-
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!
A Bible Doctrine of Preservation
- Thread starter John of Japan
- Start date
- Status
Now, please consider a case of God's providence in the Bible. Think of the story of Esther. She was certainly an imperfect instrument of God. She was afraid to reveal who her people were, she was willing to marry a heathen king and that was forbidden in God's law, she had a tough time trusting in the Lord to help her approach the king, and she had to have two tries at a banquet before she had the courage to tell the king about Haman.
Nevertheless, as Mordecai told her, "Who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this?" (Esther 4:14). God's providence had made her the instrument of the king's mercy to protect all Jews throughout the kingdom, in spite of her imperfections.
The lesson here is that God uses imperfect humans to accomplish His work. However, imperfect humans do not produce perfection. Only God can do that, and it must be by a miracle! Now, to apply that to Bible translation, no translator I know of has ever claimed a miracle in regards to his or her translating. "The original manuscripts themselves were perfect, free of error. They were produced under the direct superintendence of the Holy Spirit. No subsequent copy, edition, or version (ancient or modern) has been perfect. Sinful men, who are in no way perfect, produced and continue to produce them all" (William D. Barrick, Understanding Bible Translation. Grand Rapids, Kregel Academic, 2019, p. 217).
Even the KJV translators could not produce a perfect translation, as scholarly as everyone admits they were. The translation was a process, not an event. It was providential, not a miracle. Therefore, it was not perfect. Interestingly enough, very, very few (if any) of those who claim that the KJV is perfect have actually done translation work.
Now, I do have a book by a KJVO author who claims that the KJV is a perfect translation because it is accurate (Steve Combs, A Practical Theology of Bible Translating, p. 42). And he serves as a translation consultant. I respect that, but it's not the same as a translator. However, he does not make a distinction between miracle and providence (p 35), and that's a mistake.
Nevertheless, as Mordecai told her, "Who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this?" (Esther 4:14). God's providence had made her the instrument of the king's mercy to protect all Jews throughout the kingdom, in spite of her imperfections.
The lesson here is that God uses imperfect humans to accomplish His work. However, imperfect humans do not produce perfection. Only God can do that, and it must be by a miracle! Now, to apply that to Bible translation, no translator I know of has ever claimed a miracle in regards to his or her translating. "The original manuscripts themselves were perfect, free of error. They were produced under the direct superintendence of the Holy Spirit. No subsequent copy, edition, or version (ancient or modern) has been perfect. Sinful men, who are in no way perfect, produced and continue to produce them all" (William D. Barrick, Understanding Bible Translation. Grand Rapids, Kregel Academic, 2019, p. 217).
Even the KJV translators could not produce a perfect translation, as scholarly as everyone admits they were. The translation was a process, not an event. It was providential, not a miracle. Therefore, it was not perfect. Interestingly enough, very, very few (if any) of those who claim that the KJV is perfect have actually done translation work.
Now, I do have a book by a KJVO author who claims that the KJV is a perfect translation because it is accurate (Steve Combs, A Practical Theology of Bible Translating, p. 42). And he serves as a translation consultant. I respect that, but it's not the same as a translator. However, he does not make a distinction between miracle and providence (p 35), and that's a mistake.
Last edited:
Haven't had much time to post here. Our VBS was all last week, with the theme of Biblical archaeology. I was in the daily skit as "Marco Polo," the mysterious guide for the expedition who never speaks until the very end on Friday, when I shocked everyone with a sentence in Japanese. And the cast all shouted, "What did you say?" Anyhoo....
Now apply the doctrine of preservation to textual criticism. That discipline is a process, not an event. So like Bible translation, it is not miraculous. Textual critics do a very difficult task in examining the mss to determine as close as possible the originals. Secular textual criticism (Homer the blind Greek poet, etc.) is hard enough, but God has preserved His NT in literally thousands of Greek mss, not to mention the many OT Hebrew mss. (I don't know the figure on that.)
Before the advent of the KJVO movement, evangelicals considered that God had preserved His Word in that multiplicity of mss, compared to the scarcity of mss of other Greek authors such as Homer. (I believe I read once that the Odyssey only had 8 mss. Anyone?) For example, John R. Rice wrote the following in 1942.
"But I believe that God’s miracles concerning the Bible did not end when John wrote the last words of the book of Revelation long after Paul had been beheaded. For the Bible is itself a living miracle. “The word of God is quick and powerful” (Heb. 4: 12). The word quick here means alive. It is the same word used about the living people in the phrase, “the quick and the dead,” in Acts 10:42, in II Timothy 4:1, in I Peter 4:5. The Bible is a living thing. That means that the power of God is in the Word, and it is a living miracle. The things that the Bible does are miraculous things. If the saving of a soul, regeneration, is a miracle, and if that is done by the Word of God, used by the Holy Spirit, then the Word of God is miraculous even today.
"Reverent students have long believed, as I do, that the preservation of the Word of God down through these centuries is miraculous and supernatural. How Satan hates the Bible! The conspiracies of Romish priests, burning multiplied thousands of copies, the putting to death of those that harbored the Bible and insisted on reading it—these could not do away with the Word of God. The assaults of the infidels, the attacks of atheists and modernists—these could not do away with the Bible. It could not be lost through mistranslation, through the errors of copyists, through the awful darkness and ignorance of the dark ages. The Bible has been preserved of God. It lives and abides forever. And that preservation is surely a miracle of God, such as other books do not have.
"This supernatural, miraculously living Bible may be typified by the pot of manna which was collected and put within the ark of the covenant and there preserved miraculously from spoiling century after century (Exodus 16:32-34; Heb. 9:4). The preservation of that manna, the bread from Heaven, was a living, physical miracle down through the centuries. If God had failed to sustain it miraculously one day, then it would have decayed and ‘stank’ as the manna did that had been kept more than a day by the people. That was an every-day miracle. But the same kind of miracle lives today in the Bible, the Word. It is a miracle Book. It has life in it. It “is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Heb. 4:12)."
Prayer—Asking and Receiving. Murfreesboro: Sword of the Lord Publ., 1942, pp. 265-266.
You will note that I think he had a more non-biblical use of the word "miracle" here, but the point still stands in regards to his view of the preservation of Scripture. Evangelicals have always believed that God preserved His Word in the multiplicity of mss, and I believe that, too. God uses His servants who are textual critics (and not all are His servants) to come as close as possible to the originals. The wise and believing textual critic prays for guidance in his work, and God gives it.
Now apply the doctrine of preservation to textual criticism. That discipline is a process, not an event. So like Bible translation, it is not miraculous. Textual critics do a very difficult task in examining the mss to determine as close as possible the originals. Secular textual criticism (Homer the blind Greek poet, etc.) is hard enough, but God has preserved His NT in literally thousands of Greek mss, not to mention the many OT Hebrew mss. (I don't know the figure on that.)
Before the advent of the KJVO movement, evangelicals considered that God had preserved His Word in that multiplicity of mss, compared to the scarcity of mss of other Greek authors such as Homer. (I believe I read once that the Odyssey only had 8 mss. Anyone?) For example, John R. Rice wrote the following in 1942.
"But I believe that God’s miracles concerning the Bible did not end when John wrote the last words of the book of Revelation long after Paul had been beheaded. For the Bible is itself a living miracle. “The word of God is quick and powerful” (Heb. 4: 12). The word quick here means alive. It is the same word used about the living people in the phrase, “the quick and the dead,” in Acts 10:42, in II Timothy 4:1, in I Peter 4:5. The Bible is a living thing. That means that the power of God is in the Word, and it is a living miracle. The things that the Bible does are miraculous things. If the saving of a soul, regeneration, is a miracle, and if that is done by the Word of God, used by the Holy Spirit, then the Word of God is miraculous even today.
"Reverent students have long believed, as I do, that the preservation of the Word of God down through these centuries is miraculous and supernatural. How Satan hates the Bible! The conspiracies of Romish priests, burning multiplied thousands of copies, the putting to death of those that harbored the Bible and insisted on reading it—these could not do away with the Word of God. The assaults of the infidels, the attacks of atheists and modernists—these could not do away with the Bible. It could not be lost through mistranslation, through the errors of copyists, through the awful darkness and ignorance of the dark ages. The Bible has been preserved of God. It lives and abides forever. And that preservation is surely a miracle of God, such as other books do not have.
"This supernatural, miraculously living Bible may be typified by the pot of manna which was collected and put within the ark of the covenant and there preserved miraculously from spoiling century after century (Exodus 16:32-34; Heb. 9:4). The preservation of that manna, the bread from Heaven, was a living, physical miracle down through the centuries. If God had failed to sustain it miraculously one day, then it would have decayed and ‘stank’ as the manna did that had been kept more than a day by the people. That was an every-day miracle. But the same kind of miracle lives today in the Bible, the Word. It is a miracle Book. It has life in it. It “is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Heb. 4:12)."
Prayer—Asking and Receiving. Murfreesboro: Sword of the Lord Publ., 1942, pp. 265-266.
You will note that I think he had a more non-biblical use of the word "miracle" here, but the point still stands in regards to his view of the preservation of Scripture. Evangelicals have always believed that God preserved His Word in the multiplicity of mss, and I believe that, too. God uses His servants who are textual critics (and not all are His servants) to come as close as possible to the originals. The wise and believing textual critic prays for guidance in his work, and God gives it.
To me the true issue is :did the Holy Spirit inspire any translation" in the same fashion as he did all of the Originals, and since he did not, KJVO is false!
Michael Hollner
Active Member
How do you know that? Did you learn that from God, the scriptures, or a man?
Also, most KJV believers I know believe that the KJV translators were not moved upon by the Holy Ghost in the same way the Apostles were. However, they were given guidance by the Spirit of God during the translation, thus giving them the understanding for a perfected translation by Holy Ghost inspiration, for “the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding” (Job 32:8; II Timothy 3:16) KJV.
Is not God powerful enough to preserve His word, even in a translation by giving the KJV translators understanding, wisdom, and knowledge?
Blessings.....
If you read the Bibles that came before the KJV, you will notice that sometimes they are more accurate than the KJV. Sometimes it is best to see what Bibles the KJV translators used and compared for their version. Then once that knowledge is acquired the myth of the perfect english translation will disappear. Then you will learn what the KJV really is. An excellent Bible among other excellent bibles. Many good ones. None perfect.
Michael Hollner
Active Member
Do you have an example you would like to share?
My first question was not answered but that's ok.
Blessings....
Do some accept and hold their human KJV-only teaching first and then later interpret verses such as 2 Timothy 3:16 and Job 32:8 to conform them to their already accepted view? Do these two verses (2 Timothy 3:16 and Job 32:8) use the same original-language word in the same exact sense concerning the same exact subject that would indicate that they should be considered real parallel passages?
Henry A. Virkler noted: “It is important, though, to distinguish between verbal parallels and real parallels. Verbal parallels are those that use similar words but are discussing different ideas (the similarity is more verbal than real)” (Christian’s Guide to Critical Thinking, p. 38). Henry Virkler observed: “Real parallels are those that speak of the same idea or same event” (Ibid.). James Sire asserted: “When two or more unrelated texts are treated as if they belonged together, we have the fallacy of collapsing contexts” (Scripture Twisting, p. 58). James Sire defined and explained the reading error collapsing contexts as follows: “two or more verses which have little or nothing to do with each other are put together as if one were a commentary on the other(s)” (p. 156).
Does the use of the same English word “inspiration” to translate two different words in two different verses in different contexts prove that these two verses are real parallels both about the same subject or idea--the giving of the Scriptures by inspiration to the prophets and apostles? Is it clearly demonstrated that the assertion (Job 32:8) made by Elihu would be the first mention of the same subject of the giving of the Scriptures as the verse in 2 Timothy 3:16 is?
KJV-only author David Sorenson asserted: “The only place in the Bible where the word inspiration appears in the context of Scripture is 2 Timothy 3:16” (God’s Perfect Book, p. 43). In a footnote, David Sorenson noted: “The word inspiration also appears in Job 32:8, but the context there clearly is not of Scripture, but of a man’s spirit being inspired or enlightened by God” (Ibid.). KJV-only author D. A. Waite acknowledged that the word ‘inspiration’ “is used once in the Old Testament (Job 32:8) in a different sense” (Fundamentalist Mis-Information, p. 45). KJV-only author Phil Stringer claimed: “The word inspiration did not exist before God invented it for the New Testament” (Unbroken Bible, p. 60).
Does Elihu actually define the meaning of inspiration at 2 Timothy 3:16? Would a possibly more obscure or less clear use of an English word be properly considered the key to understanding a clearer use of that same word? Has it been soundly demonstrated that the Hebrew noun used in Job 32:8 has the exact, same meaning as the Greek adjective used in 2 Timothy 3:16? The Greek adjective at 2 Timothy 3:16 is actually translated in the KJV by five words [“given by inspiration of God”], not by one word [inspiration]. How would this adjectival participial phrase [“given by inspiration of God”] be identical to a noun? Do these few KJV-only authors attempt to take one isolated verse (Job 32:8) out of its own context in order to use it as a pretext for their preconceived human KJV-only reasoning? Could this appeal to one isolated verse (Job 32:8) be a possible effort to avoid an actual verse that does directly relate or is parallel to 2 Timothy 3:16—2 Peter 1:21?
Last edited:
The issue is not whether God is powerful enough. He was powerful enough many years before 1611 when the Scriptures were translated into English. KJV-only advocates do not present any consistent view of preservation since KJV-only claims actually suggest restoration in 1611 instead of advocating the preserved Scriptures in the original languages as the proper standard and authority for the making and trying of all Bible translations.
The Scriptures do not teach that the word of God is bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of doctrinally-unsound Church of England critics in 1611. God did not choose to contradict His wisdom by showing partiality to the KJV translators in 1611. God gives all believers who ask for understanding, wisdom, and knowledge, but that does not make them into infallible popes who alone can understand/interpret/translate the Scriptures perfectly.
Last edited:
Michael Hollner
Active Member
Rick,
Way too many questions for one post. How about one at a time? No way I am going to go through all that.
But being I enjoy going back and forth with you on rare occasions, I will answer your first and close to last question.
‘Do some accept and hold their human KJV-only teaching first and then later interpret verses such as 2 Timothy 3:16 and Job 32:8 to conform them to their already accepted view?’
Perhaps. I don’t. I did not even know about Job 32:8 until a few years back and I started reading the KJV in 1983.
‘Do these few KJV-only authors attempt to take one isolated verse (Job 32:8) out of its own context in order to use it as a pretext for their preconceived human KJV-only reasoning?’
Has nothing to do with context. It’s one verse that says God gives understanding by His Spirit and inspiration. It's really not that complicated. Do you deny that God gave inspiration to Bezaleel, as the Lord “filled him with the Spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship” to work on the Lord’s tabernacle (Exodus 31:1-18)?
Blessings and good night.
Here are some resources for you.
Tyndale's New Testament 1535, The Great Bible 1539 , Geneva Bible 1560, Bishops Bible 1568, Rheims NT 1582, KJV 1611.
New testament octapla : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
The Holy Bible : a facsimile in a reduced size of the Authorized version published in the year 1611 : Pollard, Alfred W. (Alfred William), 1859-1944 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
And the excellent Hexapla.
The English hexapla : exhibiting the six important English translations of the New Testament Scriptures, Wiclif, M.CCC.LXXX., Tyndale, M.D.XXXIV., Cranmer, M.D.XXXIX., Genevan, M.D.LVII., Anglo-Rhemish, M.D.LXXXII., Authorised, M.DC.XI. : the original Greek text after Scholz, with the various readings of the textus receptus and the principal Constantinopolitan and Alexandrine manuscripts, and a complete collation of Scholz's text with Griesbach's edition of M.DCCC.V : preceded by an historical account of the English translations : Scholz, Johann Martin Augustin, 1794-1852 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
To see English Bible history as it really happened.
It does have something to do with context when you try to connect Job 32:8 with 2 Timothy 3:16. The two verses refer to two different matters and have not been soundly demonstrated to be connected.
The early English Bible translators including the KJV translators did not suggest what you try to claim. God gave William Tyndale, John Rogers, and the translators of the 1560 Geneva Bible understanding, but the Scriptures do not suggest that God made them perfect in their understanding or that He gave their textual criticism decisions and translation decisions by inspiration of God. The word of God had been translated into English many years before 1611. The passage in Exodus 31 does not suggest that Bezaleel was made perfect in His understanding of the Scriptures or that He was given Scripture by inspiration of God.
At least a couple KJV-only authors before you tried to find a way to try to support a new interpretation or understanding of 2 Timothy 3:16 by trying to connect it with Job 32:8. William Grady asserted that “the first and most critical usage [of the word inspiration] is found in Job 32:8” (Given By Inspiration, p. 90). William Grady contended: “Job 32:8 will be seen to reveal the definition and purpose for inspiration.” and he claimed: “As Job is the oldest book in the Bible, we marvel that the first writer of Scripture ‘just happens’ to record the definitive statement on inspiration” (p. 90). Are Grady’s declarations proven to be sound, true, and correct? Peter Ruckman asserted that “the verse in the Old Testament (Job 32:8) is usually ignored by those who write about ‘verbal, plenary inspired, original autographs‘” (Biblical Scholarship, p. 337). In his note at Job 32:8 in his Ruckman Reference Bible, Peter Ruckman claimed: “The verse is a direct cross reference to 2 Timothy 3:16” (p. 759).
Last edited:
Michael Hollner
Active Member
‘The early English Bible translators including the KJV translators did not suggest what you try to claim.’
I am glad they did not suggest it, otherwise many would take that as being arrogant. God uses humble and imperfect men, Kings, men of low and high degree, and whomever He chooses to use. The KJV translators had no clue as to what the results of their work would be.
‘It does have something to do with context when you try to connect Job 32:8 with 2 Timothy 3:16. The two verses refer to two different matters and have not been soundly demonstrated to be connected.’
I am not connecting the verses; the verses connect themselves in detailing inspiration. One on the scriptures, the others (Job and Exodus) on God giving understanding, wisdom, and knowledge by His Spirit. I would agree with Grady and Ruckman on the connection.
Rick, have you ever read Dr. Bednar’s book on “Evidence of the Divine Hand on True Scripture”? I just read it through recently. From talking with you these last several years I was reminded of you as I began reading his book these last few months because he talks in a way like you and his terminology his similar to yours. I will link it below in case you’re interested.
Evidence of the Divine Hand on True Scripture: Bednar, Dr. L: 9781453719268: Amazon.com: Books
Blessings….
Kjvo does indeed though support that trhe Holy Spirit inspired the 1611 Kjv translators into making the right and correct translation choice every time, in same fashion as he inspired the originals!
And if true, why did the 1611 also list several variants in margins that to them were all equally valid?
The Kjvo conflate their English translation to be exactly same way Muslims view the Koran, but that is not how God describes any translation as being!
Any passages state to us that now in the NT any have that same type of inspiration who were and are not Apostles?
That all confirms that the lord was indeed involved in getting his word into the English language before 1611 and the Kjv, and that those translation had no special and unique anointing from him in their translation process!
His hand was indeed upon the only inspired revelation of His, the originals!
No, I have not read Lawrence Bednar's book. I googled his name, and I think that I found his web site, which suggests that he would be a KJV-only author. He is one of the few KJV-only authors whose book or books that I have not read.
Last edited:
The verses 2 Timothy 3:16 and Job 32:8 do not connect themselves. 2 Timothy 3:16 concerns the giving of the Scriptures by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles while Job 32:8 does not. Job 32:8 does not detail how the Scriptures were given by inspiration of God. It has not been soundly demonstrated that the Hebrew noun used in Job 32:8 has the same meaning as the Greek adjective used in 2 Timothy 3:16. The Greek adjective at 2 Timothy 3:16 is actually translated in the KJV by five words [“given by inspiration of God”], not by one word [inspiration].
- Status