Answering the TR (Textus Receptus), Perfect Preservation of Scripture Question. One More Time.

Scripture teaches presuppositionalism, and being a presuppositionalist, I look at the problem of volition versus intellect.  Applying this to the doctrine of bibliology, specifically what the Bible teaches about the preservation of scripture, I think most misunderstandings are a matter of the will and not the intellect.  Almost all of them.

Like most other truth, where people are wrong, they are rebellious against the true, scriptural position on the preservation of scripture.  I can't tell why for each individual, but I could give you a long list of why it is that people won't believe it, that relates to "won't" rather than "can't."  Again though, I don't believe it is intellect, but volition.  People just won't believe what the Bible says.  For most, I think it is pride, but a multitude of sins comes out of pride, so that's an easy one of the reasons.

I've explained what I believe here and elsewhere again and again and again and again.  And then people straw man it again and again and again and again.  The position they say I take isn't very convincing and easily shot down.  The biblical position is biblical, so it can't be shot down, so rather than deal with that, they go to the easier target and then celebrate like they got the actual thing.  They get the plastic duckie at the fair and now they think they're skeet shooters.

For the sake of new readers and those with thick heads and even for the rebellious or deceitful, I'm going to explain it one more time.  Some of it I'm going to repeat several times even here, so there will be no doubt.  I'm not going to attempt to prove the position from the Bible, because I've done that again and again.  People are fine to ask about it, but we do have a whole book on it (why not buy it?).  I'm not even going to show that it is historical, but I've done that already again and again.  We'll probably have a second book about that some day soon.  I'm going to talk about the true, right position, so people will know what it is.

To start, I got this position from the Bible, from reading it and studying it.  There is not a whiff of anything else taught in the Bible.  Then when I went to find out what the historical doctrine of preservation was, I found the biblical position was also the only historical Christian position.  I have never had anyone prove what I'm saying in this post to be wrong.  No one.  I'm not saying people won't say it's wrong.  They do say it's wrong, but they don't give you any biblical reasons why it is wrong.  They don't have any.  You will read no other position in history, so, in other words, every other position is brand new and is assuming that the only historic Christian position was apostate -- all genuine believers were apostate on this position.  How possible is that?  Then that brings up another point, that is, can there be a brand new position or can there be a position that was totally apostatized in the history of biblical Christianity?  You'll have to believe the brand new position in addition to the total apostasy of the true position for centuries and centuries if you reject the position I'm espousing here.  Enjoy that.  I won't be joining you.

By the way, I've discussed the above position at pretty good length with Daniel Wallace and he believes that third from the last sentence of the last paragraph.  He believes this is the only position that was believed after the printing press for hundreds of years and even before, but that it was an apostasy of the biblical position.  Wallace also has a novel position of inerrancy, not found in historical literature.  All of this is actually developed on the run to conform to what he does.  It's pragmatic.  It works for his situation, but he's a scholar, so it works for many others too, who are under his influence.  He doesn't have to prove his position from the Bible.  That should be bad for a Bible professor.  Not anymore.

Next is a clear statement I think is important for everyone to understand.  Here goes.

The Bible teaches that God would preserve every one of His inspired Words in the language in which they were written, accessible to every generation of believers.

What I want to repeat is that we believe that God would preserve His Words.  Words.  We are not saying God preserved the paper or parchment or vellum of the original manuscripts or one perfect copy that made its way down through the annals of history.  Scripture doesn't teach that.  It teaches the preservation of Words and letters, and so that's what I believe.

What I have written is what I believe, but it also just so happens to answer the "which TR?" question for anyone who cares, which most don't.  I've found that they just try to discredit the position that can be taught by the Bible and the one found in Christian history without providing one of their own.  I've found it's their only option.  The "which TR?" question is a red herring.  It just takes away from the doctrinal point that needs to be considered first, that is, what does the Bible teach about preservation?

God preserved all the Words of scripture and they were all available for believers of every generation.  That is not saying that all those Words were, again, in that perfect copy that made its way down through history -- you know, just one perfect copy.  Scripture doesn't teach that.  That particular view is one of the main straw men.  No one teaches that or believes that.  We should believe what God said, no more and no less.  Even if there was no evidence that a perfect copy made its way all the way through, it doesn't prove anything that there is no evidence.  The straw man is more than what the Bible teaches, so it can't be defended.  I don't want to defend it.  It's not in the Bible and I don't believe it.  We live by the Words, not by the parchment or vellum or scroll that the Words are written on, or even by the ink.  Those are what God said He would preserve.

The Words accessible to believers in the 16th century were what they received, hence the received text.  They had them.  It's not "which TR?".  It's that the Words are available.  The King James Translators translated.  The King James Version is a translation.  They translated the New Testament from Greek words into English ones.  The Greek words from which they translated were available.  They didn't translate from Scrivener's (1881/84).  They translated from what was available then.

When you compare all those various editions of the TR, you have very few differences -- in the low hundreds of variants.  And most of those are spellings.  We're not talking about entire passages, entire verses, just individual words and sometimes just letters.  What I'm saying is that those editions are nearly identical.  But all the Words were available, and that is the biblical standard.  Since they were available, they were the ones that God preserved.  Perfect preservation is that God perfectly preserved all of the Words.

I own and I believe you can still purchase an annotated Scrivener's that marks each difference from the 1598 Beza.  1598 is before 1611.  Just thought I'd tell you.  The differences are very little.  You would hardly notice it in a translation.  For those who say that Scrivener is some type of reconstruction, they really are giving you the wrong impression of the differences.  They are tiny.  Some would say that if there is one difference, open wide the door to textual criticism or don't believe the doctrine of perfect preservation.  Again though, the belief is that we have all the Words accessible, and I'm saying that believers came to an agreement about which those Words were.  They were already almost identical to begin with, so the "which TR?" question indicates either misunderstanding or it's trying to give a false impression that these editions were vastly different.

I know that next is where the most major rub will come in, for those who choose to doubt God's promises.  Do we know what those very Words are?  Historically, Christians have said, yes.  This is in their doctrinal statements, in their sermons, and in their writings.  How do we know which words are the exact ones?  We know by means of the canonicity of the Words.  God promises the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth, and the church has agreed what the Words are.  This is how we have been directed, just the same as we were directed to the very books.  The Holy Spirit directs or guides the believers to the very ones.  The providence of God is involved, just like it was in the preservation of the Godly line that led to Jesus, the preservation of the nation Israel, and the preservation of our eternal souls.

The King James Version comes from the Words that were available to believers.  The Words behind the modern versions weren't available.  They weren't what Christians agreed upon by faith.  They had agreed on the text received by the churches.  Since I believe we will also know what the Words are, when it comes to those 300 or so differences between the editions of the TR, then I see that God's people agreed on what was behind the King James Version.  Can we know what those Words are?  I believe we can.  Are they found in one edition?  If you want those, you will get Scrivener's.  That is what represents what God's people have received.

At this point, the critics of the biblical and historical view have various attacks.  They don't offer a biblical point of view.  They look for inconsistencies in the application of the biblical position.  They'll say that the text of scripture was reverse engineered or that the Greek text comes from the trajectory of the English.  I've already answered those two criticisms in the paragraphs above.  They will also say that there are a few words that are unsure or uncertain.  They want to argue about the scientific veracity of those examples.  Were they the actual Greek words from which the English translation comes?  Are they found in an existent hand copy?   I don't think those questions should lead to a wholly unbiblical and new point of view.  They don't merit it.  I am glad to discuss them, especially since that's where the critics want to park.  They don't want to talk about the doctrine.  I just believe God did what He said He would.  We don't need to keep looking for God's Words.  We've already had them throughout all history since their inspiration.