Three Gigantic Problems with the “Original Autograph Only” Position
In the Spanish Bible debate, those who defend the RV1960 as an “adequate” Bible almost always believe and teach the “original-autograph-only” position regarding the preservation of the biblical texts. This is the belief that the inspired and perfect original autographs were the only documents that contain the pure, perfect, and inspired Scriptures. All copies of the originals are flawed and could never be called the pure, perfect, and inspired Word of God.
This position might not be a problem if we could simply go down to the Original Autograph Museum and look at what the inspired and perfectly pure Bible says. The problem is that we cannot check to see what they say because they do not exist. Not one of the original autographs of the Bible exists today. All we have are copies. If what the “original-autograph-onlyists” say is correct, then there are some bleak realities that must be accepted along with their consequences.
1. At no point in time has any man ever had access to the complete Inspired Word of God.
If only the original autographs contained the infallible, perfect, and inspired Scripture, then no man has ever seen it in its entirety. At no point in history have all the original autographs been together in one collection. It is probable that at no point in history have even a few of the original autographs been together. Only copies have ever been together.
Why would God even bother creating a complete, inspired, and perfect Bible if not one man would ever see it? Why would God inspire the Bible and then not preserve it even after saying that He would? If we accept what the “original-autograph-onlyists” are telling us, then we must accept this bleak reality that a perfect, complete, and inspired Bible is a concept that has never actually been experienced by anyone in human history.
2. There are promises in Scripture that are obviously not true.
If we accept that only the originals were perfect, then what of the promises in Scripture that God would preserve His Word? Consider the following promises:
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.
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.
I could list many other verses, but the point is the Bible clearly teaches that God has and will preserve His Word. If we accept the teachings of the “original-autograph-onlyists,” then we do not have the perfect and preserved Word of God anymore. All we have are flawed copies and the logical result is that these promises are simply not true.
The “original-autograph-onlyists” sometimes try to get around this major problem by claiming that we are interpreting the verses wrong. One RV1960 defender tried this while trying to refute my book Not One Jot or Tittle:
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?[1]
Jesus’ teaching that not one jot or tittle will pass away from His Word seems to project a perfect preservation to me. These critics seldom offer any alternative interpretation to these verses because the literal and hermeneutically sound interpretation is that God will preserve His Word down to the smallest parts of grammar. We are simply told to not believe our lying eyes.
Another tactic is to claim that the perfect Bible exists but is unknowable because it is scattered amongst the manuscripts and we could never figure out exactly what is original and what is not. The problem with this argument is that something that is unknowable and impossible to find is, by definition, lost. If it is not possible to discern what is truth and what is error, then the truth is lost.
The final tactic they are left with is to claim that God only preserved His “truths” and “doctrines” but that the actual text is impossible to know for certain. Here are some examples:
Even when the accuracy of a reading in the original text cannot be known with 100 percent accuracy, it is possible to be 100 percent certain of the truth preserved in the texts that survive.[2]
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,[3]
The problem with this argument is that the Bible does not promise to preserve God’s ideas, truths, or doctrines; it promises to preserve His words.
Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is pure: He is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Mark 13:31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
Isaiah 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: But the word of our God shall stand for ever.
The arguments of these “original-autograph-onlyists” do not make any sense and are simply desperate attempts to wrestle with the fact that the logical conclusion of their teachings is that there are promises in the Bible that are not true. They literally teach that God did not preserve His Word when He explicitly says that He did.
I honestly would not even be in the ministry if I believed like these folks. If even one promise in Scripture is proven to be untrue, then how do we know if we can trust the other promises in Scripture? If God lied about perfectly preserving His Word, then how can we know if we can trust His promise of salvation? If we accept the position of the “original-autograph-onlyists,” then we must accept this bleak reality that some of God’s promises are untrue.
3. There is no certainty as to the actual text of the Bible
For many people the problem with believing in the perfect preservation of the Scriptures is that they would then need to submit themselves to that perfect and preserved text. They would have an authoritative Bible. The way to avoid this is to be an “original-autograph-onlyist,” because then you do not have any certainty as to what the text of Scripture even is.
This position of uncertainty is music to the ears of the cultists because it gives them “flexibility” in preaching their false doctrines. One of the very first documented individuals to teach the “original-autograph-only” position was a Catholic priest named Richard Simon (1638-1712). Simon has been called the father of biblical criticism (textual criticism).[4] Notice what was written of Simon back in the 1800s:
The distinction between ‘inerrant autographs’ and errant copies seems to have been first made by Richard Simon (1638-1712)...to prove the necessity of textual criticism...[5]
As a defender of Catholicism, Simon used the “original-autograph-only” position to teach that the Scriptures were not to be trusted as a final authority in all faith and practice because the inspired originals have been lost. Instead, we should trust the Catholic church to determine what is authoritative and what is not. Notice what he wrote back in 1689:
I have no other intentions in composing this work, than the benefit of the [Catholic] Church...As the Holy Books are not exempt from faults, which either by the tract of time, or negligence of the transcribers [have slipped into them]...Is it possible (may some say) that God hath given to His Church, Books to serve her for a rule, and that He hath at the same time permitted that the first originals of these Books should be lost...?...this rule [i.e. the Bible] is not altogether sufficient of itself...But it is much more reasonable only to admit this inspiration for the Originals of the Holy Scriptures...[6]
For Simon, the benefit of teaching “original-autograph-onlyism” is that he could simply conclude that the Scriptures were flawed and put the authority of God into the hands of the Pope.
While not all “original-autograph-onlyists” want the Pope to decide for them what the Bible should say, they do share Simon’s desire to make the Bible uncertain. This was the whole point of Simon’s position: to spread uncertainty regarding the “paper pope” (the Bible). Listen to how he puts it:
Instead of believing with the Protestants that the shortest and most certain way of deciding the questions of faith is to consult the Holy Scriptures, we shall on the contrary find in this Work that if we join not [Catholic] Tradition with the Scripture, we can hardly affirm anything for certain in Religion...[7]
The key concept of "original-autograph-onlyism" is uncertainty. To them certainty is the enemy. They are merchants of doubt regarding the text of the Scripture. The problems that they are forced to contend with is that while uncertainty might be the point of their position, it is also its great weakness. Notice how the famous "original-autograph-onlyist" James White admits this:
the ‘argument for certainty’ as I call it...is the ‘glue’ that holds the KJV Only position together...People do not want subjectivity, but desire certainty and clarity - (James R. White - The King James Only Controversy, p93)
For those who defend textual corruption, saying that the perfect Bible is lost allows them to rebuke us for quarrelling about a corrupt reading because “who really knows what it should say anyway.” The uncertainty is the whole point.
Indeed, this is the main argument of many on the other side of the Spanish Bible debate. The defenders of the corrupt readings in the RV1960 are willing to uproot all our confidence in a preserved and perfect text just so that they can justify the corrupt Alexandrian Critical Text readings in their favorite Spanish Bible. To them all Bibles are corrupt and so why worry about textual purity? This is the dark and bleak reality if we accept the “original-autograph-only” position.
Conclusion
As has been demonstrated by Richard Simon, the “original-autograph-onlyists” have been spreading their uncertainty for hundreds of years. The first to spread uncertainty regarding God's Word was Satan in the garden of Eden.
Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said...?
Thankfully, they have also for hundreds of years been refuted and condemned by “Bible-believing preservationists” who teach the biblical doctrine of perfect preservation. We do not have to bow the knee to merchants of doubt. God not only inspired His Word, He also preserved it. See the articles below to learn more about how God has given us certainty as to the text of the Scripture.
[1] Calvin George https://www.literaturabautista.com/critica-de-ensenanza-de-peter-putney-sobre-la-preservacion-en-su-libro-ni-una-jota-ni-una-tilde/.
[2] Norman Geisler - A General Introduction to the Bible, 44.
[3] Calvin George https://www.literaturabautista.com/critica-de-ensenanza-de-peter-putney-sobre-la-preservacion-en-su-libro-ni-una-jota-ni-una-tilde/.
[4] Joey Faust. The Word: God Will Keep It! The 400 Year History of the King James Bible Only Movement, 31, citing The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 1911.
[5] Ibid., 31, citing Philip Schaff, Samuel Macauley Jackson, Theological Propaedeutic, 1893.
[6] Ibid., 32, citing Richard Simon, A Critical History of the Text of the New Testament, 1689.
[7] Ibid., 32-34, citing Richard Simon, A Critical History of the Text of the New Testament, 1689.
