Part One          Part Two         Part Three

Modern textual criticism advocates and contemporary version proponents have fractured churches and caused division between professing Christians over the last one hundred fifty years.  They brought the new and different view, a modernist one, in the 19th century to undo the one already received.  English churches used the King James Version, believed in the perfect preservation of the original language text, and in the doctrine of the preservation of scripture.  Starting with academia and especially influenced by German rationalism, doubt took hold and grew through the professors of seminaries to their students and into churches.

Through history certain men have come along who provoke even greater division that invokes a bigger response.  They undermine faith in the authority of the Word of God.  My writing arises in answer to men who attack scriptural and historical bibliology, whether it be Ruckmanites or critical text supporters.  I would rather consider doctrines and biblical subjects other than this one, such as the gospel, but Satan uses both witting and unwitting subjects to attack God’s Word.

I rarely hear a gracious style or tone from multiple version onlyists.  They mock, jeer, speak in condescension, misrepresent without retraction, roll their eyes, vent out with anger, employ heavy sarcasm, and shun.  They use these tactics constantly. At the same time, they talk about the poor behavior of their opponents without ceasing in the vein of calling Republicans “fascists” in the political arena.

It continues to be my experience that modern critical text and English version defenders never begin with biblical presuppositions for their position.  They say the Bible says nothing about the “how” of preservation, when the entire Bible records the how.  Perfect preservationists of the standard sacred, ecclesiastical, traditional, or confessional text view elucidate the how in many essays, papers, and podcasts.  The “how” leads to the received text of both the Old and the New Testaments.

Men calling themselves The Textual Confidence Collective become the latest iteration of naturalist influence on the text of scripture.   As part of their profession of delivering people from their contention of a dangerous extreme of textual absolutism, they attempt to undo the historical, exegetical teaching of verses on preservation.  They address Psalm 12:6-7, Matthew 5:18, 4:4, and 24:35, concluding that these four verses at the most imply preservation of scripture and in an unspecific way.  It is a superficial and incomplete representation that runs against historic and plain meaning of these texts.

Our book, Thou Shalt Keep Them, covers all four of the above references, each in their context.  No textus receptus advocate would say that any single one of these verses alone buttresses the doctrine of preservation.  The doctrine does not rise or fall on one verse.  Many times I notice that men such as those of The Textual Confidence Collective treat each verse as though it is the one verse supporting the biblical and historical doctrine of preservation.  If they can undermine the teaching of preservation in one verse, the doctrine falls.  The Bible contains a wealth of fortification for the doctrine of perfect preservation of scripture, equal or greater even than its teaching on verbal plenary inspiration.

For all of the following passages, I’m not going to exegete them all again, when that’s done in our book in a very suitable, proficient manner.  I’ve referred to them many times here at What Is Truth.  I will make comments that address the attacks of others.

Psalm 12:6-7 (Also See Here, Here, and Here)

Thomas Strouse wrote our chapter on Psalm 12:6-7.   Yes, the title of our book came from those verses, “Thou Shalt Keep Them.”  Mark Ward rejects that “words” in verse 6 is the referent of “them” in verse 7.  “Them” in “Thou shalt keep them,” he says, is not “Thou shalt keep ‘words,'” but “Thou shalt keep ‘the poor and needy'” of verse 5.  If you look at commentaries, they go both ways.  Commentaries often differ on interpretation of passages.

Some say “words” and some say “poor and needy” as the antecedent of “them” in verse 7.  In a strategy to see if commentaries provide a historical, biblical theology, it’s best as historians to find the original commentaries to which other later writers referred.  Ward doesn’t do that.  He leaves out the earliest references in the history of interpretation, such as one attributed to Jerome by Luther and those by two preeminent Hebrew scholars Abraham Ibn Ezra (1089-1164) and David Kimshi (c. 1160-1235).  In his commentary, John Gill refers to Ibn Ezra’s explanation.

John Gill makes an error with the Hebrew, supporting his point with the fallacious gender discord argument.  Scripture uses masculine pronouns to refer to feminine “words,” when the words of God.  Gill doesn’t seem to know that, so he misses it.  This construction in the Hebrew scriptures is a rule more than the exception.  I can happily say that Ward at least barely refers to this point that I’ve never heard from another critical text proponent.  I can’t believe these men still don’t know this.  Ward should park on it, and he doesn’t.  It’s rich exegesis when someone opens to Psalm 119 to find repeated examples.  Ward points only to arguments he thinks will favor a no-preservation-of-words viewpoint.  This strategy will not persuade those on the opposite side as him, if that is even his purpose.

God uses masculine pronouns to refer to feminine words, when they are the “words of God.”  A reader could and should understand the singular to point out the preservation of individual words of God.  It’s not assumed that “him,” a masculine, must refer to people.  That’s not how the Hebrew language works, and it is either ignorant or deceptive on the part of Ward and others to say it.  They also refer to a notation from the KJV translators as if they’re making that point, when that’s sheer speculation.  Ward says in mocking tones that a masculine pronoun, “him,” cannot refer to words.  It’s a Hebrew rule.  Masculine pronouns refer to words.  I’m sure Ward knows that “she” can refer to a ship.  Everyone knows that a ship isn’t a woman!  Come on men!  Please.

The “poor” and “needy” are both plural so someone still has a problem of a lack of agreement in number.  A masculine singular suffix, however, coupled with a previous masculine plural suffix provides two points of preservation.  God will keep all of His Words, plenary preservation, and He will preserve each of them, verbal preservation.

Neither does Ward mention once a rule of proximity.  Proximity guides the antecedents of pronouns.  Pronouns normally refer to the closest antecedent.  It’s an exception not to do so.  If gender discord is the rule when referring to God’s Words, then someone should look for the closest antecedent, which is words.  That’s how the verses read to, which is why believers and Hebrew scholars from the medieval period celebrate the promise of God’s keeping and preserving His Words.

I don’t doubt that Psalm 12 teaches the preservation of God’s people.  We should believe God would keep His people, because we can trust His Words.  The chapter contrasts the untrustworthiness of man’s words versus the trustworthiness of God’s.  If God can’t keep His Words and doesn’t, how do we trust that He would keep His people?

God’s people believe and have believed that His Word teaches perfect preservation.  It’s not an ordinary book.  It is supernatural.  God’s Word endures.  It is in character different than man’s words.  Why do men like those of The Textual Confidence Collective labor to cause doubt in this biblical teaching?  They do it to conform to their naturalistic presuppositions in their trajectory of modernism, where truth must conform to man’s reason.  You should not join them in their journey toward uncertainty.

When I write the word, “modernism,” I’m not attempting to take a cruel shot at men who do believe in the deity of Christ and justification by grace through faith.  I’m saying that they swallowed among other lies those spawned by the modernists of the 19th century.

More to Come