The Doctrine of Preservation?

[Harold Garvey]

No, no, ya gotta stop! my gut's hurting from laughing so hard.

Rob

It wasn't meant to be the dagger you probably needed.

the facts remain that my belief is preservation. It is an essential doctrine to keep contaminations out of the pure word of God.

You obviously lampoon the effort and object to it. it is a distinction necessary as more and more versions are produced. each one has a little bit of detraction within it. There is the need.

 

[Rippon]

My beliefs are awarded facthood when they are facts. they are distinctive.

Hmm,"facthood". Do make up a word-a-day?

Your beliefs are distinctive. That's for sure. But they mostly stink.

 

[Rippon]

no churches have spoken here, but then again, I've never heard a building speak before either.

This shows your uninformed mindset. The churches are made up of Chrstians -- believers --- not brick and mortar. We, the Church, are known as ecklesia -- the-called-out-ones.

Try to be more biblical.

 

[Jim1999]

If preservation is a must, then the modern scriptures, including the KJV, are full of errors and it makes a mockery of divine inspiration of the originals.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[franklinmonroe]

Let's look a bit at the word "preservation" in the Bible. There are about 6 different Hebrew words that are sometimes translated as "preserve" (including forms ending with -ed, -est, and -eth). The Hebrew words have the meanings indicating a 'deliverence' (salvation), a 'keeping', or 'watching'. There are 3 Greek words that are often rendered in English as "preserve". These Greek words carry similar ideas of 'observing' and 'keeping' (i.e. 'obeying' commandments). There are many, many passages about protection (saving & keeping) which may or may not be descriptions of genuine preservation.

Overwhelmingly (if not singularly), the Bible speaks of God's acts of preservation being towards His people. Remember, these are from KJV verses specifically with a form of the word "preserve" (not passages with a possible concept of preservation). As John mentioned, God is The Preserver of Men (Job 7:20). In the Scripture we find God preserving specific kinds of people such as the "king", the "faithful", the "simple", and of all "Israel". Pronouns in verses used to indicate humans being preserved by God are "us", "them", "me", "him", and "thee". Other words essentially referring back to people are "seed" (Genesis 19), "life", "you a posterity", "soul/spirit/body", "the way of the saints", "from evil/violent man" and "thy going out/coming in". I actually think that the preservation of "Jerusalem" (Isaiah 31:5) is mainly concerned with people (similar to "Israel"). Additionally, I believe the "beasts" (Psalm 36:6) were necessarily preserved for the sake of humanity.

Consequently, there may then only be two other references to preservation in Scripture: Proverbs 22:12 poetically speaks of the preservation of "knowledge"; and Jesus illustrates that the new wine & bottle can "both be preserved".

Except a disputed interpretation of Psalm 12:7 there are no passages explicitly referring to a Divine preservation of written revelation on Earth.

 

[Harold Garvey]

If preservation is a must, then the modern scriptures, including the KJV, are full of errors and it makes a mockery of divine inspiration of the originals.

Cheers,

Jim

The "errors" as you call them have never been substanciated.

What you're suggesting is that everytime God inspired a man to pen it down he was no longer a free agent but a robot to precisely pen every word for word.

That is not inspiration but dictation.

The definition of inspiration is not at the mercy of misinterpretation.

 

[Harold Garvey]

Let's look a bit at the word "preservation" in the Bible. There are about 6 different Hebrew words that are sometimes translated as "preserve" (including forms ending with -ed, -est, and -eth). The Hebrew words have the meanings indicating a 'deliverence' (salvation), a 'keeping', or 'watching'. There are 3 Greek words that are often rendered in English as "preserve". These Greek words carry similar ideas of 'observing' and 'keeping' (i.e. 'obeying' commandments). There are many, many passages about protection (saving & keeping) which may or may not be descriptions of genuine preservation.

Overwhelmingly (if not singularly), the Bible speaks of God's acts of preservation being towards His people. Remember, these are from KJV verses specifically with a form of the word "preserve" (not passages with a possible concept of preservation). As John mentioned, God is The Preserver of Men (Job 7:20). In the Scripture we find God preserving specific kinds of people such as the "king", the "faithful", the "simple", and of all "Israel". Pronouns in verses used to indicate humans being preserved by God are "us", "them", "me", "him", and "thee". Other words essentially referring back to people are "seed" (Genesis 19), "life", "you a posterity", "soul/spirit/body", "the way of the saints", "from evil/violent man" and "thy going out/coming in". I actually think that the preservation of "Jerusalem" (Isaiah 31:5) is mainly concerned with people (similar to "Israel"). Additionally, I believe the "beasts" (Psalm 36:6) were necessarily preserved for the sake of humanity.

Consequently, there may then only be two other references to preservation in Scripture: Proverbs 22:12 poetically speaks of the preservation of "knowledge"; and Jesus illustrates that the new wine & bottle can "both be preserved".

Except a disputed interpretation of Psalm 12:7 there are no passages explicitly referring to a Divine preservation of written revelation on Earth.

The only way men are preserved is by the presvervation principles of God's preserved word. This is true to the effect that if God's inspired word is not preserved in present day wordings, then we not don't have His word we have a malignant form of it transmutating itsself into nothing more than the words of man and changed to fit that man's ideals of morality or the lack thereof.

God's words are pure words which preserve men, but only as men obey those preserving words.

Separate the two and you are intent on your own failures.

 

[Johnv]

The "errors" as you call them have never been substanciated.

What is your definition of "error" when applied to the topic of translations?

 

[Harold Garvey]

What is your definition of "error" when applied to the topic of translations?

Misleading and inaccurate verb usage.:tonofbricks:

 

[Johnv]

Are you referring to usage of verbs in today's syntax, or usage of verbs in the syntax of the day in which a translation was penned?

 

[Harold Garvey]

Are you referring to usage of verbs in today's syntax, or usage of verbs in the syntax of the day in which a translation was penned?

Neither should make for the differences we see in versions now should they?:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Johnv]

Answer my question. When applied to the topic of translations, do you define "error" as being an inaccurate verb usage in today's syntax, or do you define "error" as being an inaccurate verb usage in the syntax of the day in which a translation was penned?

 

[Harold Garvey]

Answer my question. When applied to the topic of translations, do you define "error" as being an inaccurate verb usage in today's syntax, or do you define "error" as being an inaccurate verb usage in the syntax of the day in which a translation was penned?

As I said, neither should make for the differences we see in versions now should they?

The verb usage of that day is just as applicable to the linguistic understanding of the sentence structure today without the demands of literary scholars inserting their opinions to the detriment of the person seeking the mind of God.


Westcott and Hort made these demands of koine Greek. Now we have multiple versions of one book.

If anything, the KJV is a rock to be built upon, the multiplicity of versions can offer at best the shifting of sands when it comes to verb usage.

Therein lies the problem of the influx of over 5000 manuscripts which are at the mercy of the interpretor who may or may not have our best interest in mind.

The KJV translators DID have our best interest in mind. They did an immaculate job. they humbly admitted it. the version is attacked in various ways; two notably are its resources being limited, the other are those attacked who know it to be the best.:sleep:

 

[Thinkingstuff]

As I said, neither should make for the differences we see in versions now should they?

The verb usage of that day is just as applicable to the linguistic understanding of the sentence structure today without the demands of literary scholars inserting their opinions to the detriment of the person seeking the mind of God.


Westcott and Hort made these demands of koine Greek. Now we have multiple versions of one book.

If anything, the KJV is a rock to be built upon, the multiplicity of versions can offer at best the shifting of sands when it comes to verb usage.

Therein lies the problem of the influx of over 5000 manuscripts which are at the mercy of the interpretor who may or may not have our best interest in mind.

The KJV translators DID have our best interest in mind. They did an immaculate job. they humbly admitted it. the version is attacked in various ways; two notably are its resources being limited, the other are those attacked who know it to be the best.:sleep:

So you believe in the inspiration of the translators? That is what you have to believe. Though I am sure the translators of the KJB would never make that claim. In which case any reasonable discussion will fall flat because ultimately the autographs could be as corrupted as anything and full of initial errors because God would have corrected any errors through the translators. Which means there very possibly may never have been a "bible" until the King James translators came to work on it. Which means Christianity would never really have had a foot hold until the 1600's. Have you ever wondered why the french don't have this argument about the King James Bible or the Italians, or the Greeks, or Spaniards, or the Russians? It can't logically accept your premise.

 

[Johnv]

As I said, neither should make for the differences we see in versions now should they?

I didn't even bring up the subject of differences in version. You said that claims of errors in the KJV are not substantiated, but you can't even define "error".

When applied to the topic of translations, do you define "error" as being an inaccurate verb usage in today's syntax, or do you define "error" as being an inaccurate verb usage in the syntax of the day in which a translation was penned?

 

[Harold Garvey]

So you believe in the inspiration of the translators? That is what you have to believe. Though I am sure the translators of the KJB would never make that claim.

OK, if they weren't inspired then who told them to do their job????:tongue3:

In which case any reasonable discussion will fall flat because ultimately the autographs could be as corrupted as anything and full of initial errors because God would have corrected any errors through the translators.

you're forcing inspiration into something it is not.

Which means there very possibly may never have been a "bible" until the King James translators came to work on it. Which means Christianity would never really have had a foot hold until the 1600's. Have you ever wondered why the french don't have this argument about the King James Bible or the Italians, or the Greeks, or Spaniards, or the Russians? It can't logically accept your premise.

They don't speak English. I dont have to keep wondering

 

[Harold Garvey]

I didn't even bring up the subject of differences in version. You said that claims of errors in the KJV are not substantiated, but you can't even define "error".

When applied to the topic of translations, do you define "error" as being an inaccurate verb usage in today's syntax, or do you define "error" as being an inaccurate verb usage in the syntax of the day in which a translation was penned?

When you make use of the syntax of any language you're not putting the use in any day against the other. that is where you make the big mistake by even asking such a ridiculous question.

Will Kinney made the right assumption in many here don't even have an inspired version. yall eventually had him banned. I know he broke the rule of posting under a different name, but you also cannot refute his reasoning and did as some would who cannot accomplish it any other way but to resort to the lesser of two evils.:sleep:

 

[Johnv]

OK, if they weren't inspired then who told them to do their job????

Let me get this straight: Your reasoning is that the KJV was inspired, because if it wasn't, then who told them to do the job? How does that logic apply to the KJV, but not any other translation before or since?

 

[Harold Garvey]

Let me get this straight: Your reasoning is that the KJV was inspired, because if it wasn't, then who told them to do the job? How does that logic apply to the KJV, but not any other translation before or since?

It was a reproving of no inspiration.

If the KJV isn't inspired then we English speaking people are all LOST.

 

[Johnv]

When you make use of the syntax of any language you're not putting the use in any day against the other.

What I hear you saying is that the syntax of English do not change.

Will Kinney made the right assumption in many here don't even have an inspired version... you also cannot refute his reasoning

Actually, it was his responsibility to back up his claim of what constituted an inspired vs uninspired version. He could not even support the notion that inspiration is limited to a single version.

It was a reproving of no inspiration.

Are you saying that translations prior to the KJV weren't inspired, and translations after the KJV aren't inspired, but that the KJV is inspired?