The Truth Shall Set You Free

Sunday, May 21, 2006

Scripture -- the Doctrine of Preservation

I suppose we have all seen a quote comparable to the following: The Bible is God’s Word to us. It was written by human authors, under the supernatural guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is the supreme source of truth for Christian beliefs and living. Because it is inspired by God, it has salvation for its end and is truth without any mixture of error.

While I would agree with this statement, one can clearly see the Doctrine of Preservation is missing. Does the Scripture support the teaching of Preservation? Clearly it does. This post will examine what the Bible has to say about this important doctrine.

Would God inspire a text and then allow it to become lost?

This is a fair and good question. God is sovereign and able to watch over His Word – i.e. preserve it forever. The Bible actually has much to say about this and we will examine several clear passages that teach this doctrine. Many will say they believe that God gave the original Scriptures and they were divinely inspired by God. That statement is perceived to be a statement of faith, but sadly it is a statement of unbelief if we don’t couple it with preservation.

If God did inspire a text, would He not preserve it?

Again, this is a question that must be asked. This post will attempt to examine the doctrine of preservation. The New Testament was written in Greek and the Old Testament was recorded primarily in Hebrew with the exception of a portion of Daniel written in Aramaic. For all of the scholarship around this issue, it might be of interest to the reader to know there are no original manuscripts of the Bible today. The Old Testament scribes destroyed the scroll upon which Scripture was written as they became worn from much use. When they copied a new Scripture or graphe, the old text was destroyed. The point is we possess no “original” manuscripts. The same is true regarding the New Testament texts. None of the ‘autographs’ the apostles wrote have been preserved.

Could we expect counterfeits of the originals to be in circulation?

According to the Bible in Genesis 3:1, Bible revision efforts can be found back in the Garden of Eden with Satan in questioning God’s word when he said, “Yea, has God said?” An attack of God’s Word began back in the beginning of recorded history and it continues to this day. 2 Cr 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

So again we ask, has God not preserved His Word – the original text – although not the original piece of paper or vellum on which it may have been written? Let’s examine the following passage in II Timothy 3:14-17: But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned [them];And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Here God tells us His purposes in giving the Scriptures:

• For doctrine
• For reproof
• For correction
• For instruction in righteousness

We must ask ourselves again; do we really believe God allowed original Scripture to become lost after giving them? If He did, how could He use them to accomplish these purposes? By reviewing the passage in II Timothy 3:15, we see no reference to the “original” Scriptures. In verse Paul tells Timothy, “from a child you have known the Holy Scriptures which are able to make you wise unto salvation.” Paul is obviously not speaking of the “original” New Testament Scripture. Second Timothy was penned about A.D. 65. Further, Timothy was old enough to join Paul and Silas c. 53 A.D. (Acts 16:1-4). So, when Timothy was a child, there was no New Testament collection of Scripture anywhere. Nor was Paul speaking of the “originals” of the Old Testament for there was not an original Old Testament piece of paper or vellum extant at that time. Therefore, these are the verses upon which many of us base our faith and say we believe in the “originals.” Yet these verses are not speaking of the original manuscripts.

So can we have faith and confidence that the copies are also inspired? The Bible clearly teaches that faithful copies of the originals are also inspired. The word “Scripture” in II Timothy 3:16-17 is translated from the Greek word “graphe.” The word graphe occurs 51 times in the Greek New Testament and at every occurrence it means “Scripture” – in fact, it usually refers to the Old Testament text. We have the Holy Writ testifying that faithful copies of the originals are themselves inspired.

It simply comes down to a promise given by God – that He would preserve the text which He gave us. Timothy never saw an original when he was a child of either the Old or New Testament, yet in verse 16 God says that what Timothy learned as a child was given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. Now if God were talking about something which had been lost and/or is no longer true and accurate, why did He give verse 17?

The following verses clearly teach God’s promises of both giving and protecting His Word.

Jer 1:12 Then said the LORD unto me, Thou hast well seen: for I will hasten my word to perform it.

Mar 13:31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

Mar 8:38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

1Pe 1:25a But the word of the Lord endureth for ever.

Isa 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

Psa 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

Jhn 10:35b and the scripture cannot be broken;

Psa 12:6 - 7 The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

In closing, the Scriptures demonstrate that faith in the preservation of the text is a basic Bible doctrine. The context of these many promises is not that God’s Word is to be preserved in a jar somewhere in a cave or desert, lost for hundreds of years waiting to be found and restored to the believing remnant of the Church. The context is very clear in II Timothy 3:16-17 that the inspired Word was given by God as a deposit to the Body of Christ “that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” Therefore for God to accomplish this stated purpose for His having given us His Word – it must remain accessible to the disciples of the Lord Jesus through time.

My thanks and gratitude to Dr. Floyd Jones and his book Which Version is the Bible? Most of this post is closely adapted and quoted from his book, pages 4-10.

In Him,

Eye

16 Comments:

  • This was interesting, I spent 3 hours last night looking for information on the canon of the new tesatament. So it was good to read what you think here.

    In relation to your comments on 2 Timothy 3:16 and the time it was written. In my opinion when Paul wrote some of the bible I would say that he never got a thought from Jesus then wrote that thought down. What happened was that he wrote word for word exactly what the Lord dictated to him and the Lords words are timeless. This is so with Moses etc...

    What year was the New Testament Canon first established and which people/group were involved?

    By Blogger Correy, at May 23, 2006 7:31 PM  

  • PB,

    Nice to hear from you - I,ll have to get back to you on your good question. I,m on vacation overseas.

    In Him

    Eye

    By Blogger Eye, at May 29, 2006 10:11 AM  

  • Here are the facts surrounding Mark 16:9-20. You can find this out for yourself with a little bit of effort but I will save you that and give you the facts. Most modern versions have a footnote to the effect that 'these verses are not in the oldest, best, most reliable Greek manuscripts.' In laymen's terms this means that Mark 16:9-20 are not in the two 4th century Greek manuscripts, Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph which were derived from Origen's (185-254) edited New Testament (a 12th century miniscule also omits the verses).

    Of the apporximately 3,119 Greek manuscripts of the N.T. extant today, none is complete. The segment of text bearing Mark 16 has been lost from many, but over 1,800 contain the section and verses 9-20 are present in all by the 3 cited above. The footnote is thus unveiled and laid bare as dishonest and deliberately misleading in intimating that these verses are not the Word of God.

    The external evidence is massive. Not only is the Greek manuscript attestation ratio over 600 to 1 in support of the verses (99.9%) -- around 8,000 Latin mss, about 1,000 Syriac versions as well as all of the over 2,000 known Greek Lectionaires contain the verses. They were cited by Church 'Fathers' who lived 150 years of more before B or Aleph were written. These 'Fathers' included: Papias (c. 100), Justin Martyr (c. 150), Iranaeus (c. 180), Tertullian (c. 195), and Hippolytus (c. 200). Further, the Vatican MSS has a blank space exactly the size required to include the 12 verses at the end of the 16th chapter. The scribe who prepared B obviously knew of the existence of the verses and their precise content. Tischendorf observed, Sianaiticus exhibits a different handwriting and ink on this page, and there is a change in spacing and size of the individual letters in an attempt to fill up the void left by the removal of the verses. These circumstances testify that the sheet is a forgery.

    PB, dr davy and others:

    I post this for further understanding of the facts surrounding how modern scolarship has attempted to diminish the clear doctrine of Preservation.

    In Him,

    Eye

    By Blogger Eye, at June 16, 2006 9:21 PM  

  • Regarding the question of the Canon of the New Testament:

    Modern interpretation of canonization from Wikipedia

    Many modern Protestants point to four "Criteria for Canonicity" to justify the books that have been included in the Old and New Testament, which are judged to have satisfied the following:

    Apostolic Origin — attributed to and based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their close companions).
    Universal Acceptance — acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the ancient world (by the end of the fourth century).
    Liturgical Use — read publicly when early Christian communities gathered for the Lord's Supper (their weekly worship services).
    Consistent Message — containing a theological outlook similar or complementary to other accepted Christian writings.
    The basic factor for recognizing a book's canonicity for the New Testament was divine inspiration, and the chief test for this was apostolicity. The term apostolic as used for the test of canonicity does not necessarily mean apostolic authorship or derivation, but rather apostolic authority. Apostolic authority is never detached from the authority of the Lord. See Apostolic succession.

    It is sometimes difficult to apply these criteria to all books in the accepted canon, however, and some point to books that Protestants hold as apocryphal which would fulfill these requirements. In practice, Protestants hold to the Jewish canon for the Old Testament and the Catholic canon for the New Testament.

    also...

    Many Evangelical Christian groups do not accept the theory that the Christian Bible was not known until various local and Ecumenical Councils, which they deem to be "Roman-dominated", made their official declarations.

    These groups believe that the New Testament supports that Paul (2 Timothy 4:11-13), Peter (2 Peter 3:15-16), and ultimately John (Revelation 22:18-19) finalized the canon of the New Testament. They note that Peter, John, and Paul wrote 20 (or 21) of the 27 books of the NT and personally knew all the other NT writers. (Books not attributed to these three are: Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, James, and Jude. The authorship of Hebrews has long been disputed.)

    Protestants tend not to accept the Septuagint as the correct Hebrew Bible. They claim that the Masoretic text was known and used by the end of the first Century. They note that early Christians knew the Hebrew Bible since around 170 A.D. Melito of Sardis listed all the books of the Old Testament that those in the Evangelical faiths now use (except, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Book of Esther).


    Eye

    By Blogger Eye, at June 16, 2006 9:41 PM  

  • eye,

    It's a good argument to point out that when Paul wrote to Timothy that Scripture is inspired, Timothy did not have the originals, therefore the copies were inspired. Therefore we conclude that faithful copies are inspired and preserved.

    But don't we still have to figure out which ones are the faithful copies? How do we do that? It would be easy to understand the doctrine of preservation if all the copies of Scripture were identical. But since there are little differences (and a few big differences) between all the manuscripts, it seems like we still have to use some kind of human logic to figure out which one(s) is the "faithful copy."

    If we say that 90% of the manuscripts agree, so those are the faithful copies, we are saying that God was 90% successful in preserving His word. If we say we have to use all kinds of human logic and subjective judgment to figure out the faithful copy, then we are saying that God's preservation depends on human effort. What are we gonna do?

    dr davy

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at June 20, 2006 9:54 AM  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger Dawn, at June 25, 2006 12:16 PM  

  • Eye, welcome back! I didn't think you would be back for another week.

    Great information here. I, like others, believe that John et al finalized the canon and from that point on, Christians used what they knew to be the word of God.

    It was not the ecumenical councils that determined what the true canon was, but rather GOD has determined what His word IS and he has preserved that word to this day.

    Like Eye has stated, it is known that Origen literally edited the word of God and Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph were derived from Origen's version. With that knowledge, we KNOW that these are corrupt versions yet these are the versions that scholars choose to use as the "oldest and most reliable" manuscripts. Simply because they are old and well preserved? I don't understand that way of thinking. These versions were rejected by even the Roman Catholic church for 1,500 years. Then in the 1880's modern scholarship decides that "old" and "vellum" equals reliability? I'm sorry, but that is ridculous and rather suspicious to me.

    By Blogger Dawn, at June 25, 2006 12:20 PM  

  • Dawn,

    I'm glad to be back and thanks for stopping by!! I talked with our good friend the other day and he was excited to hear about your efforts in the world of blogging. He asked me a lot of questions about it. I hope he moves into the arena -- sure would be a blessing!

    Thanks for your excellent comments. I know you understand what's at stake here and it isn't an issue of the leather cover and readability...

    Well, I got banned from you know who's blog. I guess the truth has to be 'squelched' when it goes against the dogmas of the blogger who claims to be a purveyor of the 'truth'.

    Must be doing something right!

    In Him,

    Eye

    By Blogger Eye, at June 25, 2006 8:12 PM  

  • Dr Davy,

    Hey, good to hear from you again and thanks for asking some great questions. Don't know that I have the answers per se, but I'll tell you what I believe.

    DD asked: But don't we still have to figure out which ones are the faithful copies? How do we do that?

    Eye's response: Actually, God has already done this for us. There was a process many years ago whereby God 'providentially' used many men -- some more Godly than others -- to oversee the preservation of His Word. I agree with Dawn when she says that most likely John oversaw the canon of the NT prior to his death. The early Church clearly knew which books were inspired and which were not. As a result, fragments, sermons, parchments, copies of copies were handed down through the years to the true Church and there were always men God used to 'make sure' the proper copies were kept and protected.

    Hey, in a lot of ways this takes faith, just as true Biblical salvation does. We will never completely understand all of the things God has done in the arena of His Word and its preservation; nor the arena of salvation, but I simply choose to believe God and take Him at His Word that I have the true and living Words of God because He promised to 'preserve' it forever. After all, if He magnifies His Word above His name, I would say that settles it for me.

    Would God inspire a text and then allow it to become lost???

    Mark 13:31

    In Him,

    Eye

    By Blogger Eye, at June 25, 2006 8:28 PM  

  • I haven't read at you-know-who's blog in months. I decided to quit reading there because of the unnecessary venom toward non-Calvinists, as if we are some sort of apostates. Not! :-)

    God Bless,
    Dawn

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at June 26, 2006 12:20 PM  

  • That WOULD be great if he decided to enter the blogging arena. Though, I'm not sure he would have the time for it.

    Dawn

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at June 27, 2006 11:38 AM  

  • I really enjoyed your blog, a lot of really good stuff. God bless!!!

    In Christ,
    JLG

    By Blogger Jeremy Green, at July 01, 2006 5:33 PM  

  • Dear SBC Pastor,

    Thank you for stopping by and for your kind words!

    May the Lord continue to richly bless you and your family.

    In Him,

    Eye

    By Blogger Eye, at July 02, 2006 3:10 PM  

  • Eye,

    Don't you think the archaic language of the KJV is a problem? If you want to start a thread, I will respond.

    Dr Davy

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at August 16, 2006 8:42 AM  

  • Eye,

    ... that is, if you want, I will argue the following points.

    1. The archaic language of the KJV inhibits understanding. The purpose of the sponsors and translators of the KJV was to provide the Bible in readable English. It is no longer readable!

    2. It is not the KJV that is inspired and preserved, it was the original manuscripts. (But I don't want to get into the TR controversy.)

    3. The KJV contains translation errors.

    Therefore, a newer translation is better. (Which one is best is a separate discussion. For that one would have to discuss the TR.)

    Dr Davy

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at August 17, 2006 12:58 PM  

  • Very cool design! Useful information. Go on! » »

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at April 23, 2007 4:25 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home