“Are you a TR preferred guy or a Byzantine priority guy ?
Didn’t Erasmus and the Majority text guys do text criticism to arrive at their text ?”
Frequently, when attempting to express our viewpoint, we encounter individuals who possess knowledge in textual criticism, attained through watching YouTube videos or studying footnotes in critical bibles. Such individuals tend to approach our position through their own philosophical lens, rather than acknowledging that we are presenting a biblical foundation for the concept of biblical inerrancy, as opposed to a scientific or archaeological one. To effectively communicate the dangers of modern critical bibles, we should begin by elucidating the philosophy behind these bibles using their own assertions, and then present our philosophy supported by scripture.
What is their philosophy?
“Biblical textual criticism is a scholarly discipline aimed at reconstructing the most accurate and authentic version of biblical texts. It involves analyzing and comparing various manuscripts, fragments, and versions of the Bible to determine the original wording and meaning of the biblical texts. By assessing differences and variations in the copies of ancient manuscripts, linguistics, historical context, and literary style, textual critics seek to unveil the closest representation of the original writings, with the goal of enhancing our understanding of the original biblical content and its theological significance.” (emphasis added) This obviously assumes a prior assumption of no Divine Biblical Preservation, it assumes something must be reconstructed. That over time things have been lost or added or corrupted. It assumes the superior quality of modern man over all previous scholars to make critical determinations about the word of God. Read what is added to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy:
“Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that the Hebrew and Greek text appear to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.
Similarly, no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the autographa. Yet the verdict of linguistic science is that English-speaking Christians, at least, are exceedingly well served in these days with a host of excellent translations and have no cause for hesitating to conclude that the true Word of God is within their reach. Indeed, in view of the frequent repetition in Scripture of the main matters with which it deals and also of the Holy Spirit’s constant witness to and through the Word, no serious translation of Holy Scripture will so destroy its meaning as to render it unable to make its reader “wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 3:15).”
The case for us is simple. What is the biblical viewpoint?
- We receive God’s word. And then deliver it. It is really that simplistic, but also that robust. (1 Cor 15:1-8, 1 Cor 11:23, 2 Thes 2:15, Gal 1:8-12, Rm 15:4) In stark contrast to all the confusing footnotes about this passage or that passage not being in this manuscript or that one. Take Mt 18:11 for instance. It is not in Vat (Codex Vaticanus or B) or Sin (Codex Sinaiticus, also known as “Aleph”) so it is excluded from the NU (26th edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, or The United Bible Societies Third Edition) which is the critical text underlying the modern critical bibles. For us it is simple, this passage is quoted by the church fathers AND is found in Luke 9:56 and John 3:17 so we know it is the word of God. It has been in Matthew for all of known church history so there is no reason to question it put a footnote on it or in any way remove it! It has been delivered to us, our job is to receive it. We do not add to it or subtract from it.
- God preserves His Word. (Psalm 12:6-7, Matthew 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33, Isaiah 40:8, 1 Peter 1:24-25) So when we look a the long ending of Mark which is not in the NU and many say is not original we can see that without it something is missing. If we do not have the correct ending then we are missing the “actual” ending. That is not what is taught in the Bible about how God treats His Word. Even more (because some will argue that an abrupt ending of Mark is possibly original) let us look at 1 John 5:7. Modern scholars are so sure this is added that James White has said he knows he is dealing with an irrational zealot when they defend the Comma Johanneum. Yet if it is removed (as all critical bibles do) it creates a grammatical error in the greek. Meaning that they know something should be there but they just don’t know what it is. Can that be true if Mt 5:18 is true?
Objection: but then why not receive the Book of Mormon or the Quran? For two very common sense biblical reasons:- They are not the Received Text (God’s word delivered under the authority of the apostles to the first-century church).
- They are not the Preserved Word of God. (The church has not always had those texts).
The objective is not merely to understand what the original manuscripts said, but rather to grasp what God has delivered and preserved for His church. The goal of those who adhere to the critical text theory is based on the presupposition that God’s word has been lost and that it is up to human beings to rediscover it through various means such as study, research, and archeology. However, as ‘preservists,’ we reject this assumption, nor did any scholars prior to Westcott and Hort in the late 1800s.
Ask yourself this question: Do you have faith in the Bible completely, and are you ready to follow its guidance? Do you trust that “My sheep hear my voice” (John 10:27) is true?
If so, then is this the voice of the Master: “For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one” (1 John 5:7)?
The word of God is inspired by the Holy Spirit and not by secular scholars, and it is preserved by God rather than by humans. “Your word is truth” (John 17:17).
Post Script:
See a full defense of 1 John 5:7 HERE.
In my opinion, the defining factor is 1 John 5:7. If you are comfortable with its removal from your Bible or accept its removal, then you are firmly in the camp of critical textual scholars. The word says “the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12), which emphasizes the significance of this issue. Despite the complexity of the debates and articles, I have spent thousands of hours researching and debating and am convinced that the acceptance or rejection of 1 John 5:7 is a watershed moment in our hermeneutic that divides us on the concept of biblical inerrancy. Both sides of the argument have extensive scholarship and reasoning, but the crux of the matter boils down to a simple question: Is it a matter of secular scholarship concerning manuscripts and codices, or is it a matter of faith in God’s Holy Word, which we believe He has preserved and delivered to us?
Let’s return to the fundamental question:
- Is this statement true and doctrinally sound? “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” All orthodox Christians would answer: Yes.
- Does the rest of the Bible support this statement, or does God’s word testify to this statement? Even those who argue against its inclusion frequently acknowledge its truthfulness. So again, Yes!
- Has the church always had it, and has it been preserved by God? We know that church fathers were quoting it as early as 250 AD. [reference] And we know that it was in the ancient Latin texts[2] the church used through out history included it. All the major bibles of the church (Wycliffe 1382, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Geneva 1560, Bishop’s 1568) contained it. And finally the KJV 1611 also preserved it. So… YES!
Therefore, if it is doctrinally sound, biblically supported, and historically preserved. It doesn’t require a degree in textual criticism to recognize His voice and be confident that we are hearing Him correctly when we read “there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” Amen.
footnotes:
[2] Jeromes Vulgate 405 AD, Codex Fuldensis (mid 6th century), Codex Frisingensis, or manuscript r or 64 (6th-7th century), contains the full text of the Comma. Codex Legionensis, or manuscript l or 67 (7th century) contains the Comma with slight variation in wording (Nestle-Aland: Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th revised edition (2006)).
by 