Hi Bruce,

Right – not true for every Bible. But the plurality of counterfeits, just in general, doesn’t depreciate the genuine article. So obviously there is a lot more to say if we direct our questioning in the way you have, toward canon and textual issues. I haven’t addressed those issues. My topic was the attributes of Scripture from a redemptive-historical point of view.

My little contribution here takes those issues as settled, not because there is no question about them anywhere. Obviously there are questions and continuing debate (though this fact alone does not mean the ‘debate’ is worthwhile). But I take them as settled for at least three reasons: (1) because otherwise I’d never be able to get to the stuff I’m actually interested in; (2) because for the intended readership, those issues are in fact settled, at least adequately for the present purposes; and (3) because I’m not working in that field and am grateful for the work of experts such as M. Kruger and the historical guys such as Warfield. If we never defend on experts in other fields, we’ll never get anywhere. The price we pay is that when we stand on the shoulders of others we lose the audience of folks who are not in agreement with us about the stability of those shoulders. I’ll add a fourth reason: Scripture talks directly about the issues I discuss here, so Scripture takes for granted its composite trustworthiness. So did Paul and Jesus. If it’s good enough for such as they, then its good enough for me.

So I think the issue is that you have different questions than the ones I address here, and for those, I’m not your guy. Warfield, Kruger, et al. A little book edited by Garner, ‘Did God Really Say’, would be a great place to start for the questions you have.

Your critical comments come down to this: ‘Nate did not answer the questions that Bruce wants answered.’ That’s not a criticism, it’s just misunderstanding, a misunderstanding the title of the piece could have prevented.

Thanks

Thank you for your reply.

In your original paper you made the statement, “All of the words of the Bible are God’s words” and I simply asked the question, “Which Bible”?

I then pointed out that not all modern Bibles are the same … some have the original 73 books, others have been downsized to 66 … some are based on manuscripts known before 1850 (an approximate date) while others incorporate changes found in more recently discovered manuscripts. These discoveries led to the King James Version becoming the New King James Version, the Revised Standard to the New Revised Standard, etc.

Then in church pews today we have Bibles translated for specific theologies. These Bibles may be similar, but they all have fundamental differences in the text and in the knowledge conveyed to the reader.

Therefore, if we walk into any church in any part of the world today we cannot say, “All the words in this Bible are the words of God.”

I wrote my original reply to your paper because I have often heard in Reformed churches: “This is the inspired, inerrant, infallible word of God.” If people want to believe their current Bible meets this standard, they are certainly free to believe it, however, the diversity of Bibles available today indicates the statement is simply not true for every Bible.

To this I ask: “Which Bible”?

The vast majority of Christians today use a Bible with 73 books, and each of these has had an impact on the theology being taught. The early Church Fathers quoted from these books, and the official Canon in the 4th century contained all 73.

By comparison, I believe your Bible has only 66 books, and if Reformers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin had had their way, the number would be as low as 62 (for instance, in Luther’s view, Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation need to be eliminated. Calvin had a different list).

Your Bible consists of the Old and New Testaments / Covenants. The English translation of the ‘Old’ is based on the Hebrew Massoretic text; an eclectic text compiled by Jewish Rabbis for their purposes. Recent discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate there were variants in antiquity to this rabbinic text. Furthermore, 10% of the words are hapax legomenon (they only occur once) and even today there is continuing dispute over correct definitions (some of these definitions have far-reaching theological importance). The discovery of Ugarit further compounds this uncertainty. In short, English translations of the (Hebrew) Old Testament have significant theological variations (I will not even start to address the problems with translations based on the Greek Septuagint).

As for the New Testament, the question is: Do we use the ‘Received Text’ (such as the text of original King James Version? … Many Protestant Christians would emphatically say “yes!”) or do we introduce changes such as those of the Westcott and Hort text. Then we get to the apostle Paul, whose writings are too complex for everyone to agree on exactly what he meant. Finally, there are the obvious ‘errors,’ starting in Matthew 1 with the genealogy of Jesus, which is at variance with the genealogies in the Hebrew Bible. The list of such ‘inconsistencies’ throughout the New Testament is long.

As a personal note, in past discussions with Reformed theologians, I was told: “The autographs (the originals) were inerrant.” Since we do not have a single autograph this is nothing more than wishful thinking and does not explain why God would allow all the modern variations to exist.

Also, II Timothy 3:16, “All Scripture is God-breathed” does not clarify the status of the Bible since this verse was written before many other books were written, only some of which were included in the biblical Canon.

In summary, based on historical facts, your statement “all of the words of the Bible are God’s words” has no valid meaning for the modern reader, and makes perspicuity subjective. This draws into question your whole theology (but then you already acknowledged this in your paper).