Featured So what is 'preservation'?

Sir, you know my position.
I also have no wish to give you the fight that you always seem to be looking for, whenever this subject comes up.

Perhaps not, but William Tyndale did.
Their work is based on his work.

In addition, my focus is not on the men, but on how God used them.

Now, this will be my one and only reply to you, sir, in the interests of not hijacking this thread...
As well as in the best interests of fostering peace between us.
I'm not interested in reviewing whatever information you have to show, as I have satisfied myself about this subject for over 22 years now.

May God bless you.

 

Much of the KJV is based on Tyndale's work, but it is a fact that the Church of England makers of the KJV made some changes to his work to which Tyndale would have disagreed according to his own writings. For example, Tyndale would have disagreed with the changing of his rendering "congregation" to "church" and the changing of his rendering "love" to "charity" in some places.

Some of the differences between Tyndale's Bible and the KJV is because of places where the KJV translators borrowed renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament.

 

I know generally your position in that it is evidently one of the varying KJV-only positions.

You have not presented many specifics so there is a great deal that I do not know about your position. I cannot know things about your position that you do not present.

You have not identified any specific edition of the Textus Receptus so I do not know which one of the over twenty textually-varying editions to which you may be referring. Likely, it may be the TR edition that was not actually used by the KJV translators and that did not exist in their day--the 1800's TR edition compiled by Scrivener from the varying editions used in the making of the KJV.

 

Do you blindly trust an edited Greek text compiled in the 1500's based on imperfectly-collated, imperfectly-copied Greek manuscripts with some additions added from the Latin Vulgate by a Roman Catholic Erasmus and with some textual conjectures not found in any known preserved Greek NT manuscripts?

The Textus Receptus did not 100% follow any one Greek manuscript.

 

A logical and sound deduction or necessary consequence from the instructions in several verses of Scripture (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) would indicate and affirm that copies of Scripture would need to be carefully examined, searched, tried, or evaluated to make sure that no additions were made, that nothing was omitted, that no words were changed, and that the meaning of words according to their context was not diminished. The truth stated in these verses could be properly understood to indicate that whatever adds to, takes away, or diminishes (whether intentional or unintentional) would not be the word of God.

These scriptural instructions and truths provide sound guidance concerning how to know the words which the LORD has or has not spoken (Deut. 18:21, Jer. 23:16, Jer. 23:35, Ezek. 22:28). Would words that go beyond those words that God actually gave to the prophets and apostles be considered the actual pure words of God (Num. 22:18)? There is such a thing as the possible adding of words in copies or in Bible translations. It can be properly concluded from the Scriptures that God has not directly spoken words added by men and that any words omitted by copiers should be restored (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18). According to scriptural truth, words added by men cannot soundly be considered as being words given by inspiration of God. Since the law or word of the LORD is perfect (Ps. 19:7, James 1:25) and since perfection by definition would exclude the presence of even one imperfection, would imperfect renderings made by men or any errors introduced by men be identical to the perfect words of God given to the prophets and apostles? Since the statues or words of the LORD are right (Ps. 19:8, Ps. 33:4) and since the words of God are true (Ps. 19:9, John 17:17, Ps. 119:160, Dan. 10:21), it can be soundly and scripturally concluded that any wrong words or errors introduced by imperfect men would not be the absolutely pure words of God. It can be also properly concluded that any errors introduced by men in copying, in printing, or in translating are not words spoken or given by God. Any error introduced by a copier, printer, or whomever in copies and in Bible translations can be and should be corrected. It could also be soundly concluded that any words perverted, diminished, or mistranslated by men are not actual words spoken by God (Jer. 23:36, Deut. 4:2, Jer. 23:28, Deut. 12:32, 2 Cor. 2:17, Jer. 23:16, Jer. 26:2).

Just as the source definitely had to be the correct standard, proper authority, and just measure or balance for evaluating the copy; likewise, the words in the preserved original language sources would have to be the proper standard and greater authority for evaluating the different words in a translation made from them (Rom. 11:18, Prov. 16:11, Deut. 16:20, Job 14:4, Deut. 25:13-15, Lev. 19:35-36, Ezek. 45:10, Matt. 7:17, Prov. 11:1, Micah 6:11). Do the Scriptures themselves provide examples that would show that original-language words would be the authority, source, and standard for translated words that translate, interpret, or give the meaning in another language (Matt. 1:23, Mark 5:41, Mark 15:22, Mark 15:34, John 1:41, Acts 4:36)? Appeals to what was written by a prophet or by the prophets would be an acknowledgement of the authority and standard of the original-language words of Scripture (Matt. 2:5, Luke 18:31, John 5:47). Unless the preserved Scriptures in the original languages are the authority, norm, and standard for Bible translations, there would be no sound, true criteria for distinguishing between a good, accurate translation and a poor, inaccurate translation. Would not the original-language Scriptures given by inspiration of God and preserved by God be profitable for correction of any errors made or introduced by imperfect men in translating and in printing?

Jim Taylor maintained that preservation is not “an attribute” but that it “is a process” (In Defense of the TR, p. 40). Taylor asserted that “translations are not preserved because preservation is not an attribute” (Ibid.). Taylor noted: “Add to this the fact that God preserved what he gave. God gave us his words in Greek and Hebrew and thus, he preserves his words in those languages” (Ibid.). Tim Fellure observed: “Obviously, it’s not required that preservation extends to a translation if the Word of God has been preserved in the Greek and Hebrew text” (Neither jot nor tittle, p. 71). Thomas Corkish acknowledged that “it is true that He [God] has not promised to preserve versions” (Brandenburg, Thou Shalt Keep Them, p. 210). Raymond Blanton claimed: “God has not preserved His Words mingled with the words of men” (Flaming Torch, May, 1988, p. 8).

The scriptural truths concerning righteous judgments and just measures also provide sound guidance in determining how to know which words the LORD has or has not spoken or given as part of Scripture. The use of any unrighteous divers weights, unequal or false balances, inconsistent divers measures, unfair or untrue judgments, or double standards in evaluating, judging, trying, or comparing original language manuscript copies of Scripture [likewise printed original language texts and translations] would be wrong according to a consistent, sound application of scriptural truths and principles (Prov. 16:11, 20:10, 11:1, 20:23, Deut. 25:13-15, Ezek. 45:10, Lev. 19:35-36, Amos 8:5, Ps. 82:2, Lev. 19:15, Luke 16:10, Matt. 7:2, John 7:24, Lev. 10:10, Ps. 58:1, Deut. 16:18-20, Ps. 19:7-9).

 

Thank you for the mea culpa. I thought I was clearly on the side of God's preservation of Scripture. That was my intention. Let me reiterate.

1. I pointed out that there is in theology a general doctrine of preservation. Those who oppose a doctrine of Bible preservation appear to forget this. The general doctrine of preservation (the quotes I gave laid the foundation for a doctrine of Scripture preservation.

2. Earthly preservation is providential, not miraculous. A perfect translation, or even copied manuscript, would have to be given miraculously to be perfect. Do you follow me on the difference between miracle and providence? Most who think through preservation miss this.

3. Let me add that in this discussion what usually is omitted is that we, as priests of God, are responsible for the human preservation of Scripture. Unfortunately, independent Baptists have not realized that. It is only in recent years that fundamental Bible translation ministries have arisen.

I believe that every single one of God's words in Scripture are preserved in the Byzantine family of mss. The TR is a representation of that, and it is what my team translated from to produce the Lifeline Japanese NT, which is now finished and scheduled to be printed this summer.

 

As a Minimalist, I look at verses and ask, "What is the least that God could be saying?" If we look at Romans 15:4 we see that at least the intended message had been preserved from when it was written to when it provided its encouragement in the 1st century. We cannot draw the conclusion it was preserved perfectly, but only sufficiently for God's purpose. This does not rule out inerrancy in the original autographs, or providential preservation. It simply acknowledges the truth clearly taught by Paul.

Similarly in 2 Timothy 3:16 we see Paul teaching that the OT scriptures were trustworthy and reliable, hence preserved adequately, for instruction, and reproof. Now more can be read into it, but less cannot be claimed without loss of integrity.

Lets underline the difference between Providence and Miraculous Preservation. My understanding is "providence" refers to God "providing" for us in various ways. He established natural law and to the extent nature provides for our needs, i.e. abundant fish in the sea for food, we can thank God for His providence. But the second way God provides is by His altering or not, the unfixed future such that His purpose is fulfilled, thus needed rain may come from from the provision provided by nature or God arranging specifically for rain, but either way, we are to be thankful.

The third way God provides for us is through creative miracles, where He intervenes and causes events that had nature run its course, would not have occurred. Jesus walking on water, or arising from the dead were sign and wonder miracles to demonstrate God was the cause, rather than natural happenstance.

Now lets consider a very good verse, which supposedly supports the doctrine of Divine Preservation of Special Revelation, the Inspired Scriptures of the Old and New Testament.

Matthew 24:35 says, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away." Here we have something that cannot be sidestepped, Christ's words refers to Special Revelation to us, and therefore will be "preserved" over time so that we may hear the gospel and believe and be saved. This was so important a teaching that we can find the very same "words" at Mark 13:31 and Luke 21:33.

Another verse, and the last I will offer is Psalms 119:152. Here the text refers to "testimonies" that endure forever. Just as with Christ's words enduring, they (words and testimonies) must endure in written form. These verses in God's word specifically and clearly teach God's promise to preserve His word to the extent His purpose is fulfilled.

In summary, Romans 15:4, 2 Timothy 3:16, Matthew 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33, and Psalms 119:152 teach the doctrine of Providential Preservation of Scripture. This includes to a degree, even some parts of some translations, as demonstrated by inspired New Testament authors quoting the Septuagint as scripture.

God Bless

#1 Van, Sep 28, 2019

 

Again, apologies for missing that my first time around.

I follow you, but I do not agree with the bolded part, and especially with the underlined.
In order for us to actually have the words, we need Preservation to be perfect, at least in some area.

It has to be, or imperfect men would invariably lose the words.

I follow you completely on the difference between the two, "providential" and "miraculous".
To me, this is where faith that God will preserve it miraculously, comes in.

Personally, I would prefer secular bodies to stay completely out of the translation process, and would very much appreciate if today's publishing houses would leave the work to God's children, and let us print and distribute His word without trying to make money off the process.

I admire that, sir.


May God be pleased to use you to accomplish His work,
and bless the results, in that it will lead to the publishing of His word in languages that it is not yet fully published in.

 

God preserve to and for us His entire scripture in all of the manuscripts, codex, variants etc, and that while translation rightly done are the word of God to us today, none of them are exact copies of originals, nor error free!

 

Working on Koine Greek, never had Hebrew, and which is the right variant is the heart of why we have those supporting TR/MT/CT here!

 

I am saying that regardless if one uses the TR/MT/CT/Bzt Greek texts, that would be the word of God to us, and any translation rightly done off any of them would be that also!

 

There is no perfect Greek text nor English translation, so feel free to select the ones of your own choosing!

 

No, just saying that we do not have the Originals remaining, so any of those Greek texts are close enough to be the word of God to us for today in the Koine greek, and any English translation done off them would be fine!

 

Fair enough. Let me push back a little here, though. I am a Bible translator, and teach the subject in our seminary. Practically speaking, how would the miracle of preservation occur? What should I teach my students?

I've read quite a bit on the subject of textual criticism, and no book I've read, including from the KJVO side, has claimed a miracle in the preservation of the manuscripts. Have you heard of such a miracle? have a friend who is a well known textual critic, and he has never mentioned such a miracle. Certainly no such miracle is promised in the Bible for human preservation. I

Again, if I am aiming at a perfect translation, how do I get the miracle? Just pray, perhaps. But I've read many books on translation, including over a dozen biographies of translators, and no translator that I know of has ever claimed

I agree. So we have put our Japanese NT into the public domain so that anyone can use it, but we require that no one profit from it or change it.

Thank you. I'm passionate about this, led by the Holy Spirit to push this agenda.