Evangelical Apologist Speaking From Both Sides of their Mouth Concerning Inerrancy and Preservation of the Bible

In his book, Breaking the Mormon Code, Matthew Paulson often speaks from both sides of his mouth concerning the inerrancy and preservation of the Bible. Consider the following:

 

The Bible makes no admission of error. The Bible testifies that all scriptures are inspired or “God-breathed,” (2 Tim. 3:16). Jesus says that the scriptures “cannot be broken” (John 10:35) and that not a small part of a Hebrew letter will be lost from them, (Matt. 5:18). (Matthew A. Paulson, Breaking the Mormon Code: A Critique of Mormon Scholarship Regarding Classical Christian Theology and the Book of Mormon [Livermore, Calif.: WingSpan Press, 2006], 214)

 

Of course, scholars and most Bible readers are well aware of minor transmission errors and alternate readings (Ibid., 214)

 

All theological writings or scripture should be tested and approached with great suspicion, especially when the original source documents do not exist. (Ibid., 221; it should go without saying: the original manuscripts of all the biblical books are no longer extant)

 

The best confirmation that the Book of Mormon used the KJV Bible is the existence of poor KJV translations copied into the Book of Mormon text. The KJV translators were fallible and they produced a few inadvertent poor transliterations. (Ibid., 244 [he means ‘translations])

 

. . . the King James translators (as good as they are) made, on a few occasions, poor translations. (Ibid., 245)

 

On Isa 9:3 (KJV):

 

It is puzzling to see that God has increased the nation and “not” increased their joy. The New King James Bible has a footnote on Isaiah 9:3: “Following Qere and Targum; Kethib and Vulgate read not increased joy; Septuagint actually reads “Most of the people You brought down in Your joy.” (Ibid., 248)

 

On the Johannine Comma:

 

For over 400 years, the King James Version has proven itself to be one of the most quoted and enduring Bible translations. It was a great effort that has won the praise of many scholars and critics. However, the translators were human and fell prone to bias. . . . Liberal and conservative Bible scholars agree that this text is spurious. Scholar Daniel B. Wallace provides the sources of the KJV current text: “This longer reading is found only in eight late manuscripts, for of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these manuscripts (2318, 221, and [with minor variations] 61, 88, 429, 629, 636, and 918) originate from the 16^th century; the earliest manuscript, codex 221 (10^th century).” (Ibid., 259, 260)