A More Sure Word of Prophecy

I recently asked an “original manuscript” only believer for some verses that say the originals were inerrant. His answer: “Here are a few of the verses that CLEARLY state that the originals were perfect: Ps 12:6; Ps 19:9; Ps 119:140; Ps 119:160; Ps 30:5f; Jn 10:35; Jn 17:17; 2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pe 1:20f.”

Mr. Martin: You’re right that it doesn't make sense that God would give the scriptures in a less than pure form that would have to later be corrected. However, it makes no more sense that God would give the scriptures in a pure and infallible form only to allow them to be corrupted by copyists and translators. In other words, I agree with you that if the originals were flawed, then they probably would have remained flawed. But it only makes sense that also if the originals were inerrant that God would have preserved the purity and inerrancy of the scriptures through copies and translations. Just as he used men to write the original scriptures, he surely used men to inerrantly copy and translate. I mean, really, why would God have given us inerrant originals only to have them to be corrupted?

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 1 Peter 1:23

Peter called the word of God incorruptible. I believe that is sufficient evidence for believing that God preserved the purity and inerrancy of the scriptures through copies and translations.

The first verse you listed is Psalm 12:6.
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Really, sir, how can you justify applying this verse only to the original manuscripts? Did David have and read the pure words of the LORD? When David wrote this verse, was he not speaking of something that he actually possessed and actually read? I think it should be fairly obvious that this verse applies to the copy of the scripture that David actually possessed, and not only the original. Otherwise was God telling David about the pure words of the LORD that he missed out on by being born too late? (Surely David didn't have the original, did he?)

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.

Now, notice what these verses say. “The words of the LORD are pure words.” If you have the words of the LORD, then, you have his pure words. If you don’t have his pure words, then you don’t have his words.
“as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.” This phrase definitely puts the preservation of the pure words of the LORD on the earth.
“tried in a furnace”. What could that mean? Obviously, somebody has tried to destroy God’s pure words. In spite of that, David said that God would preserve them for ever.

Psalm 19:9
The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.

This one actually seems a little weak to me. But again, I don't know why it should be applied only to the original scripture. Are the judgments of the LORD in the scripture that I have available to me? Why couldn't I say that the judgments of the LORD that I read are true and righteous altogether?

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

Here I would repeat my comments concerning Psalm 12:6.

Psalm 119:160
Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

I am actually having a hard time understanding why or how you are defining "God's word(s)" as 'only the original manuscripts'.

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

If only the originals were pure and "Every word of God is pure", then every word of God was lost with the original manuscripts. If a copy or translation was the word(s) of God, then it would have to be pure.


John 10:35
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

[I honestly don't know why you list this one. Perhaps it's just because I'm stupid. I really don't understand what that means- "the scripture cannot be broken;".]

John 17:17
Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

Here we run into a major problem. This verse in its context could not possibly refer to 'only the originals'. Look at verse 8.
For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
Here Jesus said that he had given the words, which God had given to him, which is essentially what all the human writers of the Bible did. Then, he says, in verse 20, "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;". The Lord's prayer in John 17 he prayed for me. He asked God to sanctify ME through his truth. And then he said, "Thy word is truth". I must believe that I have God's word and that His word is truth.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

I don't know how you apply this one to the originals. I'm not really sure how you get inerrancy from this verse, but I do agree that God's word is truth and God would not "inspire" error. This verse however in its context is not only speaking of the original manuscripts. The next previous verse defines scripture as what Timothy knew from a child. Now unless Timothy was a very, very old man, he never saw the original manuscripts. When Paul said ‘scripture', he was not referring to the originals. He was referring to the scriptures that were available to the person that he was referring to at that time. In fact, if you define the word 'scripture' as meaning 'only the original manuscripts', you are not using the Biblical definition of that word. And you are also taking the word out of context every time it appears in scripture.

Now there are at least 2 problems with the verses that you have given. Since you believe that no translation is infallible, then you are using a fallible authority to prove that the originals were infallible. That doesn't make much sense. It would make much more sense, since you believe that the originals were infallible to believe also in an available infallible authority.
Second, all of the verses you have given so far are just as much evidence for the preservation of the purity and inerrancy of scripture as they are for the originals. Some of them are undoubtedly more applicable to available scripture.
You can’t prove inerrancy of the originals without proving inerrancy of some available scripture. I really don't believe you can be sure of one without the other.
I have more faith and scriptural evidence for believing in an available, infallible manifestation of the word of God - [the scriptures] as you have for believing that the originals were inerrant.

I don’t know why you listed 2 Peter 1:20 unless you actually intended to include verse 21. Either way, like I said about all the verses you listed, these apply just as much to available scripture.
Peter said, “We have also a more sure word of prophecy” in verse 19. In the verses before, Peter was speaking of the voice of God from heaven. Then, in verses 20-21, he spoke of the inspiration of scripture. Peter said that because of the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, Peter (we) had a more sure word than God speaking from heaven. Peter claimed just as much (or more) inspiration for the scripture that he had [he said, “we have”] as the original scripture. And he actually said that the scripture that he had was “more sure” than the original!