Changes

A few Christians take that position one step further and believe that God has preserved His word, so that there is an inerrant Bible today, that version being the King James Version.  Those who hold that position are within the camp of believers known as [[King James only]] (though not all in this camp hold to the same viewpoint as to the extent of preservation).

A few Christians take that position one step further and believe that God has preserved His word, so that there is an inerrant Bible today, that version being the King James Version.  Those who hold that position are within the camp of believers known as [[King James only]] (though not all in this camp hold to the same viewpoint as to the extent of preservation).

The latter view is based on the following: (i) God has promised to preserve His word in {{Bible ref|book=Psalms|chap=12|verses=6-7|version=KJV}}, {{Bible ref|book=Isaiah|chap=40|verses=8|version=KJV}}, and {{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=24|verses=35|version=KJV}}; and (ii) inerrancy only in the original manuscripts, which are lost to us, would do modern Christians no good.<ref>[http://www.faithfulwordbaptist.org/page6.html Faithful Word Baptist Church Doctrinal Statement]</ref><ref name=“closer">[http://www.chick.com/bc/2004/truth.asp 'Nothing Could Be Closer to the Truth']</ref> It is unlikely that God would have allowed His word to be twisted in any subsequent translations, given that He could have simply inspired those doing the work in the same way as He did with those who wrote the original texts.  People who take this view are called Biblical preservationists.<ref>[http://www.tks.org/Archives/bob_jones,_iii.htm Bob Jones III]</ref>

The latter view is based on the following: (i) God has promised to preserve His word in {{Bible ref|book=Psalms|chap=12|verses=6-7|version=KJV}}, {{Bible ref|book=Isaiah|chap=40|verses=8|version=KJV}}, and {{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=24|verses=35|version=KJV}}; and (ii) inerrancy only in the original manuscripts, which are lost to us, would do modern Christians no good.<ref>[http://www.faithfulwordbaptist.org/page6.html Faithful Word Baptist Church Doctrinal Statement]</ref><ref name="closer">[http://www.chick.com/bc/2004/truth.asp 'Nothing Could Be Closer to the Truth']</ref> It is unlikely that God would have allowed His word to be twisted in any subsequent translations, given that He could have simply inspired those doing the work in the same way as He did with those who wrote the original texts.  People who take this view are called Biblical preservationists.<ref>[http://www.tks.org/Archives/bob_jones,_iii.htm Bob Jones III]</ref>

The ''Chicago Statement'''s answer to this is that the copies and translations are sufficiently faithful to the originals as to not affect any essential teaching.<ref>Article X of the ''Statement'' says:{{QuoteBox|WE AFFIRM that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

The ''Chicago Statement'''s answer to this is that the copies and translations are sufficiently faithful to the originals as to not affect any essential teaching.<ref>Article X of the ''Statement'' says:{{QuoteBox|WE AFFIRM that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

Those holding to liberal revisionist views of the Bible most typically hold to the ''Documentary Source Hypothesis'', which is contended against by many conservatives.<ref>[http://www.ukapologetics.net/docu.htm THE 'DOCUMENTARY SOURCE HYPOTHESIS' Does Anyone Still Believe the 'Documentary Hypothesis'?]</ref>  

Those holding to liberal revisionist views of the Bible most typically hold to the ''Documentary Source Hypothesis'', which is contended against by many conservatives.<ref>[http://www.ukapologetics.net/docu.htm THE 'DOCUMENTARY SOURCE HYPOTHESIS' Does Anyone Still Believe the 'Documentary Hypothesis'?]</ref>  

Some progressive Christians acknowledge that an [[omnipotence|omnipotent]] God could easily preserve His words and conclude that, for reasons that they never specify, He has chosen not to do so, instead leaving us to our subjective impressions of God's will.<ref>[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/2015/06/christian-fundamentalisms-grand-illusion/ Christian Fundamentalism's Grand Illusion]</ref>

Some progressive Christians acknowledge that an [[omnipotence|omnipotent]] God could easily preserve His words and conclude that, for reasons that they never specify, He has chosen not to do so, instead leaving us to our subjective impressions of God's will.<ref>[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/2015/06/christian-fundamentalisms-grand-illusion/ Christian Fundamentalism's Grand Illusion]</ref> Biblical preservationists counter that that view gives ammunition to [[skeptic]]s, who can ask what sort of God would do that.<ref name="closer" />

===Seventies debate===

===Seventies debate===