The Doctrine of Preservation?

[Harold Garvey]

Right, I agree: past theologians have said very little about this doctrine. However, in almost every generation there is a doctrine that comes to the forefront and is debated. I believe that this generation is the one for a developing discussion of the broad doctrine of preservation and the preservation of the Bible in particular. Unfortunately very little has been written in this area by our leading theologians.

Care to list this group you describe as "our leading theologians"?

 

[Johnv]

Then why do you insist on inserting it into every discussion?

It is you, not I, who consistently tries to turn this from thread about the doctrine of preservation into a thread about single-translation-onlyism.

Typical but unwarranted. Show me where I make this claim ?

I'll address just one:In post# 82 of "Do You Admire Any Preachers", you claimed the KJV is superior.

You attack what you disagree with, then say the KJV has errors.

So what you're saying is that the KJV has no errors; therefore, if anyone finds an error in the KJV, it is not an error, because the KJV has no errors.

The majority of people on earth speak English more than they speak Dutch.

To be clear, the majority of people on earth speak Mandarin Chinese, three times more often than they speak English. The second most common language is Hindi, the third is Spanish. English trails Spanish slightly.

In regards to English speakers, the majority of people on earth speak International Business English. Elizabethan English is not a common language anywhere on the globe today. Only 20% of the world speaks English. Of those, none speak Elizabethan English.

The KJV is not written in 17th centruty English, btw, it is written in prose.

Untrue. In fact, the KJV's use of Elizabethan English was already considered archaic when it was published, since the common language of the day was Early Modern English. For this reason, the KJV was not widely accepted when it was published. BTW, you might want to rethink your position there. "Prose" is the common ordinary form of a spoken or written language. Elizabethan English was not the prose of the day.

I have and you deny this, yet it is in the Bible...

Just to make sure I wasn't in error, I went back and looked at every one of your posts to day. Not once in any of your nearly 400 posts have you posted any biblical support for your KJV-as-superior position.

 

[Harold Garvey]

So you deny that a Spirit-filled believer can understand His mind from the NIV, ESV, etc.? Typical of the KJVO superiority complex.

Not even hinted towards that as you'd like to insist upon.

I can understand the mind of the Spirit from these versions, but to be sure i always revert back to the KJV to see if the impression I have is right. Boy, that oughtta really burn you up!:type:

The case being is what I read in other versions hasn't always impressed my heart the way it does in the KJV.

I said that just in case the previous statement didn't burn you up.:type:

English is NOWHERE NEAR "spoken in nearly every part of the world today". By any estimate it is at best the SECOND most spoken language today, and it pales in comparison to Mandarin Chinese with over a billion speakers. Only about 500 million English speakers are around.

You must have your head planted in the sand somewhere close to the Bay of Pigs.

Per capita in population alone you'd be correct, but in per capita by land mass you come up short.

And I will say, from personal experience as a missionary- most who can speak English as a second language struggle to read it and the KJVO is incomprehensible to them.

So? And most present day false doctrines come from a populous of people who speak English as a second language. Don't blame that on the KJV!:type:

 

[Harold Garvey]

It is you, not I, who consistently tries to turn this from thread about the doctrine of preservation into a thread about single-translation-onlyism.

:applause: yeah! i merely mention the KJV is a very good example of God's preservation of his word and you go off into a tirade!:applause:

I'll address just one:In post# 82 of "Do You Admire Any Preachers", you claimed the KJV is superior.

So what your'e saying is that the KJV has no errors; therefore, if anyone finds an error in the KJV, it is not an error, because the KJV has no errors.

I believe you're disobeying BB rules about bleeding other discussions into another thread.

The majority of people on earth speak International Business English. Elizabethan English is not a common language anywhere on the globe today.

People who speak IBE can rest in the facts that the English in its best form is comprehensibly adjacent to anything they already know in IBE

Untrue. In fact, the KJV's use of Elizabethan English was already considered archaic when it was published, since the common language of the day was Early Modern English. For this reason, the KJV was not widely accepted when it was published. BTW, you might want to rethink your position there. "Prose" is the common ordinary form of a spoken or written language. Elizabethan English was not the prose of the day.

Oh, so now I suppose you'll accredit Shakespeare and Chacer with more credence than God?

The only people I see who demand as you do that the language of the KJV is archaic is people who promote 200+ versions of the Bible in English.

I find the wording to be rather glorious and pure of deceit, perfectly readable and posessing a comprehensible factor the 200+ versions other than it do not!:tongue3:

Just to make sure I wasn't in error, I went back and looked at every one of your posts to day. Not once in any of your nearly 400 posts have you posted any biblical support for your KJV-as-superior position.

Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21, but that isn't enough for you.

I find it almost strange if not altogether unbelievable you've actually been through over 400 posts in one day.:sleep:

 

[Johnv]

I can understand the mind of the Spirit from these versions, but to be sure i always revert back to the KJV to see if the impression I have is right.

What metal is used in Deuteronomy 8:9?
In Genesis 42:1-3 and 5, what type of food crop is being referred to?
In Solomon 2:12, what kind of animal was heard?
What was in the offerings described in Leviticus chapter 2 and 14?

 

[franklinmonroe]

Right, I agree: past theologians have said very little about this doctrine. However, in almost every generation there is a doctrine that comes to the forefront and is debated. I believe that this generation is the one for a developing discussion of the broad doctrine of preservation and the preservation of the Bible in particular. Unfortunately very little has been written in this area by our leading theologians.

Can you cite some historic theologians that have discussed it? It seems that it has been the rise of the 'Version Controversy' that has necessitated the recent affixation of the 'Preservation of Scripture' to the traditional Doctrine of Preservation. I agree that this issue has not yet been thoroghly discussed to establish a standard understanding of this view, despite that some KJVO authors toss the term around as if it has been fixed in our theology.

 

[Johnv]

i merely mention the KJV is a very good example of God's preservation of his word and you go off into a tirade!

You don't "merely" mention that the KJV is a good example of God's preservation. You state that the KJV is superior in language to all other versions.

Oh, so now I suppose you'll accredit Shakespeare and Chacer with more credence than God?

Chaucer and Shakespeare didn't even live in the same era. Chaucer wrote some 300 years prior to the KJV, and his works are written in Middle English. OTOH, Shakespeare died shortly after the KJV was published, and wrote in a late form of Early Modern English, which was the common language of the day. Contrast that with the KJV English, which came out after Early Modern English, but used the Elizabathen form of English which held on to many archaisms which predated even Shakespeare.

The only people I see who demand as you do that the language of the KJV is archaic is people who promote 200+ versions of the Bible in English.

History says you're quite wrong. The majority of England's population opposed the KJV due to it use of archaisms. That's a fact. As a result, the crown made it illegal to use anything other than a KJV.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... Well, I see your point, but will stand my ground. The KJV properly has "the evil," properly translating the Greek which has the definite article before "evil." In koine Greek, when you put the article before an adjective, the adjective is being used as a noun. This is called the substantival form of the adjective. So John 17:15 is definitely referring to Satan. ...

Thanks John for taking the time to explain that. I didn't know that before. I have to say that as reader of the KJV I never realized that "the evil" was a direct referrence to the personality called Satan.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... Seems like we did this one before, and you did a quite a job of defending your position. But I am still completely convinced that you can call the Bible God's Word. ...

Yes, and we don't need to repeat what has already been discussed. But there is the ambiguity problem of the term "Bible" itself. You do know the significance of these numbers: 5, 24, 66, 73, 79, and 81? They are not all completely and only "God's Word".

 

[franklinmonroe]

A. God has committed the earthly preservation of the Word of God to every believer in Christ, even while taking it upon Himself to oversee that preservation.
1. In Old Testament Israel, the priests were entrusted by God with the task of preserving the Scriptures (Deut. 17:18, Ezek. 44:8 and 15, Mal. 2:7). Remember that the Decalogue of Moses was to be kept in the ark of the covenant (Deut 31:26), and that the Temple was where the scrolls of Scripture were to be kept (2 Kings 22:9-10).
2. In the Church Age, each individual believer is a priest of God (1 Peter 2:5 & 9, Rev. 1:6, 5:10, 20:6). ...

Just a few comments for your consideration --

Was every Hebrew priest a "believer in Christ"? Can non-believers participate in the preservation of Scripture?

Where under points 1. & 2. do you give any proof of the second portion of your assertion under A. ("even while taking it upon Himself to oversee that preservation")?

While NT believers are indeed spiritual 'priests', obviously they are not priests in the same sense as in OT Judaism; we are not expected to perform the same duties today (dress, blood sacrifices, etc.). How can we know that we are as responsible for preservation of the Scriptures in the same sense as those ancient priests?

 

[John of Japan]

John,

Thanks for posting that. Good food for thought.

You sure that you are not called to write that book on the preservation of the Scriptures?

Mex

Well, not until I retire from the mission field for sure!! :smilewinkgrin: (If that ever happens.)

 

[John of Japan]

Thank You! John of Japan!

You are entirely welcome.

A couple of things I wish would be addressed on the topic of preservation Too many "say" they are guided by Him, yet their culmination of theologies beg to differ and most of the time their end is adverse to what they say they believe. Then I have to ask why modern words used do not exactly carry the same weight of the pre-existing words deemed "archaic", which is only a relative term and according to the speaker, which have altered the full meaning of the word of God? While i agree with the spirit in which this is said, I have to ask why is it there is not a pinnacle point in which we find the English language to maintain, whcih we already have, btw?

Forgive me, but I don't comment on this issue on a public forum. Furthermore, as a missionary my main focus is the Japanese Bible, not the English Bible issues.

 

[John of Japan]

Can you cite some historic theologians that have discussed it? It seems that it has been the rise of the 'Version Controversy' that has necessitated the recent affixation of the 'Preservation of Scripture' to the traditional Doctrine of Preservation. I agree that this issue has not yet been thoroghly discussed to establish a standard understanding of this view, despite that some KJVO authors toss the term around as if it has been fixed in our theology.

There have been very, very few. Francis Turretin (1623-1687) disucussed the matter of the Catholic belief in Vulgate inerrancy. I'm sure there were other Reformation theoligians that addressed this issue.

To go back even further, in Jerome's day there were some who believed in LXX inerrancy, and I believe Jerome addressed this, but I don't have time to look it up.

 

[Jim1999]

The works of Milton have been preserved down through the years in written form. It remains unchanged and true to the original.

The scriptures we have remain true in the same sense, in written form, passed down through the years. Some changes must be made, even to scriptures. Areas where the bible is just plain incorrect, whether printing errors, cultural errors or plain errors of understanding, or lack of understanding.

The Bibles we have are essentially reliable, but only the original manuscripts can maintain inerrancy and inspration by God.

Nothing in scripture teaches preservation into this or any other era.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Deacon]

... in Jerome's day there were some who believed in LXX inerrancy, and I believe Jerome addressed this, but I don't have time to look it up.

Not quite what you were looking for but it addresses his view of the Vulgate.

You urge me to make a new work from the old, and that I might sit as a kind of judge over the versions of Scripture dispersed throughout the whole world, and that I might resolve which among such vary, and which of these they may be which truly agree with the Greek.
Pious work, yet perilous presumption, to change the old and aging language of the world , to carry it back to infancy, for to judge others is to invite judging by all of them.
Is there indeed any learned or unlearned man, who when he picks up the volume in his hand, and takes a single taste of it, and sees what he will have read to differ, might not instantly raise his voice, calling me a forger, proclaiming me now to be a sacrilegious man, that I might dare to add, to change, or to correct anything in the old books?

Jerome's Letter to Pope Damasus ~366 to 384 recovered from the British Lindisfarne Gospels, (late 7th century) [LINK]

Rob

 

[John of Japan]

Not quite what you were looking for but it addresses his view of the Vulgate.

Jerome's Letter to Pope Damasus ~366 to 384 recovered from the British Lindisfarne Gospels, (late 7th century) [LINK]

Rob

Aha! Thanks.

 

[John of Japan]

Just a few comments for your consideration --

Was every Hebrew priest a "believer in Christ"?

No, no doubt there were Hebrew priests who were not believers in the coming Messiah.

Can non-believers participate in the preservation of Scripture?

Not spiritually, but they can to the extent that a human act of preserving the Scripture may be a physical act (printing Bibles, etc.). This doesn't mean God will reward them for it, just as a lost person who passes out tracts has no reward waiting in Heaven.

Where under points 1. & 2. do you give any proof of the second portion of your assertion under A. ("even while taking it upon Himself to oversee that preservation")?

Much more information on that is given in the rest of my longer outline, which I don't plan to share here. However, to state it simply, why would not God the Holy Spirit oversee any act of service for Christ? He is the Lord of the Harvest (Matt. 9:38), He brings to our remembrance Christ's words (John 14:26), He leads and guides the servants of God (the whole book of Acts), etc., etc.

While NT believers are indeed spiritual 'priests', obviously they are not priests in the same sense as in OT Judaism; we are not expected to perform the same duties today (dress, blood sacrifices, etc.). How can we know that we are as responsible for preservation of the Scriptures in the same sense as those ancient priests?

The area of Scripture is the exact area that Baptists believe the priesthood of the believer is involved with! As priests we need no other priest than Christ for direct access to God, and we do not need to go through a priest to understand and interpret Scripture (1 Tim. 2:15, etc., etc.). It certainly follows that if we are to interpret Scripture ourselves we are to preserve it also. And the New Testament believers certainly did that, as I believe my outline proves.

 

[Harold Garvey]

You don't "merely" mention that the KJV is a good example of God's preservation. You state that the KJV is superior in language to all other versions.

Chaucer and Shakespeare didn't even live in the same era. Chaucer wrote some 300 years prior to the KJV, and his works are written in Middle English. OTOH, Shakespeare died shortly after the KJV was published, and wrote in a late form of Early Modern English, which was the common language of the day. Contrast that with the KJV English, which came out after Early Modern English, but used the Elizabathen form of English which held on to many archaisms which predated even Shakespeare.

History says you're quite wrong. The majority of England's population opposed the KJV due to it use of archaisms. That's a fact. As a result, the crown made it illegal to use anything other than a KJV.

Oh well, now i suppose you'll blame God that the KJV is still used more than any other version and He isn't able to supercede anything man does.:laugh:

 

[Harold Garvey]

You are entirely welcome.


Forgive me, but I don't comment on this issue on a public forum. Furthermore, as a missionary my main focus is the Japanese Bible, not the English Bible issues.

OK, but if you'd comment via pm I will keep it there and never discuss it in the public forum. I do respect your not wanting to express it publicly and see exactly why.

 

[Harold Garvey]

What metal is used in Deuteronomy 8:9?
In Genesis 42:1-3 and 5, what type of food crop is being referred to?
In Solomon 2:12, what kind of animal was heard?
What was in the offerings described in Leviticus chapter 2 and 14?

Iron and an alloy of copper/ brass due to its high luster appearing as gold and brilliance maintained with less of an oxidation and doesn't tarnish as easily as copper alone.

grain

a turtle dove is not an amphibian

A whole burnt offering is never without the meat offering. this passage deasl specifically in reference to the body of Christ as the whole burnt offering and without the Blood shed for our redemption.

Newer versions deny this and you say no doctrines are effected by them.:tongue3:

If you wish to discuss in further detail, don't derail this thread, start a new one.