Preservation, inspiration and textual perfection

[bibleprotector]

It is argued by those against the King James Bible only view that this view is inconsistent with Scripture itself. However, it is actually not inconsistent with Scripture, and oftentimes, anti-KJBO writers are imposing their own interpretations or selectively using KJBO writings as representatives of the whole. (There are different types of KJBOs, see the topic on that subject. )

I refute some portions of quotes from Rick Norris, a particular anti-KJBO writer, who I take as a good representative of the anti-side. In this case, I wish to discuss the idea of preservation, inspiration and textual perfection.

Norris says, “When a view such as the KJV-only view attempts to apply preservation to English translations, it must also explain how that preservation applies to translations in other languages.”

First of all, let us look at the King James Bible doctrine of preservation. Preservation is NOT saying that the whole Bible has remained intact from the autographs to today. If that was literally true, then at any time in history people would be able to see a perfect Bible. The truth is that copies generally were either partial or contained various copying errors, and that versions in other languages contained slight differences, and that not one version agrees with another. In all this, the Word of God was always present, first because any particular version or copy might be considered good enough to be used as a Bible (except perhaps for a few corrupt ones), and second, because collectively, that is, in all the scattered forms, the Word of God was present, because it could be potentially collected, gathered and discerned. Thus, in the Reformation this literally took place in the production of the original language printings (Received Text), as well as in the succession of Protestant versions, particularly the cumulative effect of English ones.

Therefore, while the Scripture may be said to be preserved in the original languages until the Reformation, it was first in a fragmentary form, secondly never in a final, finite form, and third, requiring witness beyond the original languages. The Gospel was supposed to go to the Gentiles, so it came forth in Italian, French, German and English. Preservation of the Word requires that it come together in a final form: one Word going to the whole world. Therefore, preservation is operating within a providential continuum, so that the final form is one version for the whole world in one language. This does not negate any valid manuscript in the originals, nor any valid Textus Receptus edition, nor any valid foreign translation, nor any valid English version, but it does mean that there is a final form, the end product of the preservation.

When Norris argues that preservation should apply to other languages (because the Word is in other languages), he is correct only to the point where there is a providential limitation. That is, that God has never stipulated that the Gospel should be always in all languages, but rather, for all in one language. In fact, Revelation 10:11 indicates that a singular witness (the King James Bible) is reaching persons of other tongues (e.g. Spanish), which means that the Spanish-speakers must in time somehow hear the King James Bible. Again, Revelation 14:6 indicates that a singular witness (the King James Bible) must come to people of other tongues (e.g. Spanish), which means that the Spanish-speakers must be able to comprehend the English Bible. How is this possible, except that the world has English as a common language, and that the true preachers are using the Bible which God has providentially supplied, which is conducive with the common language.

Norris says, “The KJV-only view would seem to make God responsible for the actual existing differences between the KJV, the Peshitta Syriac Bible, Luther's German Bible, the Spanish Bible, the French Bible, the Dutch Bible, etc.”

Inasmuch as God created the waster to destroy, or allowed for corruptions or scattering to take place in the history of the Word of God, which was according to the foreknowledge of God, nevertheless, God rather has worked or allowed the manifestation of the purification, which includes gathering, and that one Bible in one language becomes the best and supreme form of all.

Norris asks, “Would KJV-only reasoning suggest that God did not and does not do enough for believers who do not speak English?”

In that the world is turning to English as the common language, and that the Gospel is yet present, and that the King James Bible is come into its manifestation of glory, surely God is allowing for people of other languages to have the perfect form of His Word. (The perfect form is different but related to the perfect quality of the Scripture: the perfect quality is in the message and nature of Scripture, the perfect form means the exact text and exact meaning being conveyed.)

Norris asks, “Do holders of a KJV-only view think that God is not as faithful to keep His promises to believers that do not speak English as they claim he must be to those who speak English after 1611?”

Actually, God is extremely faithful in keeping His Word, and providing it in a perfect form. The truth is that the world has access to this final form, and that having grown up in a foreign country or not having English as a first language is no excuse. God’s blessing is there to turn people to English so that they may turn to the pure Bible English.

Norris accuses, “If God's preservation means that one translation from the TR must be inspired, inerrant, exact, and perfect, does it not mean that the same applies to all other translations from this same text?”

This is where there is a fundamental error, which is to claim something which a normal, proper and sound King James Bible only person does not believe: the King James Bible was not made by inspiration. Nor was any edition of the TR inspired. Only the autographs were inspired, and there are many copies, translations and versions which do not match textually exactly perfectly to the words of inspiration, nevertheless, the potential was there: and by the providence of God, through wise and godly man using their discretion and judgment, the exact text of the Scripture was formulated in one English translation, being the exact text (word perfect) and the exact sense without addition or subtraction to the original inspired writing, though it were done in English in 1604-1611. Only ONE purified form would result from preservation, because only ONE perfect text was given in inspiration. Thus, ONE Scripture inspired would result in ONE Scripture (i.e. Bible version) that would be final, exact, certain, pure and standard for the whole world before the end. It is utterly false to think that perfection is only in the autographs. Likewise, in practice, perfection has never been found in many versions and/or translations. But it (i.e. textual and translational perfection) has been manifest in one, though many other copies, versions and translations were quite acceptable and have had their rightful place. We do not condemn intermediate copies or other translations: but there is obviously one final, supersuccessionary form.

Norris writes, “The early English translators including even the KJV translators and many Bible-believers from A. D. 100 until 1610 and even to the 1800's did not find that the doctrine of preservation taught a KJV-only view.”

The proper doctrine of preservation is not the one which Norris claims is held by us. First, that the Church has not had exactly perfect doctrine in the period specified, but that there has been a growth in revelation and growing up, second, that when people did not have an articulated view of preservation (the Spirit of God obviously was not leading them in that way until the right time) and thirdly, that the King James Bible view is actually based on and the product of the working of the Spirit through the Church by sound tradition.

The issue as to where the Word of God was in finite form at any historical time was not the particular concern of the Church, and nor was it manifest, but its manifestation occurred (in 1611), after which it became specifically recognised as the final form. This recognition was in part “unconscious”, and more and more fully articulated over the years, whereas now the revelation of it is clear to certain in the Church.

Norris asks, “How does the KJV-only view maintain that God kept His Word perfectly preserved and accessible when it also seems to imply that no one had all of it until 1611, 1769, 1850, or 1900?”

But God kept His Word despite it being scattered, from the time of the Early Church until the present. As to it being in one volume exactly one correct text, this occurred in 1611, and as for it being recognised and its actual presentational perfection seen and known, this was only after the year 2000. Were the people in 1999 without the pure Word because they did not recognise to the level that we now see? Were the people in a Spanish country without the Word of God, because people did not realise that God intended that the King James Bible itself should be preached to them? At this very present time, God is not limited in reaching people, though they be ignorant, deceived or rejecting these things.

Norris says, “The guiding of the Holy Spirit which KJV-only advocates recognize in the KJV is of exactly the same sort as the guiding of the Spirit in the earlier English translations.”

Actually, while the same Spirit has worked consistently from the inspiration to the present, there are stages also:

WORD IN HEAVEN FROM GENESIS 1:1; ON EARTH:

I. INSPIRATION
Each book individually textually perfect, not altogether in one volume, in Hebrew or Greek.

II. EARLY COPIES
Books gathered, various copies with textual deviances, in Hebrew or Greek. (E.g. Dead Sea Scrolls, but the book Jesus used in Luke 4:17 was probably correct if Hebrew, or else, correct at that place at least if he was using the LXX.)

III. EARLY VERSIONS
Scripture translated into other languages, each with textual and translational differences.

IV. LATER COPIES AND VERSIONS
A mass of original language copies, fragments, partial, many with textual variations; a mass of Latin editions, other witnesses, with families of textual and translational differences.

V. PRINTED VERSIONS
Gathered editions of Greek and of Hebrew, with critical apparatus; various Latin editions; various Protestant translations.

VI. KING JAMES BIBLE
Final textual form, exact translation in English: gathered largely from III to V.

VII. PURE CAMBRIDGE EDITION
Exact, word perfect presentation in English without typographical error or any other impurity of the King James Bible.

Note that the same Spirit has operated consistently and successively. Obviously, there could not be a common “word perfect Bible” in the days when scribes were handwriting copies in scriptoriums.

Norris argues, “There is no respect of persons with God (Rom. 2:11, Acts 10:34). God does not change (Mal. 3:6).”

Actually, God respects those who have faith. He certainly does regard various nations differently. And that God does being changeless does not mean that He deals with everyone the same (e.g. Canaanites), or that He gives everyone the same gifts (e.g. in the Church), or that He saves everyone from perdition (e.g. Judas and many antichrists). Obviously, changelessness is in regard to God’s nature (mercies), God’s truth (judgments) and the availability of salvation to any who will ask for it (promises).

Norris asks, “Do the Scriptures actually teach that the guiding or illuminating of the Spirit was different for the KJV translators than it was and is for all believing translators?”

Since the Church has progressed through different periods, and since different men and raised up of God and called to do different things, so is it that the KJB translators were different from other translators like William Tyndale.

Norris points out, “The guiding or illuminating of the Holy Spirit did not make the KJV translators perfect in their understanding of the Scriptures as seen in the Church of England doctrines they believed.”

This is true, nevertheless, while they were not used of God to establish “doctrines, tenants and creeds”, they were used to give the Word in final perfection in English.

Norris says, “Holders of the KJV-only view seem to disregard the many passages of Scripture that indicate that no men without the miracle of direct inspiration are perfect or infallible interpreters, copiers, or translators.”

Jesus said that the Jews were gods, and if the New Testament is better than the Old, it is possible that God does use people whom He chooses in various ways at any time He wills. Perfection does not require inspiration. Many verses in the Bible talk about Christians being perfect and having perfect works. Surely it is because they actually believe that it is Christ in them!

Norris says, “If the KJV translators are granted exhaustive, comprehensive, and perfect knowledge for translating without any divine inspiration, they seem to be granted omniscience that places them essentially in the position of God.”

No man by himself is omniscient, and since the Bible is finite (it does not contain all knowledge, only the sufficient communication of knowledge from God to mankind, certainly sufficient for faith for salvation), it is entirely possible for a person to be used of God. And those learned men who made the King James Bible were used of God, but God’s use of them was providential, not inspirational. In other words, collectively they had excelling sufficient learning and judgment in the Scripture to be able to bring it forth perfectly, especially because they were able to lay hold on all the various witnesses and evidences which the Holy Ghost had brought out of history and afforded to them at that time. In short, they were the right men at the right time in the right place that knew the right things so as to rightly select the text of the Word which matched exactly to the long lost autographs as was attested to only by copies, and were able to rightly translate it, sense for sense, without deviation, without addition or subtraction, and without any substitution of the sense, so that what we have today is the Word of God, now set forth to be the Word of God for the world, to be presented by the myriad, yet in one standard, agreeing, central and universal form.