Two philosophies

[Pastor_Bob]

It should be clear by now that there must be a reason for such widely held views concerning Bible translations and the double stream of undergirding Greeks texts. These differences can be categorized into two distinctly different undergirding philosophies. Briefly, those two philosophies can be summarized as follows: (1) The historic Received Textual position is based in belief. (2) The modern critical textual position is based in rationalism. Touch Not The Unclean Thing pg. 52 - David H. Sorenson

The aspects of beliefs that are presented are:
1. Providential preservation
2. Guidance of the Holy Spirit
3. Preservation through the church

All three of these aspects can be easily defended by Scripture, whereas, the critical text position is based upon uncertainty, human logic, and subjectivity. It is clear to me which position has the Scriptural support.

We need not have a verse that tells us specifically that the King James Version of the Bible is the preserved Word of God for English speaking people; it is senseless to ask for such a Scripture. The issue is the text that underlies the KJV. When the text is the issue, the Scriptural support is plenteous.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Amen, Brother Bob!

 

[Linda64]

AMEN Pastor_Bob!:thumbsup:

 

[Askjo]

Double Amen! I agree with you, Pastor Bob!:thumbs:

 

[Askjo]

(1) The historic Received Textual position is based in belief.

That is called, "Consistently Christian Method."

(2) The modern critical textual position is based in rationalism.

That is called, "Naturalistic Method."

 

[Deacon]

3. Preservation through the church

...and a loud Catholic cheer errupts from the grandstands.

It appears that the Holy Spirit preserves with great recklessness.

Rob

 

[tinytim]

Please show scriptural support for underlying texts.

What makes the TR more scripturally sound than the Majority text, or others?

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

The aspects of beliefs that are presented are:
1. Providential preservation
2. Guidance of the Holy Spirit
3. Preservation through the church

All three of these aspects can be easily defended by Scripture, whereas, the critical text position is based upon uncertainty, human logic, and subjectivity. It is clear to me which position has the Scriptural support.

We need not have a verse that tells us specifically that the King James Version of the Bible is the preserved Word of God for English speaking people; it is senseless to ask for such a Scripture. The issue is the text that underlies the KJV. When the text is the issue, the Scriptural support is plenteous.

A hearty Amen and Amen, Pastor Bob! Let God be true...
His Holy Word stands as true today as it did hundreds of years ago.

"Forever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven."

 

[Bro Tony]

A hearty Amen and Amen, Pastor Bob! Let God be true...
His Holy Word stands as true today as it did hundreds of years ago.

"Forever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven."

Amen---even before 1611!!!:thumbs:

Bro Tony

 

[PastorSBC1303]

The aspects of beliefs that are presented are:
1. Providential preservation
2. Guidance of the Holy Spirit
3. Preservation through the church

All three of these aspects can be easily defended by Scripture, whereas, the critical text position is based upon uncertainty, human logic, and subjectivity. It is clear to me which position has the Scriptural support.

We need not have a verse that tells us specifically that the King James Version of the Bible is the preserved Word of God for English speaking people; it is senseless to ask for such a Scripture. The issue is the text that underlies the KJV. When the text is the issue, the Scriptural support is plenteous.

The very same thing could be said about the NASB, NIV, NKJV, etc.

 

[Diggin in da Word]

I am convinced that the KJV is truly the Word that God preserved for the English Speaking people. For more than 400 years, it was only questioned by those who did not believe in God or in His precious Son Jesus Christ. Somehow, satan crept in and convinced people that the KJV was not the true Word preserved... that God's Word was elsewhere. All of a sudden, 70+ Bible versions and translations pop up within the last century and each contradict the others in more than one verse.

Many remove the Word, but hey... that's ok, because according to Majority text it was not supposed to be there anyway. Poppycock! I read in my KJV that God works in the few rather than the many.

That being said, I will continue to stand on the good old KJV that led my mother to the Lord, my grandmother to the Lord, and their parents before them.

Praise the Lord for the true infallible Word of Almighty God, the KJV!

 

[Bro Tony]

And praise God for His true infallible Word that has led many to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ in the KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, RSV... I have seen hundreds led to God using these wonderful versions of the Scripture. I have personally seen the most saved through the preaching of God's Word from the NKJV---as it is the one I use the most.

It is great that we have an all powerful God who is not restricted to archaic English language, and now we have the Scripture in language we use and understand--including the revisions of the 1611 KJV---which is hardly ever quoted by those who say they are KJVO and brag that it is 400 years old and the dont even use it.

Bro Tony

 

[Logos1560]

The aspects of beliefs that are presented are:
1. Providential preservation
2. Guidance of the Holy Spirit
3. Preservation through the church

All three of these aspects can be easily defended by Scripture, whereas, the critical text position is based upon uncertainty, human logic, and subjectivity.

The issue is the text that underlies the KJV. When the text is the issue, the Scriptural support is plenteous.

The argument that the text is the issue applies only to those who maintain a Textus Receptus view or a Majority Text view. At most the above arguments only contend for that type view. The above arguments are not consistent and valid evidence for a KJV-only view.

The 1560 Geneva Bible is as much the preserved word of God as is claimed for the KJV. The translators of the Geneva Bible and other earlier English translators such as William Tyndale were guided by the Holy Spirit is the same sense or manner as is claimed for the translators of the KJV. Actual evidence of the doctrinal views of the translators would indicate that the doctrinal views of the translators of the Geneva Bible were more sound in doctrine than the doctrinal views of the Church of England translators of the KJV. The KJV is more of a revision of the earlier pre-1611 English Bibles (Tyndale's to Bishops') than it is an original, fresh, new translation.
An actual examination of the evidence shows that there are the same type differences between the KJV and the earlier English Bibles of which it was a revision as there are between the KJV and later English Bibles made from the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts.

The simple fact that many KJV defenders reject later English translations of the same Hebrew and Greek texts that underlie the KJV such as the 1833 Webster's, the 1842 revision by Baptists, the NKJV, the Modern KJV,
the KJ21, the KJ2000, etc. clearly suggests that they are making "the translation the issue" instead of "the text the issue."

A KJV-only view seems to depend on inconsistencies, subjective feelings, tradition, inaccurate claims, and human reasoning as much as is claimed for the Critical Text view. I personally have not recommended the Critical text, but I do think that the holders of a KJV-only view often misrepresent the views of believers who accept the Critical text.

My view of Bible translation is basically the same as the view of the Bible translation held by the early English translators including even the KJV translators. That view was not a one-perfect-translation-only view such as a KJV-only view.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

The aspects of beliefs that are presented are:
1. Providential preservation
2. Guidance of the Holy Spirit
3. Preservation through the church

Yes to 1, 2 and 3. :applause:

 

[AntennaFarmer]

...and a loud Catholic cheer errupts from the grandstands.

It appears that the Holy Spirit preserves with great recklessness.

Rob

Deacon, is that an attack on the Bible?

A.F.

 

[Deacon]

Re: My earlier comment: "It appears the Holy Spirit preserves with great recklessness."

Deacon, is that an attack on the Bible?

Not at all! The comment relates to the notion that the Holy Spirit works in this way.
I feel this is presumptious and would like to see scriptural support for the assertion.
If He did work in this manner, Why would each ancient manuscript we have ever found be different? (to include those of the Byzantine tradition).

I do believe that Pastor_Bob's OP represented the best presentation I have seen on this issue...
But IMHO it is flawed.

As was noted, all three points can still be applied to many versions, including those utilizing the critical text.

And I'm still mystified that Baptists use the traditions of the church as a proof for continued use for a particular version.

Rob

 

[robycop3]

Originally Posted by Pastor_Bob
The aspects of beliefs that are presented are:
1. Providential preservation

Who can say that the preservation of Sinaiticus from the trash fire and of Vaticanus' not being quickly burned by the RCs hundreds of years ago , is not just as providential a preservation by Gos as any other?


2. Guidance of the Holy Spirit

Who's to say the Holy Spirit guided everyone to the same text? After all, He guided Pastor Bob to be a pastor, while He guided another believer to be his church's treasurer, another to be a choir member, etc.


3. Preservation through the church

WHICH CHURCH? There have been thousands of congregations and thousands of denominations. Who's to pick JUST ONE that preserved the scriptures?

All this is notwithstanding the fact that no two Scriptural mss. match.

 

[robycop3]

Diggin In Da Word:I am convinced that the KJV is truly the Word that God preserved for the English Speaking people.

Convinced by WHAT? We have repeatedly asked for evidence to support that belief, & have received only spin for replies. I am convinced BY EVIDENCE, such as the fact that God has continually updated his word to match the changes in language He's allowed/caused. Nowhere does He single out any one version in any one language, once His word had expanded beyond Hebrew...and the Hebrew Malachi used is quite different from theHebrew Moses used.


For more than 400 years, it was only questioned by those who did not believe in God or in His precious Son Jesus Christ.

Only partially right. It was questioned by those who questioned any Bible in any language, period.

Somehow, satan crept in and convinced people that the KJV was not the true Word preserved... that God's Word was elsewhere.

Completely wrong. Satan got a cult official to publish an error-filled book, founded a doctrine from it, and used it to cause strife and division among English-speaking believers, same as he'd already done in French & German, & is now doing in Spanish.



All of a sudden, 70+ Bible versions and translations pop up within the last century and each contradict the others in more than one verse.

Never mind that the old manuscripts do the same. Was Jehoiachin eight or eighteen when he began to reign?

Many remove the Word, but hey... that's ok, because according to Majority text it was not supposed to be there anyway. Poppycock! I read in my KJV that God works in the few rather than the many.

No, the poppycock is assuming God retired in 1611 & no longer keeps His word before man in the language He's given that generation of man to use.

That being said, I will continue to stand on the good old KJV that led my mother to the Lord, my grandmother to the Lord, and their parents before them.

No prob, long as you don't diss my choice to use multiple versions, old and new.

Is the Geneva Bible the word of God in English? It was the standard English Bible for a number of years. It was made by the most eminent translators of their day. Why was it replaced? Was it replaced by God's command, or because of the notions of a few men who were in power?

How about the Bishop's Bible? The "Great Bible", the first 'authorized' English version? Or, did the British people not have a true Bible for over a thousand years?

Praise the Lord for the true infallible Word of Almighty God, the KJV!

Praise the Lord for ALL His true, infallible versions of His word, old & new!

 

[Pastor_Bob]

All here will agree that God inspired His Word in the original autographs. We simply take it a step further and believe that God providentially preserved His Word through the apographs as well. We maintain that accurate copies were preserved down through the ages so that extant copies remain today that accurately represent the original writings.

I, personally, believe that God's Word was preserved in the English language beginning with Tyndale's,and continued through Coverdale's, Matthew's, The Geneva Bible, The Bishop's Bible, and to our modern day King James Version.

God clearly promised to preserve His Word:

• Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
• Psalm 119:152 Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever.
• Psalm 119:89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.
• Psalm 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.
• Isaiah 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

One would have to be very gullible to believe that every extant manuscript is an accurate representation of the originals. One would have to be very misled to believe that a few recently discovered manuscripts are more reliable simply because they are older even though they conflict with the overwhelming majority of the whole of extant manuscripts.

So, a belief in providential preservation is every bit as important as a belief in original inspiration. God could have chosen to preserve His originals, but He did not. He chose rather to use His people and His church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to preserve accurate copies of His Word down through the ages even to this very hour.

How do we arrive at the KJV as the preserved Word of God for English speaking people? The issue is the text that has been providentially preserved from the inspired originals and then translated by men peerlessly skilled in the ancient languages.

 

[David J]

Scriptural support is required

The aspects of beliefs that are presented are:
1. Providential preservation
2. Guidance of the Holy Spirit
3. Preservation through the church

All three of these aspects can be easily defended by Scripture, whereas, the critical text position is based upon uncertainty, human logic, and subjectivity. It is clear to me which position has the Scriptural support.

We need not have a verse that tells us specifically that the King James Version of the Bible is the preserved Word of God for English speaking people; it is senseless to ask for such a Scripture. The issue is the text that underlies the KJV. When the text is the issue, the Scriptural support is plenteous.

Point one:

God did preserve His Word.

Point two:

The Holy Spirit spoke through the prophets of old. So God did guild His word.

Point three:

This sounds like something coming from the Roman Catholic Church. Tradition and the Church being equal to Scriptural support for doctrines etc... Since when did church consensus amount to anything in the matters of the Bible? God's Word is the authority and KJVOism has zero Scriptural support to back up KJVO claims.


If you are KJVO then you've made the claims. It's time to back up those claims with Scriptural support and not the traditions and teachings of man. Scriptural support is what matters. As a conservative, old fashioned, Sola Scriptura believing Baptist I have ever right to challenge the KJVO myth and require Scriptural support for this teaching since KJVOism makes claims about the Word of God that God never said in His Word. It is not senseless to challenge a doctrine or teaching by asking for Scriptural support for this teaching/doctrine. Thats how we conservative fundamentalist weed out back doctrines and myths.


What is your authority that is equal to Scriptural support for KJVOism since the KJV is silent on KJVOism?

Two philosophies:

Tradition and the teaching of man for doctrines

or

Sola Scriptura.

Which one are you?