Wednesday, January 31, 2007

A Sniff Test for the History of Preservation of Scripture

I open up the refrigerator looking for something to eat and an item looks great, but I don't know if it is still good. What do I do? I sniff it. It's one of those basic tests. I guess we have a pretty good idea if something smells right or not. I don't think I remember putting anything in my mouth that didn't at least pass the sniff test.

A lot of things don't smell right in the attack on the doctrine of perfect preservation of Scripture. That's OK, just go ahead and eat it. No? I don't blame you. One thing for sure I can't swallow is this idea that the historic understanding of the church about preservation is that the Bible has errors in it. It doesn't pass the sniff test. How about you taking a sniff and telling me what you think? They would say, "The church has always thought this. They knew that not one copy was the same, so that we couldn't be sure what the exact words of the Bible were. I mean, the church has believed that the originals were perfect, but the church never held to some idea that we ever had one perfect copy to lay our hands on." Alright, take a big sniff of that, and tell me what you think?

I read my Bible. I see the respect that the Bible has for itself. It claims perfection. I don't see a qualification of the originals alone being perfect. Even our big passage on inspiration, 2 Timothy 3:16, 17, should give one pause to take a big bite of the above fake history. What Scripture did Timothy have that was profitable for doctrine, etc., that he said was inspired? They weren't the originals of the Old Testament. They were copies. "Scripture" can't be referring to the ideas or "content" either. It is a word too specific to be that. So I sniff and I wrinkle my nose on this idea that Christians have taken the position that we aren't sure what the exact Words of Scripture are.

If we are going to start eroding and working down the Words, then why not start working on the Books too? Why 66 of them? The Multiple Version advocates want us to think that theirs is a historic position on preservation. They say "Multiplicity of the Manuscripts." It sounds scholarly, like it has dust on it, well-aged. They can't produce any kind of viable history for themselves before the late 1800s. Part of how they do this is through false accusations. They not only have their own fake history, but they have made up an all new fake history for those who believe God has perfectly preserved the Bible. They figure that if they say it enough times with a look of sincerity, that people will believe them.

Take a deep breath of this new position on the history of preservation. I can't eat it. It's not just the indigestion. It doesn't match up with my God. It doesn't fit with my view of the Bible. To get around all this, most people reading the modern versions have no clue they are reading from a different text. In their minds, they are just reading updated English. Most of the "scholars" are happy to continue having them believe that error, at least until they have their new historical record all in place. They have revised history. Believers have always believed that God has miraculously preserved His Words. Don't let let them fool you. At least take that sniff test.

Something smells. And it stinks.
This month of February, 2007, over at Jackhammer we will be pounding away on the issue of the preservation of Scripture.

7 comments:

Don Johnson said...

Hey, Kent, I don't intend to wade into a discussion on this point, but just this observation:

I don't think you are stating the case of the 'non-100%-preservationists' or whatever you wish to call them. While there are some valid arguments to be made from your perspective, the argument has to begin with stating the opponents case accurately. I don't think you have done that.

The way you have stated your opponent's argument, you make it sound like they believe that the church of the past held to an eclectic text view. I don't think that is what is believed at all. The issue is not so much what the church believed in the past as it is what do we do with the facts on the ground.

Anyway, just an observation. I'm not looking for a debate!

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Kent Brandenburg said...

So what do they think that the church believed, Don? I know what I read what they believed, and it isn't a "multiplicity of the manuscripts" position. That is an invention, totally. So I gladly welcome what it is that the 'non-100%-preservationists' said that they believed, let's just say, before Benjamin Warfield revised the Westminster Confession to create a fake history.

Don Johnson said...

Hi Kent, I can't say what those who knew about differences in the manuscripts thought pre-1800. I haven't read anything on it. However, I don't see that those who hold to a multiplicity of manuscripts view are actually arguing on the basis of 'this is what the church always believed'. If anyone is, it is a relatively minor aspect of the argument.

In any case, I'm not here to argue, just commenting that your portrayal of the multiplicity of mss view doesn't ring true to me.

Regards
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Kent Brandenburg said...

Don,

This is a major point though Don, that is, what is the historical position.

Kent Brandenburg said...

One more thing, Don. The "multiplicity" side does make a big deal of history---look at the new Sproul book, which invents a brand new history, albeit with mostly ad hominem and hatchet jobs on KJV guys, and then Minnick with his little voices from the past booklet. A big chunk of God's Word in our Hands is their shot at history too. A real historian would be either laughing or wagging their head. Of course, I couldn't be a historian, because I'm "biased," but denying the historic position of the church is very serious indeed, yes, a private interpretation of Scripture.

Don Johnson said...

ok, I'll leave it at that right now. I am so busy these days I don't have a lot of time for this...

I will try to think on this a bit and perhaps you will hear something more from me on it. I have a little extra thing going on the side right now. I own a duplex which the tenant moved out of so I am taking two days a week to completely renovate, floors, kitchen, baths, paint, the whole works. Then I try to cram all my pastoral duties into the other five days. So... not a lot of time.

TTYL

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Kent Brandenburg said...

I understand having the hand on the trowel, literally and figuratively. Don, don't just try to fit something into your position. Consider that we represent Scripture and history despite the work of BJU and its orbiting institutions.