Doctrine of Bible Preservation

I am sorry Psalm 145:3, but none of your verses listed on the first page of this thread demonstrate or prove anything about the textus receptus or the KJV. What you are fishing for and do not have is a verse like "...and it shall come to pass after the passing of about one-thousand and five-hundred years, a man will be called to print the Scriptures for the people to read in the original tounge. And when it hath been spread abroad to many brethren, a great king will be raised up to produce a translation for the common tounge for all peoples beyond Gaul and Spain, yea verily, for all the peoples beyond the great seas it shall be given. And this translation shall stand until the latter day upon the earth."

Unfortunately for your position, no such verse can be found in Scripture. In fact, God DID NOT TELL US HOW He would preserve His Word.

Regards,

Chick

[ August 25, 2001: Message edited by: Chick Daniels ]

 

What about some of the Syriac and Coptic translations, with manuscript evidence that is older than any other known copy (A.D. 150 in some cases) and the differences between them and the received text? The major ones are pointed out in the NIV translation and include the absence of the last 11 verses of Mark in the earlier manuscripts, along with John 7:53-8:11 and a couple of other passages. If an earlier manuscript does not have something that a later one does, can it not then be assumed that someone added something in between the time the manuscripts were copied?

Also, not directly related but often troubling to me is the issue of chapter and verse divisions. These are not in the original text, in fact did not come about until the middle ages. Yet today, many times, I hear Bible teachers and preachers talk about what "this" verse means, without looking at the context of the whole passage, or dividing up passages based on the verse and chapter divisions. This is an artificial separation of themes and contexts. Isn't that "adding to" or "taking away", since the original meaning and intention of the author is chopped up into artificially inserted divisions?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RobertLynn:
What about some of the Syriac and Coptic translations, with manuscript evidence that is older than any other known copy (A.D. 150 in some cases) and the differences between them and the received text? The major ones are pointed out in the NIV translation and include the absence of the last 11 verses of Mark in the earlier manuscripts, along with John 7:53-8:11 and a couple of other passages. If an earlier manuscript does not have something that a later one does, can it not then be assumed that someone added something in between the time the manuscripts were copied? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not necessarily. It is just as likely (maybe even more so) that some passages accidently were left out, or even intentionally so. The greatest corruption of NT documents occurred early on.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Also, not directly related but often troubling to me is the issue of chapter and verse divisions. These are not in the original text, in fact did not come about until the middle ages. Yet today, many times, I hear Bible teachers and preachers talk about what "this" verse means, without looking at the context of the whole passage, or dividing up passages based on the verse and chapter divisions. This is an artificial separation of themes and contexts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. Many false doctrines have arisen from improper consideration of context. We would not take a line in a personal letter to us out of its context and ascribe a meaning to it, so why do we do it with God's Holy Word? Context is everything in interpretation, and it easily shows that there are no errors or contradictions in Scripture.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Isn't that "adding to" or "taking away", since the original meaning and intention of the author is chopped up into artificially inserted divisions?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd rather say that it is shoddy exegesis or in most cases eisogesis of presupposed meanings on the Scripture.

 

I'm not sure I would say that it would be more likely that the earlier versions left something out. The Syriac and Coptic texts are confirmed by other early Greek and Aramaic manuscripts, and some of them date back to locations and times early enough to be confirmed by the early church fathers.

The presuppositions and difficulties created by the chapter and verse divisions can be overcome by the use of a good Greek/Hebrew lexicon and dictionary.

Variances in manuscripts, especially the ongoing controversy over what was added or subtracted and the variance in the alleged 2800 "verses" appearing in the received text that do not appear in other manuscripts, do not really bother me for a couple of reasons. One, no major Biblical doctrines, i.e. salvation, are affected, only details related to some fine points of practice which may well be a cultural overlay in translation, and two, variances in translation methods are most likely caused by starting with the English text and working backward, rather than starting with the Greek texts and going forward. According to Josh McDowell and some other apologists, the greatest amount of variance is easily explained by translation difficulties, when some translators apparently felt the need to simplify and explain many texts, again with their own context overlayed.

The passage in Revelation 22:18-19 are being misinterpreted if they are used to apply to the entire New Testament. The context here relates to the prophecy contained in the Book of Revelation. There is no evidence that John was applying these words to the whole Bible or the whole New Testament, since it is highly unlikely he was even aware of the twenty seven books that would be part of the whole.

I like to look at Bible preservation this way. There are variances and we must accept them because even with God's help, humans are not going to reach the standard to produce anything that is absolutely perfect. The perfect "Word" came to us in the incarnation of Christ. We have a reliable written word that testifies to that. Compare the translation, transmission and preservation of the Bible over the 3,600 year history from its beginning to the present with any other piece of ancient literature. There is nothing in all human history that compares, which is a clear indication that the hand of God was involved every step of the way. We will never have enough historical or textual evidence to satisfy those who are pre-conditioned to doubt. For the rest of us, we see the scriptures, and trust them not because we have evidence in hand that they are reliable, but because we have faith in God and know that he is reliable.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Psalm145 3:


Amen! That is exactly why I believe the King James Bible is the Word of God in English without error!

Those who are trusting the modern versions are not sure exactly which words were inspired of God. Is Mark 16:9-20 God's Word or not? Is John 7:53-8:11 inspired of God or not? It leaves you with a great big question mark!

The Bible version issue must be approached by faith, our faith is based on a God that cannot lie.

To argue for an inspired Bible which no longer exists is vain jangling.

Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Matthew 5:18 is a reference to the law, not to all scripture. And in Matthew 5:17, just one verse before, Jesus has just told us that he is the fulfillment of the law.

Why would the King James Bible be correct, and no other modern translation accurate? Again, you are working backward. You assume that because Mark 16:9-20 is in the KJV, it should be considered "inspired". But this passage is in the KJV only because the translators of the KJV were using a manuscript that contained it. If it is in a later manuscript, but not in an earlier, more reliable manuscript (Syriac, Coptic, early church fathers) then the possibility also exists that these verses were added later. Since they contain information which leans heavily toward the teachings of Arminius (handling snakes, drinking poison, and speaking in tongues to confirm your salvation which comes through both faith and baptism) it is very likely that an Arminian theologian added them around 1550, in order to make them different from Calvinist and Catholic texts.

These earlier and more reliable manuscripts used by the more modern translators were not available to the KJV translators because they had not yet been discovered. Only after 1918, when the muslims had been driven from control of Palestine, including the areas around ancient Antioch and Jerusalem, were Christian archaeologists able to find the earlier manuscripts.

Your starting point is the 1611 KJV, working backward, so you see only subtractions. The starting point should be the oldest known NT manuscripts working forward, to eliminate that which was added by translators and copyists.

The problem is that too many Christians have built too many sacred cow doctrines around poorly interpreted, antiquated wording from the KJV and now that there are more reliable tranlations available they are faced with the choice of either having to drop their sacred cow doctrine or hold on for dear life and defend the KJV as the only reliable text of the Bible. What you are saying by that is that only the Anglican Church has a true Bible and only people who speak English have access to the true word of God, because virtually all other language translations of the Bible (French, German, Spanish, etc....) do not match the language or manuscript usage of good old King Jimmy.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Psalm145 3:
God promised to preserve His Word in every detail to every generation. The doctrines of "verbal, plenary inspiration" and "preservation" are linked together. What good are perfect writings if they no longer exist? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what you are saying is that unless we have the exact words that God inspired, we cannot have the Word of God? That prospect is desparately hopeless... Happily, it is false. The Word of God is the information He chose to reveal directly to mankind concerning His will, character, and plan. It is obviously not limited to one language or set of words for its transmission or else there could be no acceptable manuscript variations nor could there be any translations.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is an interesting choice of proof verses. Neither the MT nor the CT read "book of life" in this verse. They read "tree of life."

Why does the TR read "book"? My understanding is that Erasmus did not have a NT manuscript with all of Revelation so he used his Latin Vulgate as a source the last 7 verses. From what I have read, the only support for this rendering is Latin and late.

So, in a verse that you hope to use to prove the perfection of the KJV, there is both a deletion and an addition which violates the principle you are advocating. IPO, this is one of the few KJV mistakes that matters doctrinally. Tree of Life and Book of Life are significantly different.

[ August 27, 2001: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

In order to translate Greek into English, you must add words for a proper translation. Else no one would understand it. The Bible is against adding words in changing meaning.

 

&lt; Is Mark 16:9-20 God's Word or not? &gt;

There is plenty of doubt. If you do not cast out demons in Jesus' name, speak with new tongues, pick up serpents, drink deadly poison and remain unharmed, and heal the sick by laying your hands on them--- then you are not showing the signS of those who believe... Mark 16:17-18-- there are no exceptions and no limitations stated. Do you show these signs?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rockfort:
&lt; Is Mark 16:9-20 God's Word or not? &gt;

There is plenty of doubt. If you do not cast out demons in Jesus' name, speak with new tongues, pick up serpents, drink deadly poison and remain unharmed, and heal the sick by laying your hands on them--- then you are not showing the signS of those who believe... Mark 16:17-18-- there are no exceptions and no limitations stated. Do you show these signs?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Luke 10:19 "Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing will injure you.
20 "Nevertheless do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are recorded in heaven." NASB

Simply because a reading is hard does not mean we discard it - especially when confirmed by other Scripture

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Simply because a reading is hard does not mean we discard it - especially when confirmed by other Scripture [/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

However, correlation with other Scripture is not the test of authenticity. Whether or not Mark wrote it is the test. As your pointed out a long time ago Chris, we could add "Jesus is Lord" to every verse and it would be a true statement that correlates with other Scripture. But it would not be an authentic reading.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:


However, correlation with other Scripture is not the test of authenticity. Whether or not Mark wrote it is the test. As your pointed out a long time ago Chris, we could add "Jesus is Lord" to every verse and it would be a true statement that correlates with other Scripture. But it would not be an authentic reading.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. But Rockfort's argument was that the passage must be spurious because of its apparent erroneous doctrine. I was pointing out that that same doctrine in taught in Scripture which is not debated.

There is also evidence that the passage is authentic by textual criticism standards, and that opinion is held by CT proponents like Dr. David Black, SEBTS.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>we could add "Jesus is Lord" to every verse and it would be a true statement that correlates with other Scripture. But it would not be an authentic reading <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did I really say that? Wow, I must be smarter than I think!