top of page
Writer's pictureDr. Peter Putney

Did God perfectly preserve the Scriptures? My response to Calvin George’s attack on my book.

This article contains a portion of my rebuttal to Calvin George’s attack on my book Not One Jot or Tittle: How God Preserved His Word for all Nations. The full rebuttal in Spanish can be found here: https://www.seminariovictoria.com/ni-una-jota-ni-una-tilde. Calvin George's article was written in Spanish. I used google translate to translate his statements into English for this article. You can read his original statements in Spanish using the above link.


In his article against my book, which you can find on his website, Calvin George gives seven reason why he does not believe in the perfect preservation of the Scriptures.

 

George: Why then do I not accept the teaching of perfect preservation as taught by some? The following reasons are presented in abbreviated form, but are set out in my writings in greater detail:

 

George’s Reason #1: The preservation was not carried out by divine inspiration, such as the composition of the original autographs. Inspiration is a process that ended with Revelation.

 

I agree with Mr. George that inspiration ended with Revelation. But I also believe that God preserved the words of the inspired autographs from the time they were written until today just as the Bible teaches. Just because inspiration ended with Revelation does not mean that perfect preservation did not happen. Jesus said that not one jot or tittle will pass away from the Scriptures.

 

George’s Reason #2: No two Bible manuscripts read the same…the fact that no two manuscripts are the same should settle the matter.

 

First, this is quite the assertion. What evidence does Mr. George offer for this bold statement? Has he personally examined each of the thousands of manuscripts? Can George cite someone reliable who has examined each of the thousands of manuscripts and knows for a fact that no two are the same? Is George just repeating something he heard from other preservation critics without investigating what evidence there is before making such a bold claim? The burden of proof is on Calvin George to provide the evidence for this statement.

 

Second, the statement made by George is easily disproven. Yes, there are identical manuscripts. For example, 4Q2 is exactly the same as Codex L.[1]

 

Even if it were true that no two manuscripts are alike, this would not "settle the matter." We could still make comparisons and identify errors and thus have perfect preservation of the Scriptures.

 

Third, George does not explain what the differences between Bible manuscripts are. His claim is very ambiguous. Many times, the differences between manuscripts have to do with the style of writing words at different times in history and not necessarily with errors in the text. Despite what George claims, this is not a good reason to reject the belief in perfect preservation.

 

George’s Reason #3: The biblical promises of preservation are not presented in the Bible in such a way that the only possible interpretation is “perfect preservation.”

 

Mr. George says in his article that the Bible doesn't really teach perfect preservation.

 

George: Look at all the verses Putney cites in his attempt to prove that preservation has to be perfect, otherwise God would be guilty of lying. Do they really say that preservation will be perfect in the way Putney projects? Can those verses only be interpreted with a preservation scenario with copying from “impeccable manuscripts” that “came out clean and exact” (p. 37)? Is that honestly the only possible interpretation?

 

First, the argument in my book is not that perfect preservation means that individual manuscripts never contained scribal errors. George is just building a straw man.

 

Second, if George wants to assure us that the Bible does not teach preservation, what are the other alternative interpretations of these verses that we should consider? George does not explain how we should interpret the verses; he only says that the obvious interpretation is wrong. The burden of proof is on George to explain what the alternative interpretations are, and why they are more hermeneutically sound than the normal interpretation. One must remember how important it is to use the rules of hermeneutics since any false teacher can give a bad interpretation to a verse.

 

Third, I think we should do what George told us and look at some of the verses that he says do not teach the perfect preservation of the Bible.

 

Psalm 12:6–7 The words of the LORD are pure words: As silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, Thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

 

Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

 

Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is pure: He is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

 

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

 

Mark 13:31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

 

Luke 21:33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

 

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.

 

Revelation 22:18–19 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

 

1 Peter 1:24–25 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

 

Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, Lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

 

Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

 

Psalm 119:140 Thy word is very pure: Therefore thy servant loveth it.

 

Psalm 119:89 For ever, O Lord, Thy word is settled in heaven.

 

Psalm 119:152 Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old That thou hast founded them for ever.

 

Isaiah 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: But the word of our God shall stand for ever.

 

I read these verses and conclude that God has preserved his word down to the jot and tittle. The question is do we believe the verses that teach perfect preservation or not? Who are we going to believe, Calvin George or God?

 

George’s Reason #4: God often chooses to act without intervening miraculously, and accomplishes his purposes by ordinary means through fallible human beings through what we call “the providence of God.”

 

Why is it that George doesn't think that God's providence working through ordinary and human means cannot accomplish perfect preservation. God is capable of perfectly preserving the Scriptures however He wants to. I don't understand how this is even an argument.

 

George’s Reason #5: The diversity in the manuscripts (even in the same textual types), the differences between editions of the Masoretic Text and the Received Text (resulting in differences even between reliable translations), reveal a human element in the preservation in addition to the divine.

 

This reason is almost the same as his 2nd reason. George reveals that he does not think that collation methods can resolve scribal errors and corruption between individual manuscripts. What evidence does George have to assure us that it is impossible? He doesn't explain. Again, the burden of proof is on Mr. George to provide evidence that the few scribal errors in the reliable manuscripts of the traditional Bible cannot be identified and that it is impossible to have the perfect text of the Bible.

 

George’s Reason #6: The issue of whether or not preservation is perfect is a largely technical and academic issue that involves a small percentage of the biblical text. Therefore it is of little benefit to unbelievers or new or immature Christians who need the “milk” of the Word.

 

According to George, the question of whether the Bible has errors or not is of "little benefit" to many Christians. If he really believes this, then why did he write an attack on my book? Mr. George might be surprised to find out that for many of us, it is indeed important that the Bible does not contain errors. I would echo this statement by believers in the year 1863: “All our hope for eternity, the foundation of our faith; our most precious consolations are taken from us, if even one line of the Holy Book (The Bible) is declared unfaithful or untrustworthy.”[2]

 

George’s Reason #7: Every Christian can rest in the fact that despite certain technicalities in textual matters that disqualify a belief in absolutely perfect preservation, there is ultimately no biblical doctrine at stake, God has not failed us, and we have the word of God reliably preserved. Glory to God!

 

First, George says that there are "certain technicalities" that make perfect preservation impossible. Certain technicalities? What technicalities are they and how do they make preservation impossible? George doesn't explain. Again, the burden of proof is on George's shoulders to show firm evidence that it is impossible to remove scribal errors and have the pure text of the Bible. 

 

Second, George wants us to be comfortable with not knowing exactly what God's words are because "there is no doctrine at stake." I want to encourage the reader to read chapters six and eight of my book that clearly show that there are doctrines affected in the debate between the Critical Text and the traditional Bible. Yes, it is important to know what God said in the Scriptures. Our entire faith is affected if the Bible is not perfectly preserved.

 

Conclusion

 

We have now finished reviewing George's list of why he doesn't believe in perfect preservation. I will let the reader decide whether he is right or wrong. The truth is, George has not convinced me that the Bible is not perfectly preserved. This is why I continue to believe in the Bible's promises that every word of God is pure.

 

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. Matthew 5:18


[1] Emmanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed. [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012], 31

[2] David Otis, True or False, (citando a Excert from Protest of the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of England in united protest to Bishop Conlenso, 1863.) cita en la dedicación.

127 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Comments


Commenting has been turned off.
bottom of page