"When you subjugate it to the human laboratory for testing and twisting and probing, it takes on a different nature. If it isn't preserved perfectly, then it lacks in authority, something less than full authority." This is a quote about the Bible from Kent Brandenburg, and it has something that he might not be happy to hear about in common with the leading agnostic critic of Biblical accuracy alive today, Bart Ehrman. Bart is a well known critic, with best selling books like Misquoting Jesus and How Jesus Became God to his name. One of the most crucial conclusions that Dr. Ehrman makes in his rejection of the Bible that we have today is that it isn't the same as the original as penned by the Apostles. If we don't have the original, God must not have preserved it, if God didn't perfectly preserve it, he must not have given it in the first place. If the modern Bible isn't a perfect copy of the original autographs, if it has any errors (despite its historically unheard of 97% accuracy), it is no longer the Word of God. KJV Only fanatics take this same view of the preservation of Scripture. Their answer to Bart's dilemma is to posit a new revelation from God that occurred in 1611 (don't mention to them the typographical/spelling/printing mistakes of that edition, it won't be welcome). The King James Bible to them is a perfectly preserved English version of what the Apostles wrote, so much so that many of them have dismissed the relevance of an original autograph should one be found in some cave like the Dead Sea Scrolls, and so much so that some of them (Sam Gipp for example) contend that the only way to hear the Word of God today is for the people of the world to learn English to read the KJV (Don't point out the obvious racist white superiority behind this line of thinking, just because God treats all men equally doesn't mean they have to). How do we know that the KJV is a perfect edition in every way, especially since in their view that's the only way it will be God's Word? You'll have to take that on faith.
Dr. Ehrman yearns for a perfect Bible, doesn't have one, and has lost his faith, the KJV Only crowd yearn for a perfect Bible, so they've pretended they have one.
The sad thing is, we have an amazing Biblical text today. All of the original readings have been preserved within the manuscript tradition, none of what the Apostles wrote has been lost. The Bible is more readily available and accessible than ever before all over the world in hundreds of languages with new ones being translated every year. The Word of God has never been closer to ordinary people, too bad the skeptics and the fanatics can't see it.
* Note * Kent Brandenburg should not be identified with the KJV Only crowd of Ruckman/Gipp/Riplinger (which he rightly dismisses as an untenable position), both groups believe in "perfect preservation", the first as found in the KJV, Kent's group as found in the Textus Receptus (TR definition). To prefer the TR is a defensible position, just as it is defensible to prefer the KJV, the TR was the Greek text basis for Tyndale, the Bishop's Bible, the KJV, the Geneva Bible, Luther's German NT, and the New King James, but to be TR ONLY is almost as erroneous as the KJV Only position in that it posits a perfect moment in Church history when the text of God's Word needs to be frozen, when all scholarship and textual criticism needs to cease. The problem with that, is that there is no one TR (it isn't a manuscript, but a published collation of a few late Byzantine texts that were available to Erasmus), there are many published additions of Erasmus/Stephanus/Beza that were the result of their efforts at textual criticism, so why must these men be the only authorities that can offer God's people his Word? The TR is a good text, but the Majority text is better, and the Critical Eclectic text is better still. Christians in the 16th century like Erasmus did a great job considering the manuscripts they had available to them at the time, but we have no need to limit ourselves to what they knew then. God has indeed preserved his Word, in EACH generation, that effort continues to this day through the work of Godly men who continue the work of their ancestors in the faith.
This blog serves as an outreach for Pastor Randy Powell of the First Baptist Church of Franklin, PA. Feel free to ask questions or send me an e-mail at pastorpowell@hotmail.com
Hi Randy,
ReplyDeleteI would have a hard time writing what you've written, as a pastor. What matters for both of us is what the Bible says about itself. I would hope that you have enough trust in what you think you have left of the Bible to trust its doctrine about itself, but let me explain.
I've written about Ehrman plenty, explaining what you said above. Ehrman doesn't trust that the Bible is preserved and White doesn't trust it. You might say White does trust it, because he believes that it is found in all the hand copies somewhere on earth, whether available or unavailable. That isn't what the Bible teaches preservation is and it also is not the historical position. Ehrman got shaken by textual criticism, because of the liberal teaching at Princeton. He wasn't a believer, so he ejected from the faith.
In White's and I guess your world, the way to keep people like Ehrman is to split the difference and depend on some kind of mathematics that gives the fans of Plato the same kind of assurance that Bible believers have. That isn't going to do it, because Ehrman's problem isn't intellectual, but volitional. They suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Do you understand that?
Your argument fails though, because both Charles Manson and I can both like oatmeal, but that means nothing. The fact that Ehrman and I both believe there is supposed to be a perfect Bible, because of the presupposition that the Bible teaches that we are supposed to have a perfect Bible. The presupposition is still in the Bible. You are the one who ejected from the presupposition without explanation, except a secular or "scientific" one.
Notice that above, you say that we don't have a perfect Bible. You don't yearn for one like Ehrman and I do. Why not? Where do you get the idea that we cannot have one or are not expect one? Do you tell your congregation that our Bible isn't perfect, or have you spun to the Warfield position that all the teachings must be true. They don't have to be the exact Words, but all the doctrines must be there. Where does the Bible teach that, Randy? You are inventing it.
Anyway, I'm guessing we could have a pleasant conversation, but ultimately you are responsible to God. You give an account to Him as to what you tell your people. Is it the oracles of God?
There is no historical basis in Church history, to believe that the copies of the Bible can't have mistakes. To deny that there are variants is a position that cannot be defended. Anyone with a knowledge of Greek can compare two manuscripts (many of which are now online) and see that the copyists made both accidental and intentional mistakes...For you, this is catastrophic, because if God didn't preserve his Word, each and every letter, perfectly in EVERY manuscript that exists, there is no "perfect" Bible. Of course this is a ridiculous standard, one not held by the Church until KJV Onlyism came into being in recent history. It is, as you well know, the standard of Bart Ehrman, who believes that God needed a supernatural act of preservation to confirm his supernatural act of inspiration. If you can't prove that you have a 100% edition of the original autographs, you're lost if you hold to a "perfect" Bible.
DeleteDo Christians need such a text in order to believe it? Certainly not, I just finished once again teaching a 5 hour class on the history of the Biblical text that demonstrates through historical fact that the Bible is the most attested historical document, with the best preservation, ever. Within that manuscript tradition, the original text is preserved. We can and do have it in the Modern Critical Text, we have it nearly as well in the Majority Text, and nearly as well as that in the TR (The difference being from 97% to 93% or so, the TR is certainly trustworthy too, just not to the level of modern scholarship).
James White believes that we have the very Words of God in our modern text, as do I, as do countless other Christians who have been unjustly maligned as under Satanic influence by the likes of Riplinger. I believe it for the same reason that I believe in the resurrection, it is a fact of history, there is proof. God doesn't ask us to take anything on blind faith, that's why we have eyewitness accounts in the Gospel, so why would I take the "perfection" of the KJV on faith like a muslim who has to believe that the 4th Caliph truly preserved Mohammed's words after he destroyed all the prior manuscripts? Why would I believe in a new revelation from God, like Joseph Smith, when the power of God is more than capable of using flawed human beings to preserve his Word, not only in English, but in languages all over the earth that the original Hebrew and Greek have been translated into?
My Church has absolute faith in the Word of God, because its real, real like Jesus Christ walking on the earth, they have no need to put their faith in one text frozen in time.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteHi again Randy,
ReplyDeleteCould you show me one place that I have said that there are no textual variants? Did you read my articles? Those who wrote all those confessions in the 16th-18th centuries believed there were variants. I do. Why am I even telling you this? Because you are claiming something that I've never said. If you read our book, you'll read a whole chapter I wrote that says this very thing. There was intentional attack on scripture in the first century.
I'm not putting my trust in a translation. Where did you hear that? I believe that preservation is of what God inspired, the original languages. So much of you have written is untrue that you really need to delete and go back to the drawing board.
After you do, we can talk about it.
"If the Bible isn't preserved perfectly, then it lacks in authority" That's your quote, what then do you mean by it? Which is the perfectly preserved text? You can't be talking about the originals there, why else would it be a discussion of preservation, so it must be about something later. My apologies if you're not a KJV Only believer, like the others who believe in a text without errors/variants, as they call it, a "perfect" Bible, but that was how your attack on James White certainly read in your post.
ReplyDeleteKent, I appended a note to the post itself clarifying that you're not with the KJV Only people, having been attacked online by one of Ruckman's disciples this past week, I had that position forefront in my mind. There is much in common between KJV Only and TR Only, but now the difference between them and yourself should be clear.
ReplyDeleteA Ruckmanite is attacking me on my blog. What is the difference between a Ruckmanite's position on the preservation of scripture, and yours?
DeleteA Ruckmanite will attack anyone and everyone. I can't think of anything I agree with that I've heard Ruckman, Gipp, or Riplinger say about that topic.
DeleteHaving read many of your other posts, and running comment wars on one blog, I still don't see any Scripture based evidence that would indicate that the TR, and the TR alone, must be the preserved Word of God. God's Word has indeed been preserved, in the original Greek manuscripts, all non-Bart Ehrman type Biblical scholars gladly ascribe to that truth, but where in the Word of God does it say where later generations will find that Word? Psalm 12:7, while not even about this topic, even if it were, would not indicate the TR over the Majority or Eclectic.
ReplyDeleteRandy,
DeleteThey don't believe we have all the words in the manuscripts. They say that, but I haven't met one that believes it.
Psalm 12:7 is a big topic, but scripture teaches perfect preservation and availability to every generation of believer. That's what they wrote in LBC, WCF, and the Helvetic Confessions. Everyone believed that. Were they all wrong?
Who is "they" that don't believe we have the whole Word of God? Certainly not White, Wallace, Metzger, etc. I've read their books, listened to the debates, where they defend against skeptics like Ehrman that the entirety of the original text remains within the manuscript tradition...The problem we're having here, is the insistence on the word "perfect", if you substitute that with "sufficient", "correct", "accurate", anything that doesn't imply a frozen text, and thus accounts for the historical reality of a text that has had ups/down with its accuracy (i.e. the inclusion of I John 5:7 late in the Vulgate tradition yet absent in the Greek manuscripts prior to the 16th century), but remains entirely reliable, authoritative, and accurate.
DeleteNo generation has been wrong to believe they have God's Word, it has always been available to his people since its inception (although not always in the vernacular for all peoples, we're getting there though, soon the whole world will be able to read God's Word in their heart language).
I don't know of one that if challenged on particular verses, believes we have every word even in all the manuscripts. They say it, but it is why they are careful to say Word in general, but not specific words.
DeleteSo, Dr. Wallace, for example, has said as much often, that all of the original readings are contained in the manuscript tradition, that none of them have been lost, you just don't believe him when he says it. The example from I Samuel is a bit of a tangent, the entire discussion is about NT textual issues, the OT is somewhat different, although the Dead Sea Scrolls proved the remarkable accuracy of the Jewish scribes over the centuries.
Delete" I BELIEVE THERE ARE LOTS OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SINAITICUS AND VATICANUS, BUT NOT BETWEEN THE BYZANTINE MANUSCRIPTS OR THE TR EDITIONS." This is another Kent quote, how does this square with the previous statement, "Could you show me one place that I have said that there are no textual variants?" Asked and answered.
ReplyDeleteDr. Dan Wallace documented 1,838 differences between the TR and the Majority Text. Of course the TR edition has no variants, its not a manuscript but a printed critical text, but the various TR editions of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza certainly have variants between them.
Delete"Lots of differences" is not "no differences." You can see the differences between the TR editions in an Scrivener's annotative edition. They are few, not lots.
DeleteThere is no "the Majority Text." The manuscripts haven't all been collated, so we don't know what the majority is, and won't for the not foreseeable future.
DeleteOf course there is a Majority text, it isn't finished, nor can it ever be because new discoveries of manuscripts happen nearly every year that will need to be evaluated and added to the apparatus, but that doesn't mean it is not possible to know what the majority of manuscripts read at the current time on a given passage, just as it is certainly possible to ascertain what the earliest manuscripts read by comparison on that same passage. {Most of the time, they agree, especially when obvious mistakes of spelling, word/line skipping, the movable Nu, etc. are eliminated; roughly 97% of the time, there is no doubt what the original reading must be. The other 3% of the time, the correct reading is contained in one of the choices, there just isn't sufficient evidence to be dogmatic about which one it is.}
DeleteFor those who are keeping track, I've had one KJV Only advocate, and one TR Only advocate warn me of the dire consequences from God's judgment if I don't stop talking about this issue, one suggested I apologize to my congregation and the other that I delete my blog posts. This isn't exactly the way that dialogue is supposed to happen. In both cases, I was quoting that which has been printed, not talking about character, not talking about their relationship with God, but both decided to imply that position places me under the wrath of God; sigh.
ReplyDeleteSad to say, all of this comes out of the Baptist tradition, I'm not surprised by it, I've seen it before back in Michigan, but it is sad just the same.
Randy,
ReplyDeleteFor your information, someone from your side wrote me with an expletive filled rage, insulting and personal.
Well, it certainly wasn't I, and I don't condone any such behavior, regardless of the source, character assassination only makes the Church look foolish to the Lost.
DeleteAny scorn on my part is reserved for the likes of Sam Gipp (as an example) due to his persistent and ongoing efforts to call into question the character of those who don't agree with him, Gail Ripplinger is another such example of someone who has forfeited, repeatedly, the right to be treated academic detachment...I appreciate that James White can get emotional and respond with vigor at times, but I don't see anywhere that I have responded with anything other than objections to ideas.
DeleteDo you believe that believers had every Word of God available between 1500 and 1800? Do you believe that there is a manuscript existent (available right now that we know about) with all the words of 1 Samuel 13:1?
ReplyDeleteI believe that God has made his Word sufficient for believers throughout history, even when their available text was less than it could be for whatever reason. The TR text was a big step forward under Erasmus, returning to the original Greek from which to translate into the vernacular. The KJV is a solid and commendable Biblical text, sufficient for the work of the kingdom. I don't have a need to tear that moment in history down in order to say that we can do better than that today. The Church has always had the Word of God, all while the text itself was not set in stone (as any text copied by hand and translated most need be; translations certainly cannot be set in stone because language itself changes over time). Throughout history Church scholars have worked to maintain and correct the text. I certainly believe in God's power to preserve it, and see that process fulfilled through human agents, just as God utilized the LXX text. The Apostles had God's Word in both the Hebrew scrolls and the LXX, the Early Church had, once the canon was completed and its copies spread, had the NT in Greek, then soon after in other translations like Coptic, Syriac, and the Vulgate. Were all such copies and translations perfect? Certainly not, but they were the very words of God, they were sufficient unto eternal life.
DeleteNot having scoured the world's libraries, I couldn't be 100% sure about a text like 1 Samuel 13:1 which has serious textual issues, the best answer we have today is that the numbers involved in that text are garbled/lost at present (future research and discovery is always a possibility for any text issue). Is this an faith shaking problem for you? It certainly isn't for me.
Hi,
DeleteI'm understanding answer number one to be "no."
For #2, I ask the question, because White says that we have every word today in the manuscripts, and yet I haven't met one critical text person who believes there is a manuscript with the very words of 1 Samuel 13:1. What I'm saying is that they don't believe that position that they say they believe, every word in the preponderance of the manuscripts.
I think you are saying that your position is that we don't have all of them, but we have enough not to lose vital doctrines. Is that correct?
If it is correct, is that what scripture teaches about its own preservation. Where?
Actually it was a "yes", although you seem stuck on the words "perfect" and "every" and won't accept complete, entire, whole; why the obsession with tearing down the Biblical manuscript history? Do you feel it is necessary to leave the TR standing alone and give people no alternative text? If so, this is a dangerous game, because the same arguments you're using against the Byzantine, or any other text type can be turned back on the TR with the same results.
Delete