PRESERVATION

     This web page is concerned with the preservation of  the Bible.  We briefly consider two aspects:  general preservation and the preservation of  translations.

General Preservation

      The preservation of  the Bible, the Word of  God, has occurred until this present day.  There has been many attempts to destroy the Word.  The classical Biblical example is in Jeremiah 36:21-26 where King Jehoiakim heard the words that Jeremiah had written and proceeded to cut leaves of  the scroll and cast them into the fire.  In the same chapter God instructed Jeremiah to rewrite those words and add others to them.  Another example of  more modern times has been the declaration by Votaire about a century ago.  He said in effect that in 20 years (the exact number is not important) the Bible will be eliminated.  Today his house is the home of a Bible society.  Many other examples can be given about the preservation of  God's Word.

           This preservation is the fulfillment of  God's promise concerning His Word.  We read in Psalm 119:89, "For ever, O Lord, Thy Word is settled in heaven."  1 Peter 1:23 declares that the Word of  God "liveth and abideth for ever." (Bold type for emphasis)  As Dr. Chafer states in connection with Hebrews 12:25-29, "It is not that some one book out of  the innumerable books men have written has been arbitrarily singled out for the highest honor.  The Bible is eternal in its own right.  It abides because of  the fact that no word Jehovah has spoken can be removed or shaken." (Systematic Theology, I:124)  The Bible thus becomes a legal document by which God commits Himself to the fulfillment of  every promise, every covenant, and every prophecy.

Preservation of  Translations

     The other aspect of preservation, that is at this time controversial, is whether God has preserved His Word via translations.  Although this is really another subject altogether, it is worthy of  consideration.  It is obvious that God has preserved His Word via the abundance of  manuscripts.  No other book before the days of  printing has any where near the number of manuscripts as does the Bible.  It is strange indeed the criticism the Bible receives even in the light of  thousands of  manuscripts (granted many are incomplete copies of  the Bible) whereas the same criticism is not applied to the very few copies of  Plato's writings and other ancient writers such as Homer.  The question we are asking here is not the preservation of  the Bible in its original languages, but rather its preservation in the translations.  
     This writer is still with this matter.  He does favor the King James Version which is based on the Textus Receptus (Received Text).  Most of  the more modern translations are based on the Westcott-Hort text with appropriate modifications thereof. This text is largely based on a very few so-called early manuscripts.  Yet there are manuscripts (granted not complete ones) older than these which have readings like the Textus Receptus (which manuscripts are ignored or at best written off).  One must admit that even the KJV is not perfect if  he is willing to face the evidence.  On the other hand, the assumptions that Westcott and Hort made are open to question. This whole matter is a textual problem which is beyond the scope of  this web site.  In school this writer was taught the Westcott/Hort theory (and a theory it is).  The point that particularly made him question the whole theory (although all the points of  the theory are questionable) is "The shorter reading is to be preferred.  Corruption by addition is much more likely than corruption by omission."  What an assumption this is!  Under what logic does addition become more corrupt than omission?  None whatsoever.  One who wants to corrupt the text could go either way.  Interestingly enough, the omissions came from an area of  the world where the most heresies in the early church had arisen.  
     An interesting observation by Dr. David Sorenson states the matter clearly:

Many on the side of  the critical text position have never carefully studied the entire issue.  When I was in seminary [the same was true of  this writer], both sides of  the issue were NEVER  [caps by this writer for emphasis] presented.  Moreover, it seemed evident that my seminary professors had never studied the opposing view [In spite of  John Burgon's criticisms in the late 1800's--reprints are available].  With all due respect, in the mid-twentieth century, there had not been a great deal of material written on the issue [this, of course, due to ignoring the numerous writings of  John Burgon].  That is no longer the case.  At this writing, there are literally scores of  books clearly defining and defending the Received Text position.  Notwithstanding the plethora of  information presently available, many [including fundamentalists] holding the critical text position have simply never carefully studied the opposing view--the Received (or Preserved) Text position.  (Sorenson, David H., Touch Not the Unclean Thing, The Text Issue and Separation.  Duluth, MN:  Northstar Baptist Ministries, c2001; pages 11, 12.) 

     It is logical, at least, to think that if  God superintended His Word as to its origin, that He has also superintended the translations.  This does not, however, solve the problem.  In the final analysis it is a matter of  faith which version a person accepts.  Jack Moorman's pamphlet "Modern Bibles--The Dark Secret".  Los Osos, CA:  Fundamental Evangelistic Association, n. d., gives 12 excellent principles on the subject of  Bible preservation.  It is in support of  the KJV. 
     This brief explanation does not, of course, give any real solution.  It does, however, give the general attitude of  this writer.  The KJV at least has the test of  time on its side whereas none of  the more recent ones have.  This web site uses the KJV exclusively in all quotations from the Bible except where he has given a translation of  his own.  This writer would contend for the KJV only, but would not go to the extent that other versions (called perversions by many) have no value.  It should be noted that most of  the modern translations have undergone several changes (It is true that the KJV did also, which changes were not actual revisions, but largely changes in spelling and some minor phrases which were changed as to word order and obvious printer errors.  There were not, contrary to what some people state, any real revision of  the KJV.).
This writer has not studied the matter thoroughly, but the more he has studied it and read on the subject, the more he is convinced that the KJV is the preserved Word of  God in the English language.

HOME PAGE