A few questions for KJVO's

[Travelsong]

1) Is the KJVO superior to the orginal Greek and Hebrew?

2) Is the KJVO superior to any other/all language version(s)?

3) Should other languages have their Bible translated from the KJB? Why or why not?

4) What language does God speak?

5) When the assertion is made that God's word is perfectly preserved in the KJB, how does one account for the fact that there are so many disagreements over doctrine? Doesn't "perfect" imply that all dedicated Christians who study the Word should reach the same conclusions? If this is a false statement, what is meant by "perfectly preserved"?

6) Is it possible for human language to capture and communicate the deepest truths about God and salvation, or is something more required?

 

[Pastor_Bob]

1. No

2. No

3. Not unless the Greek and Hebrew are unavailable or not able to be understood by the translator.

4. My language; I just spoke to Him this morning.

5. Diversity of doctrines arise when men add their human reasoning to the Word of God. This would have happened even if we still had the original autographs in a single book. "Perfectly preserved" means that the text we have today is a reliable and accurate representation of the originals.

6. Human language is sufficient. God gave us the ability to know Him and to understand all we need to know about Him.

Jer. 29:13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart. (KJV 1769)

 

[Walls]

Good job on the answers Pastor Bob!

 

[TC]

1. No

2. No

3. No, unless nothing else is availiable

4. All of them.

5. Differences occur because of faulty interpretation. The problem is with us and not with the words.

6. Everything we need to know right now can be expressed quite adequately in human languages. Paul says that those things that we only understand in part now will be understood completely later.

 

[LRL71]

Originally posted by Pastor_Bob:

5. Diversity of doctrines arise when men add their human reasoning to the Word of God. This would have happened even if we still had the original autographs in a single book. "Perfectly preserved" means that the text we have today is a reliable and accurate representation of the originals.

If the text of the Hebrew/Aramaic OT and the Greek NT was 'perfectly preserved', why are there copying errors in the manuscripts? If the text of the Bible was 'perfectly preserved', why even concern ourselves with the original autographs? Theologically, the KJVO (or, even the TR/Received 'onlies') has no leg to stand on because God said nothing regarding preservation or what text He would preserve, or how He would have preserved the text. If God perfectly preserved the text, why are there errors in the copied manuscripts? Inspiration only applies to the original autographs since the autographs would be the only 'inerrant' and inspired product. The problem with the KJVO/TR-Received 'only' position is that this paradox cannot be answered logically, theologically, or rationally. Providential preservation, whether perfectly or with the allowance of errors, presents some serious problems regarding the nature of the transmission of the text of the Bible.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Originally posted by LRL71:
...God said nothing regarding preservation...

We've been down this road far too many times already. I'll just post a few references that I believe speaks of preservation and then you can give us your take on the meaning if you wish. I will not continue to argue this point that has been made time and again.

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
Mark 13:31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
Luke 21:33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
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.

1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

Psalm 119:89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

Psalm 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

Isaiah 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

Psalm 105:8 He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations.

And, believe it or not:
Psalm 12:5 For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.
6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
8 The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.

Even if you do not believe that this passage is speaking literally of God's words, it still speaks of God's preservation and we can certainly apply it to God's words in light of all the other references in the Bible.

 

[Precepts]

and one more

The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost agree and are One, and the last applause is from me, who just so happens to agree with God!

 

[LRL71]

Originally posted by Pastor_Bob:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LRL71:
...God said nothing regarding preservation...

We've been down this road far too many times already. I'll just post a few references that I believe speaks of preservation and then you can give us your take on the meaning if you wish. I will not continue to argue this point that has been made time and again. </font>[/QUOTE]

If you will not 'continue to argue' this point regarding preservation, then perhaps the KJVO (or, TR/Received Text 'only') position regarding preservation is a farce! Considering that you have not postulated any reasons why the Scriptures are silent regarding the preservation of the text of the Bible. In my previous post, Pastor Bob had not refuted-- or even attempted to refute-- the nature of the text of the Hebrew/Aramaic OT and the Greek NT. If God providentially/supernaturally preserved the text of the Bible, then why all the copying errors in the manuscript evidence? Secondly, how does one make the 'quantum leap' of faith to say that God preserved His Word only in the Textus Receptus (Received Text) of the Greek NT? Would not this argument be effectively putting words in God's mouth? Thirdly, if the text of the OT/NT was either providentially or supernaturally preserved, why would God allow errors to enter into the copying of the manuscripts? One could argue that if God is able to produce an inspired, inerrant original autograph, then why would He allow copying errors to enter into the manuscripts? These questions are a few examples of why 'providential preservation' cannot be either biblical or practical; the silence from Scripture regarding whether God would preserve the text of the OT/NT is quite deafening indeed!

Now, regarding Pastor Bob's 'quoting' of verses from the Bible: all such quotations say nothing regarding the actual or perceived actions taken by God to 'preserve' the text of the Bible providentially or supernaturally. I will take each example that Pastor Bob made in quoting the Bible and demonstrate that "the fact of the matter is, the basic premise that there is a Divine promise to infallibly preserve Scripture from any alterations of whatever sort in the copying and translating process is defective. No such promise is given in Scripture (and alleged "proof-texts" for this doctrine, such as Psalm 12:6-7; Matthew 5:17, 18; and Matthew 24:35; are without exception misinterpreted and misapplied)."( copied from Doug Kutilek's statements, found at http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/preservation.htm ).

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
Mark 13:31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
Luke 21:33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

These section(s) of Scripture are quoted out of context; nothing here is stated to imply that God is preserving the text of the Bible. To quote Daniel Wallace in regard to these verses, "Occasionally Matt. 24:35 (“Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away”) is used in support of preservation. But once again, even though this text has the advantage of now referring to Jesus’ words (as opposed to the OT), the context is clearly eschatological; thus the words of Jesus have certainty of fulfillment. That the text does not here mean that his words will all be preserved in written form is absolutely certain because (1) this is not only foreign to the context, but implies that the written gospels were conceived at this stage in Heilsgeschichte—decades before a need for them was apparently felt; (2) we certainly do not have all of Jesus’ words recorded—either in scripture or elsewhere (cf. John 20:30 and 21:25)." Secondly, the use of the Greek verb 'parelthei'
with 'ou me' reinforces the point Jesus is stating regarding specifically the prophecies He is stating in the parable, and not to the written OT. Nothing in Matt. 24 (or the other cited quotes in the other Gospels) will pass away from the prophecies that Jesus is speaking about. These verses do not imply the quality of the written Word, but rather to the infallibility of Jesus' teachings stated here in Matt. 24.

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
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.

Again, I will quote from Daniel Wallace regarding the above mentioned citation from Scripture, which again is being forced out of context: "Not one jot or tittle from the law will pass away until all is fulfilled” (Matt. 5:18) plainly refers either to the ethical principles of the law or the fulfillment of prophecy, or both. (The validity of each of these options turns, to some degree, on how pleiroo is used elsewhere in Matthew and the weight given to those texts—e.g., are Matthew’s OT quotation introductory formulae (ina pleiroo/ in 1:22; 2:15; 4:14, etc., connecting the term to eschatological fulfillment) more significant or is Jesus’ own use of plhrovw (in 3:15, connecting it to ethical fulfillment) more significant?) Either way, the idea of preservation of the written text is quite foreign to the context. Another point regarding this text is the genre it is using; Jesus is using a figure of speech similar to hyperbole. The context is contained within a parable, again where Jesus is using figures of speech to make His point(s). In the context, Jesus is assuring His hearers on the Mount (of Beatitudes-- a beautiful setting on the Sea of Galilee; I had been to Israel three times and had seen the spot where Jesus gave this sermon!) that He did not come to abolish the Law, but rather to fulfill it!

1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
Isaiah 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

The problem with this citation is that 1 Pet. 1:23–25, in quoting Isa. 40:8, uses rhema (not "logos"), a term which typically refers to the spoken word! Perhaps Pastor Bob has forgotten his Greek! Again, the context of this verse is in quotation of an OT passage referring to the infallibility of God's words. Nothing here regarding a promise of God providentially or supernaturally preserving the text (written) word.

Psalm 119:89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

Uh, in heaven? Where on Earth is this referring to a promise of God 'preserving' the text of the Bible on Earth? Another 'simple' exaggeration of KJVO's to insinuate providential preservation could be gleaned from this 'proof text'.

Psalm 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.


Psalm 105:8 He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations.

Again, both verses here are referring to the quality of God's judgments and covenants, not a promise of preservation. Also, the genre of the Psalms is not narrative or history, but of songs!

And, believe it or not:
Psalm 12:5 For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.
6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
8 The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.

Even if you do not believe that this passage is speaking literally of God's words, it still speaks of God's preservation and we can certainly apply it to God's words in light of all the other references in the Bible.

This one takes the cake! Perhaps a little lesson in elementary Hebrew would indicate that God is not making any promises of preservation of His words, but rather the promise to preserve the poor and needy man from destruction (see Doug Kutilek's article, "Why Psalm 12:6-7 Is Not A Promise of the Infallible Preservation of Scripture" at http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/why_psalm.htm). It is patently disingenuous to assert that this passage is referring to the preservation of 'words', and could be considered to be deceptive by KJVO's to say otherwise. There cannot be 'two meanings' in this passage, and to glean from this passage that God is preserving His words is completely wrong. The context is clear, and made clearer by the Hebrew grammar, about God's protection of the needy and poor man from them that 'puffeth at him', and that this is a promise from God. Nothing here is being stated about God 'preserving' His words! To say that this could be made from this passage is disingenous and is divorcing the meaning of the passage and inserting one's a priori views upon the text.

In another substantial argument against preservation, examples from Scripture and history can be made to the contrary! God has never promised to give every believer in every time and place a perfect Bible. The only Bible available in many circumstances throughout history has been very imperfect. For a time before Josiah ascended to the throne of Judah, the Book of the Law (likely referring to the Books of Moses) was lost. This portion of Scripture had completely vanished from the kingdom. In the early Middle Ages, few believers had whole Bibles in good versions. In the late Middle Ages, the only Bible available was the Vulgate, a mediocre translation in a dead language.

My final words regarding this subject is one of seemingly open rebuke upon those who hold to the erroneous view of 'providential/supernatural' preservation. It is erroneous to suggest that in gaining the upper hand theologically, the KJVO (or, TR/Received text 'only') view is supported by so-called 'proof texts' from the Bible. Such examples do not exist. Scripture, ironically, supports the idea that providential preservation does not exist, and historically, church history has no clear examples of God providentially preserving the text of the Bible to the wide masses of believers through the ages. Only willful and deliberate ignorance of this issue will the continuity of KJVO/TROnlyism be perpetuated. The burden of proof is theirs in regard to providential preservation, and to make the 'quantum leap' of faith in believing that God made the KJV (or, the TR) to be 'perfect', 'inspired', 'preserved', 'inerrant', or otherwise the 'perfectly preserved Word of God in the English language'.

I will also start another post in regard to 'providential preservation' and the case against the KJVO/TR-only position. Theirs is the unorthodox and unbiblical one, and such error can only lead to the furthering heresies of KJVOnlyism.

[ February 07, 2004, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: LRL71 ]

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Originally posted by LRL71:
If you will not 'continue to argue' this point regarding preservation, then perhaps the KJVO (or, TR/Received Text 'only') position regarding preservation is a farce!

I hardly think my desire not to "re-argue" this matter has anything at all to do with the validity of the position I hold. Answers to your questions here and many others can be found in a plethora of threads on this very forum.

I will, however, give a very brief comment that I read recently that applies to this situation.

"God wanted us to be absolutely certain that we had the genuine Word of God. In fact, all that the Bible says about itself presupposes that we should trust our Bible in absolute certainty. For example, Jesus said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." That takes for granted that every generation of God's people would have all of the words of God, and that they should have faith in them." Lloyd L. Streeter

LRL71, if he's honest, would have to admit that, according to his theory, no one can be certain about the text of the Bible; no one can know with certainty exactly what the Bible says. You can not absolutely know for sure which words are authentic and which words are spurious. That is why he and others are so passionate when we assert our certainty on the issue.

Uncertainty is not better than certainty when we approach the Bible. "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." That presupposes that we know what the word of God is.

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

Originally posted by Pastor_Bob:
Uncertainty is not better than certainty when we approach the Bible. "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." That presupposes that we know what the word of God is.

uncertainty vs certainty: i think i see a false dichotomy here.

there's a third: over-certainty.

Liberalism diminishes n denies any certainty regarding the Word.

Fundamentalism holds on to what certainty is given by Christ Himself, incl. promises that His words will never perish, that every bit of the Law will be fulfilled, that His word is forever settled in heaven.

KJBOism, however goes beyond that. it promotes an over-certainty that's locked into several revisions of one version based upon a certain minority text-base (the "TR"), to the exclusion of all others.

true Bible believers reject the falsehoods on the left n on the right, n above n below, of God's sufficient n authoritative Word.

 

[LRL71]

Originally posted by Pastor_Bob:
LRL71, if he's honest, would have to admit that, according to his theory, no one can be certain about the text of the Bible; no one can know with certainty exactly what the Bible says. You can not absolutely know for sure which words are authentic and which words are spurious. That is why he and others are so passionate when we assert our certainty on the issue.

Your assessment of my conclusions regarding the 'certainty' of the text of the Bible is completely wrong. Pastor Bob (and others who are generally KJVO or TR-only) have completely misunderstood the conclusions to the argument against providential/supernatural preservation. If the original autographs are lost/missing, then how does one come to an 'exact certainty' about the precise wording of the text of the Bible? Perhaps the KJVO/TROnly person does not recognize the fact that the text of the Bible is supported by thousands of manuscripts. This alone suggests that the text of the Bible is still with us today as it existed at the time the original autographs were written. The problem of providential/supernatural preservation is that it took no act by God to preserve the text of the Bible either providentially or supernaturally. The text of the Bible is with us today-- completely! How it got to us is through the faithful copying of manuscripts by scribes (of which in the case of the NT, many of the scribes were either Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox). This fact alone does not suggest the superintendent supervision of a supernatural act, let alone the providential act of providing a 'perfect' exemplar of the original autographs. The very nature of the text of the OT/NT from which copying errors were made cannot make anyone conclude that the exact wording of the text can be made without comparing them to the original manuscripts-- which are now lost. No one here is suggesting that we 'cannot know' the certainty of the text of the Bible. But to assert that one can claim to know 'certainly' what the exact wording of the text of the Bible says is certainly wrong!

Uncertainty is not better than certainty when we approach the Bible. "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." That presupposes that we know what the word of God is.

The problem with being certain is when being certain is elevated above the truth. No one can claim to 'know' beyond any doubt that he is certain about the exact reading of the text of the Bible. Again, the KJVO/TR-only proponent has a serious problem with being 'certain' about the text of the Bible if the exact wording cannot be made 'certain' without having the original autographs. If their doctrine of preservation is true, then why would God preserve errors in the text of the Bible? Why would God not make it clear to us today that we have the 'exact' readings, word for word, of the text of the Bible? For the KJVO/TR-only to assert that the TR is certainly the Word of God is a quantum leap of false hope. Certainty cannot be substituted or elevated above the truth.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Originally posted by Forever settled in heaven:
Uncertainty vs certainty: i think i see a false dichotomy here.

there's a third: over-certainty.

Liberalism diminishes n denies any certainty regarding the Word.

Fundamentalism holds on to what certainty is given by Christ Himself, incl. promises that His words will never perish, that every bit of the Law will be fulfilled, that His word is forever settled in heaven.

KJBOism, however goes beyond that. it promotes an over-certainty that's locked into several revisions of one version based upon a certain minority text-base (the "TR"), to the exclusion of all others.

true Bible believers reject the falsehoods on the left n on the right, n above n below, of God's sufficient n authoritative Word.

I like that. Is that original with you? Either way, think I'm going to "borrow" it as it truly does show a prevalent mindset (and error).

Thanks for sharing this.