• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

So what is 'preservation'?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Wally

Member
I will retranslate!
Check the views of the translation committee in regards to how they viewed the Originals, if they were seen as being Verbal Plenary inspired or not, and if they also held to all of the Fundamentals of the Faith!
Check both yes, and will have a reliable translation!
Oh, gotcha, you're talking in reference to my question about the varying English translation's reliability.

Okay, so let me see if I am understanding correctly. In finding God's preserved Word, I will need to:
1. Assume the Greek copies of the original texts are 'close enough' or learn Greek so I can verify this myself.
2. Assume the Greek copies of the original texts are 'close enough' or learn Greek so I can verify this myself and then locate writings from/about the English translators to determine the validity of their faithful translation.

If/when I have done one or both of those, I have then identified God's preserved Word?
 
Last edited:

Wally

Member

MartyF
I'm no sure why you will not ask a straight question here.

By what you are quoting, I can assume you mean that you are looking for scripture in regard to either; support of the KJV, dislike of the KJV, preservation of God's Word, or possibly what preservation looks like today.

Not sure if you noticed, but the very title of this topic thread IS a question itself. A fairly clear one at that. Maybe try answering it...?
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oh, gotcha, you're talking in reference to my question about the varying English translation's reliability.

Okay, so let me see if I am understanding correctly. In finding God's preserved Word, I will need to:
1. Assume the Greek copies of the original texts are 'close enough' or learn Greek so I can verify this myself.
2. Assume the Greek copies of the original texts are 'close enough' or learn Greek so I can verify this myself and then locate writings from/about the English translators to determine the validity of their faithful translation.

If/when I have done one or both of those, I have then identified God's preserved Word?
No, was aswereing how to know if your translation would be a reliable one!
 

Wally

Member
No, was aswereing how to know if your translation would be a reliable one!
That's what I said "Oh, gotcha, you're talking in reference to my question about the varying English translation's reliability."

Are you reading what I am replying with or...?
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
That's what I said "Oh, gotcha, you're talking in reference to my question about the varying English translation's reliability."

Are you reading what I am replying with or...?
Yes, but you seemed to be jumping from english translation to back to knowing which Greek text was correct!
 

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Pastor Glenn Conjurske, a defender of the KJV and a critic of modern versions but who was not KJV-only, wrote: “All these men have in fact repudiated their own doctrine of preservation from the first day that these King James Only doctrines existed. What they have really been contending for all along is the restoration of the word of God, though they have been so little engaged in thinking as to suppose that they were contending for its preservation” (Olde Paths, Sept., 1995, pp. 198-199).

Since KJV-only advocates in effect are often arguing for claimed perfect restoration or purification in 1611 or 1769, are they entitled to appeal to verses that they claim teach continual perfect preservation?

Conjurske asked: "If the supposed promises of God to preserve his word in perfection secure to us a perfect version in English, why did those same promises fail to secure any such perfect version before the year 1611 [or 1769]?" (Olde Paths, Sept., 1995, p. 193).
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I don’t normally interject into conversations, and have avoided this very ‘off topic’ discussion on this thread. However, I am intrigued enough by it that I would like some clarification, as long as it appears you all are going to continue it anyway.
I apologize if it is off topic. I thought it was squarely on topic. We are defining preservation, are we not? I am making the point that as believers and priests, we are responsible fo the human preservation of Scripture. I am also defining God's earthly (not the Heavenly) preservation as being providential and not miraculous.
You said “all of the miracles of the Bible were observable”. I don’t really understand that statement. There were many miracles described and I would take your word for it if your comment is entirely in relation to those, but there are also “many” miracles referenced without any specifics as to their observe-ability. On its face I would call your line of reasoning an ‘if/then’ fallacy but maybe you are setting this up for something more in depth…? Possibly waiting for that definition you have been asking for?
Let me elaborate, then. Miracles in the Bible were given usually for a sign, or in order to persuade those who observed. They were observable because someone always observed them, or otherwise how would we even know about them? The Greek word seimeion has the core meaning of "sign," and is usually used to indicate a miracle, and is even translated as "miracle" sometimes. "Signs" or miracles are to prove something. "And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen" (Mark 16:20).
Maybe if I bite you will be able to make your point: Most (including myself) would consider personal salvation a miracle. Using that as a reference, it isn’t observable by anything other than the results. That would seem to match a miracle of ‘preservation’…?
Good illustration. Salvation is certainly a miracle, wherein one is born again and changed in nature. However, it is not providential, though God's providence is always in action leading up to a person's salvation. You see, a miracle is an event (thus the term "observable"), but the providence of God is a process.

Consider Rom. 8:28--"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." The Greek verb "work" is what we call a present active indicative form. The verbal aspect (how the action takes place) of this form is "imperfective," meaning it represents a continuing process. God's providence is therefore not a single event, but a process.
 
Last edited:

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Pastor Glenn Conjurske, a defender of the KJV and a critic of modern versions but who was not KJV-only, wrote: “All these men have in fact repudiated their own doctrine of preservation from the first day that these King James Only doctrines existed. What they have really been contending for all along is the restoration of the word of God, though they have been so little engaged in thinking as to suppose that they were contending for its preservation” (Olde Paths, Sept., 1995, pp. 198-199).

Since KJV-only advocates in effect are often arguing for claimed perfect restoration or purification in 1611 or 1769, are they entitled to appeal to verses that they claim teach continual perfect preservation?

Conjurske asked: "If the supposed promises of God to preserve his word in perfection secure to us a perfect version in English, why did those same promises fail to secure any such perfect version before the year 1611 [or 1769]?" (Olde Paths, Sept., 1995, p. 193).
Were the Vulgate, Bishop, Geneva, Tyndale translation the word of God to us at all, or did God just decide to start 1611?
 

Wally

Member
Yes, but you seemed to be jumping from english translation to back to knowing which Greek text was correct!
I acknowledged what your reply was in relation to, THEN the rest of my comment was an attempt to clarify what your overall understanding of what God's preservation is. You can certainly refute any of what I said. I'm just trying to summarize what I believe you have been describing during our conversation into how I understand it.
 

MartyF

Well-Known Member
MartyF
I'm no sure why you will not ask a straight question here.

By what you are quoting, I can assume you mean that you are looking for scripture in regard to either; support of the KJV, dislike of the KJV, preservation of God's Word, or possibly what preservation looks like today.

Not sure if you noticed, but the very title of this topic thread IS a question itself. A fairly clear one at that. Maybe try answering it...?

I’m not dodging the question.

feel God's promise to preserve His Word looks like today...?

Your question has stated that God has promised to preserve his Word. “Word” means a lot of things in the Bible - it can refer to Jesus, God’s plans, etc. By knowing what verse you’re talking about when you refer to “God's promise to preserve His Word” I might actually be able to answer the question.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I acknowledged what your reply was in relation to, THEN the rest of my comment was an attempt to clarify what your overall understanding of what God's preservation is. You can certainly refute any of what I said. I'm just trying to summarize what I believe you have been describing during our conversation into how I understand it.
My understanding is that you can trust that the TR/MT/CT/Bzt Greek texts would all be essentially the same as the Originals would be to you to use for study and translation purposes!
 

Dave G

Well-Known Member
You can't have it both ways.
Respectfully, John, I can have it any way I am persuaded is the correct way, no disrespect intended.
How you read the Scriptures and what you believe about God's act of preserving His word for His people is entirely up to you.
Can I tell them, "Forget all the hard work of translation for many years, God will give you a translation by a miracle"?
No,
Tell them to pray and ask God's guidance on what manuscripts to use, and how to proceed with the work of translating.

If the work is of God, then you can be sure that He will show them and you.
There will be no mistaking what direction and how fast to do the work.
Which book by Waite? He's written a bunch of them.
Never mind, John.
There's plenty of information out there from both sides of the track.

I suggest reviewing what you are convinced is the truth.
Let's get practical. Let's say I am translating John's gospel into Labu, a PNG language with not a single verse of Scripture, but believers who want to help. It would be great if I didn't have to take ten years to translate the NT. How can I get a miracle and get that Bible to them right away?
First of all, what's the rush?
Are you concerned that God's elect will not have the Gospel preached to them?

They will.

Not one of Christ's precious sheep will be lost, and He is not willing that any of them perish, but that they all come to repentance.
He provides preachers and teachers for that very thing.

With that in mind, I suggest taking the time to do it right, and allow the Lord to guide each step of the process.
In addition, I would hope that you are doing this anyway...

For truly, with Him guiding things, nothing can go wrong.
This is not an answer. You are avoiding the question.
No, John, I'm not avoiding the question...
It seems that you just don't understand the answer.

I gave you the Scripture...God's works in His saints both to will, and to DO of His good pleasure.
If it is His pleasure for you to translate the Bible, then not only will He provide the means, He will provide the timing.
What, if I may ask, is unclear about that?

I don't see anything unclear about trusting God, by faith, to work through men to achieve His purposes.
 
Last edited:

Dave G

Well-Known Member
God working through His saints is what I call human preservation. God has committed the earthly preservation of Scripture into the hands of His saints, it is true. We are the priests of the church age, and in the Jewish economy God committed the keeping of the law into the hands of the priests of Israel. Likewise, we saints are to preserve the Word of God. We do that through Bible translation, reading, studying, teaching, memorizing, printing, etc.
I disagree, John.

Preservation is done by God, through His saints by them preserving copies of His words.
God has not committed the preservation of His words into the hands of men;
He uses men as an extension of His will, to do it.

To me, you are suggesting that God leaves that preservation up to us...
He does not.
He controls it, and believers are used by God as His servants.
Please give me an example from church history of miraculous preservation of the Scriptures (as opposed to providential preservation). Otherwise you are avoiding the question. If a miracle of preservation is observable, then someone observed it. Who? Jerome? No. Ulphilas? No. Erasmus? No. Luther? No, William Carey? No.

So who, and when?
Never mind, John.
It seems that you and I are on an entirely different thought process with this.
I think at this point you need to define "miracle." You appear to be equating "miracle" and "providence" as synonyms, and they most certainly are not.
To you perhaps, but again, I have to disagree.

"Providence" isn't something that God is detached from.
He provides things all the time by "miracle"...
Read the story of George Mueller.

God provides for His saints ( as promised in Matthew 6:24-34 ), everything pertaining to life and godliness ( 2 Peter 1:3 ).
That includes His precious words, and He is not dependent upon unbelievers and scholars to get the job done.

If you understand that God is "sovereign" in all things, then you should understand that He actually does according to His will in the armies of Heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth ( Daniel 4:35 ).
He is the one who is motivating His word to be published throughout the world, not men.

But there is also another influence out there who opposes all that is God, and he is plenty willing and able to trouble His people and to sow confusion among them.
Take "textual criticism" for example...
There are far too many organizations out there doing things their own way.

Do you really think God is behind all that translation work?
I don't.

But I do believe that despite the myriad of manuscripts, uncials, codexes, papyrii and other bits floating around out there, His word is among them.
I just happen to trust that I already have them in my hands, and that He has provided them for me.

That is part of what many call "KJVO" ( but not all of it, by a long shot ) is all about...
Not advocating a strict adherence to one old English translation that is hard for some people to read because of tradition...
But the belief that we as God's people actually have His words in the correct manuscripts and by His own hand and that until another, better translation from the right manuscripts actually comes along, we will stick with what we know are God's words in our own language.

We care about every word of God, and we see that much of today's translation work is not done by God's people, but by people who care more about money and not about every word ( to the point that they would tremble at it ).

Why the "trembling"?
Because they are God's words, not man's words.

I wish you well, sir, and I will respectfully withdraw myself from any further involvement in this thread.
It seems that we are both on opposite sides of the fence regarding what Preservation actually involves.



May God bless you greatly in your personal studies of His word and in your daily life.
 
Last edited:

Wally

Member
I’m not dodging the question.



Your question has stated that God has promised to preserve his Word. “Word” means a lot of things in the Bible - it can refer to Jesus, God’s plans, etc. By knowing what verse you’re talking about when you refer to “God's promise to preserve His Word” I might actually be able to answer the question.
The preservation I am talking about is a pretty basic concept.

If you are looking to refute the understanding that God HAS, in fact, preserved His Word in what we now call the Bible, then you can simply say that... 'God's preservation is more of a concept than actual words said or on paper' ...something like that.

Though, in general I am addressing those that believe God’s Words (instructions to mankind) are preserved in some form. But feel free to express your understanding however you want. I will, undoubtedly, have questions if you believe that preservation is exclusively “Jesus, God’s plans”, but whatever you believe it is, is what I am looking for. I have not stated a position, therefore there is no need to defend one..yet.
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Respectfully, John, I can have it any way I am persuaded is the correct way.
How you read the Scriptures and what you believe about God's act of preserving His word for His people is entirely up to you.
I think you missed my point, which was that preservation is either miraculous or providential. They are not synonyms, but you seem to want them to be.

No,
Tell them to pray and ask God's guidance on what manuscripts to use, and how to proceed with the work of translating.
So in other words, I can't tell them how to get a miracle for the translation of Scriptures. This fits with how the KJV was translated--no miracles, but plenty of hard work.

Never mind, John.
There's plenty of information out there from both sides of the track.
Your response about Waite was for when I asked for documentation of miraculous preservation. You gave me none, so I conclude that you have no examples of miraculous preservation. I'm sure you would have trotted one out if you did. :)

I suggest reviewing what you are convinced is the truth.
I often do. I love the Word of God above all books, and study Bibliology above all subjects. I have about 100 books on the subject.

First of all, what's the rush?
Not one of Christ's sheep will be lost, and He is not willing that any of them perish, but that they all come to repentance.
Forgive me, but "What's the rush" is disobedience to the Great Commission. We are to take the Gospel to everyone on earth. Spurgeon got this. Adoniram Judson got this, and gave his life for the Burmese, protecting his translation of the Holy Bible with his own body while he lay in prison. William Carey labored tirelessly to translate the Bible into over 40 Indian languages. All of them believed in the sovereignty of God--but also in obedience to the Great Commission.

With that in mind, I suggest taking the time to do it right, and allow the Lord to guide each step of the process. With Him guiding things, nothing can go wrong.
This describes providence, but not miracle.

No, John, I'm not avoiding the question...
It seems that you just don't understand the answer.
I asked for an example of a miracle in the preservation of Scripture. You gave none. I misunderstood nothing.
I gave you the Scripture...God's works in His saints both to will, and to DO of His good pleasure.
If it is His pleasure for you to translate the Bible, then not only will He provide the means, He will provide the timing.
What, if I may ask, is unclear about that?:)
Actually, it was God's will for me to translate the Scripture, and with my Japanese partner (now in Heaven) I took 18 years of my life to do so. The NT will be printed this summer. It will be the first translation into modern Japanese of the TR, and the only such translation now available in Japanese. Thus, I have given many years literally 1000's of hours of my life to the human preservation of Scripture, guided providentially (but not miraculously) by the blessed Holy Spirit.

If you are an advocate of the TR, and or the KJV, it seems to me that you should have a deep desire to get the Word of God into every language on earth.
 

Dave G

Well-Known Member
I don’t normally interject into conversations, and have avoided this very ‘off topic’ discussion on this thread. However, I am intrigued enough by it that I would like some clarification, as long as it appears you all are going to continue it anyway.
My apologies, Wally.
I will remove myself from this thread.

My only purpose for being here was as stated in my original post, not to hijack it.

I wish you well, sir.
 

Wally

Member
My understanding is that you can trust that the TR/MT/CT/Bzt Greek texts would all be essentially the same as the Originals would be to you to use for study and translation purposes!
Again, I am trying to summarize what God's preserved Word is, to you, based on what you are saying...since you don't seem to want to define it yourself, for some reason.

So God's Word is preserved in any/all of the Greek manuscripts. How a person gets His Word out of it (learning Greek/Hebrew, finding a 'trusted' English translation, etc.) is up to the individual. Is that correct?
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Wow, okay. So God's Word is whatever I say it is...?
I would tend to agree with the translators of the KJV::
'.....We do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession......containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.'
['From the Translators to the Reader.' Italics in the original]
 

Wally

Member
My apologies, Wally.
I will remove myself from this thread.

My only purpose for being here was as stated in my original post, not to hijack it.

I wish you well, sir.
No problem Dave. It is apparent that John isn't particularly interested in anything other than what he would prefer to address. I suppose a live topic is easier to have side conversation in than an old topic or creating a new one.
 

Wally

Member
I would tend to agree with the translators of the KJV::
'.....We do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession......containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.'
['From the Translators to the Reader.' Italics in the original]
So is it your contention that God has preserved His Word in 'All' English translations?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top