, 56, 119.<\/span><\/p>\n 18. Roy Beacham & Kevin Bauder, Gen. Eds., One Bible Only? (Grand Rapids:\u00a0 Kregel, 2001) 76.<\/span><\/p>\n 19. Doug Kutilek,\u00a0 \u201dThe Error of Verbal Plenary Preservation,\u201d\u00a0 As I See It, 12:11.<\/span><\/p>\n 20. Kutilek, Ibid.<\/span><\/p>\n 21. Rolland McCune, \u201cDoctrinal Non-Issues in Historic Fundamentalism,\u201d\u00a0 Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, Fall 1996, p. 171.<\/span><\/p>\n 22. Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, infor@mountcalvarybaptist.org.<\/span><\/p>\n 23. Ibid.\u00a0 p. 11.<\/span><\/p>\n 24. McCune, 51-52.<\/span><\/p>\n 25. Geilser & Nix, p. 181.<\/span><\/p>\n 26. Machen, p. 38.<\/span><\/p>\n 27. Machen, p. 42-43.<\/span><\/p>\n 28. Translators, Ibid.<\/span><\/p>\n 29. John Quincy Adams, Baptists Thorough Reformers (New York:\u00a0 Backus Book s, 1980) 129.<\/span><\/p>\n 30. See chapter VIII on \u201cThe Establishment of the Correct Principle of Biblical Translation.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n 31. Trusted Voices, p. 5, quoting the Metropolitan Tabernacle pulpit, vol. XXVII, pp. 342-343.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" This is the second part of a two part article. We have a preserved Bible The doctrine of the preservation of Scripture has become controversial within Christianity especially among many conservatives.\u00a0 While it is abundantly true that God has preserved His Word and that God\u2019s people, in hundreds of languages, have the Word of God […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":5570,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_crdt_document":"","episode_type":"","audio_file":"","cover_image":"","cover_image_id":"","duration":"","filesize":"","filesize_raw":"","date_recorded":"","explicit":"","block":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[123],"tags":[15],"class_list":["post-85","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-articles","tag-bible"],"yoast_head":"\nWe have a translated Bible<\/h2>\n