The doctrine of the Inspiration and authority of the Word of God is one that is firmly embedded in scripture.
2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
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:
However, there is another doctrine that is equally important, and that is the doctrine of preservation. The Bible firmly teaches that God has preserved His Word.
Psalms 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.
Psalms 119:152 Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever.
The doctrine of preservation is just as important as the doctrine of Inspiration. Simply stated, inspiration means nothing if it has not been preserved to us. What good is the wonderful truth that God breathed every word of the Bible to the men who wrote it down, if He could not subsequently preserve it. Did the early Church have something that we do not have? I do not believe so. I believe that, in spite of what many would have us to believe, God has preserved His Word.
When persecution came to the early Church, Christians were forced to flee from Jerusalem and in a short time, Jerusalem was no longer the "base of operations" for the Church, and in time, Antioch became the hub for Christian activity.
In the mean time the Ethiopian Eunuch who was led to Christ by Phillip in Acts 8. He took the gospel to Egypt and in a very short time, Christianity gained a strong foothold in Egypt and Alexandria Egypt became another "hub" for Christianity.
As God inspired the various authors of scripture to write, Antioch and Alexandria became centers of Bible copying and in time each was producing great numbers of Bibles, each copied with painstaking care.
However, within just a few years, major doctrinal errors began to creep into the Church in Alexandria and within a century or so, the gospel was all but obliterated there.
In the mean time, the gospel continued to be preached in Antioch and because of persecution, doctrinal error was held in check. Then Constantitne came to the throne of Rome around 300 A.D. and nearly wiped out Christianity. The next 1000 years were known as the dark ages.
When the light of the gospel began to shine again one of the first and most important things God led his men to do was to translate the Bible into the common languages of the people. Most of the nations of Western Europe had brave men who began such work. They used scripture manuscripts that were copied in Antioch, and those texts became known as the "Textus Recptus" or received text. These texts are also known as the "Byzantine family of texts" and more recently have come to be known as the "majority text."
Tyndale, Coverdale and the others who translated the Bible into English used these text to translate from. It was their firm conviction that they were giving us the Word of God in English because they were translating the Word of God into English. On it’s best day, the work of translating the Bible is an inexact science and the question arises, "Do we have the Bible in English?" The translators authorized by King James I of England explained in a very eloquent manner, the matter of what there work really was. In the "To the Reader" section they wrote:
"We do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set fourth by men of our profession, containeth the word of God, nay, is the Word of God.
These men believed that they were translating the inspired and preserved Word of God into English and that belief stood unchallenged until, in the latter part of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20 th there were a few texts found that had been copied in Alexandria. These texts created a furor because there were many places throughout these manuscripts where they directly conflicted with the Majority Text. In many places, whole portions of scripture were omitted while in others, words were changed and major doctrines, of the faith were missing. It is interesting that those doctrines that were deleted matched those that were under attack in Alexandria in the early days.
Now this raised some questions as you can well imagine. Some of the questions raised would include, "Which is right?" "Is either right." "Are they both right?"
In time a group of men who called themselves the "higher critics" began a process whereby they attempted to combine these texts into one that could be used in translating.
The most commonly used work of these higher critics was done by two men named Westcott and Hort. Basically, what they did was to "resolve" all of the conflicts by deciding what they believed the Word of God was. Whenever you see an ad for some new "translation" of the Bible that claims to be "accurate" with the Greek, what they are saying is that it is accurate according to the Westcott and Hort. I have a problem with that.
The character of Mr. Westcott and Mr. Hort has been brought into question in many circles with the question being, were they qualified to make the determination as to what the Word of God is. I believe there is a much more basic and important question, that being, "Is anyone qualified to make that decision or did God preserve His Word as He said he would do in Matthew 24:35 "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."
I believe that God preserved His Word through the Byzantine family of texts and the men who translated from the preserved text were translating the inspired, infallible and preserved Word of God. I do not believe that the Alexandrian texts are the preserved Word of God as there are errors throughout these manuscripts. Those translating that which was preserved translated the Word of God. Those translating that which was not preserved, do not end up with the Word of God.