Inspiration vs Preservation

Originally posted by MISSIONARY:
To quote the Lord, "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt PRESERVE THEM FROM THIS GENERATION FOR EVER"

Click to expand...

Once again you display a serious misunderstanding of the word of God. The Psalmist is clearly saying that the poor and needy of verse 5 is what God promised to preserve in verse 7. Even the KJV translators say that in the margin of the 1611 edition.

If God preserves His Word, then it has to be perfect!

Click to expand...

God did preserve His word just as he promised, and it is perfect - I.E., complete, mature, nothing lacking that is necessary to the whole. Nobody here believes any differently.

If man were in charge as you seem to declare, then I would go along with you and say that we only have a book that contains the Bible with errors.

Click to expand...

Why do you lie about what others have said and what they believe? Nobody has said that man is in charge. Every person on this forum acknowledges the absolute Sovereignty of God. Shame on you!

If this thread continues down the road to making comments personal it will be closed.

There is another issue that needs to be considered if you believe in "inspiration" of those who interpreted the Bible, whether it be the King James or any other translation.


Why English?

How about Farsi, Spanish, Arabic, Hebrew, Russian, Modern Greek? What about the THOUSANDS of other languages and dialects spoken around the world?

Secondly, along comes another failure if you make an assumption that we who speak English are the lucky people with the inspired translation (don't misquote me and say that the Bible was not inspired and preserved). The next issue would be the exact question that you (Missionary) asked in the first post. What version (such as KJV, NASB, ESV), and then what revision of the selected version?

If it be the King James, was it the 1611 that was corrected many times, or the 1769? If you say that they finally "got it right" in 1769, then what was God using for an inspirational translation before this date?

Then one third final question comes to mind. What did English speaking people have BEFORE 1611? If you say, Bishop's, Geneva....then why did King James have another translation authorized to print (thus the name Authorized Version)?

If you can answer all of these with intelligent and believable answers, then we have something to debate. If you cannot, then your theory is full of holes.

One FINAL note: I believe as Dr. Cassidy has mentioned above. We DO have God's Word preserved and inerrant....just not the way you wish to believe. (Nothing personal, just the way it is.)

Read these carefully and if you can answer every question, then we have something legitimate to debate--otherwise, this is just another dead-end that probably needs to be locked down.

Let me say first to MISSIONARY

Let me say first to MISSIONARY, keep standing for the truth (John 17:17), no matter what any one may say. It's good to see someone standing for it today.

Everyone is saying, except MISSIONARY, that we DO NOT have a perfect Bible today, but yet we have God's PRESERVED word without error, copied from the "originals"...so which is it? Do we or don't we have GOD's infallable word today?

If GOD did preserve His word, where is it at today for you and I to have and hold in our hands?

As for there being 1,000 errors in the King James Bible from 1611-1769...get your facts straight! There were only 400 variations between the 1611 edition and the modern editions today. For proof of this statement, look at F.H.A. Scrivener's book entitled, "The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives."

Remember too folks that GOD cares more about His word than He does for you or I. Now I am not saying that He does not care for us, because He does, but what I am saying is that though He died for us that we might be saved, GOD holds His word above us. Psalms 138:2 reads, "... for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.", and according to Romans 10:13-"For whosoever shall call upon the NAME of the Lord shall be saved.". And don't forget Romans 10:17-"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the WORD of God."...Philippians 2:9-11-"Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a NAME which is above every NAME: That at the NAME of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

Now without taking up any more time and space...for those who are interested in the truth, here is a link to an article that will explain the different editions of the AV 1611 and the falsehood of the notion of the "thousands of changes" made in the AV editions:

http://www.learnthebible.org/Myth%20of%20Early%20Revisions.htm

I pray this will be a help to those who wish to know the truth.

Everyone is saying, except MISSIONARY, that we DO NOT
have a perfect Bible today, ...

Click to expand...

So what? i'm chopped liver?
My message on this Version Forum for the past 3½ years has
been:

All English Versions individually and collectively contain
the perfect, inerrant, preserved by the Grace of God, Written
Word of God.

I just prefer the HCSB = Christian Standard Bible (Holman, 2003)
which is written in the same langugage (21st century English)
that I speak/write/read.

Be assured, we have the perfect Bible today. But God is
not limited to one and only one book as many choose to limit
Him

Originally posted by wiseman:
Let me say first to MISSIONARY, keep standing for the truth (John 17:17), no matter what any one may say. It's good to see someone standing for it today.

Sorry, Sir, it aint true...it's a GUESS.

Everyone is saying, except MISSIONARY, that we DO NOT have a perfect Bible today, but yet we have God's PRESERVED word without error, copied from the "originals"...so which is it? Do we or don't we have GOD's infallable word today?

Every valid version is perfect for God's intended use.

If GOD did preserve His word, where is it at today for you and I to have and hold in our hands?

In every valid version.

As for there being 1,000 errors in the King James Bible from 1611-1769...get your facts straight! There were only 400 variations between the 1611 edition and the modern editions today. For proof of this statement, look at F.H.A. Scrivener's book entitled, "The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives."

One goof is one too many.

Everyone here believes God has preserved His word. What we DON'T believe is that God is limited to just one given version.

Remember too folks that GOD cares more about His word than He does for you or I.

That's why He's continually updated it to reflect the changes in the languages He has caused/allowed.


Now I am not saying that He does not care for us, because He does, but what I am saying is that though He died for us that we might be saved, GOD holds His word above us. Psalms 138:2 reads, "... for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.",

That is a slight mistranslation. Many a Hebrew reader says it shoulda been "along with your Name".


and according to Romans 10:13-"For whosoever shall call upon the NAME of the Lord shall be saved.". And don't forget Romans 10:17-"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the WORD of God."...Philippians 2:9-11-"Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a NAME which is above every NAME: That at the NAME of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

These verses bear out the fact that there's a slight mistranslation in Ps. 138:2. No word is greater than its Speaker, no name greater than He who bears that name.

Now without taking up any more time and space...for those who are interested in the truth, here is a link to an article that will explain the different editions of the AV 1611 and the falsehood of the notion of the "thousands of changes" made in the AV editions:

http://www.learnthebible.org/Myth%20of%20Early%20Revisions.htm

I pray this will be a help to those who wish to know the truth.

Sorry, Sir...to those who have been around awhile, the gent whose article is posted there is...well...known to be INVENTIVE, to put it politely, and his 'facts' have been shown less than reliable.

Now, do you believe God PRESERVED His word, inspiring only the original penmen to write it, or do ya think He RE-INSPIRED it when He caused it to be translated from the languages of the original writers? The Hebrew written by Moses is much-different from the Hebrew written by Malachi.

And where in Scripture is God limited to preserving His word in one version only?

"Do we or don't we have GOD's infallable word today?"
"
Do.

"where is it at today for you and I to have and hold in our hands?"
"
I can stand up from this desk in the churchlibrary walk 3 steps to the nearest stack of bookshelves and pick up the infallible Old Testament in Hebrew and the infallible New Testament in Greek.
Perfect translations in over half a dozen languages are within reach on the next shelf.

Now without taking up any more time and space...for those who are interested in the truth, here is a link to an article that will explain the different editions of the AV 1611 and the falsehood of the notion of the "thousands of changes" made in the AV editions:

Click to expand...

Dear brother wiseman.

The 1769 King James Bible is indeed a revision of the 1611 First Edition.

Main Entry: re·vise
1 a : to look over again in order to correct or improve <revise a manuscript> b British : to study again : REVIEW Merrian-Webster Dictionary

Every one agrees that the original mss were given by inspiration every jot, tittle in place on the leather, papryrus or whatever writing media was used, perfect and error free.

The URL you posted proves the point of misapplication or confounding the terms concerning the giving of the Word of God as Tcassidy has pointed out.

The author of the piece says that the differences between the "revisions" of the 1611 KJV are actually "variants" and calls the changes between the different editions of the KJV "textual corrections".

In fact, it is overall a good piece.

A "correction" to the text means that there was an "error" and in fact pastor Reagan admits as much saying that these kind of errors do not render a Bible useless, but that they should be corrected in later editions.

Which by the way is a point that others here at the BB have made.

Human errors creep into the text of apographs (copies of the autographs) and or translations derived from those apographs.

BTW no one at the BB has said the KJV (1611 or 1769) is "useless".

In the giving by inspiration of the autographs, God was not capable of the smallest error of any kind in a jot or tittle, iota or omega (a variant being impossible, after all these is only one autogragh) and the human author protected from all error.

The fact that there were even one variant or error of any kind (including a typesetting error) proves that God who is incapable of even one mistake did not "inspire" the 1611 KJV in every "jot" and "tittle" or there would not even be that one mistake human or otherwise to correct much less a history of corrections of "errors" which were previously missed or introduced into the text while trying to correct the others.

Bottom Line:
If God superintended the derivation/translation of the 1611 KJV Bible in the manner consistent with the inspiration of the autographs through the hands of the prophets and apostles then there would be only the 1611 First Edition through out eternity because the translators, the printers and publishers would ALL have been protected from ALL error in every jot and tittle.


HankD

[ January 13, 2006, 10:30 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

That's why I say that every valid version in any given languages is made exactly as God has chosen. Now, whether He used inspiration, preservation, or influence is only a matter of semantics. Whatever method(s) He used, He CAUSED it to happen.

Well then which KJV is perfect?

Things that are different are not the same.

Did God boo boo in 1611?

I can list some differnces if needed to prove the 1611 is different from the current KJV'(s).

Originally posted by wiseman:
Everyone is saying, except MISSIONARY, that we DO NOT have a perfect Bible today, but yet we have God's PRESERVED word without error, copied from the "originals"...so which is it? Do we or don't we have GOD's infallable word today?

Click to expand...

You are being just as dishonest about what we believe as "Missionary" was. Shame on you!

If GOD did preserve His word, where is it at today for you and I to have and hold in our hands?

Click to expand...

Asked and answered. What part of the answer didn't you understand?

As for there being 1,000 errors in the King James Bible from 1611-1769...get your facts straight! There were only 400 variations between the 1611 edition and the modern editions today. For proof of this statement, look at F.H.A. Scrivener's book entitled, "The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives."

Click to expand...

Wrong again. Scrivener points out about 700 errors but did not consider that list exhaustive. And his edition of 1873 corrected many of those errors, but because his edition of 1873 is different from the KJV of 1762/1769 most KJVOs reject Scrivener's 1873 edition!

Don't rely on what others have written. Compare the two yourself. Get a good 1611 facsimile and compare it to a 1762/1769. If you are honest you will admit there are over 1000 differences between the two.

Now without taking up any more time and space...for those who are interested in the truth, here is a link to an article that will explain the different editions of the AV 1611 and the falsehood of the notion of the "thousands of changes" made in the AV editions:

http://www.learnthebible.org/Myth%20of%20Early%20Revisions.htm

I pray this will be a help to those who wish to know the truth.

Click to expand...

I know David Reagan and like him. His article has nothing to do with what you are saying. David admits there are about 1000 differences between the 1611 and 1762/1769. He just says those differences, most of which were the correcting of printers errors, although some were actual word changes, are inconsequential, and I agree. But to deny there are changes is simply dishonest.

The point of David's article is to disassociate the changes in the KJV from the changes in most modern versions which are based on a different textform.

Please, it is time for some honesty in this discussion.

Page 5 closure notice.

As this topic has been discussed many times and it does not appear that there is anything substantive to add to the debate, it will be closed at the standard page 5 limit.

This fact is evidenced by the array of thousands of manuscripts with scribal errors

Click to expand...

That would explain the Textus Receptus/ Received Text, as passed on from church to church for diligently comparing those MSS.

I could only come to the conclusion that the more MSS introduced would allow much more a corrupt view towards the Scripture.

Wouldn't those of presnt day inspiration and those closer to the element in time be more authoritive than a multiple mass of MSS? Yes.

Originally posted by David J:
Well then which KJV is perfect?

Things that are different are not the same.

Did God boo boo in 1611?

I can list some differnces if needed to prove the 1611 is different from the current KJV'(s).

Click to expand...

OK, which NASB is perfect? Did God "boo-boo" and had to "correct" His Word in 1995?

The only "changes" from the 1611 are spelling updates, printers changes and some printers errors. All others are only language miscomprehensions as the working English language has then changed, but only for some. The rest of us know how to use a dictionary for those words, no matter how "archaic" some may seem, yet they are still in use as we discuss the very words in question.

As the "arguement" for more easily understood versions and "updating" the language ensues, the more confused the scholars become, not completetly certain what the Bible is, or isn't, just complimenting each other on each other's researches.

The saying,"We needv a more comprehensive view of the Bible" so the understanding requires multiple versions is ludicrous when all we need is an exhaustive dictionary.

Can you answer the original question, Sal? Can you back up the inspiration view with Scripture? Can you show us where God ceased to oversee and update His word by inspiration/influence/preservation or anything else you wanna call it after 1611?

Originally posted by Salamander:
The only "changes" from the 1611 are spelling updates, printers changes and some printers errors.

Click to expand...

That is not true. I can show you actual word changes from 1611 to 1769. Not correction of printer's errors, nor spelling updates. Actual word changes that change the meaning of the text.

If you will accept the truth, I will post it, but if you will not, I won't bother. It is up to you. Do you value Truth (and He Who is Truth) or not?

Originally posted by David J:
Well then which KJV is perfect?

Things that are different are not the same.

Did God boo boo in 1611?

I can list some differnces if needed to prove the 1611 is different from the current KJV'(s).

Click to expand...

Please QUIT your obsession on your favorite word: PERFECT

Originally posted by MISSIONARY:
So Almighty God inspired His Word in the beginning and then took His hand off of it and allowed sinful man and even perphaps our enemy to corrupt it.

Click to expand...

What did He do with the world?

Yet Romans 1 declares that all men are without excuse because the invisible things of God should be apparent to them through nature.

BTW, the actual text of the originals is far better preserved than the natural world in comparison to the pre-fall world.

I cannot believe that you would think God would go to the trouble to INSPIRE His Word if He didn't plan on preserving it.

Click to expand...

He did preserve His "Word"... He just didn't see fit to do it by preserving one single set of perfect words.

If you know of a document that can be proven to be the facsimile of the originals then please put this debate to a long needed death by identifying it (them).

The fact is that we have 5000+ mss and they all differ from each other. If God's method was this idea of perfect preservation you are promoting... then the KJV couldn't be it since it is different from every Bible made before it... and therefore can be a preservation of none of them.

That puts man in power over the Word of God. quote] How was this different in the early 1600's when men decided how the KJV was to be worded? These were men who admitted their own fallibility and did not claim inspiration or perfection for their work. In fact, they denied perfection.

Sorry friend, If God can INSPIRE His Word, He can and would certainly PRESERVE His Word.

Click to expand...

And he has... however the facts say that He didn't do it the way you apparently believe He did it.

Click to expand...

Please QUIT your obsession on your favorite word: PERFECT

Click to expand...

YES SIR!



HankD