I. PRESERVATION OR RESTORATION?

THE KEY ISSUE - PRESERVATION

Gentle reader, may the LORD grant you patience and grace to perceive the issue which will be unfolded before you to the end that you may be grounded and established.

Even in fundamental circles the issue relating to the various modern translations of the Bible is controversial. It is not merely the question of "inspiration". The crux is that of preservation. Has God preserved His Word perfect for us today, or was it only perfect in the "original" autographs? If God has not preserved His Word perfectly, we must assume that we are preaching and teaching from a book that is not completely reliable as the "original" autographs are no longer accessible.

If we believe that the Bible is still the inerrant Word of God, we must then deal with the problem of determining which version is the true Word of the Living God. Logic dictates that two opposing statements cannot both be true (we reject the Hegelian Dialectic). Therefore, two contradicting "Bibles" cannot both be the inerrant Word of God. This author proclaims from the outset that the "King James" or "Authorized Version" is the Word of God translated into the English language to the extent that it is the final authority in all matters of conduct and faith. Furthermore, as the modern translations since 1881 often differ from the King James Bible in wording as well as doctrine, and since two conflicting texts cannot be infallible, perfect and inerrant, the reader must of necessity make a choice. That which follows is intended to assist the seeker to clearly discern the truth of the matter for himself.

Moreover, that which follows is not intended to be an intellectual treatise. The uncompromising stand is taken herein that God gave us His pure Word in the original autographs, and that He has preserved it in its pure form unto this day - and will continue so doing forever. Indeed, preservation is the only issue separating the Biblicist ¹ from other professing Christians; yet, the traditional viewpoint has always been that God not only gave mankind His pure Word but that He also assumed the oversight of its preservation as well. Over the years, this position has deteriorated and the contemporary view is that God has not protected the Scriptures, that they are not available in a pure form, and that this necessitates their recovery by reconstructing them from the manuscripts which have survived to this day.

SCRIPTURAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS STUDY

The purpose of this study is biblically oriented for the Lord tells us that we must contend for the faith. Beloved, ... it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith ... (Jude 3)

1 Floyd Nolen Jones, A Chronology of the Old Testament: A Return to the Hebrew Text , (Collingswood, NJ: Bible For Today Press, #2427, 1993), p. 6. The following definition is adapted from the preceding which is the author's Ph.D. dissertation. By "Biblicist", this author does not merely refer to a fundamentalist or a Biblical scholar as many dictionaries so define. By it, much more is intended. The word connotes one who, while taking both the immediate and the remote context into account, interprets and believes the Word of God literally. This necessitates that the person so designated has chosen to believe God's many promises that, despite all textual criticism objections to the contrary, he would forever preserve His infallible Word. Moreover, the meaning intended to be conveyed by this word carries with it the concept that such a person trusts that the Hebrew and Greek B Textus Receptus (the Authorized Bible) which is today at his disposal is a fulfillment of those promises. Sadly, even among the pastors and seminary professors, most of today's conservative evangelical Christians do not qualify to bear this appellation which many in the not too distant past bore, counting the cost while enduring the shame.

Brush mouse cursor over this arrow. You'll go without clicking.