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.