Here is the problem with the Science of Textual Criticism:
The textual critic approaches the Bible as he would any other literary work of antiquity in which the original autographs are no longer available. The premise is that since the original copies have long since perished and that which has survived consists of questionable, conflicting copies, it is, therefore, impossible to have a
pure Bible.
Textual criticism is then the science by which biblical scholars seek to
restore or
reconstruct the indefinite (lost) text of the Bible as close as possible to its original form by a detailed analysis of the various manuscripts. The standard criterion of reliability is age,
assuming the older the manuscript, the closer it must be to the original. Unfortunately, this approach fails to consider that most Bible corruption took place in the first few centuries (2 Cor.2:17, 2 Peter 3:16).
As with any branch of academia, there are different schools of thought among textual critics. Disagreements abound and take many forms. Each group of scholars defends its own set of criteria and presuppositions for evaluating the superiority of one text type over another (textual disputes) or one family of manuscripts over another.
Then, there are translation disputes and disagreements over how to understand and translate the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts (original languages of the Bible) into English. For example, the Greek word “logismos,” found in 2 Corinthians 10:5, can mean
reasoning, imagination, or thought. According to Greek, any one of these three definitions would be correct. The question then arises: how do we determine the precise word (meaning) that the Holy Spirit initially intended? Who gets to make the determination, and on what basis, by what authority?
When you consider all the complexities and variables of textual criticism, not to mention the differences between the Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and English languages, it should be apparent that without
supernatural intervention, it would be impossible to reconstruct the original text of the Scriptures, even if it had been lost. In reality, textual criticism is no more than theoretical guesswork, an academic exercise in futility and unbelief. The Bible sums up the science of textual criticism in 2 Tim.3:7: “
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
False doctrine originates with the
acceptance of a false premise; deception is born out of failure to recognize truth, “
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die… (Gen.3:4). The beginning of the end came when Satan interjected a false thought into Eve’s mind. A bold lie that sounded logical, even though it was contrary to what God had said, but tragically, Eve accepted it. Why was Eve so easily deceived?
It has been wisely stated that the heart of every problem is a problem in the heart. Eve was beguiled because she questioned what God had said. So then, so now,
And the serpent said unto the “biblical scholar,” God hath not preserved His Word. The clever lie that God’s words perished, along with the papyri or vellum on which they were written initially, has been broadly propagated and widely accepted, even though it is contrary to what God has said. Papyri and vellum are
physical, material, and temporal. God’s Word is
spiritual (John 6:63)
and eternal (1 Peter 1:21). The students of the school of modern textual criticism have little, if any, faith in God’s ability to preserve His own words. In effect, their position accuses God of negligence.
The false doctrine of
non-preservation is a doctrine that lacks any basis in the Word of God other than “
Yea, hath God said…” (Gen.3:1). It is, in fact, nothing more than a
theory constructed upon a
flawed foundation that assumes inspiration was limited to the original autographs. A method strikingly similar to “Darwin’s
theory of evolution” also founded on a lie. Textual criticism and evolution are similar in that both utilize man’s wisdom to refute God’s Word; both replace certainty with uncertainty. The common goal is the
destruction of absolutes (one of the primary objectives of
secular humanism).
Absolute truth is the foundation of morality that holds man
accountable; therefore, his fallen nature dictates that he challenge, resist, and deny it, especially where it applies to his conduct. In a sense, evolution got rid of God, and textual criticism got rid of His words. The so-called “scholars” begin with
absolute inerrancy (the original lost autographs) and end up with relative inerrancy (hundreds of “
relatively pure” albeit conflicting versions of the Bible).
The crux of textual criticism concerning the Bible isn’t restoring lost truth; the real issue is the
final authority. The whole process lacks any Scriptural justification and is inconsistent with the nature of God. How can we explain the Sovereignty of a God who relies on the mind of fallen man to discern, decide, and declare what is and isn’t true? The truth of God’s Word needs to be resurrected by man’s wisdom, which lacks underlying support within the Bible. When we examine the Scriptures, we find just the opposite. Jesus Himself stated, “
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matt. 24:35). That God’s words would be lost is contrary to His nature as revealed in Scripture; if God is pure, perfect, holy, and eternal (and He is), then it stands to reason, so must His Word be. “
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever” (Heb .13:8).
Textual critics have accomplished much if uncertainty is better than certainty, if confusion is more desirable than clarity, and if impurity is superior to purity. As a direct result of the modern school of textual criticism, we have more than two hundred different versions of the Bible today, all of which disagree in one form or another (to satisfy copyright laws, among other things). As a result, Bible publishing has become a lucrative enterprise.
The resulting confusion within the Body of Christ is yet another confirmation that the whole process is not from God ”
For God is not the author of confusion…” (1 Cor. 14:33). In reality, the science of modern textual criticism has proven to be a “Pandora’s box,” a contemporary form of “
Yea, hath God said…” resulting in continuous controversy and significant divisions within the Body of Christ. “
As if it weren’t enough for proud men to doubt God’s Holy Word, in their folly, they imagine they could somehow resurrect it!” Humility is hardly the hallmark of supposed higher learning.
Article Source:
https://www.perfectingofthesaints.com/articles/articles-why-i-believe-the-king-james-bible-is-the-pure-word-of-god
