Dr. Frank Logsdon and the NASB... according to KJVO's

Ok, try it your way: Where does God say that He would preserve His 'words'? Better yet, where did God say that He would preserve His words into the Textus Receptus? Even better still, where did God say that He would preserve His words into the King James Version?

I think that putting words into God's mouth is trying to say that "I'm right because I think God is on my side-- and you're wrong because God's on my side". Like your assertion, "This sounds good Brother but the problem is, there is not one shred of biblical support for this theory"-- your 'doctrine' of providential preservation is without merit. The so-called 'doctrine' of the providential preservation of the Scriptures-- as KJV-onlyists define it-- is NOT biblical. Typically, KJVO's use verses that support infallibility to mean something else than what is clearly meant in their context. In order to 'support' their heresy (King James Only-ism), they try to argue their position by making God say that He preserved the words of the copies of the originals as reading exactly like the originals themselves. By this they try to demonstrate that since the TR 'reads' like the originals-- since they now have 'proven' that God preserved the original readings into the TR-- that the KJV is therefore the 'perfect' Word of God. Voila'-- you have a perfectly preserved King James Bible that is faithful to the 'preserved' (as in reading exactly like the originals) Textus Receptus. Read below how the KJV-onlyist tries to explain this concept:

and again,

Ok, here's a good question: HOW do you know that when the translators translated from the copies that the copies-- manuscripts-- do not contain errors in them? By saying that God 'preserved' His words in the Greek Textus Receptus (or, in the plurality of the Majority Text-type of manuscripts), did God preserve errors in the text? Most certainly, the TR has errors, as well as does the underlying texts of the MV's. If God preserved His words exactly like the originals, then how do you know what the originals read like since we do not have them? The logical non-sequitur here is that God did not preserve the words of the originals in any one manuscript, set of manuscripts, text-type of manuscripts, or all of the manuscripts.

Now, before the KJVO's heads start exploding, I would suggest a correction on their part: Don't say that God preserved His words-- or even His Word-- in only the King James Version lest you call God a liar! To demand upon God to preserve the exact words of the originals-- in the mountains of manuscripts available-- in only one text-type or even the Textus Receptus, where the fact exists that no manuscript in existence reads exactly like another is making a mockery of God. God did not say that He would preserve His Word into any one Bible or Hebrew/Greek text or even any one manuscript. Since all manuscripts have errors, then to say that God must preserve His words exactly like the originals in any one manuscript, text-type, or the Textus Receptus is inconceivable-- God does not preserve errors, nor is He the God of error! Either God preserved the errors of the Bible text or God did no such acts of preservation on the transmission of the Bible text! In order for KJV-onlyists to keep their heresy from falling apart under its own inconsistencies, they have to resort to re-writing Bible doctrines to include 'providential preservation' where it is never taught from the Bible-- being, the idea that God is actively and divinely preserving the Bible text to read exactly like the originals in their very words. Even the doctrine of inspiration is being re-written by KJVO's to reflect their obstinate obsession with 'protecting' their KJV Bibles. This, I must say, is a departure from the Historic Christian Faith, and could be considered rank apostacy.

The reason why there is such a dogmatic stand by MV-preferred's is that the KJV-onlyists are attacking the very doctrines of inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility. The KJV-onlyist resorts to re-writing of precious Bible doctrines to fit their inconsistent KJV-only views. I cannot fathom a church that says it stands on the Word of God when it says it stands on the KJV of the Bible-- a version full of errors! Do we, the MV-preferred's, believe that our versions are error-free..... NO! So far as the English Bible we use has faithfully translated the Hebrew and Greek it can stand as being the very Word of God. Despite errors in the underlying texts, translational word choice errors, typographical errors, and printing errors, my NASB, NIV, NKJV, and even the KJV is the very Word of God! All of these English Translations are infallible since they faithfully translate from the text-- and we know that no Bible doctrine hinges on any variants in the Hebrew or Greek texts. "The grass withers, and the flower fades away, but the word of our God stands forever" (Isaiah 40:8, NASB)

[ October 18, 2002, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: LRL71 ]