Perhaps sensing the inconsistency of his position Geisler hedges as to the reliability of the available copies. In Volume One of his Systematic Theology, Dr. Geisler seeks to debunk ten of the most common objections to the doctrine of Inerrancy. In the section, "The Objection That Inerrancy Is Based on Non-Existent Originals," Geisler offers the following counterpoint:
Some object to inerrancy because it affirms that only the original text is inerrant (there being admitted errors in the copies), and the originals are not extant. Hence, all the doctrine of inerrancy provides is a non-existent authority; supposedly, this isn't any different than having no Bible at all.
This allegation is unfounded. First of all, it's not true that we do not possess the original text. We do possess it in well-preserved copies; it is the original manuscripts we do not have. We do possess it in well-preserved copies; it is the original manuscripts we do not have. We do have an accurate copy of the original text represented in these manuscripts; the nearly 5,700 New Testament manuscripts we possess contain all or nearly all of the original text, and we can reconstruct the original text with over 99 percent accuracy.(1)
A careful reading of the above paragraphs yields a couple of interesting observations. First, the author of the current essay has not been the only one to point out that the current orthodoxy regarding the doctrine of inerrancy ultimately does not prove anything thereby leaving the Bible open to critical and skeptical attack. Second, while Geisler calls these allegations unfounded by referring to an abundance of what he calls accurate copies, he stops short of calling those copies infallible. Consequently, Professor Geisler has not done anything to reassure his readers that inerrancy can still be a viable doctrine despite the absence of the original manuscripts.
Despite these glaring problems, by mentioning the "well-preserved copies," Dr. Geisler does throw open the doors to discuss the long overlooked and extremely pertinent doctrine of preservation. What does Geisler mean when He mentions "well-preserved copies?" Is he referring to the physical condition of these manuscripts or their trustworthiness with regard to containing the very words God inspired? Based on what Geisler says elsewhere, it is clear he means the former, not the later.
By limiting inerrancy to the originals and failing to acknowledge the doctrine of preservation the Evangelical scholars neglect to protect the doctrine of inspiration. Dr. Samuel C. Gipp, discusses how inspiration without preservation renders inspiration incomplete. Dr. Gipp demonstrates this reality by asking and answering a couple of questions. "Why did God inspire His word perfectly? Obviously the answer comes back, So that man could have every word of God, pure, complete, trustworthy, and without error."(2) If God went to the trouble to perfectly inspire his word only to allow errors and mistakes to creep into the text it would be inconstant with His nature and character. Gipp demonstrates the foolishness of limiting inerrancy only to the originals when he asks:
The question is: Could God who overcame time (about 1,700 years transpired from the writing of the oldest Old Testament book and closing of the New Testament in 90 A.D.) and man's human nature to write the Bible perfectly in the first place, do the same thing to preserve it?
The obvious answer to this question is yes since God can do one he is perfectly capable of doing the other. In fact, just as the Bible internally claims to have been given by inspiration of God it also says that God intends to preserve the very words God breathed. However, one does not learn about preservation in the evangelical systematic theology books because the topic has been totally overlooked.
Despite this oversight by the evangelical leadership there is an option for those who desire to believe the Bible over incomplete scholarship. Consider Psalm 12:6-7, "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth purified seven times. 7) "Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." In verse six we see that the words of God's initial inspiration were pure words. They were inerrant and without mistakes in the original writings. Notice how verse seven qualifies the statement made in verse six. The antecedent to the word "them" in verse 7 is "the words of the LORD," in verse six. Therefore, the only logical reading of the passage is that God intends to preserve the infallible and inerrant words from "this generation for ever." Consequently, God extends inerrancy beyond the originals.
Believers are thus forced into an interesting predicament. One can either believe Psalm 12:6-7 or not. If a believer chooses to deny what these verses say, they must conclude that God cannot be taken at his word. This is not a reasonable option since Titus 1:2 says that God cannot lie. On the other hand, it does not make any sense to believe, as many do, that God inspired and preserved his word in the original manuscripts since all the originals were destroyed long ago. All of this proves that God did not preserve his word only as long as the originals were in existence. Dr. Gipp offers the following assessment of the situation, ". . . if God wrote the Bible perfectly in the originals, but we cannot have those same words in a volume of that book today, then it would seem that He wasted His time inspiring it perfectly in the first place."(3)
The testimony of the Scriptures is quite clear: God has promised and intends to preserve the words of his inspiration throughout all eternity.
- Psalm 33:11--The counsel of the Lord standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations.
- Psalm 119:152--Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever.
- Psalm 119: 89--Forever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.
- Isaiah 30:8--Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever.
- Matthew 5:18--For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
As we have already established, none of the original autographs remain, yet God promises that his words will remain throughout all eternity. Therefore, God did not use the original manuscripts as the vehicle through which preservation would take place.
So then, where does this eternal preservation take place if not in the original autographs? The believing Bible student will let the Word of God answer this question as well. Consider II Timothy 3:15. "And that from a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." Paul, writing under the influence of the Holy Spirit, tells Timothy that from the time of his childhood he knew the Holy Scriptures. Did Timothy's family possess the original manuscripts for every book of the Bible written at that time? No, they had copies. Notice that Paul calls the copies Timothy's family possessed Scripture. In other words, the copies in their possession were just as authoritative as the original manuscripts.
It is God's design to preserve His word through a multiplicity of accurate, reliable copies that are just as authoritative as the original. During his earthly ministry, Jesus Christ expressed the same attitude as Paul in regard to the copies that were available to Him.
Matthew 22:29-31--Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. 30) For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angles of God in heaven. 31) But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying
Christ rebukes the Sadducees because they did not know the Scriptures. Does this mean they did not possess the original manuscripts? Certainly not, it means, as verse 31 states, they did not know the Scriptures because they had not read the copies they had in their possession.
In Exodus 31:18, God gave to Moses an original manuscript "written with the finger of God." On his way down Mount Sinai Moses saw the sin of the children of Israel and destroys the original autographs that God had just given him (Exodus 32:15-19). How does God respond to this destruction? Does He get upset and curse or punish Moses for the destroying the tables? No, in Exodus 34:27-28 God gives Moses a copy of the original Ten Commandments that Moses had previously destroyed in Chapter 32. Jeremiah 36 records a similar scenario. In verses 22-24, Jehudi the scribe takes a scroll of the written word of God, cuts it with a knife and casts it in the fire in the hearth. God does not get upset. He simply has Jeremiah make of copy of what Jehudi destroyed. Jeremiah 36:27-28 reads,
Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, after that the king had burned the roll, and the words which Baruch wrote at the mouth of Jeremiah saying, Take thee again another roll and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll, which Jehoiakim the king of Judah hath burned in the fire.
These passages clearly teach that God's determined to preserve his word, not in the original text, but rather through a multiplicity of accurate, reliable copies of the original.
Mobility is the primary reason for preservation taking place through a multiplicity of copies. God never intended for his word only be read, studied, and possessed by those fortunate enough to have an original. For the purposes of illustration consider the following verses and the author's accompanying commentary:
- Proverbs 25:1 "These are also proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied out."
- Daniel 9:2—"In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem." Daniel is in Babylon studying copies of the book of Jeremiah.
- Daniel 9:11-13—"Yea, all Israel have transgressed they law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against him. 12) And he hath confirmed his words, which he spake against us and against our judges that judged us, by brining upon us a great evil: for under the whole heaven hath not been done as hath been done upon Jerusalem. 13) As it is written in the law of Moses, all this evil is come upon us: yet made we not our prayer before the LORD our God, that we might turn from our iniquities, and understand thy truth." Daniel also possessed copies of the Law of Moses.
- Daniel 10:20-21— "The said he, knowest thou wherefore I come unto thee: and now will I return to fight with the prince of Persia: and when I am gone forth, lo, the prince of Grecia shall come. 21) But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is not that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince." Notice what Daniel's angelic messenger calls the texts that Daniel had been studying in verse 21, "scripture of truth." Is there any error in the truth? No. In order for the angel's statement to be correct, the copies Daniel had must have been inerrant, infallible, and just as much the word of God as the original manuscripts.
- Luke 4:16-21--"And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue of the Sabbath day, and stood up for to read. And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. . . 21)And he began to say unto them, this day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears." In Nazareth, they possessed a copy of the prophet Isaiah that Christ himself referred to as scripture.
- Acts 8:26-38—The Ethiopian Eunuch possessed a copy of the same book Christ read from in Luke 4. How far away is Ethiopia from Nazareth? Did the Ethiopian eunuch go up the Nazareth and steal their copy of the book of Isaiah? No. He possessed his own copy of the book. The reader should further observe that Philip calls this copy of Isaiah Scripture in verse 35.
The above texts lead to three conclusions: 1) God inspired every word of Scripture; 2) God promised to preserve these inspired words forever, 3) Preservation does not take place in the original autographs but in a multiplicity of accurate reliable copies that carry as much authority as the originals.
If God has not preserved His words as He said that He would (Psalms 12:6-7), then He has done two things He has never done before. First, he has wasted His own time. Second, God did not do that which He promised he would which would make him a liar.(4) Dr. Gipp summarizes the believing viewpoint regarding the connection between inspiration, inerrancy, and preservation when he writes, "it is always to be remembered that the Bible is a spiritual book which God exerted supernatural force to conceive, and it is reasonable to assume that he could exert that same supernatural force to preserve."(5)
Endnotes:
1) Geisler, Systematic Theology: Volume One, 503.
2) Samuel C. Gipp. An Understandable History of the Bible. (Macedonia, OH: Bible Believers Baptist Bookstore, 1987), 18.
3) Ibid., 21.
4) Ibid., 21.
5) Ibid., 22.
No comments:
Post a Comment