The Word of God?

What is the Law-Word of God? Is it the KJV, NASB, or NIV? Is it the manuscripts in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, et al.? Are all of them the Law-Word of God or none of them?

For one who holds to the inerrancy and infallibility of the Law-Word of God, these questions may seem disconcerting.

I am currently studying this issue to have my conscience settled and for a paper I will write on the topic (makes my work light since I want to know the information). Here I will lay out some of my thoughts on the subject.

I heard first the arguments for the priority of the Greek from which the KJV was written. I was led to believe that the Greek manuscripts which were translated from until the last century were the pure text and that the more recently discovered manuscripts had been edited, for instance, by gnostic sects which had hidden them away and had incidentally preserved them.

The first books that I picked up on the subject of text versions were both arguing against modern translations. Their method was to compare the English KJV translation to other modern English translations. They argued that other versions significantly reduced verses in support of, most notably the doctrine of Christ's deity. They argued for a majority text tradition and invoked the theory of providential preservation.

More recently I have read a book by D.A. Carson on textual criticism. I took him to be Reformed Presbyterian initially but I don't know how he could have some very liberal leanings as far as altering Scripture is concerned and still be "Reformed." I thought he made many good points and nearly convinced me to be a textual critic...compelling anyways. But the more I look into it, the approach of textual criticism seems be atheistic as if somehow you can approach the issue neutrally...Oh sweet autonomy!

KJO proponents are on an extreme position. Proponents of the critical-text are on an extreme position. Proponents of the priority of the Majority/Byzantine text-type take external science into account as well as internal theological evidence. They seem to moderate the two extremes in a healthy way. It would place one much closer to KJO to side for the Majority text, but these are generally God-fearing evangelical Christians, than the textual-critics side, which is the side of intellectualizing to a fault the issue in question. Apparently, as one was wont to say, simple issues like evolution have been settled by science but are not accepted by some religious types. Well, I'm a religious type that will never accept an unproven theory as equivalent to experimental science.

Other issues I had with the Alexandrian prioritists were the use of statistical analysis, evolutionary concept of memes, mathematical analysis, etc as intellectual arguments. Sure, that is what is used in science but the Law-Word of God is not a scientific derivative and should not be treated as such.

I think the issues of theology, psychology, geography, history/tradition etc play a role as well as scientific modes of inquiry. Let us not use one to the exclusion of the other, but let us take both when they can both be of assistance and see where they lead us.