Having introduced this topic, and having explained the Scriptural arguments given for KJV Onlyism, I now turn to the Bible for a postitive presentation of the Scriptural support for my position.
Scripture is our final authority and Its teachings shape our conclusions and assumptions about everything. We don’t sit in judgment over God’s Word, picking and choosing what we will believe and obey, and what we won’t. We also don’t grovel at the feet of anyone else, accepting their judgment or authority completely. We are called to follow the noble Bereans who “searched the scriptures daily”, to see “whether those things [that they were being taught by Paul] were so” (Acts 17:11).
This post will focus on inspiration and preservation (in part). Later posts will continue with Scripture’s teaching on preservation, then accessibility, canonization, authority, and other points. But first, I will begin with a brief word about interpretation.
Interpretation
The way one interprets the Bible is very important. Both sides in this debate affirm that we must approach the text and listen to it communicate literally, grammatically and with respect to its historical context. I will do my best to look at each text in its context. It is hard for anyone, though, to approach Scripture from a neutral and non-biased standpoint. Therefore we must rely on the Holy Spirit all the more for help in understanding the Bible. Related to this point is the importance of not bringing assumptions to the text. We must listen to what the text says, and not assume certain words or phrases have our current 21st century connotation.
Inspiration
2 Tim. 3:16 teaches that “all scripture is given by inspiration of God”. Or, as the ESV translates it “all scripture is breathed out by God”. Inspiration properly, then refers to the initial time of the writing of those scriptures. At that time the very words were perfectly breathed out by God through the instrumentation of “holy men of God” who were “moved” or “carried along” by the Holy Spirit (cf. 2 Pet. 1:21). Both sides in the KJV only debate agree that inspiration was perfect and complete, and both sides for the most part, allow for stylistic differences between the human instruments whom God used for inspiration. Also both sides see inspiration (i.e. the fact that the words are God’s very words) in the sense of a quality which is inherent in all faithful copies and translations of faithful copies of the original Scriptures. (The word “scripture” means “writing” and likely applies to copies of the originals even in the context of 2 Tim. 2). Since both sides basically agree on this point, I’ll stop for now, and go on to preservation.
Preservation
It is on this point that most of the controversy lies with respect to the Bible and the KJVO debate. I will attempt to be thorough and clear in conveying my understanding of Scripture on this point, but I do not want to needlessly bog down this series into a complex, overly technical discussion.
In all seriousness, then, one of the important points to stress before looking at the individual texts on this issue, is the role of assumptions and faulty interpretation. In any serious debate, understanding the issue at hand and not coloring it with previous assumptions is very vital. And a faulty interpretation can make someone think they are proving their point, when in fact they are not. This is a pitfall for anyone in the debate, so I will try to take pains to be clear and demonstrate how I am concluding as I do, while at the same time, striving to be brief.
“Word of God”
One of the phrases which is central to a study of Scripture’s teaching on preservation is “word of God”. A typical American evangelical Christian is apt to almost always think this phrase refers to the Bible. But we must put ourselves into the historical and literary context of the Biblical authors to understand what they mean by “word of God”. Before I delve into this further, it might help to remind yourself that very very few people in Bible days owned a copy of “the Word”. Often the local synagogue or the place where the prophet taught held a copy of portions of the Bible. Most often people would hear the Bible read aloud to them.
In the Old Testament, one finds countless instances of the following phrases “the word of the Lord came to _______” or “Thus says the word of the Lord……” or “______spoke according to the word of the Lord……”. All of these examples are situations, where a prophet received a message from God and spoke that message orally. The message was heard not read. Later many of these prophecies were recorded and so sometimes in the OT, the phrase “word of God” or “word of the Lord” refers to the written scriptures. Most of the time, though, other terms are used for scripture: “the Law”, “testimonies”, “statutes”, “the book of the Law”, “judgments”, etc.
When we come to the New Testament, we find a similar usage of the term. It most often refers to the oral message of the Gospel. It can also refer to the body of truths which make up the Gospel. Consider the following phrases from the book of Acts:
“the word of God increased” 6:7
“received the word of God” 8:14; 11:1
“the word of God grew and multiplied” 12:24
“almost the whole city [came] together to hear the word of God” 13:44
“the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region” 13:49
“It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you” 13:46
“all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus” 19:10
“So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed” 19:20
[See also Rom. 10:8, 1 Cor. 14:36 and 1 Thess. 2:3 for more examples.]
A very instructive passage concerning this is Acts 10:36-44.
“The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ…that word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power…and we are witnesses of all things which he did…whom they slew and hanged on a tree: him God raised up the third day,…and he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead….to him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
Peter here uses “word” as a synonym to “gospel message”. Then all who heard the “word” (ie. the gospel which Peter was then proclaiming) received the Holy Spirit, indicating they were saved.
There is another sense for “word of God” in the Bible. It is sometimes use to refer to God’s sovereign commands. For instance Heb. 11:3 teaches that “the worlds were framed by the word of God”, and Heb. 1:3 says that Jesus is “upholding all things by the word of his power….” See also, Ps. 33:9.
All this is not to say that the phrase “word of God” never means scripture. Sometimes it does. What is clear, however, is that we must pay close attention to the context of verses used to support a doctrine of preservation and make sure the context indicates scripture rather than an oral message or the gospel. A final note on this point, the Greek word most often used for “word” can often mean “speech” or “message”, see 2 Cor. 1:18 and Acts 28:25 as examples. [For more on this issue of the meaning of the phrase "word of God" see this article by Dr. William Combs.]
Unfortunately, I’ve run out of space and time for continuing with this post. The next post in the series will hopefully cover most of the passages which touch on the doctrine of preservation.
Click here for all posts in this series.
Oh cool, I just got done reading your last one…you’re just in time. Here’s some more stuff for you to look at from Pulpit Magazine blog: https://www.sfpulpit.com/category/bibliology/
They did a whole study on the KJVO arguments.
Will,
That’s probably the fastest comment ever for me! I just press “publish” go away for 10 minutes and you’ve commented already!
Yeah, I read Pulpit’s series on the issue with interest. It is helpful, but at times a bit too broad or vague. It still does a good job for what it sought to address. I really enjoyed that series.
Thanks for the quick comment,
Bob
Over on Jackhammr.org I think it was either you or Steve who mentioned that Jesus said: “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY word…” and then commented that we don’t have every word, that God has ever spoken. Even John said: “I suppose that all the books in the world could not contain all that He did.” If “every word” as Jesus put it to Satan is referring to preservation, then we don’t have them. Jesus was not referring to preservation when he was debating with Satan, he was appealing to the Word’s authority. As for preservation, God has preserved all that He wanted us to have from the time of inspiration until today. I liked the hard questions that you asked and the appeal to blackballing you as an attacker of God’s word is still more proof to me of error. If the position cannot be defended with facts against facts, then one should not stand so dogmatically on it. I can prove intelligent design: The Word says it, and the proof of a creator is all around me screaming at me that there is a God. The Bible is not a science book, but it is always proven correct scientifically. Why can’t the KJVO position be proven correct that way too?
William,
What is proof? Scripture is truth. I see the desire for proof repeatedly in Scripture during Jesus entire ministry in the gospels. If we don’t start with Biblical presuppositions, we won’t have truth or proof. I believe Scripture harmonizes. If I didn’t, I could find a hundred contradictions and so-called “errors.” Bob, brings up a very few, that I know he got from James Price and others like him, and really picky things to try to find one error. And what position does he have, William? The KJV position can’t be proven in every single detail from evidence and history perhaps, and neither can intelligent design. But it is proven to the extent that a person of faith can believe it. This is, by the way, why it is faith. Consider this from Abraham’s perspective and Romans 4:20, 21, “He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.” Abraham never ever saw the physical evidence of God’s promise, but he staggered not. Weak faith staggers without physical evidence. Strong faith, that is, long-termed faith, does not.
I answered what you said I “black-balled” over at jackhammer. Isn’t the term “black-balled” a rather harsh statement. Where are the tone-police when I need them?
Bob,
Question in the inspiration section. The graphe (Scripture) that was profitable for Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:16, 17, were those the original manuscripts that he was reading of the Old Testament, or were they Hebrew copies that he would be reading?
Pastor B.,
I agree that “blackballed” is a charged and definitely harsh statement. I do want to try to keep loaded statements and harsh rhetoric at a minimum around here. And that applies to all sides. You are correct.
Re: your question, I believe that in vs. 15 the “grammata” refers to the copies (and probably even the Greek translation of Hebrew copies) that Timothy used. So in vs. 16 scripture refers to all faithful copies of the original scriptures. The originals were inspired and that is the source of the words still present in the faithful copies and translations. Properly only the originals were God breathed. But the product of that God-breathing was the words themselves. The words retain their authority (from the God-breathed origin of them) even when copied and translated.
William,
Obviously I share a similar outlook on the debate as you do. I have criticized Pastor B. for his harsh tone around here, so it is only fair if I ask my side to be careful in how we interact. You probably overstated your assessment of the debate thus far. I understand what you meant, but please try to help me keep the threads from an endless discussion of tone and assumed motives and etc.
Blessings in Christ,
Bob
William,
You were fine with me when all was said and done. Just tell me I’m blackballing and give me a chance to correct your perception first, instead of reporting to Bob that I’m blackballing when I didn’t think I was at that point. We’re fine though.
Plus, who says you are on Bob’s side? Aren’t you on my side? 
Now Bob,
Of course, a Greek translation as grammata is only speculation. The various editions of the Septuagint all have major problems. I’m not saying they were of no value, but we don’t have a reason to think that Jesus and the apostles referred to the Septuagint when 1) We don’t know for sure that it existed at that point, and 2) They refer several times to the Hebrew divisions when speaking about the OT.
You are saying then, Bob, that every graphe is what is sufficient for thoroughly furnishing someone to good works. You can’t exegetically separate graphe from what is sufficient for practice. The clear implication of the text is that without every graphe, one does not have what is necessary to thoroughly furnish. So, sufficiency and perfect preservation are doctrines tied together in 2 Timothy 3:16, 17.
Just a side note for both Bob & Kent, ‘grammata’ is used in verse 15, but ‘graphe’ is used in verse 16. Perhaps Paul is distinguishing the difference between the sacred writings (grammata, v. 15) which were the copied manuscripts and the inspired original autographs (graphe, v. 16). The usage in the Greek NT for both words is quite interesting. The word ‘graphe’ is used more extensively than ‘grammata’. The only other instance where the two are joined in such close proximation is found in Galatians 6:11 where Paul writes, “See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand”, where ‘grammata’ is translated ‘letters’ (i.e. the alphabet), and ‘graphe’ is translated “I am writing”). Paul may have had this thought of making a distinction in mind when he, under inspiration, wrote the second letter to Timothy. If this is so, then it’s plausible that Paul was making some kind of distinction between the written manuscripts in verse 15 and the autographs in verse 16. At any rate, preservation is not a doctrine presented from 2 Timothy 3. The doctrine of inspiration is quite clear, but to tie this with preservation is reading into the text what isn’t there.
Whether or not this has anything to do with perfect preservation seems to be moot. Theologically speaking, one cannot determine what text, text-type, or manuscript(s) are the ‘perfectly preserved’ one(s). Even if one maintained a belief in perfect preservation (and was able to quote from Scripture proofs), that still leaves us without any way of ‘perfectly’ knowing which reading from the written manuscripts is the ‘perfectly preserved’ text. Theologically, this is where KJV-onlyists cannot substantiate their claims, unless they resort to ‘faith’ which is unsubstantiated from a lack of Scriptural proof.
To be fair, I don’t see Kent’s words as a Red Herring argument. He was explaining his usage of harsh words, he wasn’t distracting from the argument.
Each side is guilty of harsh tone every now and then. Let’s give each other a little elbow room.
FWIW, I’ve learned a lot in this debate on both Kent and Bob’s blog.
Just to clarify, when I said in comment #7 “I have criticized Pastor B. for his harsh tone around here”, I was not implying that Pastor B. has been being harsh on this thread. That was a past criticism, and one which Pastor B. has rightly been using to demand fair play around here.
Anyways, I don’t think Pastor B.’s words on here have been “red herring”, for what its worth.
Joe,
I’m glad the hard work put into this by both sides have been helpful for those evaluating the issue! Thanks for coming on by and commenting!
One comment about the “every word” of Mt. 4:4—the words we live by are written words. If it is every word that we are to live by then we must define “every word” by what it is that we can live by. God gave us written words so that we could live by them. This truth is found in Turretin and Owen as well.
Larry, I can’t get doctrine from speculation about the difference between grammata and graphe. The word “holy” in 3:15 is a unique word, hieros, “belonging to the temple.” Together these would be the Old Testament, as the writings that were kept in the temple were the Old Testament text. The differentiation would be that Paul is broadening from the merely OT writings to all inspired writ. The graphe are the actual markings, the combinations of letters that make up Words. Every one of those are brought into the necessity of thorough furnishing. If we are going to take inspiration from 2 Timothy 3:16, we cannot then say that it is not talking verbal plenary regarding the sufficiency, which is directly connected with it in the text.
One more thing Larry. If we can’t know what the written Words are, then we cannot know what the written Books are. The defense of preservation and canonicity is the same.
Does 2 Tim. 3:15-17 teach preservation or sufficiency of Scripture tied to preservation?
I see verse 16 and 17 as follows:
All Scripture (every book and passage and ultimately word)
was originated by God (God is the author and hence it is all perfect)
therefore it is all profitable
for doctrine, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness
in order that (this indicates purpose)
*here I see the purpose as going back to the inspiration, so “All Scripture was given by inspiration…in order that:
the man of God (ultimately every Christian) can be competent and equipped for every good work.
In other words, Scripture’s purpose in being given is to make us competent and equipped. Scripture thus is sufficient for making us competent and equipped.
Does this necessarily imply that we have 100% certainty over each word in order for Scripture to be able to make us competent and equipped?
We will deal with that question in future posts.
Just saw #13. I am going to deal with canonization later. Also I’ll deal with Matt. 4:4 and that argument later.
Stay tuned.
The every writing that thoroughly furnishes is copies. For every writing to be profitable and sufficient, every writing must be preserved and available. This is easy to see for someone that wants to see it. Let us not stagger in unbelief.
Sorry, I didn’t think the word “black-balled” was all that offensive….maybe since I’m so used to it happening to me these days, it just kinda rolls of the duck’s back, so to speak.
Anyway, I am not on either side of the arguement exclusively. Although I lean more toward the KJV only side, I do not discount good arguments from the non-KJVO side. I agree with many of their arguements, and for that reason, I have abandoned my old KJVO militancy that I once held to. My mind is not closed on the issue, I have much to learn. Both sides do not represent the other side very well in books I read, so it’s really hard to get the real scoop. For safety’s sake, I am not willing to abandon my KJV for a better version because there are too many suspicions about the newer versions. Right now for me personally, the KJV and NKJV are the versions I put most of my stock in. The NASB and ESV come in second and third place. But because of their manuscript background, I will go with the KJV reading over the others when in doubt.
William, our second edition of Thou Shalt Keep Them is out soon. It doesn’t bash the other side, but just presents a Biblical position through Scriptural exegesis on the passages that deal with this issue.
I already own the first edition of “Thou Shalt Keep Them.” Has anything changed for the second edition besides small edits, typo fixes, etc.?