-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Where the word of God was before 1611!
- Thread starter BrianT
- Start date
I heard that a man from America once had a brother who's step-son made Ruckman's sister's father-in-law's cousin's best-friend aunt very nervous.Originally posted by Askjo:
Please remember that James R. White is a W/H man. I have a report that a man from Europe confronted James R. White and asked him some questions. James is incapable to answer them.
In other words, "what's the relevance"?
Dear Cope,
You said...
What was that identifiable inerrant perfect and pure Word of God which could be held in one's hands before 1605?
HankD
You said...
But you are simply wrong because if Psalm 12 is defined as the KJVO want to define it then there must of necessity have been and always must be an identifiable inerrant perfect and pure Word of God that can be "held in my hands" as we are constantly being told.
What was that identifiable inerrant perfect and pure Word of God which could be held in one's hands before 1605?
HankD
Hello, Cope!
I don't believe anyone here denies that God has preserved His word. What most of us DON'T believe is that He's preserved it in just one version in English, or for that matter, in any other old and major language.
The Onlyists keep making statements they cannot prove. They cannot show that God chose the KJV or any other one version to be the English "standard" for all time. When "testing the spirits", we see the KJVO myth always comes up short. The very FACT of preservation makes the KJVO myth into a myth, as we easily see HOW God has preserved His word. We see the OT quoted in the NT from what is apparently a GREEK version or versions, with its wording changed from the Masoretic version. It's VERY unlikely that the Masoretic Texts are written in the same written language that Moses wrote in. If indeed Moses wrote in Hebrew,(and not Egyptian) it had changed vastly from his time to that of Malachi. From this, we see that God caused His written word to be updated as the language changed. There's absolutely NO reason to not believe He's done the same in English.
I don't believe anyone here denies that God has preserved His word. What most of us DON'T believe is that He's preserved it in just one version in English, or for that matter, in any other old and major language.
The Onlyists keep making statements they cannot prove. They cannot show that God chose the KJV or any other one version to be the English "standard" for all time. When "testing the spirits", we see the KJVO myth always comes up short. The very FACT of preservation makes the KJVO myth into a myth, as we easily see HOW God has preserved His word. We see the OT quoted in the NT from what is apparently a GREEK version or versions, with its wording changed from the Masoretic version. It's VERY unlikely that the Masoretic Texts are written in the same written language that Moses wrote in. If indeed Moses wrote in Hebrew,(and not Egyptian) it had changed vastly from his time to that of Malachi. From this, we see that God caused His written word to be updated as the language changed. There's absolutely NO reason to not believe He's done the same in English.
Hank,
You wrote:
>>>>>
But you are simply wrong because if Psalm 12 is defined as the KJVO want to define it then there must of necessity have been and always must be an identifiable inerrant perfect and pure Word of God that can be "held in my hands" as we are constantly being told.
>>>>>
I do not see anything in the KJVO argument that demands a currently identifiable and inerrant Bible dating from (or before) 1605. The KJVO believes that God has promised to preserve his word inerrant, for his church, until his return. What in this necessitates that each successive generation need be able to identify the previous generations inerrant Bible?
Perhaps you mean that faith is not enough? But then on what basis do you believe that Abraham and Sarah conceived in old age, or that Jacob wrestled with an angel, or that Jesus walked on water? Do you have physical evidence that can be handled, or do you believe it by faith?
I understand that you will take issue with the idea that God has promised to preserve his word inerrant (though I don't understand how you can call something containing error "God's word" - as God is he who does not err). What I do not understand is why you would hold the KJVO to a standard to which you do not yourself hold.
>>>>>
What was that identifiable inerrant perfect and pure Word of God which could be held in one's hands before 1605?
>>>>>
It was whatever version God had preserved inerrant in order to keep his promise.
Cope
You wrote:
>>>>>
But you are simply wrong because if Psalm 12 is defined as the KJVO want to define it then there must of necessity have been and always must be an identifiable inerrant perfect and pure Word of God that can be "held in my hands" as we are constantly being told.
>>>>>
I do not see anything in the KJVO argument that demands a currently identifiable and inerrant Bible dating from (or before) 1605. The KJVO believes that God has promised to preserve his word inerrant, for his church, until his return. What in this necessitates that each successive generation need be able to identify the previous generations inerrant Bible?
Perhaps you mean that faith is not enough? But then on what basis do you believe that Abraham and Sarah conceived in old age, or that Jacob wrestled with an angel, or that Jesus walked on water? Do you have physical evidence that can be handled, or do you believe it by faith?
I understand that you will take issue with the idea that God has promised to preserve his word inerrant (though I don't understand how you can call something containing error "God's word" - as God is he who does not err). What I do not understand is why you would hold the KJVO to a standard to which you do not yourself hold.
>>>>>
What was that identifiable inerrant perfect and pure Word of God which could be held in one's hands before 1605?
>>>>>
It was whatever version God had preserved inerrant in order to keep his promise.
Cope
ScottEmerson
Active Member
So if it was inerrant then, why re-translate it?
The core of the question is: "how do you judge which Bible in any generation is the current manifestation of preservation?" What is your standard?
Feelings, as compelling as they may be, are not a sound foundation for faith much less a dogmatic standard. Feelings should emanate from faith, not vice versa.
Blind faith, no. We aren't asked by God to believe something for no reason at all... that's the reason He gave and preserved His Word.
The Bible says so. There is overwhelming evidence from a multitude of mss and witnesses to the Bible text that God's Word does say these things.
Yes. The Bible is evidence for itself. The mss evidence is evidence for it. Archeology has testified to the accuracy of the Bible.
Faith is a huge part of it but that faith is not arbitrary like KJVOnlyism is.
Can you cite a single scripture that God will preserve to each generation a perfectly worded text? Can you cite a scripture that tells us what mechanism He would use for this type of preservation? Can you cite a scripture that says what type of people He would use for this miraculous preservation?
The KJV translators used the example of a decree from the king. They said that if different people translated such a decree into a different language, all of the translations would be the word of the king as long as they accurately communicated the meaning of the decree... even though some wouldn't do it as well as others. In other words, it doesn't require perfect wording to accurately reflect someone's word.
Because they must assume a standard of some sort. We want to know what that standard is. If that standard for evaluation points to the KJV and perfect word preservation is true then we should easily be able to identify at least some of the previous "perfect" Bibles.... then compare them to the KJV.
Why can't that be the NKJV today?... or the LITV, WEB, H&F Majority Text, NASB, NA27, etc? What means of evaluation did you use to determine KJVO that we can now use to evaluate these other versions?
It could not be identified? What about the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts from which the KJ scholars translated?
I’m sorry Cope IMO but this is a Cope-out (pardon the pun). Is it not strange to you that God would preserve these original language Traditional Texts as well as a multitude of ancient translations (and even quote then in the NT) yet leave not an iota of evidence of the perfect and inerrant English Bible of 1605?
However, an abundance of sites could be viewed, here is one which either directly or by implication DEMAND that God has preserved His Word ON EARTH in a tangible form for the use of His Church
From http://www.av1611.com/kjbp/faq/inspired-preserved.html
Strange that the KJ translators did not even once mention the name of this perfect and inerrant English translation (prior to their work) but they did speak of the manuscripts in the original language and the Septuagint which were instrumental in their work.
In addition, several revisions were made (some within the lifetime of the original translators) to the first edition of the "inerrant" 1611 King James Bible.
If that perfectly preserved word for His Church was the 1611KJV in 1611 where “on earth” was it, and what was it called in 1605? This is a very simple and straightforward question which is ALWAYS side-stepped with KJVO double-talk. Are we to suppose that God took it away (De Ja Vu the golden plates of Moroni) and expunged it from every page of history including the prologue of the KJ Bible by the translators?
If it was indeed inerrant then the KJV of the Bible preceded itself in that the KJVO claim for it those same attributes.
HankD
>>>>>
The core of the question is: "how do you judge which Bible in any generation is the current manifestation of preservation?" What is your standard?
>>>>>
You would begin by examining the Bible in order to see what it says about itself. I would start with Ps. 19. God's law/precepts/statutes/etc. are said to be pure/sure/perfect (complete)/ true/etc. We can also see from 2 Tim. 3:16 that anything worthy of the name scripture is inspired of God. As God does not err, it necessarily follows that that which is scripture is without error.
>>>>>
Feelings, as compelling as they may be, are not a sound foundation for faith much less a dogmatic standard. Feelings should emanate from faith, not vice versa.
>>>>>
Perhaps you are speaking to someone else, but nothing I have pointed to has had anything to do with the way I feel.
Further, not only should feelings eminate from faith, but so should our view of the evidence. If no evidence exists that Jesus walked on water, I still believe it. If God promised to preserve his word inerrant, I still believe it. I have not addressed particular arguments for inerrancy in the KJV, because this thread does not yet concern itself with this important aspect of the KJV argument.
>>>>>
>>>>>
I am not asking why you believe that the original manuscripts said these things. I am asking you why believe that these events actually occured. The multitude of manuscripts containing the story of Jesus walking on water is evidence that the original autographs contained these verses. The fact that the original autographs contained these verses is not evidence that these things actually happened. You believe that they actually happened because you believe that the Bible is a reliable document and that what it says is true. It is on this same basis that I formulate my belief that the KJV is without error. I believe that the Bible teaches that God will preserve his word without error, it demonstrates his preservation of his word without error, and it characterizes the word so that we may be able to identify it when we find it. I understand that you do not agree that the Bible teaches inerrant preservation. We can take up that argument in another thread. However, we are currently discussing WHY you believe the events detailed in the Bible actually occured, that they are not just made up. When asked for evidence, you point to the "the Bible says so." I agree, this is why I believe that Jesus walked on water. I believe it without any physical evidence additional to the teaching of the Bible. I think there are great arguments for the reliability of the Bible - the internal and external witnesses, the fruit it produces in people's lives, etc. AFTER I have accepted it as a whole, then of course I believe the particulars without further evidence. I do not need physical evidence for each thing recorded in the Bible. And so, once one believes that the Bible is reliable, and the it teaches inerrant perservation, one does not need an identifiable, inerrant Bible in existence prior to 1611. One only need the promise in the Bible.
>>>>>
Can you cite a single scripture that God will preserve to each generation a perfectly worded text? Can you cite a scripture that tells us what mechanism He would use for this type of preservation? Can you cite a scripture that says what type of people He would use for this miraculous preservation?
>>>>>
I will outline, from Scripture, why I believe that the KJV is God's word preserved in English without provable error when you sufficiently answer the following:
1. Can you cite a single scripture that states the originals were inspired? I am not asking for scripture that states that *only* the originals were inspired...just that the originals were inspired. I find verses stating that the word of God is without error, and the scripture is without error (in as much as it is inspired of God), but I find nothing stating that the "word of God" and "scripture" refer to the originals. To the contrary, there are several cases where *copies* and *translations* are referred to as scripture.
2. Can you cite a single scripture that refers to something that contains *ERROR* as either the word of God, or scripture? (Not including, of course, an occassion when a Bible author is *correctly* quoting/citing another's error.) I am not asking you to find a NT quotation of an OT passage wherein the NT quotation differs from the OT quotation. To call that an error would be to call the original autograph of the NT an error. I am looking for an *ERROR* not a *DIFFERENCE*
3. Why is the inerrancy of the originals important, and not of copies and translations? When did inerrancy cease to be important? (Dt. 4:4 (et al) states that adding to and taking away from God's word incapacitates one in his obedience to God. Mt. 4:4 and Lk. 4:4 teach that EVERY word from the mouth of God is important.)
>>>>>
The KJV translators used the example of a decree from the king. They said that if different people translated such a decree into a different language, all of the translations would be the word of the king as long as they accurately communicated the meaning of the decree... even though some wouldn't do it as well as others. In other words, it doesn't require perfect wording to accurately reflect someone's word.
>>>>>
In addition to the fact that I did not say any of this, you have taken the argument further than is necessary and then drawn an unecessary conclusion. Anyone who uses the argument as you presented it would be silly. We should stick to the arguments at hand, rather than present and refute those not under discussiong, especially when presenting them in a way favorable to your conclusion.
>>>>>
We want to know what that standard is.
>>>>>
The standard is, in part, Ps. 19, II Tim. 3:16, and various other verses in the Bible that describe the character of God's word. The fact that there is no provable error in the KJV itself (testing it internally and externally) prevents this argument from being circular.
>>>>>
If that standard for evaluation points to the KJV and perfect word preservation is true then we should easily be able to identify at least some of the previous "perfect" Bibles.... then compare them to the KJV.
>>>>>
You have demonstrated that you feel this to be the case, but it does not follow logically from the KJVO position. If the KJVO cannot demonstrate his position from scripture, then he has trouble, of course. However, if he is unable to find a pre-1611 translation of the word of God without error he is in no trouble at all. The KJVO believes God promised to preserve his word without error for each generation of the church (and only at least one church, I might add..there is nothing in the argument that states it be as available in all generations as the KJV has been available for the past approx. 400 years), he does not believe that God has promised to make each generations word identifiable to successive generations. If you find a KJVO claiming the latter, please let me know.
>>>>>
Why can't that be the NKJV today?... or the LITV, WEB, H&F Majority Text, NASB, NA27, etc?
>>>>>
None of these meets the tests outlined above, the KJV does.
>>>>>
What means of evaluation did you use to determine KJVO that we can now use to evaluate these other versions?
>>>>>
Please see the above.
I believe that the KJV is God's word, preserved in English, without provable error. I believe it is perfect (complete), pure (nothing added), sure (nothing in doubt), true (not in error). I believe it can rightly be called scripture, that is, an accurate translation of the words initially inspired of God.
The modern versions do not pass these tests.
Cope
The core of the question is: "how do you judge which Bible in any generation is the current manifestation of preservation?" What is your standard?
>>>>>
You would begin by examining the Bible in order to see what it says about itself. I would start with Ps. 19. God's law/precepts/statutes/etc. are said to be pure/sure/perfect (complete)/ true/etc. We can also see from 2 Tim. 3:16 that anything worthy of the name scripture is inspired of God. As God does not err, it necessarily follows that that which is scripture is without error.
>>>>>
Feelings, as compelling as they may be, are not a sound foundation for faith much less a dogmatic standard. Feelings should emanate from faith, not vice versa.
>>>>>
Perhaps you are speaking to someone else, but nothing I have pointed to has had anything to do with the way I feel.
Further, not only should feelings eminate from faith, but so should our view of the evidence. If no evidence exists that Jesus walked on water, I still believe it. If God promised to preserve his word inerrant, I still believe it. I have not addressed particular arguments for inerrancy in the KJV, because this thread does not yet concern itself with this important aspect of the KJV argument.
>>>>>
The Bible says so. There is overwhelming evidence from a multitude of mss and witnesses to the Bible text that God's Word does say these things.
>>>>>
I am not asking why you believe that the original manuscripts said these things. I am asking you why believe that these events actually occured. The multitude of manuscripts containing the story of Jesus walking on water is evidence that the original autographs contained these verses. The fact that the original autographs contained these verses is not evidence that these things actually happened. You believe that they actually happened because you believe that the Bible is a reliable document and that what it says is true. It is on this same basis that I formulate my belief that the KJV is without error. I believe that the Bible teaches that God will preserve his word without error, it demonstrates his preservation of his word without error, and it characterizes the word so that we may be able to identify it when we find it. I understand that you do not agree that the Bible teaches inerrant preservation. We can take up that argument in another thread. However, we are currently discussing WHY you believe the events detailed in the Bible actually occured, that they are not just made up. When asked for evidence, you point to the "the Bible says so." I agree, this is why I believe that Jesus walked on water. I believe it without any physical evidence additional to the teaching of the Bible. I think there are great arguments for the reliability of the Bible - the internal and external witnesses, the fruit it produces in people's lives, etc. AFTER I have accepted it as a whole, then of course I believe the particulars without further evidence. I do not need physical evidence for each thing recorded in the Bible. And so, once one believes that the Bible is reliable, and the it teaches inerrant perservation, one does not need an identifiable, inerrant Bible in existence prior to 1611. One only need the promise in the Bible.
>>>>>
Can you cite a single scripture that God will preserve to each generation a perfectly worded text? Can you cite a scripture that tells us what mechanism He would use for this type of preservation? Can you cite a scripture that says what type of people He would use for this miraculous preservation?
>>>>>
I will outline, from Scripture, why I believe that the KJV is God's word preserved in English without provable error when you sufficiently answer the following:
1. Can you cite a single scripture that states the originals were inspired? I am not asking for scripture that states that *only* the originals were inspired...just that the originals were inspired. I find verses stating that the word of God is without error, and the scripture is without error (in as much as it is inspired of God), but I find nothing stating that the "word of God" and "scripture" refer to the originals. To the contrary, there are several cases where *copies* and *translations* are referred to as scripture.
2. Can you cite a single scripture that refers to something that contains *ERROR* as either the word of God, or scripture? (Not including, of course, an occassion when a Bible author is *correctly* quoting/citing another's error.) I am not asking you to find a NT quotation of an OT passage wherein the NT quotation differs from the OT quotation. To call that an error would be to call the original autograph of the NT an error. I am looking for an *ERROR* not a *DIFFERENCE*
3. Why is the inerrancy of the originals important, and not of copies and translations? When did inerrancy cease to be important? (Dt. 4:4 (et al) states that adding to and taking away from God's word incapacitates one in his obedience to God. Mt. 4:4 and Lk. 4:4 teach that EVERY word from the mouth of God is important.)
>>>>>
The KJV translators used the example of a decree from the king. They said that if different people translated such a decree into a different language, all of the translations would be the word of the king as long as they accurately communicated the meaning of the decree... even though some wouldn't do it as well as others. In other words, it doesn't require perfect wording to accurately reflect someone's word.
>>>>>
In addition to the fact that I did not say any of this, you have taken the argument further than is necessary and then drawn an unecessary conclusion. Anyone who uses the argument as you presented it would be silly. We should stick to the arguments at hand, rather than present and refute those not under discussiong, especially when presenting them in a way favorable to your conclusion.
>>>>>
We want to know what that standard is.
>>>>>
The standard is, in part, Ps. 19, II Tim. 3:16, and various other verses in the Bible that describe the character of God's word. The fact that there is no provable error in the KJV itself (testing it internally and externally) prevents this argument from being circular.
>>>>>
If that standard for evaluation points to the KJV and perfect word preservation is true then we should easily be able to identify at least some of the previous "perfect" Bibles.... then compare them to the KJV.
>>>>>
You have demonstrated that you feel this to be the case, but it does not follow logically from the KJVO position. If the KJVO cannot demonstrate his position from scripture, then he has trouble, of course. However, if he is unable to find a pre-1611 translation of the word of God without error he is in no trouble at all. The KJVO believes God promised to preserve his word without error for each generation of the church (and only at least one church, I might add..there is nothing in the argument that states it be as available in all generations as the KJV has been available for the past approx. 400 years), he does not believe that God has promised to make each generations word identifiable to successive generations. If you find a KJVO claiming the latter, please let me know.
>>>>>
Why can't that be the NKJV today?... or the LITV, WEB, H&F Majority Text, NASB, NA27, etc?
>>>>>
None of these meets the tests outlined above, the KJV does.
>>>>>
What means of evaluation did you use to determine KJVO that we can now use to evaluate these other versions?
>>>>>
Please see the above.
I believe that the KJV is God's word, preserved in English, without provable error. I believe it is perfect (complete), pure (nothing added), sure (nothing in doubt), true (not in error). I believe it can rightly be called scripture, that is, an accurate translation of the words initially inspired of God.
The modern versions do not pass these tests.
Cope
Archangel7
New Member
Neither does the KJV.
The KJV is not perfect (complete), because it is demonstrably lacking material which is clearly present in the original language texts. Example: Psalm 37 in Hebrew is an acrostic psalm (i.e., the first section begins with the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, the second section begins with the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and so on). This acrostic feature is not preserved in the KJV even though the translators did preserve it elsewhere (see Psalm 119).
The KJV is not pure (nothing added), because it demonstrably adds material which is not found in the original language texts. Example: Rom. 11:4 in the KJV reads "who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal;" the KJV has added the italicized words "the image of" even though they are not found in *any* Greek text.
The KJV is not sure (nothing in doubt) by your own admission. Recall your own statement earlier in this thread -- "I don't use Ps. 12 in defending the notion of inerrancy as it relates to the KJV. It is not that I have concluded that the verse is *not* a proper text for preservation of the Scriptures, but rather because (a) I am *unsure* if "them" refers to God's words or to God's people - and being unsure I do not want to pretend to be sure...."
The KJV does have translation errors. Example: Lk. 20:26, "And they could not take hold of his words before the people..." The Greek word used here is ρηματος, a *singular* noun which the KJV mistranslates as a plural. Other translations before the KJV (the Geneva Bible) and after the KJV (the NASB) correctly render it as the singular noun "saying."
Having said this, I agree that the KJV can rightly be called Scripture, and is *generally* an accurate translation of the words inspired by God; however, I would also say the same of most modern versions.
Archangel7
New Member
Actually, it *is* short and simple.
Either the "pure, perfect, preserved word of God" in English existed before 1611, or it did not.
If it *did* exist, then the KJV was unnecessary, since the English-speaking people *already* had the "pure, perfect, preserved word of God" in their own language.
If it did *not* exist, then God failed to keep his promise to preserve the "pure, perfect, preserved word of God" as far as the English-speaking people were concerned.
The KJV-Only advocate is impaled on the horns of a dilemma. For this reason alone, KJV-Onlyism is logically untenable.
Well, I shall say that I have faith that God has preserved His word, and that He presents it AS HE CHOOSES, without regard to any man-made doctrines that some people use to tell Him how they believe He MUST present His word in order for it to pass THEIR criteria for authenticity.Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Arch - you cannot disprove FAITH by using logic. No matter WHAT logic and right thinking might demand, one can "blow it off" by saying, "But I believe . . . "
KJVO is ultimately post-modernism!
Terry_Herrington
New Member
Well Dr. Bob, let me turn the tables and ask you to answer your own question. How did God preserve the Bible?
On the contrary, nothing I have seen of your posts previously has very much to do with scriptural or historical reasoning. When followed to their head waters, all of your arguments come from a premise of faith based on presupposition. These presuppositions materialize out of thin air... they are your feelings no matter how you disguise them.
No without evidence you wouldn't believe... you wouldn't even know about it. The fact is we have very specific written testimony that He walked on water, validated by the refusal of the witnesses to deny the truths about Christ even when the price was their lives.
As do I. But He did not promise to preserve His Word inerrant solely in the KJV.
Because the Holy Spirit enlightens me through the scriptures that these events actually occurred. That fact does not negate the other fact that we have an abundance of evidence testifying to the accuracy and reliability of the biblical texts.
Yes it is!!! It is the primary evidence that these things happened. A written document is a stronger witness than even an eyewitness. Current law recognizes this as did the Apostle Peter.
Sorry but no. The same logic does not support KJVOnlyism. The Bible explicitly tells us many things. I believe that it implicitly suggests many other things. It neither implicitly nor explicitly establishes version onlyism. The history of the Bible itself is overwhelming evidence against such a notion.
We have no evidence that any significant portion of the Bible was ever hand copied without erring from the exemplar.
Once again you are attempting to evade the hard issues by changing the subject. You claim that you can scriptural prove your position. The questions I asked above are absolutely essential to proving such an idea.
Yes. Galatians 1:12 to start with. I will be willing to go further down this line once you have given fair treatment to my questions.
And quite notably, none of these were the KJV... proving that versions other than the KJV are valid.
Yes. In Luke 4:17, Jesus refers to Isaiah 61 by reading from the scriptures. The words in Luke 4:18 are not the same in form or even detail as the words in Isaiah 61.
BTW, which account given in the KJV of the sign above Jesus' head at the crucifixion is correct?
That evasion might give you an out for the most part but not in the example above. In the example above, we are told specifically that Jesus read from a book.
When you compare the KJV with the NKJV, NASB, Geneva, etc., I am looking for a provable *ERROR* not a *DIFFERENCE*. You would arbitrarily say that the KJV is the standard by which other English versions are to be judged. Presumably a "DIFFERENCE" from the KJV in one of these versions would constitute an "ERROR". But then, without any reason whatsoever, you suspend this rule when comparing the KJV with other parts of the KJV.
You are employing a double standard. Yours is far more sophisticated than most... but all KJVO's eventually apply a double standard.
FTR, the KJV both takes away and adds to the Word of God, ie. "God forbid" in Romans. Also, God never spoke through a writer of scripture in English so it is completely accurate to say that NONE of the words in the KJV were part of the "every word from the mouth of God."
This trap of yours if you are willing to be objective gives your position more trouble than mine. I believe the promises apply to the "sayings" of God rather than textual form.
Once again you are evading legitimate issues. I didn't say that you said this. I said the KJV translators did.
The statement is very much in the vein of this thread and the line of discussion. One's word is not limited by a single set of words. We often rephrase our "word" with several sets of words to ensure that people get our point. Different translations, according to the KJV translators, serve the same purpose.
These verses say absolutely nothing about KJVOnlyism or any other version onlyism.
The character? Agreed. But character does not equal a single set of words in any language.
This is based on your presuppositions, not fact. The KJV does have internal errors, ie. 2 Kings 8:26 v 2 Chronicles 22:2, the various texts of the crucifixion signs. I know that these differences come from the original language texts but that in and of itself doesn't resolve them. These things are "either or" propositions. Both simply does not work.
Not true. If you establish a system by some manipulation of the scriptures but specialize it to pertain only to the KJV then it cannot be "preservation" of any kind.
The only test these versions don't pass is that of your presuppositions or of being the KJV.
Using the standards you provided, you cannot prove that any of these versions do not possess the "character" of the Word of God. Remember, "DIFFERENCES" are not "ERRORS".
Not fair to answer a question with a question! But simple enough, so . . God gave His Word, guided men to write it, and preserved it in those documents and copies of them. Man might have added/subtracted, misspelled (is that spelled right?) etc, but we have hundreds of copies of these originals.
Man can then compare, contrast, evaluate, etc and compile a text accurate to the original. THEN it may be translated into whatever language.
He didn't wait until 1611 to preserve it in English! Anyone who has studied Greek comes away amazed at how much more detailed and exact that language is compared to Hebrew (or English). God chose wisely!
Clear enough?
Not fair to answer a question with a question! But simple enough, so . . God gave His Word, guided men to write it, and preserved it in those documents and copies of them. Man might have added/subtracted, misspelled (is that spelled right?) etc, but we have hundreds of copies of these originals.
Man can then compare, contrast, evaluate, etc and compile a text accurate to the original. THEN it may be translated into whatever language.
He didn't wait until 1611 to preserve it in English! Anyone who has studied Greek comes away amazed at how much more detailed and exact that language is compared to Hebrew (or English). God chose wisely!
Clear enough? </font>[/QUOTE]Pretty clear to me, and I never had Greek or Hebrew, shucks barely passed English.