Featured The doctrine of preservation

Looks interesting. Let's see how folks answer.

You may remember I believe the earthly task of preservation is given to the priesthood, which is believers. The Word is perfectly preserved in Heaven as anyone would agree. But in translations for every people group? Anyone?

 

I would ask how practical it is to preserve God's word only in heaven when it is folks down here on earth that need to hear them? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Why do the scriptures have to be written in every language to be preserved? There was never a time when the scriptures were written in every language.

What we do see from scripture itself is that a translation is called scripture, as the text the Ethiopian eunuch was reading.

Acts 8:32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

I think we can learn important lessons from this passage. Does this translation of Isaiah 53 agree word for word with the original scripture in Hebrew? No, but it conveys the accurate meaning of the original.

It is also important to note that this Greek translation was called scripture by scripture itself.

But I am getting off topic. It is not necessary that the word of God be translated into every language, although that is certainly desired. What is important is that men go and preach and teach all nations from the accurate word of God, teaching them what the scriptures are truly saying.

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

It is not necessary to have the written scriptures in every language, but we are to go and preach and teach the word of God to all nations. And of course, you want to preach and teach that which is accurate, what the scriptures are truly saying.

John, I commend you for going to the Japanese to do this very thing. :thumbs:

Now, the problem I personally have with the MVs is that I do not believe they convey the same meaning as the KJB. I have pointed out several differences in the past, Matthew 5:22 is a good example of this difference;

KJB- But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

NIV- But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

The NIV and other MVs omit the phrase "without a cause" giving a very different meaning to this verse of scripture. The KJB implies that it is OK to be angry at someone for a legitimate reason, while the NIV gives the impression it is sin to be angry at someone else for "any" reason. That is a HUGE difference in meaning.

 

Talk to God about that. He's the one Who said through the Psalmist, "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven" (Ps. 119:89). And if it is not in written form in Heaven (I believe it is), then the Word certainly is preserved perfectly in the mind of God. Unless you think He is forgetful.... :smilewinkgrin:

Let's just try one language. I've asked this before here on the BB, and no one gave me an answer: How am I to know which Japanese Bible is the perfect, preserved Word of God?

I have no argument there.

I was called. :saint:

I love and use the KJV. I don't use the NIV and I'm sure I could show you many translation errors in it (and have over time here on the BB). But that's not the subject of the thread.

 

I will have to get back to you in a few hours, I have to go pick up my son from camp. I will answer later today.

 

Have a good one. It's almost bedtime here, then church tomorrow. :sleep:

 

And along that line, before I go to bed, I've always wanted to ask, suppose a preacher misquotes the KJV from the pulpit? Does it cease to be preserved? If not, then how is that different from the NKJV?

 

It is your assumption that there is a supposed reference to a translation in this passage. It is not actually stated.

The fact that God gave the words being read to Luke in Greek as part of the New Testament does not prove that the Ethiopian eunuch could not have been reading from a Hebrew scroll.

 

KJV-only authors have maintained that 70 to 90% of the KJV's New Testament comes from William Tyndale's New Testament.

Matthew 5:22 in the 1534 Tyndale's New Testament

But I say unto you, whosover is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of judgement. Whosoever sayeth unto his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. But whosoever sayeth thou fool shall be in danger of hell fire.

Are you suggesting that the KJV was a revision of earlier English Bibles [Tyndale's to Bishops'] that did not convey the same meaning as the KJV?

Was the KJV a revision of earlier English Bibles that were not “holy,” "accurate," "correct," "good," "valid," "acceptable," "legitimate," “pure,“ or "true" Bibles according to a consistent application of KJV-only reasoning?

Were all the words of the pre-1611 English Bibles fixed, solid, and pure?

According to the law of non-contradiction, can the KJV have qualities which are not in common with the earlier English Bibles of which it was a revision?

 

God said that the Gospel will be preached to all the world. Therefore, I believe that it'll eventually be translated into every language used at the time. Maybe not every language at once, but I don't think that anyone will be left out.

And while I thoroughly disagree that translations made from the KJV are superior to those made directly from the old mss, as some KJVOs contend, they're still better than none at all.

 

I have seen no sound, scriptural case for suggesting that the preservation of the specific words of God given to the prophets and apostles was transferred at some point to any one translation or to all translations.

If preservation was supposedly somehow transferred in the translation process, why would it not consistently be transferred to all translations for all people?

If preservation of the Scriptures was supposedly transferred only to English by God seemingly showing partiality to those who speak English, why did it not transfer to the pre-1611 English Bibles [Tyndale's to Bishops]?

If there were any translator's errors in Tyndale's New Testament, in the 1537 Matthew's Bible, or in the 1560 Geneva Bible, does that actually suggest that God failed to preserve His words?

 

Isn't it obvious that God has not preserved his written word in every language?

Yes, that is why Christians are told to go to every nation and creature preaching and teaching the word of God.

I am not exactly sure what you mean by this question, but I think it is safe to assume God wants preachers to accurately preach his word.

I believe it is the Spirit that helps all persons understand the scriptures.

We are speaking of preservation aren't we? If one version includes "without a cause" in Mat 5:22 while another version omits these words giving a totally different sense, can both be preserved? I think not.

So, you cannot divorce the version controversy from the discussion of preservation, although I realize many would love to do that.

 

If preservation is transferred in the translation process as you seem to suggest and since God does not show partiality to those who speak one language, why is it not consistently transferred whenever believers make a translation in any language from the preserved Scriptures in the original languages?

 

If an accurate translation is made from the accurate original languages or an accurate translation of those original languages, then that translation would be the accurate and preserved word of God in that language. If the translation is made from a corrupted text in any language, if that translation was accurate to it's source it would also be corrupt.

 

Well, scholars say this scripture was taken from the Septuagint;

You will have to take up your argument with the "scholars".

 

How do you then explain the fact that translations made from the same original language texts have translational differences that affect the meaning as presented in the translations?

There were important translational differences in meaning between the 1534 Luther's German Bible and the 1537 Matthew's Bible or the 1560 Geneva Bible.

How do you explain how the claimed transfer of preservation to translations does not result in a German translation having the same exact meaning as an English translation?

What qualifies you to say whether a translation is accurate or not?

How do you objectively know whether a text is supposedly corrupted?

How do you or anyone know whether a printed edition of an original language text or a printed edition of a translation has any errors introduced by printers without some greater independent authority to evaluate them?

If having any copying errors in the original language manuscripts supposedly makes a text based on those manuscripts "corrupt," then the varying Textus Receptus editions would have to be considered "corrupt", being based on imperfectly copied manuscripts and also being printed imperfectly [having some printers' errors].