We have new youtube presentations of the 2014 Word of Truth Conference.  Look here for all of them. And if you want to go straight to mine on Sentimentalism Versus Love and Doubt Versus Certainty, go to here 1, here 2, here 3, and here 4.

I got a Jews for Jesus mailing last week and it had their Christmas catalog. They sold several different mezuzahs, the piece to be placed on the doorpost with the shema inscribed.  Shema is the first word of Deuteronomy 6:4, “Hear,” in “Hear, O Israel.”  And then, “The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.”  Since there is only one Lord, He should be loved with all your heart, soul, and might. That love should not be divided with other gods or with yourself, but sanctified unto Him.

One Lord.  Proceeding from Him is one Word.  Not two.  And yet, through many various unscriptural arguments, multiple version or critical or eclectic text supporters expect you to accept two, not one. From one Lord comes one Word.  You can’t accept two Lords.  You can’t accept two Words.  You can’t ever accept two Words, either in inspiration or preservation.  And that is the biblical and historical position.

I move to the “Which TR?’ question, which exists to argue for two Words.

From my observation and experience, which is opinion, but fairly scientific at this point in my life, the main arguments for “preservation” from the eclectic text, critical text, or various iterations of the multiple version position are really just attacks of the scriptural and historical position on preservation of scripture.  They are motivated to write a book that could include a section on preservation in order to prove that we should keep restoring the text of scripture that is still not restored and will never be.  That isn’t preservation. Perhaps it is preservation, but only in the same sense that the cottage cheese is being preserved under the kitchen sink in that wastebasket. Sure, it’s still there, but it has deteriorated from its original state.  A sane person shouldn’t swallow a non-restored-text view as preservation, even if told that we must do so to preserve unity among Christians.

I’ve read a lot of the criticism from the yet-to-be-restored-text people, and as I see it, their main argument is that if there is one word that could be different, then we have an opening for an eclectic text.  Where does that stop?  I don’t know.  There is no standard that I have read to guide on how much variation or error can be acceptable to those willing to accept any. Kevin Bauder writes in Only One Bible?

If they are willing to accept a manuscript or a text that might omit any words (even a single word) from the originals, or that might add any words (even a single word) to the originals, then their whole position is falsified. . . .  If preservation does not really have to include every word, then the whole controversy is no more than a debate over percentages.

But Scripture teaches every Word preservation of itself.  That is the doctrine we should accept, because it is what the Bible teaches.   Every doctrine about scripture requires belief in biblical teaching — inspiration, canonicity, authority, sufficiency, and preservation.  Bauder would say that we also must prove that every Word we have is also in the original manuscripts, or else a position of perfect preservation is falsified.  Really?  The position of perfect preservation comes out of God’s Word, so it must be true.  God’s Word is true.

If you take a biblical position on preservation of scripture, it will be verbal plenary preservation.  But men like Bauder add something to the Bible, as though it is not sufficient on preservation, unlike all the other doctrines of bibliology.   In addition to what the Bible says, they add that you also have to prove with empirical evidence that we have every Word.  And “since we can’t,’ it is as he writes, “a debate over percentages.”  Is that what we should expect from reading the Bible?  No one ever answers that.  Imagine preaching that position to a church:  “we’re talking about what percentage of the Bible we have, not that we do have it, so be assured, brethren.”

An additional red herring of the eclectic text and multiple version side, the opponents of preservation (which could only be perfect preservation), is that if there is one word that is brought into question, then, as Bauder has written, “Our discussion should turn from theologizing to the doing of textual criticism.”  Why?  Why are Bauder and others sure about this binary choice, the existence of only two alternatives?

Our theologizing should give us one choice:  what the Bible says.  That’s what we believe.  Then I look at how the churches applied it.  The position of Bauder and others is a recent one and in the tradition of modernism.  It bifurcates truth into two stories:  the top story, subjective and questionable, and then bottom story, objective and sure.   The identity of the text is subjective and questionable, like theology.  You should rely on science for the text, because science is objective and factual.  This position is an apostatizing of bibliology.  It’s not how Christians have believed.

The attack on the one biblical position often takes shape with the question, “Which TR?”  The editions of the received text of the New Testament are not identical.  According to Bauder, this would mean we’re now “debat[ing] over percentages” as well as “turn[ing] . . . to the doing of textual criticism.” Understand that there is no biblical basis for this conclusion.  It is the conclusion of the lower story that separates theology from science.  But how do perfect preservationists answer the “Which TR?” question?  This was recently asked in the blog comment section, “Where was the generally available perfectly verbally preserved text in AD 1829?”  I’m going to answer “Which TR” in that form of the question.

I don’t think there is anything significant to the year 1829.  That’s just random, but for the sake of the answer, I’m going to deal with only before 1829.  I would think that the point of the question was to deal with verbal preservation before Scrivener 1881, the so-called “reconstructed Greek text behind the King James Version.”  I often say, “They translated from something.”  And Edward F. Hills, the summa cum laude graduate of Yale and PhD from Harvard in textual criticism, wrote that “the King James Version ought to be regarded not merely as a translation of the Textus Receptus but also as an independent variety of the Textus Receptus.” Were the Words translated into the King James Version in the printed editions of the TR?  Yes.  Preachers who used the King James were studying from a Greek text.  In 1815, Frederick Nolan had published An Inquiry Into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, Or Received Text of the New Testament.  If the received text didn’t exist, then how could there be a book written about its integrity?  I add to this all the exegetical commentaries before 1829 from the received text and using the King James Version.  How could they exegete from a text that did not exist?  If we do write a second edition of Thou Shalt Keep Them, which deals with the history, I want to look into the quotations of exegetical commentaries from 1550 or so to 1881 to show that they were referring to those Words.

The biblical position on preservation says that all the Words were available to every generation of churches.  If there are differences between the TR editions, they were minimal, so small in number relatively not to be considered to be different.  But they are different.  They vary.  And this then brings us to the single word challenge of Bauder and others, where they say that one word of difference opens the door to the science of textual criticism and an ongoing and never ending “restoration” of the original text.  No.  Believers settled on the words.  And this is where the doctrine of canonicity is applied to the Words — the unity of the Spirit, the Spirit guiding believers.  A settled text is required for “adding” and “taking away” to mean anything.  It should be assumed.

From here, perfect preservation opponents engage in a game of “gotcha.” They try to find places where the KJV misses on Scrivener or misses on Beza, looking for that one word of difference to send everyone in the direction that Bauder described, willy-nilly assuming a binary choice without regard of a scriptural and historical doctrine of preservation.  This is an assumption against preservation.  For sure, the Bible doesn’t teach the need of restoration of the text.  It does not.  That should never be accepted.  Just like with canonicity of 66 books, believers should be willing to live with the possible minor tensions of the arguments over those few words.  This is what Hills called “the logic of faith.”  He wrote:

If we are Christians, then we must begin our thinking not with the assertions of unbelieving scholars and their naturalistic human logic, but with Christ and the logic of faith.  For example, how do we know that the Textus Receptus is the true New Testament text?  We know this through the logic of faith. . . .  In biblical studies, in philosophy, in science, and in every other learned field we must begin with Christ and then work out our basic principles according to the logic of faith. . . . The defense of the Textus Receptus . . . is entailed by the logic of faith, the basic steps of which are as follows: First, the Old Testament text was preserved by the Old Testament priesthood and the scribes and scholars that grouped themselves around that priesthood (Deut. 31:24-26). Second, the New Testament text has been preserved by the universal priesthood of believers by faithful Christians in every walk of life (1 Peter 2:9). Third, the Traditional Text, found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts, is the True Text because it represents the God-guided usage of this universal priesthood of believers. Fourth, The first printed text of the Greek New Testament was not a blunder or a set-back but a forward step in the providential preservation of the New Testament. . . . When we believe in Christ, the logic of faith leads us first, to a belief in the infallible inspiration of the original Scriptures, second, to a belief in the providential preservation of this original text down through the ages and third, to a belief in the Bible text current among believers as the providentially preserved original text. . . .  In short, unless we follow the logic of faith, we can be certain of nothing concerning the Bible and its text.

The one word for which opponents of verbal plenary or perfect preservation are seeking or desiring does not contradict the logic of faith.  It does not veto the theology, the doctrine.  That all stands.   The “gotcha game” does not work.

Let God be true and every man a liar.

Leaders in the reformed circle like to sola scriptura.  I’ve seen the Latin on the front of auditoriums, on the sign, and prominently on the printed material.  If you see sola scriptura like that, does that mean the church is sola scriptura?  Not usually.  There is sola scriptura, which is the historic statement, making the connection with the reformation, and then there is sola scriptura, actually having the Bible as your only infallible authority.  The latter is what God cares about.

Dr. Orr “was unconcerned to defend a literal interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis, and . . . took the view that an insistence on biblical inerrancy was actually ‘suicidal.’”

Recent Posts on Preservation of Scripture and Versions of the Bible (one, two, three)

In comments about the latest Frontline magazine edition on the Bible version issue, Mike Harding wrote this comment at SharperIron:

Just finished reading the articles on preservation in FRONTLINE. Some articles simply asked questions with no definitive answers.  I thought the articles had political overtones as opposed to making the case for preservation and what that preservation means.  The best articles on this subject will be found in the DBTS Theological Journal.  The level of scholarship and detail is very high comparatively.  Again, there was no substantive attempt to recommend other reliable translations of Scripture other than the KJV. It was very interesting to me that Dr. Minnick did not submit an article on the textual debate. Dr. Minnick, a well-respected member of the FBFI board, is perhaps the best textual scholar on the board.  His chapters in “Mind of God to the Mind of Man” and “God’s Word in our Hands” are simply outstanding.  How could the editor of FRONTLINE overlook that?

Pastor Harding is correct in saying that the Frontline edition was ambiguous and political, but isn’t that par for the course?  I’ve found much of fundamentalism to handle these types of issues this way. But is what he says about DBTS journal correct?

Harding says the best articles on this subject are found in the DBTS Theological Journal, because the level of scholarship and detail is very high.  Is that true?

The DBTS journal has one article on preservation.  One.  Then it has articles attacking a King James Only position.  Those are not articles on preservation.  So, when he says “best articles” on the subject of preservation, there is really one article.  One.  That statement then, right out of the box, is false.  It makes a difference in people’s thinking when someone says “articles,” plural, when there is only one, singular.

We need to be honest here.  Honest.   Please.  Don’t call “article,” “articles,” like a lot of work has been done on preservation.  It hasn’t.  I have written many articles and edited a whole book on preservation.  Has Mike Harding read our book?  I don’t know, but I do know what should be considered scholarly, and I want to examine the one article of William Combs based on that consideration.

An important aspect in dealing with a biblical doctrine or subject or is starting with what the Bible says.  If you take a biblical position, you start with what the Bible says, right?  Is that scholarship?  If it isn’t, then I don’t want scholarship.  Please pay attention to this paragraph.  It is very, very important.  Faith comes from hearing the Bible.  Without faith it is impossible to please Him.  If scholarship is not faith, then scholarship be gone.  Agree?  When we stand before God, will He bring up scholarship?  You know He won’t.  He will bring up faith, however, and pleasing Him.

Detroit (DBTS Journal) writes one article on the preservation of scripture as a reaction, not as a basis of their belief and practice.  That is not – I repeat, not – how one comes to his positions in order to please God.  Maybe that is scholarship, but it is not how the Bible teaches to approach issues and it is not how godly people have done this historically.  If what I am writing is true, you should agree.  Politicians probably won’t agree, but God didn’t call us to be politicians, did He?

The order should have been: (1) study the Bible on preservation, (2) come to your position on preservation from the Bible, (3) see if the gleanings from the Bible agree with historical doctrine (previous to the 19th century), (4) approach everything related to the Bible guided by the Bible, and (5) critique other positions based on 1 through 4.  Mike Harding would call this the insane approach, since he calls something that contradicts this, the sane approach.  Is “sane approach” incisive commentary?  Scholarly?  How about biblical?  Non-biblical positions are deluded, and that is what the Bible says about them.

(By the way, because of what I’m writing here, I get many more anonymous comments than others.  And there are people who act like they don’t know me.  But I digress.)

I can’t say that I can put down with complete accuracy the approach of Combs, and those like him.  However, let me list what I think it is as a sort of thought experiment.  (1) Take classes from those who support an eclectic text or read Bruce Metzger or read Mind of God to Mind of Man, which follows Metzger to the “T” and quotes him heavily (less his student, Bart Ehrman, because that looks apostate), (2) look to find agreement from others, (3) relate what you’ve read to what men wrote in the 19th century, (4) look at what others have written about preservation and see if it fits with 1 through 3, and (5) criticize what people have written about preservation that don’t agree with an eclectic text.  Imagine if you did this with any other doctrine of scripture.  We are talking about scriptural doctrine.  I don’t see anyone coming to the right understanding of preservation, using this methodology, one that Harding would see as a “sane approach,” still intimating that everyone else is crazy.  By the way, old earth creationists think young earthers are crazy too.

To be fair, the article by Combs on “preservation” starts by giving away its agenda in the following entire first paragraph:

One of the many issues in the current debate about Greek manuscript text-types and English versions is the question of the preservation of Scripture. In fact, as one analyzes the arguments for the King James only, Textus Receptus (TR), and Majority Text (MT) positions, it soon becomes obvious that the doctrine of the preservation of Scripture is at the heart of many of these viewpoints.

When I read something that starts like that, I conclude that the doctrine of preservation is not at the heart of Combs’ viewpoint.  Why wouldn’t I?  He doesn’t approach the doctrine of preservation until he starts looking at other people’s arguments.  It is not what he started with.  Again, this is the sane approach, and highly scholarly.  It would be akin to me on Sunday morning saying to my people, “Close your Bibles, because I’m going to talk to you today about how we got what you call the Bible.”

In his article, “The Preservation of Scripture,” Combs doesn’t start talking about preservation until page 6.   He doesn’t mention any scripture until page 11.  However, I’m happy Combs at least talks about preservation, because so few others like him do today.  He says that he believes that the Bible does teach its own preservation, unlike the Dan Wallace position that scripture does not teach preservation of scripture.    On page 11, as Combs begins sort of elaborating on the passages of scripture that men use to defend preservation, he starts with the following:

That God has preserved the Scriptures in the totality of the manuscript tradition has traditionally been the position of most evangelicals and fundamentalists on the subject of preservation.

With almost any definition of his terms, that statement is false.  This totality of the manuscripts position is not a traditional position.  It is not historical.  It is an invented and new position that originated with Warfield in the late 19th century.  You would see very few rank and file New Testament church members believing it until the later 20th century.  I would find it interesting to hear what a typical church member thinks the Bible says about its own preservation, even in churches that use new versions.  I think it would turn out like a typical interview of a modern Roman Catholic on the seven sacraments.  They wouldn’t know.  Sadly, I think their pastors and churches are totally fine with that.  Keep them ignorant.  The emperor is wearing no clothes.

On top of the above, I have found that the men, who say they believe in the totality of the manuscript position, don’t even believe it.  They don’t believe we have every word.  You’ll see this in their own books.  I haven’t read one who believes that we have the original wording of 1 Samuel 13:1.  The book, God’s Word in Our Hands (not Words, by the way), says it takes the totality of the manuscript position and then in the footnotes says that it doesn’t believe that position, because the authors don’t believe they have the exact wording of the originals in 1 Samuel 13:1.  Will they care about this? Probably not.  It is a new position, not taken from scripture, so it is no wonder that it is subject to self-contradiction.  But it is “sane.”

Combs begins going through passages on preservation used by those who defend perfect preservation.  The article doesn’t read as an exegesis of these passages, as much as it is an attempt to fit those passages into his totality of the manuscript position.  Harding says it is scholarly, and on the first passage he deals with, Psalm 12:6-7, Combs says the verses teach the preservation of the “poor and needy” and not the “words of God,” and he buttresses that almost entirely on a grammatical argument, that “them” is masculine and “words” is feminine.  He writes:

However, it is more probable that verse 7 (“Thou shall keep them…thou shalt preserve them”) is not even referring to “the words of the LORD” in verse 6. That is, the antecedent of “them” in verse 7 is probably not the “words” of verse 6. The Hebrew term for “them” (twice in v. 7) is masculine, while the term for “words” is feminine.

I’m not repudiating the preservation of the poor and needy in Psalm 12.  However, Combs’ argument is not scholarly by any sense of the word.  He obviously doesn’t understand Hebrew grammar here, because very often the antecedent of a masculine pronoun is a feminine noun.  Very often.  And it especially occurs when referring to the Words of God.  You see it several times in Psalm 119.  That is not very thorough study, and Combs should at least back down on his major argument if he is going to be credible on this.  He doesn’t mention that at all.

What is very ironic in Combs’ article, and should seem embarrassing to him, is that he later gives a whole section to Psalm 119:152, saying that it does teach preservation, contradicting what he wrote about Psalm 12:6-7.  If I did that work, others would call it laughable, and I would be ridiculed more than what I already am by them.  What is sad to me is that there are men that don’t even care that he makes poor arguments.  It doesn’t matter to them.  They don’t care.  I have grown to expect it.  They determine the strength of the argument by someone’s credentials, where he teaches, and if they like the position.  Consider the following verses in Psalm 119:

Psalm 119:111, “Thy testimonies [feminine plural noun] have I taken as an heritage for ever: for they [masculine plural pronoun] are the rejoicing of my heart.”

Psalm 119:129, “Thy testimonies [feminine plural noun] are wonderful: therefore doth my soul keep them [masculine plural pronoun suffix].”

Psalm 119:152, “Concerning thy testimonies [feminine plural noun], I have known of old that thou hast founded them [masculine plural pronoun suffix] for ever.”

Psalm 119:167, “My soul hath kept thy testimonies [feminine plural noun]; and I love them [masculine plural noun suffix] exceedingly.”

I’m probably going to come back and finish this post, but what I’ve written so far deserves some cogitation.  I know some of you will be angry when you read it, but we’re the ones being called insane, so perhaps you could set that aside and just think.  I’m also not the one that with complete dogmatism says that “them” must refer to “poor and needy,” must, because of a faulty antecedent argument.  And it is obviously faulty.

A First Post

For the sake of full disclosure, there are wacky, wacky supporters of the King James Version with crazy arguments and positions.  We have crushed them here.  It does kind of remind me of liberals, who lure you into some type of advocacy of a piece of their agenda and then say nothing positive after seducing you as prey into adherence.  These multiple version folk (MVF) use the craziest King James Version advocates as examples and when you separate yourself from those guys in a clear way, the MVF do not care.  Nevertheless, I start this with repudiation of double inspirationists, English preservationists, and all spin-offs.  Their existence does not and should not damage the biblical and historic position because those views actually have more in common in principle with multiple versionists.

So many things.  Let me start with one today that happened.  I talked to a MVF pastor face to face. He was a fundamentalist, independent, Baptist, Bob Jones type of guy.  I like to have these types of interactions — of great interest to me.  In the middle of our talk while watching a mutual event, casual chat, I asked, “So what exactly is your problem with West Coast?”  Speaking of the revivalist college in Southern California.  He said, “I don’t like their militant stand…”  When he said that, I thought, “Militant stand?”  Not sounding good so far.  “….in separation over the use of the King James Version of the Bible.”  I waited for more, but that was it.  That was his problem with West Coast.

I don’t even think of the King James Version when I think of West Coast.  They don’t make themselves known by a stand on that English translation.  Sure, they use the King James.  But that’s what bothers MVF about West Coast?  I asked, “What about West Coast’s ministry philosophy?”  Ambivalence.  No reaction.  Not even an answer.  That’s all he had to say about West Coast.   I’m thinking, “What about their gospel?”  And that’s what I was intimating with ministry philosophy, church growth technique.  Nothing.  This is wacky to me.  Talk about an obsession.  I knew he wasn’t alone, because I hear the same kind of talk over and over.  And they do not know what they are talking about or they are lying.  I’m choosing the former.

It is wacky to me how much this bothers them.  What difference does it make how “militant” West Coast is about using the King James if they preach a false gospel?  Leave them alone and be glad you don’t have anything to do with them.  If they don’t have anything to do with you, the more the better.  Yes!  But bothered that they exclusively use the KJV and that’s what really gets to you?  Someone is drinking the koolaid.

OK, that’s a first example.  Many say they believe in verbal, plenary inspiration.  They are adamant about it.  They see this as very, very important.  If I asked about conceptual inspiration.  No way!   But the Bibles they use, the conceptual Word, not verbal or plenary.  They have no problem that there are many errors in them.  They call them copyist errors.  I’m not saying that they aren’t copyist errors.  But they are saying that they are errors, and yet they believe in “inerrancy” of these Bibles with errors.  However, for verbal and plenary inspiration, that can’t have any of these errors in it.  This doesn’t work in the real world in almost any area, but they are fine with this kind of strange contradiction with the Bible.  MVF believe in inerrancy!  So no errors?  “No, by inerrancy, we mean there are errors — let me explain….”  They can explain, but it shouldn’t make any sense to someone who knows what the Bible says.

Another.  MVF use any number of very good English translations of the Bible.  They differ, but they are all good.  They come from different texts, but that’s fine too.  And if you believe there is only one set of Words.   No, no, no, no.  No.  Any number of some of the very good solid translations that each come from different words, but they are all good.  Is this the biblical and historical view of the Bible? If you don’t agree with this, they think something is wrong with you.  And they will say that you have an aberrant bibliology if you don’t believe this way.  No one who would call himself a Christian believed like they do until the 19th century.  They can’t talk about history previous to the 19th century.  Could there be a biblical position that originated in the 19th century?  Can you believe that and not be wacky?  I don’t think so.

There is no logical basis for God — Divine, sovereign, powerful — and the permissible and the “best view’ of His word is that there are errors in it. “We aren’t sure what His words are, and yet He wants us to live all of His words obediently.” Where is this taught?   No where in the Bible.  It is wacky that they think that faithful people should believe it.  Wacky.  The emperor is wearing no clothes.

Frontline magazine, a publication arm of the FBFI, dealt with the Bible Version issue in its latest edition, which led to a so-far short discussion at SharperIron.  Our book is mentioned and referenced in one of the articles (you should buy and read the book).  When you read discussions such as these, the two most important facts about the Bible Version issue are either ignored or covered up in what seems like a conspiratorial manner.

Most people who use new or contemporary translations of the Bible think that the issue is readability. They think their churches use a newer translation, because they are easier to read.  They do not know that there is a textual issue, that their new Bibles are not the same.  They don’t know that, and the men in charge are glad to have them continue thinking under that delusion.  They don’t care.  And they will not bring in the doctrine of preservation.  That is left out of bibliology.  It would clash with practice.

The two most important facts about the Bible Version issue are the following two:

The Bible Teaches Its Own Perfect Preservation and General Accessibility

Our book expounds important passages that teach the preservation of scripture.  Our exegesis represents the passages.  You will find many, many men through history writing the same meaning that we say these sections of scripture or verses mean.  Still today, men looking at the passages in their context know they teach what we are saying they do.  It is easy to see that the Bible itself teaches that God would preserve every one of His Words to be accessible to every generation of believers. You will flesh that out from God’s Word.  And we could have brought in even more verses than we did, and probably will in a future second volume.

The average Christian, when he reads his Bible, will think that we have the Bible.  He will not come to the position from reading the Bible that he doesn’t have all the Words of God.  He will think that he does.  It will take someone from the outside to put a spin on that particular teaching, to have him think otherwise.  Your rank and file church member, who just reads his Bible, believes in this same position on the Bible.  The Bible is very clear about its own preservation.

You will not read anything coming from textual critics on what the Bible teaches about preservation.  It has only been recently and as a reaction to men who have published a biblical theology of the perfect preservation of scripture, that you have started to see some interaction to a bibliology of preservation.  Men are trying to figure out how to fit these passages in with textual criticism and having a difficult time.  The doctrine was not a basis of textual criticism.  The practice of textual criticism was atheological and even anti-theological.  The textual critics themselves say that you can’t go into figuring out what the words of the Bible with any kind of scriptural or theological presuppositions.  Instead, you have to allow the evidence to lead you to the truth.  And when they say that, they don’t mean to absolute certainty of what the words are.  They don’t think you will ever know, which flies in the face of what God says you will know.

What I read are attacks on the doctrine of preservation.  A common statement that has been answered many, many times, and is answered in our book is this bit of propaganda that the Bible says God preserved His Word, but He didn’t say how He would do it.  Since this has been written on and answered, at this point, all the forms of that statement are a lie.

The Bible tells us how God would preserve His Words.  It is all over the place in the Bible.  It’s not a matter of the Bible not saying, but of men not accepting what God said.  They won’t accept it, but it is part of the strategy for ignoring or covering up the doctrine of preservation of scripture.

The eclectic and critical text position, that denies perfect preservation, by the way, is the same position taken by Islam and the Jehovah’s Witnesses on the doctrine of preservation.  The major argument for Islam against the Bible is that it has not been preserved.  I don’t think that is the best argument against eclectic and critical text, but it should be tell-tale.

Some of the most vocal critics against the biblical position call it a stupid position.  They attack the intellect of it.  It isn’t intellectual just to believe what God said He would do.  It’s also not intellectual to believe in the miracles of the Bible, young earth creationism, and justification by grace through faith alone.  A faith position is often called the stupid position, but you should still take it, because when you believe what God said He would do, you are following wisdom from above, not the wisdom of this world, which is earthly, sensual, and devilish.

True Believers Have Also Taken the Position of Perfect Preservation and General Accessibility of Scripture

The Frontline article said that systematic theologies don’t have a doctrine of preservation in them.  To its credit, I believe the article was saying that was bad.  However, a true statement is that modern systematic theologies have left it out.  You will find it in the old theologies.  It is a major teaching of Francis Turretin and John Owen among others.

You will also find this position, the one we show is what the Bible teaches, is the one that Christians historically believed for hundreds of years.  That is left unreported.  People will not say that this is true.  Many will not.  This, my friends, is dishonest.  They at least should be required to deal with the arguments made for centuries and they don’t.  They act like history started in the late 19th century. If anything is stupid, that is.  And then they have to think we’re all stupid to think the way they do.

You can find many, many men who have written the perfect preservation position.  It was the only position taught.  Daniel Wallace has admitted that, to his credit, unlike fundamentalists.  Bart Ehrman knows the Bible teaches preservation like I’m saying and he knows that this is what people believed. He, however, wasn’t willing to believe it, because his “evidence” told him otherwise, so he pushed the eject button on the Christian faith.  Wallace doesn’t want that, so he comes up with a new position and even a new doctrine of inerrancy.  And many fundamentalists and evangelicals will defend him on that.  This is how important it is to them to keep people away from the true doctrine of preservation.

I have written about the history here many times.  I have debunked all these things here.  I don’t get answers.  You won’t get answers.  You get ignored and ad hominem attack.

However, these two facts, the two in bold print above, are the most important to the Bible Version issue.  If you know and believe these two, then you are left with the King James Version.  That’s why.  It is not out of loyalty to the English or to King James or to tradition.  It is because it is the conclusion you are left with.

I noticed that one person commented that the KJV side has been badly defeated in debates on the issue.  I would agree that the debate is cherry picked against the most inept debater.  I slam dunked over a little person.  There hasn’t been a good debate on this.  I’ve also said I would be glad to debate the issue.  I did debate Frank Turk at his debate blog.  You should read that debate.  If he had won the debate, you would have been hearing it all over the internet.  But, alas, crickets. It would be proclaimed far and wide.  The fact that you hear nothing about it is because he lost that debate. Granted, he isn’t the best to debate the other side, but I don’t think it would go much different if it were James White, Daniel Wallace, or Bart Ehrman.  The truth will win out.  Others could fog or red herring a little more, but they don’t have the truth on their side.

So again, what I’m saying here, and what we teach, is what the Bible teaches.  And, it is what Christians have believed for hundreds of years.  It’s all you read as a position until post textual criticism.  Were all those people wrong?  Was this a total apostasy of the true doctrine of preservation?  Which is what?   The other side hasn’t produced their treatment of preservation.  They didn’t start with what the Bible says.  What does that say about their position?  Hopefully, that is bad to you.

These are the two most important facts about the Bible Version issue, and they are either ignored or covered up.  I say that it seems conspiratorial. Why?  If you are not sure what the words of God are, then you will not believe them and practice them.  This is an attack on God and His Word, on the faith once delivered.