-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
verses that prove preservation
- Thread starter tinytim
- Start date
Daniel David
New Member
Okay, Timothy 1769 has proven my point that the KJVO group has arbitrarily chosen the KJV to be God's preserved word.
I just wanted to point out that it isn't a Scriptural position, but an arbitrary one. Now, carry on.
I just wanted to point out that it isn't a Scriptural position, but an arbitrary one. Now, carry on.
RaptureReady
New Member
Can you read Greek and Hebrew fluently?
Daniel David
New Member
What does that have to do with what God promised? If you want to really be faithful to truth, you must learn Hebrew and Greek. If you disagree, you can trash your idea of how God preserved his word.
Not exactly fair. The KJB translators used a reconstruction of the TR. There was none like their Greek Text until Scrivener distilled the basic three (Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus and later Elzivir) from which it was derived into his singular 1894/5 Edition. In some places they followed only the Vulgate (1 John 5:7).
These basic three were derived from about 20 others of “Traditional Text” renown.
The KJV men had an abundance of worldly wisdom and knowledge of philosophy and the arts which can be seen in their prologue and their personal pedigrees.
They were well aware of variants (some imbedded in the sacred text itself Kethib-Qere) and translations.
Of course they had far less a magnitude of variants in the NT because they dealt with the three basic TR’s of the day which were for the most part a Byzantine “reconstruction”.
Some believe the Alexandrian Uncials to be more reliable, I disagree.
Obviously so do you BUT, the KJV of the Bible was a “modern reconstruction” in 1611 with many (Geneva Bible folks) bringing charges similar to those you are bringing today against the MV’s.
HankD
homebound, you seem to keep forgetting that the KJ Bible translators used these Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Therefore these manuscripts are an essential ingredient in the plan of God of the "reinspiration" (KJVO assessment) of the translation of the English Scriptures (and therefore any other language).
HankD
RaptureReady
New Member
What does that have to do with what God promised?</font>[/QUOTE]You asked to see them so I thought you could read them. I guess you can't. No worries, I can't either. That's why God gave me his word in the English language. BTW, when you find them, let me know.
O yell, I forgot that verse.
RaptureReady
New Member
homebound, you seem to keep forgetting that the KJ Bible translators used these Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Therefore these manuscripts are an essential ingredient in the plan of God of the "reinspiration" (KJVO assessment) of the translation of the English Scriptures (and therefore any other language).
HankD </font>[/QUOTE]But their lost!
Daniel David
New Member
This is so comical. This is one of the best threads yet.
Are you saying that the very autographs which Moses, David, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Mark, Luke, etc, were only temporary because God would complete everything in whatever version of the KJV you use? So, the preservation texts could not be claimed by anyone living prior to whatever version of the KJV you use? I get it, those promises for preservation are actually prophetic and are realized in whatever version of the KJV you use. Gotcha.
RaptureReady
New Member
This is so comical. This is one of the best threads yet.
Are you saying that the very autographs which Moses, David, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Mark, Luke, etc, were only temporary because God would complete everything in whatever version of the KJV you use? So, the preservation texts could not be claimed by anyone living prior to whatever version of the KJV you use? I get it, those promises for preservation are actually prophetic and are realized in whatever version of the KJV you use. Gotcha.
The KJV translators never used nor saw the ORIGINAL Manuscripts.
Your "perfect" preservation view requires a string of perfectly worded documents that extends from the KJV back to the originals.
Since the KJV is a combination of a translation of the TR and a collation of readings from previous English versions, it should be obvious to any rational, thinking person that the KJV is not the "perfect" preservation of anything with regard to its words. Its words never existed before they were put together by 17th century Anglican scholars- not in English much less the original tongues. The KJV cannot be the word-perfect text that KJVO's demand- especially if your view of preservation is correct (which it isn't of course but that doesn't help you either way).
"God's Word kept intact" is Bible preservation. I agree with D. A. Waite. He quoted, "The first reason why I believe in Bible preservation is that God has repeatedly promised in both the Old and New Testaments, that He would preserve and keep every one of His Words that He originally gave in the Hebrew and Greek languages. The second reason I believe in Bible preservation is that God has always kept His promises in the past, and we assume that He will keep up this perfect record in the present and on into the future." He listed some passages concerning the Bible preservation.
1. God promised Bible preservation
Psalm 12:6-7
Psalm 78:1-8
Psalm 105:8
Psalm 119:89
Psalm 119:111
Psalm 119:152
Psalm 119:160
Proverbs 22:20-21
Ecclesiastes 3:14
Matthew 4:4
Matthew 5:17-18
Matthew 24:35
John 10:35
Colossians 1:17
1 Peter 1:23-25
2. God kept His promises for Bible preservation
1 Kings 8:24
Romans 4:20-21
Titus1:2
Hebrews 10:23
See D. A. Waite's book, "Defending the King James Bible A four-fold superiority: Texts, Translators, Technique and Theology "
1. God promised Bible preservation
Psalm 12:6-7
Psalm 78:1-8
Psalm 105:8
Psalm 119:89
Psalm 119:111
Psalm 119:152
Psalm 119:160
Proverbs 22:20-21
Ecclesiastes 3:14
Matthew 4:4
Matthew 5:17-18
Matthew 24:35
John 10:35
Colossians 1:17
1 Peter 1:23-25
2. God kept His promises for Bible preservation
1 Kings 8:24
Romans 4:20-21
Titus1:2
Hebrews 10:23
See D. A. Waite's book, "Defending the King James Bible A four-fold superiority: Texts, Translators, Technique and Theology "
Daniel David
New Member
If skirting the issue was salsa, KJVOs could throw a party.
If the KJVO idea of preservation is correct, then a perfect duplicate of the autograph is available for every generation.
I want to see the Hebrew and Greek.
It isn't the TR (because it was compiled by Erasmus).
It isn't the ecclectic (as it is compiled by people).
Stop mincing words and tell me where I can find the Hebrew and Greek.
I can apply every so-called promise to the New American Standard or the New King James. You KJVOs arbitrarily assign those promises to the KJV. You lack the ability to explain why.
Basically, it is your word against mine (or others).
If the KJVO idea of preservation is correct, then a perfect duplicate of the autograph is available for every generation.
I want to see the Hebrew and Greek.
It isn't the TR (because it was compiled by Erasmus).
It isn't the ecclectic (as it is compiled by people).
Stop mincing words and tell me where I can find the Hebrew and Greek.
I can apply every so-called promise to the New American Standard or the New King James. You KJVOs arbitrarily assign those promises to the KJV. You lack the ability to explain why.
Basically, it is your word against mine (or others).
Joseph_Botwinick
<img src=/532.jpg>Banned
Daniel,
You make a very strong point. How did anyone come to the conclusion that to the exclusion of all other English Translations before 1611 and after, the KJV was the only preserved Bible? Did we come to the conclusion because the Anglican, King James, put his stamp of approval on it and authorized it? Is it becasue the Anglican Church authorized it? I think this is the point you are making. What about the Tyndale Bible which was written before the KJV? What about Bibles which are translated into non-English languages today? Are we saying that they were and are not inspired and preserved? And how do we determine that?
But, Daniel, let me turn that question around and ask you: How do we know that the Bible you use today is true, faithful, and preserved? For that matter, how do we know this is true of any translation of the Bible?
Joseph Botwinick
You make a very strong point. How did anyone come to the conclusion that to the exclusion of all other English Translations before 1611 and after, the KJV was the only preserved Bible? Did we come to the conclusion because the Anglican, King James, put his stamp of approval on it and authorized it? Is it becasue the Anglican Church authorized it? I think this is the point you are making. What about the Tyndale Bible which was written before the KJV? What about Bibles which are translated into non-English languages today? Are we saying that they were and are not inspired and preserved? And how do we determine that?
But, Daniel, let me turn that question around and ask you: How do we know that the Bible you use today is true, faithful, and preserved? For that matter, how do we know this is true of any translation of the Bible?
Joseph Botwinick
Lest an unsuspecting person read this thread and think the verses listed by Timothy or Askjo were all correct, we all know (tho some are too obstinate to admit) that Psalm 12 does NOT talk about the preservation of the Word.
Even the strongest KJVO proponent should attempt honesty on that one. Come on, guys. It's not rocket science. It's words that have meaning, whether you like it or not.
Carry on . . .
Even the strongest KJVO proponent should attempt honesty on that one. Come on, guys. It's not rocket science. It's words that have meaning, whether you like it or not.
Carry on . . .
RaptureReady
New Member
The KJV translators never used nor saw the ORIGINAL Manuscripts.
Your "perfect" preservation view requires a string of perfectly worded documents that extends from the KJV back to the originals.
Since the KJV is a combination of a translation of the TR and a collation of readings from previous English versions, it should be obvious to any rational, thinking person that the KJV is not the "perfect" preservation of anything with regard to its words. Its words never existed before they were put together by 17th century Anglican scholars- not in English much less the original tongues. The KJV cannot be the word-perfect text that KJVO's demand- especially if your view of preservation is correct (which it isn't of course but that doesn't help you either way). </font>[/QUOTE]So God's inspired, infallible, inerrant word ending at the original MSS, right?
RaptureReady
New Member
Did I hear a mouse? Whose we!Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Lest an unsuspecting person read this thread and think the verses listed by Timothy or Askjo were all correct, we all know (tho some are too obstinate to admit) that Psalm 12 does NOT talk about the preservation of the Word.
Even the strongest KJVO proponent should attempt honesty on that one. Come on, guys. It's not rocket science. It's words that have meaning, whether you like it or not.
Carry on . . .
Your bible might not mean words, but mine does.Joseph_Botwinick
<img src=/532.jpg>Banned
The KJV translators never used nor saw the ORIGINAL Manuscripts.
Your "perfect" preservation view requires a string of perfectly worded documents that extends from the KJV back to the originals.
Since the KJV is a combination of a translation of the TR and a collation of readings from previous English versions, it should be obvious to any rational, thinking person that the KJV is not the "perfect" preservation of anything with regard to its words. Its words never existed before they were put together by 17th century Anglican scholars- not in English much less the original tongues. The KJV cannot be the word-perfect text that KJVO's demand- especially if your view of preservation is correct (which it isn't of course but that doesn't help you either way). </font>[/QUOTE]So God's inspired, infallible, inerrant word ending at the original MSS, right?
</font>[/QUOTE]I would say no. But, neither did it begin or end in 1611. I don't know how you can scripturally make an argument that it did begin and end in 1611.Joseph Botwinick