A need for a reverse-litmus test

[Deacon]

Stillll...Regarding litmus test,
What does your use of the KJV tell me?


I don’t know what the “Critical text” is.
OR
I prefer the Majority text.

I‘ve never thought about the choices that are made when someone translates the bible.
OR
I trust the choices made by the translators of my version.
OR
I prefer to allow others to make textual decisions for me.
OR
The translators of the KJV were divinely guided to make the right textual decisions that are found in the KJV.

I think that there have been no important hand-written scriptural manuscripts discovered since 1611.
OR
All the ancient biblical manuscripts found since 1611 (that differ from it) are corrupt.
OR
Satan preserved all original language manuscripts that differ from texts used in the making of the KJV.
OR
I prefer to ignore anything that differs from the KJV.

I believe that the bible was preserved for eternity in the KJV 1611.
AND/OR
I feel that all earlier attempts to translate the bible were good but not perfect.
AND/OR
I feel that any attempts to improve perfection are wrong.

Versions of the bible done since 1611 have been done for purely financial reasons.
OR
Ever since 1611, translators of the bible have been influenced by Satan.


I believe that the reason we don’t understand the language of the KJV is that modern language has degenerated.
OR
Me thinks all ‘holy’ posts on the BaptistBoard should’st be in classical King James English, after all God speaketh in that language.
OR
‘My children’ can understand the language of the KJV, why can’t yours?

I think translation is a simple process of word to word transfer.
OR
I’ve chosen to ignore language translation issues, they’re too hard for me.

I'd be interested to see what you think it tells me about you.

What else does your choice say about you?

Rob

 

[TomVols]

Saying that God's Word, is "in"....our modern translations, is like saying "the Bible contains God's Word".

It's a thousand miles apart.

You're reaching, friend.

 

[franklinmonroe]

As I have said dozens of times before, the KJV isn’t the issue; Preservation is! ...

Please cite any genuine orthodox articulation of a Christian doctrine of the 'Preservation of the Scriptures' from, say, before 1900.

An ambiguous quote about God "preserving" His words will not suffice. I want you to (briefly) prove the historic theological position of the Church on the preservation of written revelation from God. Since you so strongly assert that 'Preservation ...' is the key issue, you ought to be able to produce sound arguments from these 19 centuries of Christian thinkers and writers.

 

[stilllearning]

Hello franklinmonroe

Sorry it has taken so long to respond to your question, but I have been busier than a.....(fill in the blank).
But it’s good to be back, and thank you very much for this challenge!

You asked........

“Please cite any genuine orthodox articulation of a Christian doctrine of the 'Preservation of the Scriptures' from, say, before 1900.

An ambiguous quote about God "preserving" His words will not suffice. I want you to (briefly) prove the historic theological position of the Church on the preservation of written revelation from God. Since you so strongly assert that 'Preservation ...' is the key issue, you ought to be able to produce sound arguments from these 19 centuries of Christian thinkers and writers.”

This is an interesting challenge, because it seems backwards;
That is, you should have asked.......

“Please cite any genuine orthodox articulation of a Christian doctrine of the 'Preservation of the Scriptures' from, say, after 1900.”

Because it is mainly “modern theologians”, who have a “problem” with this Doctrine!

Here is one interesting quote that I found.......
“He also said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Matt 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33). These and other references show us that the doctrine of preservation has been there since the Bible was written. Unfortunately it is absent in modern theological books. Nevertheless, there are sufficient evidences to show that Protestant and Reformed theology has always believed in the special providential preservation of the Bible.”
--------------------------------------------------
Now for the answer to your challenge..........

Dean John William Burgon (1813-1888)

He said..........
“The Importance of Both Inspiration and Preservation. Bible inspiration and Bible preservation are supremely important. The undermining or destroying of either doctrine renders the other meaningless. If the Bible is not verbally, plenarily, and inerrantly inspired, and if inspiration does not extend to all matters of which the Bible speaks, it does not matter if the Bible has been preserved or how it has been preserved. It also follows that, if the Bible has not been preserved, it does not matter how it was inspired.”

http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/Preservation/preserved.htm

--------------------------------------------------
The reason that I thanked you for this challenge, is because it prodded me on to read what others have to say about this subject.

As you probably guessed, the idea of linking the KJBO issue with the Doctrine of preservation, was entirely mine.
That is, it was a logical conclusion, that the Lord brought me to, as I was discussing this subject with the folks here at the BB.

But to my surprise, I am not the only Christian, to make this connection.
There is(and always has been), a connection between the statement, that “The Bible that I hold in my hand is God’s Word”, and “the Doctrine of preservation”.

As I have read over and over again, in just the past few minutes, from multiple sources........
------------------------
“God's providential preservation of the Scriptures cannot be separated from the doctrine of their verbal plenary inspiration.”
------------------------
“If inspiration, then preservation! Divinely inspired men produced divinely inerrant writings. Of this we are in no doubt. In divine inspiration God has imparted to Scripture the same qualities that belong to himself.”
------------------------
“The Bible translation controversy is not about the science of textual criticism or extant MSS, but it is about he Lord Jesus Christ's promise to preserve His inspired words. The Bible teaches not only the verbal, plenary inspiration of the autographa, but also the verbal, preservation of the autographa.”
------------------------
“Since the Lord has given us these Scriptures by divine inspiration (2 Tim 3:16), it follows that they must be divinely preserved if they are to accomplish their intended purpose throughout the ages.”

........You just can’t argue with logic like this!

One more thing; Since my stand is logical, than yours must be illogical.
--------------------------------------------------
Here are some of the sites that popped up on the “first” Google page, of a search of “the Preservation of the Scriptures”.......

http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/lamore-gods-providential-preservation-of-the-scriptures.html

http://www.tecmalta.org/tft118.htm

http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2009/02/paradigm-for-preservation-of-scripture.html

http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/Preservation/issue.htm

http://www.graceway.com/articles/article_007.html

 

[David Lamb]

Deleted by poster, who hadn't looked far enough back in the thread, and thus completely misunderstood a previous post!

 

[Mexdeaf]

This is going to get interesting...:laugh:

 

[Rippon]

As you probably guessed, the idea of linking the KJBO issue with the Doctrine of preservation, was entirely mine.
That is, it was a logical conclusion, that the Lord brought me to,

Don't blame the Lord for your finite reasonings.

........You just can’t argue with logic like this!

Really? Your "logic" may be debatable.

One more thing; Since my stand is logical, than yours must be illogical.

You think you have everything sewn up? How have you logically determined that the KJV alone is the sole repository for your doctrine of preservation?

 

[franklinmonroe]

Now for the answer to your challenge..........

Dean John William Burgon (1813-1888)

He said..........
“The Importance of Both Inspiration and Preservation. Bible inspiration and Bible preservation are supremely important. The undermining or destroying of either doctrine renders the other meaningless. If the Bible is not verbally, plenarily, and inerrantly inspired, and if inspiration does not extend to all matters of which the Bible speaks, it does not matter if the Bible has been preserved or how it has been preserved. It also follows that, if the Bible has not been preserved, it does not matter how it was inspired.”

http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/Preservation/preserved.htm

Actually Burgon didn't "say" it. The Executive Committee of the Dean Burgon Society wrote it in 1982! Your addition of Burgon's name, lifespan and the attribution of "He said ..." appear deceptive.

So, the above quotation does not successfully address the 'challenge'. In addition, just because you can find a quote with both the words 'inspiration' and 'preservation' together does not mean that you have discovered a historical theological articulation of the Church's doctrine. Regardless of who wrote it, let's dissect your quotation anyway and examine what it really says --

It seems obvious that the first incomplete sentence ("The Importance of Both Inspiration and Preservation.") was actually the Part II Section A heading and that your quote was merely uncritically lifted from their document.

"Bible inspiration and Bible preservation are supremely important." Unsubstantiated opinion. (It so happens that I agree.)

"The undermining or destroying of either doctrine renders the other meaningless." Just another flat statement.

"If the Bible is not verbally, plenarily, and inerrantly inspired, and if inspiration does not extend to all matters of which the Bible speaks, it does not matter if the Bible has been preserved or how it has been preserved." Most of this statement is concerned about Bible inspiration, not preservation. It is is interesting to note that the "how" question of preservation is raised (but not answered).

"It also follows that, if the Bible has not been preserved, it does not matter how it was inspired." Perhaps a logical conclusion if all the above is accepted; but not a doctrinal argument.​

There are no scripture references, no historical examples, no authoritative support. In short, it is not a construction of a doctrine.

 

[stilllearning]

You think you have everything sewn up? How have you logically determined that the KJV alone is the sole repository for your doctrine of preservation?

I have NEVER said that it was.

I use the KJB, because it's in my language and it is easier to find, than other Bibles of it's time.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I use the KJB, because it's in my language and it is easier to find, than other Bibles of it's time.

So if the Geneva Bible became as easy to find as the KJV you would use it?

 

[stilllearning]

So if the Geneva Bible became as easy to find as the KJV you would use it?

Maybe.....

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Maybe.....

So you would advocate the possibility of more than one version?

 

[stilllearning]

So you would advocate the possibility of more than one version?

Absolutely!
Providing the version, was translated from time tested manuscripts.

--------------------------------------------------

Oh, by the way; I found a pdf version of the 1599 Geneva Bible online, and downloaded a free copy of it.

After a brief look at it, I have decided that if I couldn’t have a KJB, than the Geneva Bible, would be my 2nd choice.

Although.....unless I had to, I would not use it for my study Bible.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Absolutely!
Providing the version, was translated from time tested manuscripts.

--------------------------------------------------

Oh, by the way; I found a pdf version of the 1599 Geneva Bible online, and downloaded a free copy of it.

After a brief look at it, I have decided that if I couldn’t have a KJB, than the Geneva Bible, would be my 2nd choice.

Although.....unless I had to, I would not use it for my study Bible.

Like the New King James?

 

[stilllearning]

Like the New King James?

Hi C4K

I know that you use the NKJV, and that is just great.
And I also know, of the rule here, against badmouthing any version of the Bible.
So I want to be careful.

To many(even here on the BB), the source of the NKJV, is still an open question.

I was given a NKJV as a gift, when I was a young Christian; And put away my KJB, and started using it; But I went back to the KJB when I saw all the changes the NKJV had made.
--------------------------------------------------
This “open question” that I mentioned, is talking about the subtle changes that the publishers of the NKJV made.

Here is just one example(from many web sites), of what I have been hearing for years..........

".........................."


I had better not post it; But here’s the address.

http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/nkjvtext.asp?FROM=biblecenter


Who knows how much of this is absolutely true(it may all be true), but why take a chance!

I will stick with the Bible that has been under attack for 400 years, and is still here.

 

[Trotter]

To many(even here on the BB), the source of the NKJV, is still an open question.

I was given a NKJV as a gift, when I was a young Christian; And put away my KJB, and started using it; But I went back to the KJB when I saw all the changes the NKJV had made.
--------------------------------------------------
This “open question” that I mentioned, is talking about the subtle changes that the publishers of the NKJV made.

I had better not post it; But here’s the address.

[noparse]www.chick.com[/noparse]

"All the changes", huh? I guess since the NKJV does not use "thees" and "thous" and is not a mimeograph of the KJV then it must be wrong and discarded? Puh-leese.

Oh, and using anything from Chick as a "source" is beyond laughable. Chick is comparable to using the National Enquirer, only brimming over with a lot more venom.

There's no shame or sin in using the KJV, brother... but there is when you start condemning others who do not bow and scrape before it.

 

[annsni]

I just find it absolutely amazing that there is a group of people who feel that God suddenly stopped preserving His Word in 1611. Could not God have preserved His Word in any of our other Bibles? Why not the NASB? The ESV? Or any of the other absolutely wonderful versions out there?

Men are not stupid. There are many men who are guided by our God to make sure that we have a very accurate version of the Bible. He's allowed us to make discoveries of more manuscripts to give us a clearer picture of what was originally written. We have been shown that what we have is EXCELLENT and that we can be assured that the Bible we hold - even in multiple "translations" - is what God wants us to have and to know.

 

[Japheth10]

I just find it absolutely amazing that there is a group of people who feel that God suddenly stopped preserving His Word in 1611.

Not to mention BEFORE 1611.

 

[stilllearning]

It is laughable when people that support the CT, talk about how “God suddenly stopped preserving His Word.”

He never did and He never will.

But to think, that the Bible must continually be changing, for God to “preserve” it, makes absolutely no sense at all.

If it’s preserved, it’s preserved!
--------------------------------------------------
As I keep saying, “preservation” is the issue.

I believe that God has preserved His Word, while modern scholarship see the need for more and more discoveries, in an attempt to “find” the Bible, that God allowed to get lost.

 

[annsni]

It is laughable when people that support the CT, talk about how “God suddenly stopped preserving His Word.”

He never did and He never will.

But to think, that the Bible must continually be changing, for God to “preserve” it, makes absolutely no sense at all.

If it’s preserved, it’s preserved!
--------------------------------------------------
As I keep saying, “preservation” is the issue.

I believe that God has preserved His Word, while modern scholarship see the need for more and more discoveries, in an attempt to “find” the Bible, that God allowed to get lost.

Then stop changing the KJV - even changing the spelling is changing it. Preserve it!!