Now it's the 1769 that God preserved

Dear forever settled in heaven,

I don't know if you've actually read that now closed thread, but if so, you'll see I didn't use the argument you suggested:

Indeed, I was the one who argued against it. If you read my posts you'll see this is true. And nor did I say there was no preserved Bible before the 17th century. Many with similar opinions to yourself then started using the "what's different cannot be the same" argument against the Old Latin Bibles, however. So if you object to that kind of reasoning, please argue against the anti-AV brigade. Not me.

Actually, it's a bit of a shame the old thread got closed - we were on to an interesting discussion about whether the different editions of the AV proved it couldn't be inerrant. I argue that God has perfectly preserved his word in the AV. That there were printing errors in the 1611, nobody doubts; just as nobody doubts there were copying errors in the "original language manuscripts". Our only difference is whether God could have worked in spite of these, and preserved a purified, perfect Bible. As I showed, even the mistakes that appeared in the 1611 did not give incorrect information. But even if you could find some that did, it would prove nothing. I say, "God can preserve his word". It does not depend on unpreserved readings, but on preserved readings. Related to this is the question of the different editions. Unfortunately, I do not have every change ever made and its date laid out before me. However, I do know that the more important corrections were made by some of the translators themselves - they were not corrections of the translation, but of the faulty printing. And I think you'll find that the vast majority of the later editions were just spelling or font changes.

It was also interesting to read Pasor Larry's reply, about different renderings of a verse in Jeremiah. That was clever. But had he quoted the entire verse, we would have seen that, far from contradicting one another, the Oxford and Cambridge editions actually agree! (even though they use different words). So who is really using the "what's different cannot be the same" argument??? You have been able to show NOTHING to suggest the AV cannot be innerrant.

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

 

Actually Bartholomew, with all due respect, it appears as if you're making FSIH's point rather nicely

 

Boy, now I am really confused. You are arguing that it has been perfectly preserved but that it still has errors. Have you not changed the meaning of "perfect" when you admit that "perfection" can have errors? And if the AV can be perfect and have errors, why cannot modern versions be perfect and have errors in them? It appears that you are admitting we are right and redefining "perfect preservation" to mean something other than what it means.

So now errors did appear in the translation and they were corrected by the translators. So if the AV1611 was perfect, in what year did the translators make these "more important corrections"? And since when is an error in printing not an error? We argue that the biblical doctrine of inspiration teaches that God inspired his word in the original manuscripts so that there were absolutely no errors whatsoever, not even scribal errors. Now you change the doctrine of inerrancy and inspiration to mean that errors could occur in an perfectly preserved document so long as the translators made the "more important corrections" (to a perfect document) and the printer's errors (in a perfect document) were corrected later.

This is what I mean when I say that the doctrine of inspiration has been made to stand on its head.

Again very novel ... he and you mean the same thing?? Not in any language that I know about. There is a second person and a third person reference for a reason ... to distinguish between separate people. Consider the post written by Tom. YOu are not the same as he is. There is a difference and the Hebrew text clearly has a 2nd person plural form. "He" is not what Jeremiah wrote.

And no matter how much of the context you include, they are not saying the same thing.