Preservation and Authority

Aaron Blumer does a nice job reviewing several key passages on the How and What of scripture preservation. Claims are made in these passages, but three things are not promised:

1. The passages do not actually say there will be a recognized form with every jot and tittle perfectly preserved.
2. Neither Jesus nor the other speakers or writers in these passages say that the word will be accessible for “every generation.” Even if a letter-perfect form of God’s word could be identified with certainty, the promises do not preclude the possibility that this form could be lost for some generations then recovered again (the fact that something has not passed away does not mean we must know exactly where it is.)
3. None of those who heard these promises when they were given could point to a written form they knew to contain every preserved jot and tittle. That is, already multiple copies existed, and variations among them existed—not only in jots and tittles but (by Jesus’ day) in whole words. (When Jesus spoke, the Scriptures available were hand made copies of the Hebrew OT and Greek versions of the OT known collectively as the Septuagint).
   

Regarding the perhaps unsatisfying results of this analysis, Blumer writes,

Some will object that if we cannot identify the perfectly preserved text or translation, we do not have preservation in any meaningful sense. But this argument is a distraction from facts we cannot escape. Whether or not we like the implications of what Scripture says (and doesn’t say), the Bible still says only what it says—no more and no less.

This is key, even if there are other passages that could be construed as explaining the details of preservation. Do we accept Scripture as authoritative? Do we trust that God has made known in Scripture what he wanted to make known, or do we insist on Scripture saying what we decide should have been said or needs to be said? Can we tolerate a Bible that is silent on a topic that is dear to us?

Marginal Notes

How can the KJV be pure, etc. when its translators used marginal notes from the Hebrew instead of the actual Hebrew in hundreds of places? Yes, it's that ol' qere / ketiv issue, for you Hebrew scholars.

What does this mean for the KJVO "perfect preservation" argument, too?

Preservation

Here's a good article titled "The Preservation of Scripture," by Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary professor, William Combs. See also DBTS' resources on the KJV issue.

He classifies the different views of preservation, and then examines the actual verses that are used to support some of the various positions.

I appreciate his consideration of what the "word" of God means in each passage, since this can be interpreted several different ways--from prophecy, to the Scriptures, to Jesus. Unfortunately, many people fail to critically examine the meaning of "word" in the given context before applying it.

He makes an interesting point about John 21:25, also (p.24).

The KJVO myth of certainty (p. 37) is explained. How can I know my Bible is the Word of God?!

Sadly, the KJVO position boils down to a faith decision, in contradiction to the facts about the Textus Receptus tradition, the meaning of simple Greek words, and the amount of energy put forth by so many KJVO-types to present their case as reasonable, scholarly, and Biblical.

Purified Silver

One explanation of the error in 1) the KJV's translation of Psalm 12, and 2) the KJVO interpretation of this Psalm as a proof text for their preservation doctrine. Another treatment of this error.