"...it is written" supports preservation of Scripture

i havta agee.

it is HOW preservation takes place that's in question. some KJBOs believe something happened big time in 1611, when the last impurities n uncertainties were finally removed. others think that, well, it took a few more years (till about 1769, if i recall) to weed out "printers' errors." yet others say that ALL the KJB revisions r equally pure n preserved.

many KJBOs resent it that God has preserved His Word forever in heaven--somehow, that's NOT practical to their minds, n they complain "of what USE is that?" well, God said it, n i believe it--2Tim 3:16-17.

as to HOW He continues to preserve His Word on earth, He's certainly left the evidence on pottery, vellum, papyri, paper, n nowadays on hard drives. are they identical? i'd say git real. are there real differences between them? hmm, when has it ever been otherwise! why? i dunno--altho it's possible to make some guesses (Dt 29:29 n such passages come to mind).

but are they--all the words--perfectly preserved to this day--u bet. we just need to do a little homework on the 2% or so of variants.

 

When you look at "what is written" in teh NT citations, and compare them with the OT sources, it shows that the KJOnly position is inadequate. The quotes of the OT are not identical in the NT citation, thus showing that "it is written" does not require the exact wording to be considered authoritative and the word of God.

The KJV passages very often do not quote the OT source word for word. It takes the liberty of "changing" the words, something that is anathema to a KJonly person. However, it is the reality of the text. Notice how the NT did not consider their lack of a perfectly preserved text to be a problem for them. They readily quoted texts that weren't perfectly preserved and quoted them as teh Word of God and quoted them authoritatively.

So, Bob, you bring up a good point ... one that shows yet another inadequacy of the KJOnly position.

 

Pastor Larry, Will you give permission to reprint this post? It answers almost every KJVO objection when discussing "final authority".

 

Surely you don't mean to suggest that the human authors of the NT would have endorsed dynamic equivalence in translation, do you?

 

So which text is it and how do we know which one? Forever Settled offers a solution. Do you disagree? If so, what text do you think is the solution?

 

</font>[/QUOTE]You've answered the "Which text?" question but not the "How do we know which?" part. Are you saying the texts you name are identical to that which is settled in heaven?

I emphasis the how question because I wonder if your rational basis for choosing them is because they happen to be the texts that support your version of choice, not because you think they're intrinsically stronger texts.

I don't think we can say what God is or is not going to do unless He specifically tells us. This is opinion. You may have an argument for your opinion, but it's analogical, not exegetical.

Would you also say that "If God wants us to obey His word, he's going to make the meaning plain. He's not going to say, 'The meaning is out there somewhere. Now go find it' "? Why not choose to believe that God makes the meaning of His Word just as plain as the text?

 

This is exactly what I would say. This is the traditional orthodox position but it differs significantly from the KJVOnly position espoused by most here. The KJVOnlies here decry the NKJV because the wording is different. However it was translated from the text as the KJV.

The difference here would lie in teh criteria from determining a text compiled of reliable manuscripts.

[/qb]Because their quotations differ from the MT in some places, showing that the text they were using was different than the Hebrew text. The MT has perhaps greater difficulties in some respects than the NT does. The difference is that no one knows Hebrew and so it is hard to carry on a conversation about it.

I think this is a non sequitur. I could more easily argue that their authoritative quotation shows that perfect preservation is not necessary to have God's word. For quoting a "Perfectly preserved text," there are a lot of variations.

I don't know of anyone here who doubts providential preservation. I certainly don't. What we disagree with is miraculous preservation, which would be necessary to have a perfect preservation. The traditional orthodox position has been providential preservation, not miraculous preservation.

 

This is a false dichotomy. If God gave His Word originally in the language of the people, it is no great leap to assert that He did not intend for grammar and diction to be a barrier for getting to know Him.

If I were trying to get to know someone by written correspondance, it would be critical that we share a common vernacular.

[ January 23, 2003, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: Scotty aka Scott J ]

 

I am not trying to get to know God by written correspondance. I want a personal relationship with Him. I want to be on speaking terms with God.</font>[/QUOTE] Did you really miss the gist of what I wrote this badly or are you being obtuse? You posted this comment then proceeded to quote Bible verses as proof. That shows a recognition that God is not speaking to you verbally. God speaks to us through the scriptures as illuminated by the Holy Spirit. But this illumination has nothing at all with the mechanics of language.

Is this an answer to something you construed from my post? I don't have any objection to this statement.

God's answer may lead us to the Word of God??? I would say that any answer we might think God will's for us should be subject to scripture. A Spirit led Christian will never trust feelings or intuition over scripture.

Forgive me if I have misunderstood the implications of your post but you seem to be saying that you are guided by something that supercedes or at least precedes scripture.

 

This answer is not widely accepted but remains the answer nonetheless...by faith.
[comparison of revision frequencies edited out for space] . . . I find it very obvious which text to rely on. </font>[/QUOTE]So is longevity/stability the sole criterion for establishing the best original language texts of scripture in one's belief system?.

We could debate your exegesis, but that would open up an unnecessary can of worms.

Regardless, the Scripture you quote does not substantiate a dichotomy you propose between the necessity of certainty in the text and the necessity of obscurity in at the interpretation stage.

Do I recall correctly that you have also suggested in the past that obscurity in translation should not be considered an obstacle to using old translations? That argument would seem to fit with what you're suggesting here.

I agree with you that it will always be the case that not all will understand. That doesn't preclude our responsibility to make it as easy as possible for unbelievers to grasp the message of the gospel. In fact, it seems to me that those passages you cite point to difficulty on the part of unbelievers, not believers. I'm not sure I can agree with you that God is trying to hide truth from His people.

 

The importance of "it is written" was to show the authority of God's word. When Satan tempted Christ, Christ was not arguing for the preservation of Scripture by his answers. He was demonstrating the authority of Scripture.

 

it is written;what is written?
I'm in agreement with preservation but apparently becoming a minority.
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.

The above promise from the King James Bible tells us that God intends to preserve His WORDS forever. Notice how the new versions destroy this promise by making you think the context is God's PEOPLE rather than His WORDS:

NIV....... you will keep us safe

NASB... Thou wilt preserve him

NRSV... You, O Lord, will protect us

REB...... you are our protector

LB......... you will forever preserve your own

NAB...... You, O Lord, will keep us

 

Steve, This is because the KJV translation is a little ambiguous. The Hebrew gender agreement requires that the preservation refer to the righteous man, not the words of verse 6.

But even if you don't accept my explaination, just read the KJV in context. The subject of the Psalm is the peril and preservation of the godly man, not the words of God.