So what is 'preservation'?

[Wally]

It seems like anti-KJVO is pervasive on this board. I'm not condemning any one on either side as anti-KJVO can have as many flavors as KJVO. Though it does make me wonder what, specifically those who do stand against it, feel God's promise to preserve His Word looks like today...? You know, where is it, what is it, sort of thing.

Thanks!

 

[John of Japan]

Those who oppose any doctrine of the preservation of Scripture fail to realize that there is a general doctrine of preservation, which teaches that if God created it He preserves it. That should be extended to the Scriptures, which are also a creation of God's. However, contra the common KJVO view that the KJV is perfect is the fact that theologically, preservation occurs through God's providence, not through a miracle.

Here are some theological quotes on general preservation.

“By preservation we mean that God, by a continuous agency, maintains in existence all the things which He has made, together with all their properties and powers. In preservation we have, therefore, the first manifestation of God’s sovereign rule. Note what this definition implies: it implies that preservation is to be distinguished from the act of creation, for that can only be preserved which is already in existence; that the objective creation is not self-existent and self-sustaining; and that preservation is not merely a refraining from destroying that which has been created. Let us note the proof for this view of preservation.” Henry Thiessen, Lectures on Systematic Theology, p. 174. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co., 1949)

“The providence of God means the continuing action of God in preserving his creation and guiding it toward his intended purposes” (Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), 412.

“Preservation is that continuous agency of God by which he maintains in existence the things he has created, together with the properties and powers with which he has endowed them. As the doctrine of creation is our attempt to explain the existence of the universe, so the doctrine of preservation is our attempt to explain its continuance” A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology. Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1907, pp. 410-411. See p. 410-420.

 

[Wally]

Those who oppose any doctrine of the preservation of Scripture fail to realize that there is a general doctrine of preservation, which teaches that if God created it He preserves it. That should be extended to the Scriptures, which are also a creation of God's. However, contra the common KJVO view that the KJV is perfect is the fact that theologically, preservation occurs through God's providence, not through a miracle.

Here are some theological quotes on general preservation.

“By preservation we mean that God, by a continuous agency, maintains in existence all the things which He has made, together with all their properties and powers. In preservation we have, therefore, the first manifestation of God’s sovereign rule. Note what this definition implies: it implies that preservation is to be distinguished from the act of creation, for that can only be preserved which is already in existence; that the objective creation is not self-existent and self-sustaining; and that preservation is not merely a refraining from destroying that which has been created. Let us note the proof for this view of preservation.” Henry Thiessen, Lectures on Systematic Theology, p. 174. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co., 1949)

“The providence of God means the continuing action of God in preserving his creation and guiding it toward his intended purposes” (Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), 412.

“Preservation is that continuous agency of God by which he maintains in existence the things he has created, together with the properties and powers with which he has endowed them. As the doctrine of creation is our attempt to explain the existence of the universe, so the doctrine of preservation is our attempt to explain its continuance” A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology. Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1907, pp. 410-411. See p. 410-420.

Okay, so this kind of preservation seems to be indicating that it still exists (has been preserved), but not that it is necessarily available to anyone. Am I reading that correctly?

 

[John of Japan]

Okay, so this kind of preservation seems to be indicating that it still exists (has been preserved), but not that it is necessarily available to anyone. Am I reading that correctly?

I suppose you could put it that way. My take is that preservation does not guarantee perfection. In the area of physics, preservation includes the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which says that the universe is running down. It is not perfect, but it is preserved.

So, that explains why the manuscripts (mss) of the Bible differ. God has preserved the Bible, but not through a miracle but through providence. A miracle would mean perfection, but the Bible itself never guarantees that it would be preserved perfectly except in Heaven (Ps. 119:89).

 

[Dave G]

It seems like anti-KJVO is pervasive on this board. I'm not condemning any one on either side as anti-KJVO can have as many flavors as KJVO. Though it does make me wonder what, specifically those who do stand against it, feel God's promise to preserve His Word looks like today...? You know, where is it, what is it, sort of thing.

Thanks!

People here would call me "KJVO / KJVP", but unlike what John has stated above, I hold that Preservation is God preserving His every word for His children through the centuries, so that they actually have in their hands that which our Lord has provided ( along with His Spirit ) to comfort and educate themselves until His return:

" For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope." ( Romans 15:4 ).

Most here differ with me over what that looks like, Wally.
For example, I also believe the AV to not be a perfect translation...

But to me, it's a good sight better than the vast majority of those done in English today.
What's more, I tend to go past much of what many "KJVO's" hold to, and base my trust on the Textus Receptus as the preserved word of God in Greek, as well as the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text as the preserved word of God in Hebrew.

That said, I'm only making a post here to answer the title of your article, but not necessarily your quote...and to show you how some of us that are labeled as "KJVO" differ with the majority of professing Christians ( and even other "KJVO's" ) when it comes to what we believe Preservation to consist of.

However, you asked for the non-"KJVO" opinion and not mine, so I'll bow out and reserve any further replies.



May God bless you in many ways, sir.

 

[Logos1560]

The exact, specific words spoken by Paul and other apostles by means of the Holy Spirit and later written referred to those words that were written in the original languages (1 Cor. 2:13, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:16, 2 Pet. 3:2, John 17:8, Luke 18:31, Heb. 1:1-2). The Lord Jesus Christ directly referred to “the things that are written by the prophets” (Luke 18:31), and the actual words directly written by the prophets themselves would have been in the original language in which God gave them by inspiration to the prophets. The oracles of God [the Old Testament Scriptures] given to the prophets were committed unto the Jews in the Jews‘ language (Rom. 3:2, Matt. 5:17-18, Luke 16:17). The specific features “jot“ and “tittle“ at Matthew 5:18 and the “tittle” at Luke 16:17 would indicate the particular original language words of the Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets. The actual, specific, exact words which the LORD of hosts sent in His Spirit by the prophets would be in the original language in which God gave them (Zech. 7:12). Would not the actual words written by the prophet be in the same language in which he originally wrote them (Matt. 2:5, Luke 18:31)? Would not the words spoken by the LORD by the prophets be in the language in which God gave them (2 Kings 21:10, 2 Kings 24:2)? It would be sound to conclude that the actual words of the prophets themselves would be in the original language in which they were given (Acts 15:15). The scriptures of the prophets (Rom. 15:26) would be in the language in which they were given to them. A writing from Elijah the prophet would be written in the language in which Elijah wrote it (2 Chron. 21:12). The actual words of Haggai the prophet would be in the language in which he spoke or wrote them (Haggai 1:12). The scroll of the LORD to be sought and read at the time that Isaiah the prophet wrote would have been a scroll written in Hebrew (Isa. 34:16). The apostle John referred to his own actual words he himself was writing in the language in which he wrote them (1 John 2:12-14). “Moses wrote all the words of the LORD” (Exod. 24:4). The Lord Jesus Christ stated: “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5:46-47). In another apparent reference to the writings of Moses, Jesus asked the Pharisees concerning whether they had not read them (Matt. 19:4, 7-8). The actual writings of Moses referred to by Jesus would have to be in the original language in which Moses directly wrote them. The word of the LORD by the hand of Moses (2 Chron. 35:6, Num. 4:45) would be in the original language in which Moses spoke or wrote it. The LORD commanded by the hand of Moses (Lev. 8:36, Num. 4:37, Num. 15:23, Num. 27:23), and the LORD had spoken by the hand of Moses (Lev. 10:11). When later Jewish scribes made a copy of the writings of Moses, they copied his same words in the same language in which Moses had originally wrote them.

Do these Scripture passages teach or at least clearly infer that the doctrine of preservation would concern the actual specific original-language words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles?

A sound understanding of some additional Bible truths would affirm or demonstrate that Bible preservation would have to concern the Scriptures in the original languages. The scriptural truths (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) that warn against adding to and taking away from the Scriptures would clearly and directly relate to the doctrine of preservation and to the making of copies of the original-language Scriptures. Concerning which specific words did God directly state these warnings and instructions? These commands and instructions must embrace the Scriptures in the original languages since the very nature of translation requires that words may have to be added or omitted to make it understandable in another language. Thus, these verses were important instructions and warnings given particularly and directly concerning the Scriptures in the original languages. These verses could also be understood to suggest that God gave to men an important role or responsibility in preservation of the Scriptures on earth. These commands or instructions would indicate the need and responsibility for the making of exact, accurate copies of the Scriptures in the original languages. These commands or instructions also demonstrate that the source being copied was the standard and authority for evaluating the copy made from it. These commands would also suggest that the copies of Scripture were not given or made by the means or process of a miracle of inspiration.

 

[Wally]

I suppose you could put it that way. My take is that preservation does not guarantee perfection. In the area of physics, preservation includes the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which says that the universe is running down. It is not perfect, but it is preserved.

So, that explains why the manuscripts (mss) of the Bible differ. God has preserved the Bible, but not through a miracle but through providence. A miracle would mean perfection, but the Bible itself never guarantees that it would be preserved perfectly except in Heaven (Ps. 119:89).

Interesting, okay. Though, I would tend to blame the law of thermodynamics on the fall. Which brings up the point of disagreements... What do you base ‘doctrine’ on? How do you determine what is truth?

 

[Wally]

The exact, specific words spoken by Paul and other apostles by means of the Holy Spirit and later written referred to those words that were written in the original languages (1 Cor. 2:13, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:16, 2 Pet. 3:2, John 17:8, Luke 18:31, Heb. 1:1-2). The Lord Jesus Christ directly referred to “the things that are written by the prophets” (Luke 18:31), and the actual words directly written by the prophets themselves would have been in the original language in which God gave them by inspiration to the prophets. The oracles of God [the Old Testament Scriptures] given to the prophets were committed unto the Jews in the Jews‘ language (Rom. 3:2, Matt. 5:17-18, Luke 16:17). The specific features “jot“ and “tittle“ at Matthew 5:18 and the “tittle” at Luke 16:17 would indicate the particular original language words of the Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets. The actual, specific, exact words which the LORD of hosts sent in His Spirit by the prophets would be in the original language in which God gave them (Zech. 7:12). Would not the actual words written by the prophet be in the same language in which he originally wrote them (Matt. 2:5, Luke 18:31)? Would not the words spoken by the LORD by the prophets be in the language in which God gave them (2 Kings 21:10, 2 Kings 24:2)? It would be sound to conclude that the actual words of the prophets themselves would be in the original language in which they were given (Acts 15:15). The scriptures of the prophets (Rom. 15:26) would be in the language in which they were given to them. A writing from Elijah the prophet would be written in the language in which Elijah wrote it (2 Chron. 21:12). The actual words of Haggai the prophet would be in the language in which he spoke or wrote them (Haggai 1:12). The scroll of the LORD to be sought and read at the time that Isaiah the prophet wrote would have been a scroll written in Hebrew (Isa. 34:16). The apostle John referred to his own actual words he himself was writing in the language in which he wrote them (1 John 2:12-14). “Moses wrote all the words of the LORD” (Exod. 24:4). The Lord Jesus Christ stated: “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5:46-47). In another apparent reference to the writings of Moses, Jesus asked the Pharisees concerning whether they had not read them (Matt. 19:4, 7-8). The actual writings of Moses referred to by Jesus would have to be in the original language in which Moses directly wrote them. The word of the LORD by the hand of Moses (2 Chron. 35:6, Num. 4:45) would be in the original language in which Moses spoke or wrote it. The LORD commanded by the hand of Moses (Lev. 8:36, Num. 4:37, Num. 15:23, Num. 27:23), and the LORD had spoken by the hand of Moses (Lev. 10:11). When later Jewish scribes made a copy of the writings of Moses, they copied his same words in the same language in which Moses had originally wrote them.

Do these Scripture passages teach or at least clearly infer that the doctrine of preservation would concern the actual specific original-language words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles?

A sound understanding of some additional Bible truths would affirm or demonstrate that Bible preservation would have to concern the Scriptures in the original languages. The scriptural truths (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) that warn against adding to and taking away from the Scriptures would clearly and directly relate to the doctrine of preservation and to the making of copies of the original-language Scriptures. Concerning which specific words did God directly state these warnings and instructions? These commands and instructions must embrace the Scriptures in the original languages since the very nature of translation requires that words may have to be added or omitted to make it understandable in another language. Thus, these verses were important instructions and warnings given particularly and directly concerning the Scriptures in the original languages. These verses could also be understood to suggest that God gave to men an important role or responsibility in preservation of the Scriptures on earth. These commands or instructions would indicate the need and responsibility for the making of exact, accurate copies of the Scriptures in the original languages. These commands or instructions also demonstrate that the source being copied was the standard and authority for evaluating the copy made from it. These commands would also suggest that the copies of Scripture were not given or made by the means or process of a miracle of inspiration.

Okay, there's a lot to that, but I think your general point is that God's Word in the 'original' language is the only 'preserved' Word. Can you tell me where I would find that?

 

[Revmitchell]

It seems like anti-KJVO is pervasive on this board. I'm not condemning any one on either side as anti-KJVO can have as many flavors as KJVO. Though it does make me wonder what, specifically those who do stand against it, feel God's promise to preserve His Word looks like today...? You know, where is it, what is it, sort of thing.

Thanks!

Chapter and verse of scripture that says the word of God is only preserved in the KJV.

 

[Wally]

People here would call me "KJVO / KJVP", but unlike what John has stated above, I hold that Preservation is God preserving His every word for His children through the centuries, so that they actually have in their hands that which our Lord has provided ( along with His Spirit ) to comfort and educate themselves until His return:

" For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope." ( Romans 15:4 ).

Most here differ with me over what that looks like, Wally.
For example, I also believe the AV to not be a perfect translation...

But to me, it's a good sight better than the vast majority of those done in English today.
What's more, I tend to go past much of what many "KJVO's" hold to, and base my trust on the Textus Receptus as the preserved word of God in Greek, as well as the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text as the preserved word of God in Hebrew.

That said, I'm only making a post here to answer the title of your article, but not necessarily your quote...and to show you how some of us that are labeled as "KJVO" differ with the majority of professing Christians ( and even other "KJVO's" ) when it comes to what we believe Preservation to consist of.

However, you asked for the non-"KJVO" opinion and not mine, so I'll bow out and reserve any further replies.



May God bless you in many ways, sir.

So you prefer the AV in the English language but believe that God 'preserved' His Word in the Textus Receptus and Ben Chayyim. Curious, do you speak/read ancient Greek/Hebrew or do you rely on AV to come 'close enough' for your studies...or how do you reconcile differences in texts, etc.?

 

[Wally]

Chapter and verse of scripture that says the word of God is only preserved in the KJV.

I think you missed the point of the exercise...but thanks for replying anyway.

 

[Revmitchell]

I think you missed the point of the exercise...but thanks for replying anyway.

Why don't you clarify it for someone stupid like me please.

 

[Wally]

Why don't you clarify it for someone stupid like me please.

It seems you quoted it in your reply. I can highlight the primary point but I think that's probably the best I can do...

It seems like anti-KJVO is pervasive on this board. I'm not condemning any one on either side as anti-KJVO can have as many flavors as KJVO. Though it does make me wonder what, specifically those who do stand against it, feel God's promise to preserve His Word looks like today...? You know, where is it, what is it, sort of thing.

 

[Revmitchell]

It seems you quoted it in your reply. I can highlight the primary point but I think that's probably the best I can do...

It seems like anti-KJVO is pervasive on this board. I'm not condemning any one on either side as anti-KJVO can have as many flavors as KJVO. Though it does make me wonder what, specifically those who do stand against it, feel God's promise to preserve His Word looks like today...? You know, where is it, what is it, sort of thing.

Sigh, you are the one who asked the question in light of being "anti-KJVO". Honestly the question could have been asked without that context. Since you asked it within that context I asked my question. It seems after all I completely understood your original intent. My question stands. If you cannot answer it then I understand.

 

[Dave G]

So you prefer the AV in the English language but believe that God 'preserved' His Word in the Textus Receptus and Ben Chayyim. Curious, do you speak/read ancient Greek/Hebrew or do you rely on AV to come 'close enough' for your studies...or how do you reconcile differences in texts, etc.?

No, I do not speak or read ancient Greek and Hebrew, and I have never felt the need to learn them;
I trust that the Lord has used certain men ( men who hazarded and even gave their lives ) to do it for me.
I've also done the research and have arrived at a position most would call, "Preservation by faith".

I read the Scriptures and I understand that God has promised to preserve His words ( Psalms 12:6-7, Psalms 19:7-8, Proverbs 30:5 ) and that they are valuable...
For by every word of God shall we as believers, live ( Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4 ).
I believe that if it is that important for me to live by them, then it is also that important for Him to provide me with them.
I believe that He has done that for me.

I figure that the AV comes as close as possible to being the perfect word of God in my own native tongue, despite what I see as the occasional liberties with italics and what I also see as minute inconsistencies in translation.
I accept, by faith, that the two oldest Greek manuscripts, found in the possession of the Roman Catholic Church, are not viable witnesses due to their being in disagreement with each other in over 2,000 places.
In other words, I do not accept today's scholars and their reliance on what amounts to a collated Greek text that cannot be trusted, but on what I believe the Lord has preserved:

The "Textus Receptus" and the Ben Chayyim.
That is what I am convinced of, and this has not been arrived at lightly.

How I reconcile differing textual variants is not important to me, as I believe that I have what I need right in my hands, provided there by the Lord.
Other than an update of the AV to account for the change in how we use English words today versus 400 years ago, I see nothing more needed.
Instead, I see a never-ending parade of English translations that I believe are not meant to foster order or confidence, but rather to keep people guessing as to what God's words actually are.
To me, this is a perpetual state of confusion and one I refuse to participate in.

I could get into details, but you can find posts written by me on this forum using the search function, as well as searching on the internet and other places in the process of doing your own research into the issues.


Apologies for the long response and for stepping back in when I had promised to bow out, but you did ask a question and I felt obligated to answer it.

May God bless you.

 

[John of Japan]

People here would call me "KJVO / KJVP", but unlike what John has stated above, I hold that Preservation is God preserving His every word for His children through the centuries, so that they actually have in their hands that which our Lord has provided ( along with His Spirit ) to comfort and educate themselves until His return:

You misunderstand. I did not say that God does not preserve every word, nor do I believe that.

 

[Wally]

Sigh, you are the one who asked the question in light of being "anti-KJVO". Honestly the question could have been asked without that context. Since you asked it within that context I asked my question. It seems after all I completely understood your original intent. My question stands. If you cannot answer it then I understand.

Gee, sorry you're so exasperated already.

So you're suggesting I should be completely covert in my intent if I have a question about what others believe. I try not to be deceptive, laying traps like some people do. Though even indicating which 'side' I'm on I haven't specified what exactly my understanding is on this topic. I did specifically mention those who are not KJVO because I THINK I understand what people mean by 'preserved' from that side of the coin...though someone has already shown, again, there are many version of both sides so I didn't say they couldn't comment, just a preference on which side I'm looking at.

Let me ask you, are you able to defend your position without attacking mine?

 

[Dave G]

You misunderstand. I did not say that God does not preserve every word, nor do I believe that.

Point taken, sir, and I concede that it is a misunderstanding on my part.

In the first run-through, I saw nothing in those quoted articles that would lead me to believe that the persons writing them, actually believed in God preserving His words.
To me, they simply skirted the subject.
However, now that I have re-read them, I can see how I am in error.

Myself, I prefer to see statements that men actually believe that God has preserved His words.
In addition, where it begins to get complicated is regarding where they are preserved.

 

[Logos1560]

:

The "Textus Receptus" and the Ben Chayyim.
.

To which one of the twenty to thirty textually-varying editions of the Textus Receptus do you refer?

Are you aware of the fact that the KJV makes some textual changes to the Ben Chayyim edition of the Hebrew Masoretic text?

Concerning Joshua 21:36-37, Eliezer Katz wrote: "The two verses do not appear in Hebrew version" (New Classified Concordance, p. xxxiv). J. Scott Porter maintained that “it [Joshua 21:36-37] is left out of the Rabbinical Bibles of Ben Chajim, Buxtorf, and Ben Simeon” (Principles, p. 194). After referring to “the standard Bible of the Jewish rabbis, the second edition of Daniel Bomberg, edited by Jacob ben Chayyim in 1525,“ Arthur Farstad claimed that "Joshua 21:36, 37 is lacking in the Masoretic text. Yet the passage is found in the KJV because the missing verses were supplied from the Septuagint, Vulgate, and Syriac versions, as well as from the parallel passage in 1 Chronicles 6:63, 64” (The NKJV: In the Great Tradition, pp. 95-96).

Benjamin Kennicott wrote: “In the 21st chapter of Joshua; the 36th and 37th verses, though clearly necessary to the sense of the chapter, having been accidentally omitted in some ancient copy, are omitted in many latter MSS: and being omitted in that copy or copies, on which the Masora was formed, they have been refused admittance into the printed Hebrew text, upon Masoretic authority” (State, II, p. 330). Kennicott maintained that the Masora would “exclude at least two whole verses, which are beyond all disputation genuine” (pp. 284-285). Ginsburg noted that Jacob ben Chayim "decided to omit them [Joshua 21:36-37) in accordance with a certain school of Massorites" (Introduction, p. 965). Kyle McCarter observed that Joshua 21:36-37 “are entirely missing in the Leningrad Codex and other major manuscripts of MT” and that the “cause of their omission in MT was homoioteleuton: Verses 35 and 37 ended with the same sequence” (Textual Criticism, p. 41). Porter asserted that “the great majority of the MSS. of the Book of Joshua contain these verses,” claiming that 164 manuscripts have the verses while 68 omit them (Principles, p. 195). The evidence is clear that Joshua 21:36-37 are not in the standard Second Rabbinic Bible edited by Chayim. These two verses were said to be in the First Rabbinic Bible edited by Pratensis. These two verses were also said to be in the other earlier printed Hebrew texts: the 1488 Soncino, the 1491-93 Naples, the 1494 Brescia, and the Complutensian Polyglot. These earlier printed Hebrew texts are not considered Masoretic texts since they did not include the Masora.

In his book published by Samuel Gipp, James Kahler asserted: “It [referring to the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text] alone can attest to being the faithful text of the Old Testament” (Charted History, p. 10). In his book published by the Dean Burgon Society, Dennis Kwok asserted: “The Ben Chayyim Text is the faithful text that follows the traditional and providentially preserved manuscripts. This Hebrew Text underlying the KJB is totally infallible and inerrant” (Verbal Plenary Preservation, p. 128). Troy Clark claimed: “This Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text, called the Great Second Rabbinic Bible became the standard Old Testament Text for the next 400 years leading up to the 20th century. This is the Hebrew Old Testament Text mirroring the English 1611 King James Bible Old Testament. It is perfectly inspired, and equally preserved by Word-equals-Word formal equivalency method from the original, God-breathed Old Testament books” (Perfect Bible, p. 60). D. A. Waite indicated that the view that "the Second Rabbinic Bible is an inerrant reproduction of the original manuscripts" is his "position completely" or that it was a "perfect Masoretic text" is his "belief exactly" (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 41). Waite contended that “the difference between the King James Bible and all the other versions and perversions is that the King James Bible translates what the Hebrew says” (Fundamentalist Distortions, p. 22). Waite asserted that “something with alleged ‘scribal errors’ cannot be ‘preserved for us’ if you mean, as I do, inerrant preservation of the Words of the Bible” (p. 23). Waite wrote: “it is my considered opinion that the Hebrew and Greek texts underlying the King James Bible are also inerrant and infallible” (p. 10). Waite maintained that “the words of the Old Testament Hebrew were preserved to the letter” (Bob Jones, p. 21).

Was this claimed perfect, inerrant Masoretic text in the Second Rabbinic Bible missing two verses at Joshua 21? Would Waite claim that the Second Rabbinic Bible cannot be the preserved text if it followed a scribal error in omitting two verses? According to Waite‘s own claim, were the KJV translators wrong not to follow the Second Rabbinic Bible at Joshua 21? If the edition of the Hebrew text on which the KJV was based cannot be trusted in one or two places, is that saying that it cannot be trusted at all? Gail Riplinger wrote: “The original ben Chayim Hebrew Bible wrongly omitted Joshua 21:36-37” (Hazardous, p. 1016). Riplinger asserted: “This proves that the KJB translators DID NOT follow ben Chayim exclusively” (Ibid.). Riplinger also maintained that “the original ben Chayim edition wrongly omitted Nehemiah 7:68” (p. 1017).

 

[Logos1560]

I trust that the Lord has used certain men ( men who hazarded and even gave their lives ) to do it for me.

The Church of England makers of the KJV did not give their lives to translate the word of God into English.

As members of the Church of England's Court of High Commission, several of the KJV translators were actually involved in the persecution of people for their beliefs including having two burned at the stake. They were doing the persecution, not being persecuted.