Concerning the Preservation of Scripture.

[Alan Dale Gross]

Continued from;
A Declaration of My Own Position on the Inspiration and Preservation of Holy Scripture, by Thomas Ross.

"Concerning the Preservation of Scripture",1

I confess:

1.) "God Revealed the Scriptures so men could know His Will both in the Old and New Testaments and in the future (Deuteronomy 31:9-13, 24-29; 1 John 1:1-4, 2:1-17; 2 Timothy 3:14-17; 2 Peter 1:12-15).

"The Bible is clear that no Scripture was intended for only the original recipient (Romans 15:4, 16:25-26; 1 Corinthians 10:11).

"God intended for His Word to be recognized and received by the churches as a whole (Colossians 4:16; Revelation 1:3-4).

"The Inspired text of Scripture is to be guarded (1 Timothy 6:20-21) as a “form (pattern) of sound words” for the church (2 Timothy 1:13-14) and used to instruct all future churches (2 Timothy 2:2).

2.) "The Bible Promises that God Will Preserve every one of His Words Forever down to the very jot and tittle,2 the smallest letter (Psalm 12:6-7, 33:11, 119:152, 160; Isaiah 30:8, 40:8; 1 Peter 1:23-25; Matthew 5:18, 24:35).

3.) "The Bible Assures us that God’s Words are Perfect and Pure (Psalm 12:6-7; Proverbs 30:5-6).

4.) "The Bible Promises that God would Make His words generally available to every generation of believers (Deuteronomy 29:29; 30:11-14; Isaiah 34:16, 59:21; Matthew 4:4; 5:18-19; 2 Peter 3:2; Jude 17).

5.) "The Bible Promises there will be certainty as to the Words of God (Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Revelation 22:18-19; 2 Peter 1:19; Luke 1:4; Proverbs 1:23, 22:20-21; Daniel 12:9-10; 1 John 2:20).

6.) "The Bible Promises that God would Lead His saints into all Truth, and that the Word, all of His Words, are Truth (John 16:13, 17:8, 17). Believers are not to set themselves above the Word but Receive it (John 17:8; with the Faith of a little child, rejecting secular and worldly “wisdom” (Matthew 11:25-26; 1 Corinthians 3:18-20).

7.) "God states that the Bible will be Settled to the extent that someone could not add or take away from His Words and effectually corrupt them (Revelation 22:18-19; Deuteronomy 12:32).

8.) "The Bible shows that the true churches of Christ would receive and guard these words (Matthew 28:19-20; John 17:8; Acts 8:14, 11:1, 17:11; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Corinthians 15:3; 1 Timothy 3:15).

9.) "The Bible presents as a pattern that that believers would receive these words from other believers (Deuteronomy 17:18; 29:29; 1 Kings 2:3; Proverbs 25:1; Acts 7:38; Hebrews 7:11; 1 Thessalonians 1:6; Philippians 4:9; Colossians 4:16).

10.) "The Bible shows that God’s Promises may appear to contradict Science and reason. In Genesis 2 we see that a newly Created World may look Ancient. However, the Scriptures remind us that “it is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man” (Psalm 118:8). We believe in order that we may understand.

11.) "Christ Taught the Preservation of His very Words, since they Will be the Standard in the Future Judgment (John 12:48) and men will be accountable to obey all of them.

"He also Warned of the vanity of ignoring His Actual Words (Matthew 7:26). Christ emphatically declared, “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). In Matthew 22:29 Jesus rebuked men, saying, “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.” If the Scriptures were only accessible in long-lost Original Autographs then why would the Lord Chide people for being ignorant of words that were not available? Believers are Commanded to Contend for the Faith (Jude 3) and this Faith is based upon the Words of God (Romans 10:17).

12.) "In summary, “The Just shall live by Faith” (Romans 1:17; Habakkuk 2:4) and “we walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Corinthians 5:7). Scripture, and Faith in the Promises of God, must be the “glasses” through which we evaluate Historical Data about the Preservation of the Bible.

"Scripture teaches the verbal, plenary Preservation of the verbally, plenarily Inspired autographa (Psalm 12:6-7; Matthew 5:18; Matthew 24:35); that the Preserved Words would be perpetually available to God’s people (Isaiah 59:21); and that Israel was the Guardian of Scripture in the Mosaic dispensation (Romans 3:1-2), and the church the Guardian in the dispensation of Grace (1 Timothy 3:15).

"The Holy Spirit would Lead the saints to accept the Words the Father Gave to the Son to Give to His people (John 16:13; 17:8). Believers can know with certainty where the canonical Words of God are, because they are to live by every one of them (Matthew 4:4; Revelation 22:18-19) and are going to be Judged by them at the Last Day (John 12:48)."

Con't for notes and references.

​

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

1. "A book length exposition of the Biblical Doctrine of Preservation is Thou Shalt Keep Them: A Biblical Theology of the Perfect Preservation of Scripture, ed. Kent Brandenburg, El Sobrante, CA: Pillar and Ground Publishing, 2003.

"The book is a fine presentation of the Doctrine by a separatist Baptist. It can be purchased at Bibliology | Resources | Faith Saves. The website also contains an exposition of a number of passages related to the Preservation of Scripture. Compare the list of presuppositions on the Preservation of Scripture found on pgs. 73-74, “Preservation of the Bible: Providential or Miraculous? A Response to Jon Rehurek of the Master’s Seminary,” Paul Ferguson. The Burning Bush 15:2 (July 2009) 67-100.

2. "See “The Debate over the Inspiration of the Hebrew Vowel Points” and “Evidences for the Inspiration of the Hebrew Vowel Points,” by Thomas Ross, and “The Antiquity of the Hebrew Language, Letters, Vowels, and Accents” by John Gill at Bibliology | Resources | Faith Saves for the implications of this confession to the question of the Inspiration and Authority of the Hebrew vowel points."

3. "See “Are Accurate Copies and Translations of Scripture Inspired? A Study of 2 Timothy 3:16,” at Bibliology | Resources | Faith Saves.

4. "A book length exposition of the Biblical Doctrine of Preservation is Thou Shalt Keep Them: A Biblical Theology of the Perfect Preservation of Scripture, ed. Kent Brandenburg, El Sobrante, CA: Pillar and Ground Publishing, 2003. The book is a fine presentation of the Doctrine by a Separatist Baptist. It can be purchased at Bibliology | Resources | Faith Saves. The website also contains an exposition of a number of passages related to the Preservation of Scripture. Compare the list of presuppositions on the Preservation of Scripture found on pgs. 73-74, “Preservation of the Bible: Providential or Miraculous? A Response to Jon Rehurek of the Master’s Seminary,” Paul Ferguson. The Burning Bush 15:2 (July 2009) 67-100.

5. "See “The Debate over the Inspiration of the Hebrew Vowel Points” and “Evidences for the Inspiration of the Hebrew Vowel Points,” by Thomas Ross, and “The Antiquity of the Hebrew Language, Letters, Vowels, and Accents” by John Gill at Bibliology | Resources | Faith Saves for the implications of this confession to the question of the inspiration and authority of the Hebrew vowel points.

​

 

[Logos1560]

1. "A book length exposition of the Biblical Doctrine of Preservation is Thou Shalt Keep Them: A Biblical Theology of the Perfect Preservation of Scripture, ed. Kent Brandenburg, El Sobrante, CA: Pillar and Ground Publishing, 2003.



​

This book entitled Thou Shalt Keep Them edited by Kent Brandenburg in its definitions defined King James Only as follows: “a broad title for any individuals and institutions who read, study, preach, and use only the King James Version as an English translation” (p. 11).

Gary Webb maintained that the Bible doctrine of verbal preservation of Scripture “leads men to adopt the ‘King James Only’ position” (Brandenburg, Thou Shalt Keep Them, p. 20).

Alan Dale Gross, according to your own source, does the Bible doctrine of verbal preservation of Scripture lead you to adopt the KJV-only position?

According to this definition of King James only in one of your favored sources edited by Kent Brandbenburg, Alan Dale Gross, are you KJV-only?

 

[Logos1560]

Charles Nichols claimed: “Perfect inspiration without perfect preservation would leave inspiration a worthless Biblical doctrine” (Brandenburg, Thou Shalt Keep Them, p. 68). Charles Nichols asked: “What value is an inspired Scripture for extended generations of human beings if it is not preserved in that inspired form?” (p. 66). Charles Nichols declared: “”The necessity of Scripture for the perfect preparation of the man of God also demands the preservation of every Word of God for every man of God in every generation” (p. 68).

In the same book, Thomas Corkish asserted: “Without the guarantee of the pure preservation of Scripture, the inspiration of the originals would be of little value” (p. 151). In this same book, Thomas Strouse claimed: “The Scriptures teach both implicitly and explicitly the doctrine of verbal, plenary preservation as a fundamental truth” (p. 243). Thomas Strouse asserted: “The OT and NT Scriptures attest to the promise of verbal, plenary preservation of the Lord’s words” (p. 249).

In this book that he edited, Kent Brandenburg claimed: “Scripture promises the perfect preservation and availability of all the Words of God to every generation” (p. 261). Kent Brandenburg asserted: “Perfect preservation requires a miracle” (p. 263). Kent Brandenburg claimed: “Matthew 24:35 teaches that every one of God’s Words, as He gave them of old to holy men of God, are extant and available for every generation” (p. 64).

All the readings followed in the KJV have not been demonstrated to have been available for every generation after the completion of the giving of the New Testament. The KJV followed a reading that is found in no known extant Greek New Testament manuscript.

 

[Logos1560]

Is the Textus Receptus reading at Revelation 17:8 found in extant preserved Greek New Testament manuscripts?

KJV defender Edward F. Hills asserted: “The few typographical errors which still remain in the Textus Receptus of Revelation do not involve important readings” (KJV Defended, p. 202; Text, p. 339). One reading followed in the KJV at Revelation 17:8 (and yet is, instead of, and shall come) is said by Edward F. Hills to be an “uncorrected printer’s error in Erasmus” (Believing Bible Study, p. 83). Edward F. Hills wrote: “Here we see that the only typographical error worth noting occurs in Rev. 17:8, ‘the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.’ Here the reading kaiper estin (and yet is) seems to be a misprint for kai paresti (and is at hand), which is the reading of Code 1r, the manuscript Erasmus used in Revelation” (KJV Defended, p. 202; Text, p. 339). Concerning this reading, Jason Harris asserted: “The difference is that the space was placed in the wrong place to form two different words” (Doctrine, p. 134). Jan Krans referred to this reading at Revelation 17:8 as “one of the Erasamian blunders” (Beyond what is Written, p. 54, footnote 6).

 

[Logos1560]

Is the Textus Receptus reading and KJV rendering "book of life" at Revelation 22:19 found in all extant preserved Greek New Testament manuscripts?



Ron Minton maintained that the KJV followed the Latin Vulgate at Revelation 22:19 “where all known Greek manuscripts have ‘tree of life,’ but the Latin has ‘book of life’” (Making and Preservation, p. 132, footnote 216).

Concerning Revelation 22:19, Doug Kutilek claimed: “All Greek manuscripts read ‘tree of life;’ not a single one reads ‘book of life’” (Erasmus, His Greek Text, p. 3). Doug Kutilek asserted: "The fact that all textus receptus editions of Stephanus, Beza, et al. read with Erasmus shows that their texts were more or less slavish reprints of Erasmus' text and not independently compiled editions, for had they been edited independently of Erasmus, they would surely have followed the Greek manuscripts here and read 'tree of life'" (Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus, p. 3).

KJV defender Glenn Conjurske noted: “The Greek column of the Complutensian reads ‘tree of life,’ not ‘book of life,’ while the adjacent column which contains the Latin Vulgate reads libro vite, that is ‘book of life’” (Bible Version Controversy, p. 252).

Does Peter Ruckman avoid, ignore, or dismiss all known Greek NT manuscript evidence for the book of Revelation? Concerning Revelation 22:19 in his commentary on the book of Revelation, Peter Ruckman claimed: “All the new translations say ‘tree of life’ instead of ‘book of life.’ Again, the change is uncalled for, the Receptus reads ‘bibliou.’ “Tree of life’ is sheer conjecture. No alternate reading is given in Nestle’s Critical Apparatus, and the ASV and RSV are putting in an Alexandrian conjecture that doesn’t exist” (p. 606).

 

[Logos1560]

In his article entitled “New Testament Conjectural Emendation: Folly or Duty,”Jan Krans wrote: “At Rev. 16:5, probably through a misunderstanding, Beza printed o esomenos instead of o hosios from his 1582 edition onwards” (Wallace, Pen, p. 173, footnote 21). In notes under correspondence from Francis Huyshe in the March, 1834, issue of The British Magazine, this is stated concerning Revelation 16:5: “But having discovered in the book of collations, the reading, …, (which is ever used on similar occasions), as he [Beza] says, ‘ex vetusto bonae fidei MS. Cod.,’ he restores it” (Vol. V, p. 287). Did Theodore Beza possibly assume that the new reading he introduced at Revelation 16:5 was found in an old manuscript because it was in an imperfect, recent book of collations where a young collator could have looked at the wrong place in a manuscript that did not have verse divisions?

Do the known facts indicate that Henri Stephanus’ imperfect book of collations may possibly have misled Beza in some cases including this one? Isn’t it amazing that the claimed reading of one supposedly missing or lost NT manuscript can be advocated over the reading of all known accessible and preserved Greek NT manuscripts? Is it being suggested that the Greek NT text has not been preserved at Revelation 16:5 in the vast majority of NT manuscripts? Ron Minton asserted: “One should never base a reading on the evidence of only one Greek manuscript” (Making and Preservation, p. 37). Wilbur Pickering wrote: “It should also be evident that a variant in a single MS, of whatever age, is irrelevant – it is a false witness to its family archetype, at that point, nothing more” (God Has Preserved, p. 245). Andreas Kostenberger and Michael Kruger wrote: “Sometimes a certain reading exists in only one Greek manuscript and no other. Such singular readings—and there are thousands of them—have little claim to be the original text and therefore are irrelevant in assessing the reliability of the manuscript tradition” (Heresy, p. 216). Edward F. Hills asked: “Has the special providence of God over the New Testament Text done no more than to preserve the true readings somewhere, that is to say in some one or other of the great variety of New Testament manuscripts now existing in the world?” (KJV Defended, p. 109; Text, p. 195).

Is this Beza reading at Revelation 16:5 found in multiple reliable Greek NT manuscripts and in a preserved line of continuity of transmission? Is there any clear, sound historical evidence that this new Beza reading at Revelation 16:5 was handed down and widely accessible to each generation of believers and was in the texts and translations commonly and continually used by churches in every generation during the 1500 years from A. D. 100 until A. D. 1600? Are we to believe that part of the NT text was lost to most congregations and believers for over 1000 years until discovered and restored by Beza? Jonathan Arnold asserted: “We may conclude that to assert that any portion of Scripture as having been lost is effectively to deny access to the whole counsel of God” (Hooper, It Is Written, p. 313).

Generations of English-speaking believers did not have this Beza reading in their English Bible translations from Wycliffe’s Bible until the Bishop’s Bible [1380’s to 1610]. According to KJV-only advocates, are we to believe that until almost A. D. 1600 God left His church with a reading at Revelation 16:5 that was wrong? Did German-speaking believers have this Beza reading in Luther’s German Bible for its first 100 years? Did Spanish-speaking believers have this Beza reading in their early Spanish Bibles? Does this Beza reading at Revelation 16:5 clearly measure up to John William Burgon’s consistently Christian principles or methods of NT textual criticism? Is the KJV-only defense of the Beza reading at Revelation 16:5 consistent with the KJV-only view’s doctrine of preservation? According to KJV-only reasoning, did God promise that the correct reading at Revelation 16:5 would disappear or be lost for a long period of time and finally reappear and be restored hundreds of years later? Is faith being placed in textual critic Theodore Beza to restore the correct text at Revelation 16:5?