Robycop I have scriprtural [sic] support that God promised to preserve His Word.
I'm not
robycop3, but I have never said otherwise. In fact, I have stated the same thing. I can speak for no other in this, however. But, as
robycop3 has posted, this was not promised to be in the English language or the
KJV (or in any other particular language or version), anywhere in Scripture. Why would you (and I'm speaking of the general KJVO proponent, if not you specifically) insist on making claims about the
KJV which
no version of Scripture,
KJV (any flavor) or other version, makes for itself, and even the translators of the Bible version generally known as the
KJV (whom I'm certain were more sure of what they were undertaking than you or I could ever possibly be 400 years after the fact) ever made?
FTR, there are some other groups that proclaim (or have proclaimed) the same effective teaching as the "extreme KJVO" teaching as well, that 'ONLY' one version is the completely accurate transmission (and translation) of Scripture. Those would include the
Roman Catholic church - first with the
VUL and later the
D-R; the
LDS 'church' with the
JST; and the '
Watchtower' with the
NWT.
Frankly, as a Baptist, I am not wanting to particularly be grouped with Roman Catholics, Mormons, and Jehovah Witnesses, as to the principles I follow, but maybe that is just me.
If you say only the originals then God lied.
I never said any such thing. I can speak for no other.
What I have said and can say is that the "inspiration" of Scripture ('theopneustos' - "God-breathed-out") which is reserved for the authors of Scripture, is not the same thing as the "preservation" of Scripture. For example, "the Law" (or Torah) was 'God-breathed-out' to two individuals, Moses and Joshua, according to Scripture. They and they alone, were the recipients and transmitters of this 'inspiration' from God.
Ezra by contrast, and those with whom he was associated, were directly involved in the preservation (and explanation) of the Torah, but he was in no manner involved in the
giving of that Torah, although we believe he was, in fact, the recipient and transmitter of other portions of Scripture, hence he was directly 'inspired' by the Holy Spirit, in those instances.
Can you not see this difference, if you leave off the 'version blinders' here?
He did not preserve His Word in Roman Catholic edited manuscripts.Amen to that.
This is pure '
double-speak',
from you.
Firstly, only
you are the one who has implied that Dr. John Wycliffe used the
TR, when in fact, Dr. Wycliffe, John Purvey and Nicholas de Hereford and Co. used 'only' the
VUL for their translations into English. The
VUL was not simply one of some allegedly "Roman Catholic
edited manuscripts" but is 100% entirely "Roman Catholic" in origin, production and preservation,
en toto.
Secondly, there are several places where Desiderius Erasmus used translated readings from the
VUL in his Greek text, over and above those found in the Greek MSS he had access to, and I'm not simply referring to the last few verses of Revelation, where his single manuscript of that book was damaged, at the end, beyond recognition. This has been clearly shown in more places than one, although not particularly in this thread, I do not believe. Have you ever heard of the so-called "Johnannine Comma"? Uh- you know, the verse(s) that is most frequently argued that was somehow kept accurately preserved in those faulty "Roman Catholic edited manuscripts" but was somehow 'lost' in the pure 'Antiochian' ones? Sorry! I simply ain't buyin'
that argument, for a second!
You simply don't get to argue it both ways, here.
Thirdly, the translators of the
KJV did not hold the same view you do, of the work of Jerome, for they cite him approvingly, in some instances. (You really should actually read what they have said, sometime, rather than simply what some KJVO advocate says. You can find this on-line easily, as well, and I will even help you out by pointing out that Jerome and "S. Hierome" are one and the same individual.
)
Fourthly, You also might wanna' check sometime, on how many times the
KJV actually incorporates a rendering as found in the
D-R, instead of those found in the earlier English versions from the
TYN and
MCB, thru the
GEN and
BIS. In addition, you might actually check the 'instructions' and 'guidelines' given the KJV translators, as well. (FTR, the 'Whitchurch' is a.k.a. the Great Bible, which is, incidentally, the first 'authorized' version.)
HERE ARE SOME RELEVANT BIBLE VERSES:
“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.” (Deuteronomy 4:2)
“Every word of God is pure… (6) Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” (Proverbs 30:5 a., 6)
“(18) For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: (19) And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” (Revelation 22:18, 19)
Yes, these same verses are contained in both my preferred Bibles as well.
They happen to be a particular edition of the
KJV and a particular edition of the
NKJV. Incidentally, I have several other complete Bibles, all of which contain these same verses, too.
((Ed. Comment to the preceding three Bible passages: Woe to those so-called “Bible scholars” who have “cut and pasted”, added to, and “diminished aught” from God’s Holy Word!))
Something you are never willing to ascribe to the
KJV and
TR, obviously. You might actually check on how many times the
KJV and the
TR editors have actually edited their work(s), rather than merely spout off some 'party line' sometime.
Incidentally, in virtually every instance, of which I am aware, the 'edited' edition is/was an improvement over what preceded it, especially in the emendations of Drs. Blaney and Paris, who BTW, did far more than merely make some 'updated spelling' despite what is often written about these two individuals, by the KJVO crowd.
HERE ARE SOME RELEVANT QUOTATIONS:
“The changes, additions and omissions discovered in the new [Bible] versions have [Ed. Note: adversely] affected the health of the body of Christ and taken it step by step away from the image of God.”
G.A. [Gail] Riplinger (New Age Bible Versions; 1993; Page 5)
[SIGH!}
Surely you can find some better source that that of Dr. Gail A. Riplinger, in order to 'prove' your point.
Ed
