We can declare anything we want

Another aspect of verbal plenary preservation is that we can declare anything we want, such as claiming the NIV is flawless or that one of the Alexandrian texts is Textus Receptus "Received Text" or Authorized Text.

The argument as commonly presented

VPP (as taught by figures like Jeffrey Khoo and Far Eastern Bible College) typically runs: Scripture promises its own perfect preservation (appeals to Psalm 12:6-7, Matthew 5:18, etc.) → therefore God must have preserved a perfect text somewhere → the Received Text (behind the KJV) is that perfect text. The last step is usually defended less by manuscript evidence and more by providence, church usage, and doctrinal fittingness.

Our point

If "God promised preservation, therefore a perfect text exists, therefore I identify text X (from Alexandrian Text type) as that perfect text" is a valid move, then the identification step is doing all the work and isn't actually constrained by the premises. The premises (preservation promised) don't by themselves single out the Textus Receptus over any other tradition. Someone could run the identical inference and land on the Alexandrian text-type, or the NIV's underlying text, or the Majority Text, or Erasmus's first edition versus his fifth, or Beza's text versus Stephanus's — and nothing in the "God preserves His word" premise rules those out. We would need an independent argument for why this particular textual tradition rather than another, and that's exactly the step VPP arguments tend to assert rather than demonstrate. So yes — structurally, the reasoning as often presented is compatible with arbitrarily many conclusions, which is a sign it's not doing real argumentative work at that step.

What a VPP defender would say back

They would usually respond that the identification isn't arbitrary — it's tied to the text that has had continuous ecclesiastical use, was received by the church (hence "Received Text"), stands behind the historic Protestant confessions and translations, and that this "providential use by the church" is itself the criterion, not just a bare assertion. Whether that criterion actually picks out the TR uniquely (given that "the church" used various different Greek texts and translations across time and geography) is where the real debate sits.

Since the NIV is the best-selling Bible, I may now state that it is the majority text, the "Received Text," and the legitimate text recognized by the Church. (Click: https://www.athensbible.org/best-selling-bible-translations-in-2026/)

Wider context

Mainstream evangelical and Reformed textual scholarship (including many who hold high views of inspiration) generally rejects VPP as a formal doctrine, holding instead that inspiration applies strictly to the autographs, and preservation is providential-but-approximate, worked out through textual criticism rather than guaranteed in any single manuscript tradition. That's the more common position among conservative text critics who still affirm inerrancy. VPP is a minority position even within conservative Protestantism, strongest in certain Deformed Presbyterian and independent Baptist circles.

So: our reductio is a legitimate way of testing the logical form of the argument, not just a joke — it's the standard move critics of VPP make.

My Teow Chew may end up being the best-selling Bible within the Teow Chew community. In the future, I will be able to declare that it is the best and most perfect Bible because its core content is flawless and unchangeable.

I am attempting to certify that the Teow Chew Received Bible is the best and most accurate translation. Authorized and received.

New Bible - Teow Chew Received Version (TCRV)

A colleague once cornered me after a conference panel on inerrancy and said, "So if the King James translators were inspired, why not the Teochew ones?"

So, purely for the humor of it: I hereby announce the "Teow Chew Received Version (TCRV), translated entirely from my grandmother's kitchen, cross-referenced against her exact tone of voice when she said "m̄-thang" (don't you dare).

My colophon reads:

"Translated by verbal, plenary inspiration, equally as inerrant, authoritative, and infallible in its original Teochew as the Hebrew and Greek autographs — having apparently been fluent in Teochew all along, just never told anybody until now."

Article X of my personal confession states: "We deny that the absence of any actual textual basis for this translation renders its inerrancy invalid or irrelevant." The manuscript evidence consists of one (1) recipe card and a strongly worded opinion about how loud the wok should be.

Peer review is still pending. I expect it to remain pending indefinitely.

Let me tell you frankly, the underlying text of my Teo Chew translation is perfect without error, do not play play with my grandma.

VPP vs THE CHICAGO STATEMENT ON BIBLICAL INERRANCY

The Core Contradiction

Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) holds that God has preserved Scripture without any loss, error, or corruption not merely in the original autographs but in the transmitted text itself — typically identified by its proponents (e.g., certain Bible Presbyterian/Far Eastern Bible College circles) with the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus. On this view, the copies we possess today are themselves verbally and plenarily inerrant, not merely faithful witnesses to an inerrant original.

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978) was constructed specifically to block this move. Its architects were careful to locate inerrancy at one point only: the autographs.

Article X: The Decisive Text

Article X states:

We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

Three things follow directly from this:

1. Inerrancy is predicated of a text that no longer exists. The Statement grounds the doctrine in the autographs, which are, by universal admission, not extant. VPP relocates inerrancy onto an existing manuscript tradition — a different subject entirely.

2. Copies are inerrant only "to the extent that they faithfully represent the original." That is a conditional, graded claim — it explicitly allows for copies to fail to represent the original at points. VPP's claim that a specific text-form is itself without error collapses that conditionality; it treats the copy as identical in status to the autograph rather than as an approximation of it.

3. "Ascertained... with great accuracy" is not the same claim as "preserved without error." The framers chose approximating language — accuracy achieved through textual work — precisely because they were not willing to say any surviving text is perfect.

The Exposition Reinforces This

The official Exposition accompanying the Statement goes further, acknowledging that Scripture "has come to us today with numerous manuscript variations that are the result of errors in copying and translation." It commends the discipline of textual criticism as the God-given means for recovering the original wording as closely as possible — a discipline VPP proponents typically regard with suspicion or reject outright, since if the preserved text is already perfect, there is nothing for textual criticism to correct.

That is the sharpest point of conflict: the Chicago Statement presupposes that scribal transmission introduced real errors requiring scholarly adjudication; VPP denies that any such errors persist in the preserved textual stream. These are not compatible positions on the same object — they are different objects of inerrancy claims altogether (autograph vs. transmitted text).

Why This Matters Doctrinally

VPP advocates sometimes cite the Chicago Statement as a fellow-traveler in the inerrancy tradition, or argue their view simply extends inerrancy further than Chicago was willing to go. But Article X's denial clause was written to preempt exactly that extension — it says the absence of the autographs does not compromise inerrancy, which only makes sense if inerrancy is understood as bound to those (missing) autographs and not transferable wholesale to any existing copy. If a present manuscript tradition were itself inerrant, the absence of the autographs would be doctrinally irrelevant in a much stronger sense than Chicago intends — the framers still treat the autographs as the singular locus of the doctrine, with copies in a derivative, fallible-but-reliable category.

Conclusion: Two Divergent Epistemologies of Preservation

Ultimately, to claim the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy as a foundation or stepping-stone for Verbal Plenary Preservation is to fundamentally misread the theological architecture of the 1978 consensus. The divide between these two frameworks is not a matter of degree—how "far" one is willing to take the doctrine of inerrancy—but a matter of category.

The distinction comes down to how each camp understands the ongoing work of God in history:

The Chicago Statement articulates a theology of providential preservation. It affirms a singular, unrepeatable miracle of autographic inspiration, followed by God's providential care over the transmission of the text. This view embraces the messy, human realities of history, acknowledging that scribal errors occurred, but maintaining that God has preserved the text so accurately that no doctrine is lost, and the original wording can be confidently reconstructed through textual criticism.

Verbal Plenary Preservation requires a theology of miraculous transmission. It demands a continuous, secondary miracle that perfectly shielded a specific manuscript tradition (the Masoretic Text and Textus Receptus) from the slightest human error over millennia.

By anchoring inerrancy exclusively in the original autographs, the framers of the Chicago Statement built a doctrine robust enough to withstand the empirical realities of manuscript evidence. It allows the Christian to look at a variant reading without experiencing a crisis of faith. VPP, by transferring that absolute perfection to an existing 16th-century text-form, constructs a fragile epistemology that shatters against the very historical realities that CSBI freely acknowledges.

Therefore, VPP does not elevate or complete the Chicago Statement. By conflating the standard for the original autographs with the standard for subsequent copies, VPP abandons the Chicago Statement's careful historical-theological mechanism in favor of an entirely different, and far more precarious, doctrine of revelation.

THE CHICAGO STATEMENT ON BIBLICAL INERRANCY

THE CHICAGO STATEMENT ON BIBLICAL INERRANCY

The authority of Scripture is a key issue for the Christian church in this and every age. Those who profess faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior are called to show the reality of their discipleship by humbly and faithfully obeying God’s written Word. To stray from Scripture in faith or conduct is disloyalty to our Master. Recognition of the total truth and trustworthiness of Holy Scripture is essential to a full grasp and adequate confession of its authority.

The following statement affirms this inerrancy of Scripture afresh, making clear our understanding of it and warning against its denial. We are persuaded that to deny it is to set aside the witness of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit and to refuse that submission to the claims of God’s own Word that marks true Christian faith. We see it as our timely duty to make this affirmation in the face of current lapses from the truth of inerrancy among our fellow Christians and misunderstanding of this doctrine in the world at large.

This statement consists of three parts: a Summary Statement, Articles of Affirmation and Denial, and an accompanying Exposition. It has been prepared in the course of a three-day consultation in Chicago. Those who have signed the Summary Statement and the Articles wish to affirm their own conviction as to the inerrancy of Scripture and to encourage and challenge one another and all Christians to growing appreciation and understanding of this doctrine. We acknowledge the limitations of a document prepared in a brief, intensive conference and do not propose that this statement be given creedal weight. Yet we rejoice in the deepening of our own convictions through our discussions together, and we pray that the statement we have signed may be used to the glory of our God toward a new reformation of the church in its faith, life, and mission.

We offer this statement in a spirit, not of contention, but of humility and love, which we purpose by God’s grace to maintain in any future dialogue arising out of what we have said. We gladly acknowledge that many who deny the inerrancy of Scripture do not display the consequences of this denial in the rest of their belief and behavior, and we are conscious that we who confess this doctrine often deny it in life by failing to bring our thoughts and deeds, our traditions and habits, into true subjection to the divine Word.

We invite response to this statement from any who see reason to amend its affirmations about Scripture by the light of Scripture itself, under whose infallible authority we stand as we speak. We claim no personal infallibility for the witness we bear, and for any help that enables us to strengthen this testimony to God’s Word we shall be grateful.

A SHORT STATEMENT

  1.      God, who is Himself truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God’s witness to Himself.

  2.      Holy Scripture, being God’s own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God’s instruction, in all that it affirms; obeyed, as God’s command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God’s pledge, in all that it promises.

  3.      The Holy Spirit, Scripture’s divine author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.

  4.      Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives.

  5.      The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible’s own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the church.

ARTICLES OF AFFIRMATION AND DENIAL

Article I

We affirm that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God. We deny that the Scriptures receive their authority from the church, tradition, or any other human source.

Article II

We affirm that the Scriptures are the supreme written norm by which God binds the conscience, and that the authority of the church is subordinate to that of Scripture. We deny that church creeds, councils, or declarations have authority greater than or equal to the authority of the Bible.

Article III

We affirm that the written Word in its entirety is revelation given by God. We deny that the Bible is merely a witness to revelation, or only becomes revelation in encounter, or depends on the responses of men for its validity.

Article IV

We affirm that God who made mankind in His image has used language as a means of revelation. We deny that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted God’s work of inspiration.

Article V

We affirm that God’s revelation within the Holy Scriptures was progressive. We deny that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it. We further deny that any normative revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament writings.

Article VI

We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration. We deny that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without the parts, or of some parts but not the whole.

Article VII

We affirm that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us. We deny that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind.

Article VIII

We affirm that God in His work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared. We deny that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities.

Article IX

We affirm that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the biblical authors were moved to speak and write. We deny that the finitude or fallenness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God’s Word.

Article X

We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original. We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

Article XI

We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses. We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.

Article XII

We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit. We deny that biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

Article XIII

We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture. We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

Article XIV

We affirm the unity and internal consistency of Scripture. We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved vitiate the truth claims of the Bible.

Article XV

We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy is grounded in the teaching of the Bible about inspiration. We deny that Jesus’ teaching about Scripture may be dismissed by appeals to accommodation or to any natural limitation of His humanity.

Article XVI

We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the church’s faith throughout its history. We deny that inerrancy is a doctrine invented by scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism.

Article XVII

We affirm that the Holy Spirit bears witness to the Scriptures, assuring believers of the truthfulness of God’s written Word. We deny that this witness of the Holy Spirit operates in isolation from or against Scripture.

Article XVIII

We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture. We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship.

Article XIX

We affirm that a confession of the full authority, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith. We further affirm that such confession should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ. We deny that such confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences, both to the individual and to the church.

EXPOSITION

Our understanding of the doctrine of inerrancy must be set in the context of the broader teachings of Scripture concerning itself. This exposition gives an account of the outline of doctrine from which our summary statement and articles are drawn.

Creation, Revelation, and Inspiration

The triune God, who formed all things by His creative utterances and governs all things by His word of decree, made mankind in His own image for a life of communion with Himself, on the model of the eternal fellowship of loving communication within the Godhead. As God’s image-bearer, man was to hear God’s Word addressed to him and to respond in the joy of adoring obedience. Over and above God’s self-disclosure in the created order and the sequence of events within it, human beings from Adam on have received verbal messages from Him, either directly, as stated in Scripture, or indirectly in the form of part or all of Scripture itself.

When Adam fell, the Creator did not abandon mankind to final judgment but promised salvation and began to reveal Himself as Redeemer in a sequence of historical events centering on Abraham’s family and culminating in the life, death, resurrection, present heavenly ministry, and promised return of Jesus Christ. Within this frame God has from time to time spoken specific words of judgment and mercy, promise and command, to sinful human beings, so drawing them into a covenant relation of mutual commitment between Him and them in which He blesses them with gifts of grace and they bless Him in responsive adoration. Moses, whom God used as mediator to carry His words to His people at the time of the Exodus, stands at the head of a long line of prophets in whose mouths and writings God put His words for delivery to Israel. God’s purpose in this succession of messages was to maintain His covenant by causing His people to know His name—that is, His nature—and His will both of precept and purpose in the present and for the future. This line of prophetic spokesmen from God came to completion in Jesus Christ, God’s incarnate Word, who was Himself a prophet—more than a prophet, but not less—and in the apostles and prophets of the first Christian generation. When God’s final and climactic message, His Word to the world concerning Jesus Christ, had been spoken and elucidated by those in the apostolic circle, the sequence of revealed messages ceased. Henceforth, the church was to live and know God by what He had already said, and said for all time.

At Sinai, God wrote the terms of His covenant on tables of stone, as His enduring witness and for lasting accessibility, and throughout the period of prophetic and apostolic revelation He prompted men to write the messages given to and through them, along with celebratory records of His dealings with His people, plus moral reflections on covenant life and forms of praise and prayer for covenant mercy. The theological reality of inspiration in the producing of biblical documents corresponds to that of spoken prophecies: although the human writers’ personalities were expressed in what they wrote, the words were divinely constituted. Thus, what Scripture says, God says; its authority is His authority, for He is its ultimate Author, having given it through the minds and words of chosen and prepared men who in freedom and faithfulness “spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21). Holy Scripture must be acknowledged as the Word of God by virtue of its divine origin.

Authority: Christ and the Bible

Jesus Christ, the Son of God who is the Word made flesh, our Prophet, Priest, and King, is the ultimate Mediator of God’s communication to man, as He is of all God’s gifts of grace. The revelation He gave was more than verbal; He revealed the Father by His presence and His deeds as well. Yet His words were crucially important; for He was God, He spoke from the Father, and His words will judge all men at the last day.

As the prophesied Messiah, Jesus Christ is the central theme of Scripture. The Old Testament looked ahead to Him; the New Testament looks back to His first coming and on to His second. Canonical Scripture is the divinely inspired and therefore normative witness to Christ. No hermeneutic, therefore, of which the historical Christ is not the focal point is acceptable. Holy Scripture must be treated as what it essentially is—the witness of the Father to the incarnate Son.

It appears that the Old Testament canon had been fixed by the time of Jesus. The New Testament canon is likewise now closed inasmuch as no new apostolic witness to the historical Christ can now be borne. No new revelation (as distinct from Spirit-given understanding of existing revelation) will be given until Christ comes again. The canon was created in principle by divine inspiration. The church’s part was to discern the canon that God had created, not to devise one of its own.

The word canon, signifying a rule or standard, is a pointer to authority, which means the right to rule and control. Authority in Christianity belongs to God in His revelation, which means, on the one hand, Jesus Christ, the living Word, and, on the other hand, Holy Scripture, the written Word. The authority of Christ and that of Scripture are one. As our Prophet, Christ testified that Scripture cannot be broken. As our Priest and King, He devoted His earthly life to fulfilling the Law and the Prophets, even dying in obedience to the words of messianic prophecy. Thus, as He saw Scripture attesting Him and His authority, so by His own submission to Scripture He attested its authority. As He bowed to His Father’s instruction given in His Bible (our Old Testament), so He requires His disciples to do—not, however, in isolation but in conjunction with the apostolic witness to Himself which He undertook to inspire by His gift of the Holy Spirit. So Christians show themselves faithful servants of their Lord by bowing to the divine instruction given in the prophetic and apostolic writings that together make up our Bible.

By authenticating each other’s authority, Christ and Scripture coalesce into a single fount of authority. The biblically interpreted Christ and the Christ-centered, Christ-proclaiming Bible are from this standpoint one. As from the fact of inspiration we infer that what Scripture says, God says, so from the revealed relation between Jesus Christ and Scripture we may equally declare that what Scripture says, Christ says.

Infallibility, Inerrancy, Interpretation

Holy Scripture, as the inspired Word of God witnessing authoritatively to Jesus Christ, may properly be called infallible and inerrant. These negative terms have a special value, for they explicitly safeguard crucial positive truths.

Infallible signifies the quality of neither misleading nor being misled, and so safeguards in categorical terms the truth that Holy Scripture is a sure, safe, and reliable rule and guide in all matters.

Similarly, inerrant signifies the quality of being free from all falsehood or mistake, and so safeguards the truth that Holy Scripture is entirely true and trustworthy in all its assertions.

We affirm that canonical Scripture should always be interpreted on the basis that it is infallible and inerrant. However, in determining what the God-taught writer is asserting in each passage, we must pay the most careful attention to its claims and character as a human production. In inspiration, God utilized the culture and conventions of His penman’s milieu, a milieu that God controls in His sovereign providence; it is misinterpretation to imagine otherwise.

So history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: since, for instance, nonchronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.

The truthfulness of Scripture is not negated by the appearance in it of irregularities of grammar or spelling, phenomenal descriptions of nature, reports of false statements (e.g., the lies of Satan), or seeming discrepancies between one passage and another. It is not right to set the so-called “phenomena” of Scripture against the teaching of Scripture about itself. Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved, will encourage our faith, and where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to have been illusions.

Inasmuch as all Scripture is the product of a single divine mind, interpretation must stay within the bounds of the analogy of Scripture and eschew hypotheses that would correct one biblical passage by another, whether in the name of progressive revelation or of the imperfect enlightenment of the inspired writer’s mind.

Although Holy Scripture is nowhere culture-bound in the sense that its teaching lacks universal validity, it is sometimes culturally conditioned by the customs and conventional views of a particular period, so that the application of its principles today calls for a different sort of action.

Skepticism and Criticism

Since the Renaissance, and more particularly since the Enlightenment, worldviews have been developed that involve skepticism about basic Christian tenets. Such are the agnosticism that denies God is knowable, the rationalism that denies He is incomprehensible, the idealism that denies He is transcendent, and the existentialism that denies rationality in His relationships with us. When these un- and antibiblical principles seep into men’s theologies at a presuppositional level, as today they frequently do, faithful interpretation of Holy Scripture becomes impossible.

Transmission and Translation

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).

Inerrancy and Authority

In our affirmation of the authority of Scripture as involving its total truth, we are consciously standing with Christ and His apostles, indeed with the whole Bible and with the mainstream of church history from the first days until very recently. We are concerned at the casual, inadvertent, and seemingly thoughtless way in which a belief of such far-reaching importance has been given up by so many in our day.

We are conscious, too, that great and grave confusion results from ceasing to maintain the total truth of the Bible whose authority one professes to acknowledge. The result of taking this step is that the Bible that God gave loses its authority, and what has authority instead is a Bible reduced in content according to the demands of one’s critical reasonings and in principle reducible still further once one has started. This means that at bottom, independent reason now has authority, as opposed to scriptural teaching. If this is not seen and if for the time being basic evangelical doctrines are still held, persons denying the full truth of Scripture may claim an evangelical identity while methodologically they have moved away from the evangelical principle of knowledge to an unstable subjectivism, and will find it hard not to move farther.

We affirm that what Scripture says, God says. May He be glorified. Amen and Amen.

R. C. Sproul, Can I Trust the Bible?, vol. 2, The Crucial Questions Series (Lake Mary, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2009), xiii–xxix.

Summary

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy emphasizes that the Bible is the authoritative, inspired, infallible, and inerrant Word of God. It argues that Scripture’s authority does not come from the church, tradition, human reasoning, or scientific theories, but from God Himself, who is its ultimate Author. Because God is truthful, His written Word is also completely trustworthy.

The statement explains that God worked through human authors, using their personalities, cultures, languages, and literary styles while guiding them through the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the Bible is both genuinely written by human authors and genuinely the Word of God. The statement also distinguishes the original biblical writings from later copies and translations, acknowledging that copies and translations may contain minor imperfections while maintaining that the original Scriptures were without error.

A major point of the statement is that inerrancy does not mean that the Bible must always use modern scientific language, exact chronological order, or modern literary conventions. Scripture contains poetry, metaphor, hyperbole, rounded numbers, and descriptions based on ordinary human observation. These features do not contradict its truthfulness when they are properly understood according to their literary and historical context.

The statement also teaches that Scripture is centered on Jesus Christ. Christ affirmed the authority of Scripture, and the Bible bears witness to Christ. Therefore, rejecting the authority and inerrancy of Scripture ultimately affects how Christians understand Christ and the Christian faith itself. At the same time, the statement acknowledges that Christians who affirm inerrancy can also fail to live in obedience to Scripture, so believing in biblical inerrancy must result in faithful Christian living.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Chicago Statement argues that the Bible is completely trustworthy because it is God’s inspired Word. Its authority extends to everything Scripture truly teaches, including matters of faith, history, and creation, while it must be interpreted according to its literary forms, historical context, and intended meaning. Apparent contradictions or difficulties should not immediately be treated as errors; rather, they should be carefully examined while maintaining confidence in Scripture’s truthfulness.

The central message is that what Scripture says, God says. Therefore, Christians are called not only to affirm the Bible’s authority intellectually but also to submit their beliefs, actions, traditions, and lives to its teaching. Biblical inerrancy is presented not merely as an academic doctrine but as an important foundation for Christian faith, obedience, and understanding of Jesus Christ. Ultimately, the statement calls the church to trust God’s Word, interpret it faithfully, and live in accordance with it for the glory of God.

When was the New Testament canon finalized?

The finalization of the New Testament canon occurred gradually rather than at a single moment, with significant variation across different Christian communities.

The New Testament’s textual content was completed around AD 98 when John wrote Revelation[1], but individual churches received the complete collection slowly due to the constraints of hand-copying and distribution, meaning which texts were recognized varied by location[1]. By the late second century, early church figures like Irenaeus (c. 175) were using essentially the same 27-book canon we possess today, with possible exceptions only for brief epistles like Jude and 2–3 John[1].

However, universal agreement on which books belonged in the canon remained elusive through the middle of the fourth century, with Western churches disputing Hebrews, James, and several shorter epistles, while Eastern churches used different collections altogether[2]. By the early fourth century, all twenty-seven books were tentatively considered canonical, though twenty-two were undisputed[3].

The decisive moment came in the late fourth century. In 367, Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria issued his Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle listing the twenty-seven books as canonical—not merely confirming an existing consensus but establishing a new authoritative list that was subsequently accepted by the synods of Rome (382), Hippo Regius (393), and Carthage (397)[2]. In the West, Augustine’s pronouncement in 393 effectively closed the canon[3]. The present 27-book canon surfaces definitively at the end of the fourth century and achieved near-universal acceptance by the end of the sixth century[2], though Eastern churches continued to show greater variation, with some fathers disagreeing with Athanasius’s list[3].

[1] Fred G. Zaspel, The Theology of B. B. Warfield: A Systematic Summary (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 146.
[2] Eckhard Schnabel, “History, Theology and the Biblical Canon: An Introduction to Basic Issues,” Themelios (1995), 20:2:18.
[3] J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, and Daniel B. Wallace, Reinventing Jesus: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2006), 130.

THE CANON AND LATER TRANSLATIONS

THE CANON AND LATER TRANSLATIONS

Although it is asserted that the autographs were inspired by God, we no longer have them. (They were probably worn out by frequent use and repeated copying.) So how, then, can we trust the text we have in our modern Bibles? The trustworthiness of our Bibles today is tied into canon history and the transmission and translation of the books of the Bible.

The word “canon” means “a rule, a standard, a measuring rod.” Therefore, a book considered canonical is a book that has met certain criteria, or standards. By the time of Jesus and the apostles the thirty-nine Old Testament books were solidly accepted by Judaism as inspired by God. Jesus repeatedly referred to the Old Testament, recognizing that God himself was speaking (e.g., Matt 19:4; 22:29). To attest to the confidence the writers of the New Testament had in the Old, one need but consider that in the hundreds of quotations of Old Testament passages scattered throughout the New Testament, there is only one place where possibly an apocryphal (spurious or doubtful) Old Testament book is quoted. That single reference is in Jude 14–15, where there appears to be a similarity to the Book of Enoch 1:9, and even this is not difficult to attribute to a common oral tradition available both to the writer of the Book of Enoch and to Jude.

What of the New Testament canon? This is a fascinating story all its own, but let us move to the conclusion of the story, into the fourth century. In A.D. 367, the most orthodox theologian of the time, the great champion of biblical truth, Athanasius, sifted through all the books being circulated in the Mediterranean world purporting to be apostolic documents. His examination disclosed twenty-seven books, the ones we have today, to be God’s Word.11 Thirty years later, quite independently of Athanasius, a church council met in Carthage to discuss the problem of what books were genuinely Scripture.12 They applied four tests to the documents considered: (1) Apostolicity: Was the book the product of an apostle or a close associate of an apostle? (2) Universality: was the book widely accepted and used in the churches? (3) Contents: Did the subject matter of the book appear to be on a plan with known Scripture? (4) Inspiration: Did the book bear the special quality that speaks of divine inspiration? Note that three of the four tests to which the books were subjected were objective, a matter of factual evidence. Only the fourth, the matter of inspiration, could be considered subjective, a matter of personal judgment. The Council of Carthage, after considering the facts, concluded that the twenty-seven books we now have in our New Testament were the only books in circulation at that time that measured up to the criteria established. For all practical purposes, the question of canon was closed until the advent of modern rationalism.

The other question remaining about the trustworthiness of the Bible is the accuracy of the transmission of the text. Inspiration extends only to the autograph; no case is made for the inspiration of any particular translation (version) of the Bible. You may ask, Just how nearly does my Bible conform to the original documents inspired by God?

Let us look first at the New Testament, which is nearer to us in time than the Old Testament text. Most remarkable is that there are over 5,300 ancient hand-written copies (manuscripts) of the New Testament in the original Greek. Some come from the third and fourth centuries. One fragment of the Gospel of John comes from about A.D. 125, within 30 years of the time it was written. This is in contrast to other ancient writings. The oldest manuscript we have of Virgil comes from about 350 years after his death. The oldest of Horace is from 900 years after his death. Most of the manuscripts of Plato come from 1,300 years after his death.13 Sir Frederic Kenyon, noted biblical scholar, speaking of modern discoveries in biblical archeology, said, “They have established, with a wealth of evidence which no other work of ancient literature can even approach, the substantial authenticity and integrity of the text of the Bible as we now possess it.”14

The Old Testament text has had a dramatic breakthrough in this century. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947, manuscripts of all or part of every Old Testament book except Esther have been uncovered. They come from as early as 250 B.C., taking us back 1000 years earlier than the previous best manuscripts available in the Hebrew text. In fact, probably the most important contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls is the light cast on the text of the Old Testament books. The net result is that we are given massive reassurance of the accuracy of our Bibles. They make possible the comparison of a large number of texts that let us know the Old Testament “has remained virtually unchanged for the last two thousand years.”15 In fact, there is remarkable conformity of the Dead Sea documents to our present-known texts.

God’s purpose in calling Abraham and choosing Israel as His servant (Isa. 44:1) was to prepare the way to bring blessing to all the nations of the earth (Gen. 12:3; 22:18). It was important therefore that the Bible be put into the various languages of other nations. All nations need the Bible because it is the sword of the Spirit (Eph. 6:17); it is the only means of winning spiritual victories. It is also God’s hammer, His tool to break down opposition and to build God’s building (Jer. 23:29). It is a lamp to light life’s pathway (Ps. 119:105). Even when people are blinded by sin, and the Bible seems foolish to them, such “foolishness” still gives to preaching the wise and powerful content that the Holy Spirit uses to save those who believe (1 Cor. 1:18, 21). The Bible is also necessary for the continued growth of believers. Consequently, as soon as the Church began to spread into countries where they did not speak the original Hebrew and Greek of the Bible, Christians wanted the Bible translated into their own languages.

The story of Bible versions (translations) is thrilling.16 It actually begins before the time of Jesus. As a result of the conquests of Alexander the Great, Greek became the language of trade, commerce, and education in the Middle East. The city of Alexandria in Egypt became the great center of Greek language, learning, and culture. Jews living there wanted the Old Testament in Greek. Over the period of 250 to 150 B.C. they gave the world the famous Septuagint Version.17 This version was often used by early Christians in preaching the gospel during the first generation after Pentecost. (This is indicated by New Testament usage.) At the same time the Holy Spirit directed the writers of the New Testament to write their books, not in the classical Greek used several hundred years before by the great Greek philosophers, but in the everyday Greek spoken by the common people on the street and in the marketplace.

God has always wanted His Word to be preached in the language the people actually spoke. Moses wrote the Law not in the hieroglyphics used by the scholars of Egypt but in the Hebrew spoken in the tents of Israel. Jesus preached and taught with a simplicity of language that made the common people listen to Him with delight (Mark 12:37). When the gospel spread, people naturally began to translate the Bible into their own languages. Four centuries after Christ, when neither Greek nor the old Latin was spoken any longer in the Western Roman Empire, Jerome made a new translation into the “vulgar,” or “common,” Latin spoken in his day. This version became known as the Vulgate.18

Unfortunately, the Vulgate was made the official version of Western Europe and England. Further attempts to translate the Bible were discouraged even though in time the common people did not speak Latin at all. When in A.D. 1380 Wycliffe translated the Vulgate into English, large numbers were converted to Christ. But after his death in 1384, persecution of his followers arose due to their rejection of some Roman Catholic doctrines. In 1415 a general council of the Roman Catholic Church condemned his teaching. Then in 1428 Bishop Richard Fleming had his bones dug up, burned, and the ashes thrown into a stream.19 Most of the copies of his handwritten Bible were also burned.

God, however, was working. The invention of printing made a difference. Between 1462 and 1522 at least seventeen versions and editions of the Bible appeared in German. They helped prepare the way for the Reformation under Martin Luther, which brought to the people a scriptural understanding of salvation by grace through faith. Martin Luther himself then went to the Hebrew and Greek to make a new, better translation into German. As a result of Luther’s influence, William Tyndale made the first important printed translation of the New Testament into English in 1525.20 Many copies were burned but the printing presses kept pouring out floods of Bibles. Since they could not burn all the Bibles, they arrested Tyndale and burned him at the stake. Even so, other translations soon followed. After Henry VIII broke with the Roman Catholic Church, a translation known as the Bishop’s Bible became the authorized version of the English Church. It was not popular, however, and most people preferred the Geneva Bible, a version translated by English refugees who fled from Catholic persecution to Switzerland. It was this version that was brought to America by the Pilgrims and Puritans in 1620 and 1630.21

Many English leaders recognized the need for a better translation, so King James I appointed several groups of scholars to revise the Bishop’s Bible. It was an opportune time: The English language under the influence of Shakespeare and other literary giants, was at a new height. All the best English was poured into this revision, which was completed in 1611 and “authorized” by King James to be read in the churches of England; it ultimately became known as the King James Version (KJV). It was not only beautiful English; it was the English of the day. In fact, the KJV translators took pains to make the Bible more understandable to the common people than the previous English translations were. For example, they took the Israelite expression “Let the king live!” and translated it by the corresponding phrase then used in England: “God save the King!” In the New Testament, the Greek phrase meaning “Let it not be!”, or “Do not let it happen!” is very emphatic—more emphatic than a literal translation would make it, so the KJV translators substituted a phrase the people would understand: “God forbid!” They also translated the Greek word ekklēsia, meaning “assembly” (an assembly of free citizens), by the more common word “church,” though they did translate it “assembly” in three passages (Acts 19:32, 39, 41).

Translating from one language to another has its own set of problems.22 There is, for example, no one Greek word for “miracle,” but two words contain that idea (dunamis and semēion). So the KJV translators used “miracle” for both; but for variety, and to bring out other shades of meaning, they also translated them as “powers” (Heb. 6:5), “mighty works” (Matt. 11:21–23), “strength” (Rev. 10:10), “might” (Eph. 3:16), “virtue” (Luke 6:19; 8:46), “mighty deed” (2 Cor. 12:12), “sign” (John 20:30), “wonder” (Rev. 13:13), and “token” (2 Thess. 3:17). Still another problem came from the fact that both Anglicans and Puritans practiced sprinkling for water baptism, and the Greek word baptizō means “plunge under,” “dip,” “immerse.” So the KJV translators did not translate the word. Instead, they transliterated the Greek word into English letters (thereby giving us the word “baptize”). In this way they avoided a controversy that might have kept some people from reading this new version of the Bible. At other times they were overliteral. For example, they took the Greek word monogenēs apart, translating mono as “only” and genēs as “begotten.”23 However, the word in New Testament times had come to mean simply “only,” in the sense of unique, special. Hebrews 11:17 uses it of Isaac as the special, promised son, even though Abraham had another son, Ishmael. Though we become “sons” [children] of God through Christ, Jesus is God’s beloved Son in a special, unique sense that we never can be.

The richness of the Greek also is difficult to put into English. The KJV translators used one English word for a number of different Greek words. For example, they translated nine different Greek words as “abide,” twelve different ones as “bear,” five as “cast out,” thirty-one as “come,” twelve as “deliver,” fifteen as “keep,” nine as “mind,” six as “power,” six as “preach,” twelve as “think.” In each case, each Greek word represents fine shades of meaning. However, in English a great number of words would have to be used to describe the shade of meaning. This is one of the reasons commentaries and expanded or amplified translations are helpful.

In many cases, however, the KJV translators tried to bring out whatever shade of meaning is being emphasized in a particular passage.

GREEK WORD

TRANSLATIONS IN THE KJV

ekballō

“cast out” (John 6:37); “bring forth” (Matt. 12:25); “send forth” (Matt. 9:38); “send out” (James 2:25); “leave out” (Rev. 11:2)

apolutrōsis

“redemption” (Eph. 1:7); “deliverance” (Heb. 11:25)

hislastērion

“propitiation” (Rom. 3:25); “mercy seat” (Heb. 9:5)

hilaskomai

“make reconciliation” (Heb. 2:17); “be merciful” (Luke 18:13)

Amen (Heb.)

“amen” (Deut. 27:15–26; Rom. 1:25); “so be it” (Jer. 11:5); “truth” (Isa. 65:16); “verily” (Matt. 5:18)

anomia

“iniquity” (Matt. 7:23); “transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4); “unrighteousness” (2 Cor. 6:14)

hikanos

“meet” (1 Cor. 15:9); “worthy” (Matt. 3:11); “sufficient” (2 Cor. 2:16); “able” (2 Tim. 2:2); “good” (Acts 18:18); “great” (Mark 10:46)

apeitheō

“disobedient” (Romans 1:21); “unbelieving” (Acts 14:2)

agapē

“love” (John 15:9–10, 13); “charity” (1 Cor. 1–13); “feast of charity” (Jude 12); “dear” (Col. 1:13)

aiōnōn

“ages” (Col. 1:26); “the beginning of the world” (Eph. 3:9)

chrisma

“anointing” (1 John 2:27); “unction” (1 John 2:20)

sōzō

“save” (Matt. 1:21); “heal” (Acts 14:9); “whole” (Matt. 9:21); “make whole” (Matt. 9:22); “preserve” (2 Tim. 4:18)

elegchō

“reprove” (John 16:8); “rebuke” (Rev. 3:19); “convict” (John 8:9); “convince” (John 8:46); “tell [his] fault”

elpizō

“hope” (1 Pet. 1:13); “trust” (Matt. 12:21)

kairos

“season” (Mark 12:2); “time” (Matt. 13:30); “opportunity” (Gal. 6:10)

makarios

“blessed” (Matt. 5:3–11); “happy” (John 13:17)

marturia

“witness” (John 1:7); “testimony” (John 3:32–33); “record” (John 1:19); “report” (1 Tim. 3:7)

homologeō

“profess” (1 Tim. 6:12); “confess” (Matt 10:32); “promise” (Matt. 14:7); “give thanks” (Heb. 13:15)

paraklesis

“consolation” (Rom. 15:5); “exhortation” (Acts 13:15); “comfort” (Rom. 15:4); “entreaty” (2 Cor. 8:4)

Then because the Hebrew does not contain the word “have,” nor does it use many common English words, such as helping verbs or “to be” as connectives, the KJV translators added them and many other words to make the translation understandable and smooth reading in English. For example, they added the word “art” in Nathan’s words to David, “Thou art the man” (2 Sam. 12:7).24 The result was an excellent translation in the language of the people who lived in England in 1611.

At first the KJV, as a new version, was rejected by many. The clergy preached against it. One Hugh Broughton went so far as to say “that it was so poorly done that it would grieve him as long as he lived. He insisted that he would rather be tied between wild horses and torn apart than to let it go forth among the people.”25 For fifty years many continued to condemn it, but it gradually won favor because it was a superior translation. It was worthy of the place it came to have in the hearts of the people.

Unfortunately, all languages are constantly changing. We no longer speak Shakespearian English with its “thees” and “thous.” In fact, meanings of some words have changed considerably: “Let” in 1611 meant “hinder.” “Prevent” meant “precede.” “By and by” meant “immediately.” “Charger” meant “wooden platter.”

Missionaries want to get the Bible into the language the people actually speak. Believers everywhere are blessed when they read an easy-to-understand version in their own language. The world, including the English-speaking world, is a mission field today. This is the reality that has called forth new versions in modern English. Admittedly, none of them are final perfection, but all, except those put out by some of the cults, have enough truth in them for the Holy Spirit to use them to make the way of salvation clear.

Some modern versions, such as the New Berkeley Version, use a high English style that seems to be aimed at college professors instead of the average reader. In contrast, the New Century Version is aimed at a third-grade reading level. Some, such as The Good News Bible26, The Living Bible, the Phillips translation, and the New English Bible, are paraphrases, which do more interpretation than strict translation. The Phillips translation seems to catch the spirit of the Greek, however, especially in Paul’s epistles. The Revised Standard Version is fairly good in the New Testament, but the Old Testament is too subjective in the way it changes the Hebrew vowels and divides Hebrew words, so it is not useful as a study Bible. The New Revised Standard Version is an improvement over the earlier RSV. The New American Standard Bible is faithful to the original languages, but sometimes overliteral and not very readable. In between is the New International Version (NIV), which is a good translation made by Bible believers and is also very readable.27 Whichever version you choose, it is important to seek out the full meaning of the original languages (Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic) using concordances, commentaries, Bible dictionaries, as well as comparing with other versions.

Reading a new translation may stimulate thinking. Comparing various translations also helps one to see the various shades of meaning that are in the Scripture. As Dr. Jack Lewis points out, “The religious problems of the world are not caused by people reading different translations; the most serious problem is that many read no translation.”28

The KJV is still a good translation and worthy of respect. Its beauty, especially in the Psalms, will probably never be surpassed. But the important thing is to get people to read the Bible. As the people read, the Holy Spirit will illuminate their hearts and minds and make the truth of God’s Word real to them. In the providence of God, the inspired words of prophets and apostles of old have been preserved for us in the most remarkable of all books, the Holy Bible.

The Bible is a miracle of God’s care. The Holy Spirit acted at the time of the first writing. This we call inspiration. He has preserved for us the text. Now, today, the same Holy Spirit who inspired the writers helps the reader and the hearer. The unregenerate is not promised this assistance, being blind to the truth of God (1 Cor. 2:14). But the believer is promised special assistance from the Holy Spirit (John 16:13–16; 1 Cor. 2:10). God wishes to speak to the reader—and His Spirit is pleased to shed light on the truth and its application to your life.

11 Everett F. Harrison, Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1982), 108.

12 Ibid.

13 Sir Frederic Kenyon, The Story of the Bible, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1964), 26.

14 Sir Frederic Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, 5th ed. rev. (London: Eeyre & Spottiswoode, 1958), 318–319.

15 Geza Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 2d. ed. (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, Ltd., 1975), 12.

16 Much of the following discussion of translations is taken from Stanley M. Horton, “Perspective on Those New Translations,” Pentecostal Evangel, 11 July 1971, 6–8.

17 Gleason L. Archer, Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1981), 44.

18 Ibid., 80.

19 Jack P. Lewis, The English Bible/From KJV to NIV: A History and Evaluation (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981), 19–20; K.B. McFarlane, John Wycliffe (London: The English Universities Press, 1952), 106.

20 Ibid., 20–21.

21 However, “John Alden’s Bible, preserved in Pilgrim Hall at Plymouthm Massachusetts, is a KJV.” Ibid., 32–33. See also Christopher Anderson, The Annals of the English Bible, abridged and continued by S.I. Prime. (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1849), 486.

KJV King James Version

KJV King James Version

22 One of the problems missionaries face today is that in translating from one language to another it is often difficult to find exactly equivalent words in both languages. For example, Missionary John Hall told of a problem he had while translating the Bible into the Mossi language of Africa. The Mossi people had no word for “anchor.” They were an inland people who rode horses. They tied their horses to picketing pegs, so Hall translated the first part of Heb. 6:19: “Which hope we have as a ‘picketing peg’ for the soul which cannot be rocked loose or broken.”

KJV King James Version

KJV King James Version

23 In Luke 7:12; 8:42; and 9:38, the KJV translators did use the word “only” instead of “only begotten.”

KJV King James Version

KJV King James Version

KJV King James Version

KJV King James Version

24 Many (though by no means all) of these added words, which are necessary in English, the KJV translators put in italics.

KJV King James Version

25 Lewis, English Bible, 29; cf. Hugh Broughton, A Censure of the Late Translation for Our Churches, ca. 1612 (S.T.C. 3847).

26 Today’s English Version. Some Bible versions are published under more than one name.

27 Several Assemblies of God scholars have been involved in some of the recent translations.

28 Lewis, English Bible, 366.

KJV King James Version

William W. Menzies, Bible Doctrines: A Pentecostal Perspective, ed. Stanley M. Horton (Springfield, MO: Logion Press, 1993), 28–39.

Conclusion: The Enduring and Accessible Word of God

The trustworthiness of our modern Bibles rests on a remarkably solid foundation. Through the rigorous historical process of canonization and the discovery of thousands of ancient manuscripts—including the Dead Sea Scrolls—we have massive objective evidence that the biblical text has been preserved with unparalleled accuracy.

Beyond its historical reliability, the story of the Bible is one of continued accessibility. From the Greek Septuagint to the King James Version and today’s modern English translations, the goal has always been to put God’s Word into the everyday language of the people. Because languages constantly evolve, the emergence of new translations is both necessary and a blessing, helping to capture the rich, nuanced meanings of the original Hebrew and Greek texts.

Ultimately, the specific translation you choose matters less than the act of reading it. The Bible is a miracle not just of ancient inspiration and historical preservation, but of active, present-day application. The same Holy Spirit who inspired the original writers stands ready today to illuminate the text, bridging the centuries to make God's truth real and transformative in the life of the believer.

THE INFALLIBLE RULE

THE INFALLIBLE RULE

The divine source and authority of the Scripture assure us that the Bible is also infallible, that is, incapable of error and therefore not capable of misleading, deceiving, or disappointing us. Some writers make a distinction between inerrancy (“exempt from error”) and infallibility, but they are very near synonyms. “If there is any difference in the shade of meaning between the two terms, inerrancy emphasizes the truthfulness of Scripture, while infallibility emphasizes the trustworthiness of Scripture. Such inerrancy and infallibility apply to all of Scripture and include both revelational inerrancy and factual inerrancy. It is truth (2 Sam. 7:28; Ps. 119:43, 160; John 17:17, 19; Col 1:5).”5

Humanistic unbelief is the real source of objections to the authority and infallibility of the Bible. Its arguments are not new. Ancient writers such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Augustine had to combat some of them and in doing so declared their own confidence in the Scriptures. The reformers Zwingli, Calvin, and Luther also accepted the full authority of Scripture.6 Over the years unbelieving critics have made extensive lists of what they called discrepancies in the Bible, and some have claimed the Bible was indisputably in error. In 1874 J.W. Haley did a thorough study that is still worth reading.7 He classified these alleged discrepancies and found they arose from several causes:

1. A failure to read exactly what the Bible says.

2. False interpretations of the Bible, especially those which fail to take into account ancient customs and modes of speech.

3. Wrong ideas of the Bible as a whole and a failure to recognize that the Bible on occasion records the words of Satan and of evil people. For example, God told Job’s friends, “You have not spoken of me what is right” (Job 42:8). But the Bible gives a true record of what they said, even though they were wrong.

4. A failure to recognize that some accounts are condensations of what was said or done.

5. Chronological difficulties due to the fact that Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans all used different systems of measuring time or dating. Even Israel and Judah sometimes differed in their methods of counting kings’ reigns.8

6. Apparent discrepancies in numbers due to the fact that some passages use round numbers, others give more exact figures, depending on the purpose of the writer.

7. In some places copyists’ errors crept into certain ancient manuscripts. A comparison of manuscripts has corrected most of these errors. (In fact, most scholars agree on what was the original reading in the vast majority of the cases.9 Furthermore, those cases where we cannot be sure do not affect the teachings of the Bible in any way.)

8. Finally, some so-called discrepancies were just a matter of a Hebrew or Greek word having more than one meaning, just as some of our English words do (e.g., compare “lead” in “lead weight” and “lead the blind”).

One after another, alleged mistakes and discrepancies have been proved false. Again and again new discoveries by archaeologists and other scholars and scientists have shown that the so-called errors were errors of the critics due to their unbelief and insufficient knowledge.10

Some who deny the infallibility of Scripture nevertheless believe the Bible has value. That is, they say it does not matter whether the history and science of the Bible are true. They say that a sinner can be saved without knowing the whole Bible or its claims to inspiration. It is true that the sinner does not need to know about the Virgin Birth, divine healing, sanctification, the baptism in the Holy Spirit, and the second coming of Christ in order to be saved. But once a person becomes a believer, such teachings will become the means of becoming mature in the faith (cf. Heb. 5:11 to 6:2).

For those who are troubled by what they consider the imprecision of the Bible in describing natural phenomena, they should realize that scientific language and terminology have developed only in modern times. Moreover, each science develops its own vocabulary. For example, the word “nucleus” means one thing to the biologist and quite another thing to the astrophysicist. Even ordinary words can be given new meanings by scientists. To the botanist, for example, the word “transpire” means “to give off moisture through pores (stomata).” Consequently, the Bible uses nontechnical, everyday language; we can expects its use of terms such as “sunrise” and “sunset” to be just like ours, even though we now know that it is the movement of the earth that is taking place, not that of the sun. nevertheless, when the Bible does make an authoritative, propositional statement, such as “God created the heavens and the earth,” we can be sure the Bible is infallible.

The Bible will not lead us astray. It is a wonderful revelation of God as our Creator and Redeemer; a personal God who loves us and is concerned about us; a God who has a plan, who sent His Son to die for us (1 Cor. 15:3), and who will continue to do His work until Satan is crushed, death destroyed, and a new heavens and earth established. The whole Bible shows that He is reliable, dependable, trustworthy, and that His very nature guarantees the authority, infallibility, and inerrancy of His Word.

5 Where We Stand, 7–8.

6 Ibid., 9.

7 John W. Haley, Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988).

8 For a good discussion of this, see Edwin. R. Theile, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983).

9 R.K. Harrison and others, Biblical Criticism: Historical, Literary and Textual (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1980), 150.

10 For example, Dr. Stanley Horton heard a Harvard professor say that sevenfold lamps were not in existence in Moses’ time; therefore, the Bible was mistaken when it told of one being made and placed in the tabernacle (see Exod. 37:17–24). However, on an archaeological expedition at Dothan in 1962 with Dr. Joseph Free of Wheaton College, Dr. Horton watched workmen uncover a sevenfold lamp dating from 1400 B.C, right from the time of Moses. Stanley M. Horton, “Why the Bible is Reliable,” Pentecostal Evangel, 14 January 1973, 8–11.

William W. Menzies, Bible Doctrines: A Pentecostal Perspective, ed. Stanley M. Horton (Springfield, MO: Logion Press, 1993), 26–28.

Conclusion:

The Bible is infallible and trustworthy because it comes from God, whose nature guarantees the truth and reliability of His Word. Although critics have pointed to apparent contradictions, errors, or scientific and historical difficulties, many of these concerns result from misunderstandings, differences in language and culture, dating systems, numerical conventions, or manuscript-copying issues rather than actual errors in Scripture.

Ultimately, the Bible should be trusted not only for spiritual matters but as God’s authoritative revelation. Its teachings reveal God as Creator and Redeemer and point to His plan of salvation through Jesus Christ. Therefore, believers can confidently rely on Scripture to guide their faith and lives because God is reliable, dependable, and trustworthy, and His Word reflects those same qualities.

Question 4

 Who are the 144,000 sealed in heaven (Revelation 7)?

The text says quite specifically that this is “the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel.”

The real challenge in explaining this passage lies in the meaning of the tribes of Israel.

A common interpretation of Revelation says that this is the number of the Jewish martyrs from the Great Tribulation. The number in this case derives from the number of the tribes, twelve, multiplied by 12,000: 12 × 1,000 × 12 = 144,000.

In Bible times, 1,000 was the largest number for which there was a special word. They had no need for the word million because they knew of nothing that numerous, except perhaps grains of sand, and they were considered countless.

The Old Testament used the word thousand the way we might use million, or one of the larger words our national debt has forced on our collective consciousness.

When God told Israel that He would, “keep[ing] his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commands” (Deuteronomy 7:9). He wanted them to know that His faithfulness was everlasting.

Think about it. We frequently use such words as trillions or billions as if they meant infinity or eternity. And that’s the use the Bible makes of its largest number word. When the Bible uses 1,000 in a symbolic sense, it means all there is or all there could be.

The first twelve in our equation is simple to understand. Twelve is used throughout Scripture as the number for Israel, and it comes from the twelve patriarchs. That gets us up to 12,000. We could stop there, since the text tells us there were 12,000 from each of the tribes. Many commentators do. They’re the ones who identify these as the Jewish martyrs. They do this because their larger interpretive framework views all of Revelation, after chapter 3, as relating to Israel.

I disagree. Revelation gives pretty clear indication as to its attitude toward ethnic Israel. Christ spoke to the church at Smyrna and encouraged them in the face of “the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan” (Revelation 2:9). This slander went beyond gossip and backbiting. It eventaully led to persecution and imprisonment. The church at Philadelphia received an even more direct statement about those who claimed to be Jews. Revelation 3:9 said they were liars.

In addition to the twelve tribes of Israel, another group of twelve figured prominently in the Bible, this time in the New Testament. That’s right. There were twelve disciples, later called apostles, who were known in the early church simply as “the Twelve.” Revelation includes the Apostles with the twelve tribes. The New Jerusalem bears the names of the tribes on its gates, and the twelve foundations bear the names of the apostles.

The New Testament doesn’t completely ignore Israel in a biological, ethnic sense. But often biological descent from the patriarchs was de-emphasized.

Paul talked about those who had Abraham for a forefather, “as pertaining to the flesh” (Romans 4:1, KJV). He talked about Israelites who were his kinsmen “according to the flesh” (Romans 9:3).

This qualifier is important in light of what Paul said in Romans 9:6–8. Paul’s intention here should be clear. Not all who are descended from Israel, that is, Israel after the flesh, are Israel. Not everyone who is Abraham’s descendant is his child. It is the children of promise, Paul said, who are Israel! He talked about the “Israel of God” at the end of Galatians (6:16), which is a particularly telling verse, because it comes at the conclusion of a book aimed at the heresy of Judaizing.

The Galatians had been told they must become observant Jews to be Christians. Paul attacked the idea in the most forceful way throughout the book. He ended by reminding them that the new creation which is in Christ was what really counted, not circumcision or uncircumcision (6:15). In other words circumcision, considered vital by Judaizers and the mark of the orthodox Jew, was irrelevant.

What mattered was that the Galatians had been made new creatures in Christ, the act that abolished the dividing wall between Jew and Gentile (Ephesians 2:14) and made the two one, so Paul could say that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek (Galatians 3:28). After negating the importance of biological descent, Paul showed the positive side: “If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:29). He couldn’t have said it much more plainly. For many Christians the idea of the Church as spiritual Israel and heir to all the promises of God is anathema. But I am convinced that this is what the Bible teaches.

The problem with interpreting the 144,000 as Jewish martyrs lies in the assumption that Revelation uses Israel in a strictly literal sense. Those who take this literal view interpret other nations symbolically, but not Israel. Why insist that Israel must be ethnic Israel when Babylon has become Rome and then some ten-nation European super-state?

Why must Israel be ethnic Israel when so many places in the New Testament say that we are now under new terms of agreement between God and humanity. Under those terms, Israel is free to share with everyone else, but has no priority. If the Gentiles are now the seed of Abraham, and heirs according to the promise, why must we see Israel in Revelation?

In fact, there’s no hint whatsoever that the church has been removed at the beginning of Revelation. Some will argue that the call of John to come through the door into heaven is the Rapture. It takes some very inventive interpretation to make a case for that idea.

The speaker clearly identifies this vision as “what must take place after this” (Revelation 4:1). John records his observations as his own first-person-singular experiences. There’s no hint anywhere in the text that he represents the church.

Where has the church disappeared to in this book?

I suggest they haven’t disappeared at all. They make their appearance in the 144,000 of chapters 7 and 14.

We’ve established that the number is 12 × 12 × 1,000. We’ve also established that twelve is the number of Israel. Twelve times twelve is a number that signifies the perfection of itself. It stands for the perfect, ideal Israel.

That number may come from the multiplication of twelve tribes times twelve apostles. We see that combination in 21:12–14. One thousand is the number of completion. In other words, it stands for the totality of God’s people, Jew and Gentile, brought together under the banner of the Lamb in that last terrible, climactic moment when the forces of evil rise up in the violence of their death throes.

In the 144,000 we find the fulfillment of God’s eternal plan of redemption, the calling out of a people for His name, the creation of a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. The number is the symbolic representation of what Paul described in Ephesians. It’s the body in which race, gender, and social status are all irrelevant (Galatians 3:28). It includes the full number of those who will be saved, set aside for protection by the seal of God. The Body of Christ, in that generation, will stand complete.

Although the nations continue to rage against Christ and His bride, they have the assurance that they have been marked with God’s seal of ownership, and that “neither death nor life, angels, nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 8:38–39).

David E. O’Brien, Today’s Handbook for Solving Bible Difficulties (Minneapolis, MN: David E. O’Brien, 1990), 102–105.