Preservation and the Biblical Text

My Belief on Preservation

God has perfectly preserved His word in the extant manuscripts, but textual criticism is not to the point yet where we can perfectly extract it. As textual criticism grows and more extant manuscripts are discovered i believe that it will be possible to come to a perfect text.

What to term my belief on preservation

• Theoretical VPP (Verbal Plenary Preservation)
• Practical EPP (Essentially Pure Preservation)

-OR-

• EM-VPP - Extant Manuscript Verbal Plenary Preservation (to distinguish from KJV/TR-VPP)
• CT-EPP - Critical Text Essentially Pure Preservation (not referring to any particular critical text)

So that the VPP is theoretical and not confined to a specific text family, but to all extant manuscripts.

EPP is what we practically have and this essential preservation is found in a critical text.

I purposefully kept my belief on the underlying texts separate from my belief on preservation as these beliefs are exclusive to each other to a degree.

I think it is important to have a distinction between theoretical and practical preservation. It keeps us from the mistake of seeing mistakes in our critical text and thinking that means the Scriptures are not "purely" preserved. And it keeps us from the mistake that we fall into when we try to hold on to the doctrine of preservation, and seeing differences in manuscripts and versions, we seek to pick one manuscript or version and claim "this is purely preserved."

I hope that makes some kind of sense.

Underlying Original Language Texts

My view on underlying original language texts goes back and forth a bit. Here are some thoughts on that...

When I prefer the KJV and its underlying texts

why the TR?

It is from the text line that the Church has accepted for thousands of years.

The Alexandrian text line was known and consistently rejected by the Church. Even Erasmus had readings from the Vaticanus and other similar manuscripts, and consistently rejected them.

The modern Church does not have some special knowledge regarding these texts that the Church throughout history has not had, and the modern Church is not correct simply because it is modern. We must not break with the history of the Church unless there is a very compelling reason to do so. All of the methods of modern textual criticism are merely theory, and not compelling enough to break with so much Church history.

why KJV?
It is the best translation that uses the TR...

The translators themselves were very pious and scholarly men who believed themselves to be translating the very words of God. As a comparison, the General Editor of the NKJV (Farstad) did not believe that the TR was the very words of God as he held to the MT theory, therefore he felt that the TR that the NKJV was based on was flawed.

The methods of the translation companies were second to none - all books went through each company, not just one.

They employed certain "biblical English" methods of relating more clearly the underlying original language text. For instance they used "ye/you" for the plural and "thou/thee" for the singular, even though those were not in common use during the time of translation.

The KJV has been blessed for hundreds of years by God. Modern Bibles generally don't even last 50 years.

It is the only Bible widely available today that the Church as a whole has used as the word of God. The modern Church is divided as to which Bible to use.

When I prefer the ESV and its underlying texts

The Critical Text (Nestle-Aland/UBS) best represents the original texts.

In the tradition of the Received Text, it considers all available documents to ascertain the original reading. It does not limit itself to one particular family of manuscripts, but considers all the manuscripts God actually has providentially preserved.

Although there are early Byzantine readings, there is no unambiguous evidence that the Byzantine text type was known before the 4th century.

Although it is possible that scribes may have removed sections based on theological prejudice, the evidence shows that scribes were more likely to harmonize and add to the text. And if they would have removed sections based on theology they would have been more consistent in carrying it out.

It is also a mistake to think that the Church of the 17th century was more authoritative than the Church of the 21st century. Especially in areas where they did not have all of the evidence that the modern Church currently has at its disposal.