verses that prove preservation

[Joseph_Botwinick]

But, neither one of those verses refer to the preservation of God's Word. How do you know that the KJB is correct and the MVs are incorrect?


Is Textus Receptus the original autographs?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Did the KJB translators use the original autographs when doing their translation? I don't think they did.


Joseph Botwinick

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Did the KJ translators use different documents than did Tyndale for their translation of the Bible?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
But, neither one of those verses refer to the preservation of God's Word. How do you know that the KJB is correct and the MVs are incorrect?


Is Textus Receptus the original autographs?

Joseph Botwinick

The Holy Spirit will bear witness to the truth.

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
Did the KJ translators use different documents than did Tyndale for their translation of the Bible?

As far as I know they had access to all the Bibles before the KJB and other MSS.

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Daniel David:
If those texts are all about preservation, I want to see the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. That is after all what God inspired.

Can you read Greek and Hebrew fluently? </font>[/QUOTE]I can read N.T. Greek, but I have not taken a Hebrew class yet.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
But, neither one of those verses refer to the preservation of God's Word. How do you know that the KJB is correct and the MVs are incorrect?


Is Textus Receptus the original autographs?

Joseph Botwinick

The Holy Spirit will bear witness to the truth. </font>[/QUOTE]In other words, where Scripture is silent (KJV vs. MV), the Holy Spirit will reveal it in some type of private revelation? How will the Holy Spirit reaveal the truth to us when the Scriptures are silent? Doesn't the Holy Spirit work through the Word of God to reveal truth to us? How will we determine, outside of scriptural revelation, what is the Holy Spirit revealing the truth to us and what is some emotional man-made worldly doctrine? How do we discern between true Holy Spirit led revelations and false revelations when Scripture is silent?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by Bible-boy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by HomeBound:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Daniel David:
If those texts are all about preservation, I want to see the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. That is after all what God inspired.

Can you read Greek and Hebrew fluently? </font>[/QUOTE]I can read N.T. Greek, but I have not taken a Hebrew class yet. </font>[/QUOTE]I am the exact opposite. I can read Hebrew, but not Greek.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

WOW! How time flies. I must now go to bed. I need sleep. Good night.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[RaptureReady]

That's just it, I use the King James Bible as my final authority. If something does not line up with it, it is wrong, no matter what it is.

 

[RaptureReady]

Good night brother.

God bless.

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
That's just it, I use the King James Bible as my final authority. If something does not line up with it, it is wrong, no matter what it is.

The problem is that what you are using is someone else's interpretation (for that is all that any translation is) of the Hebrew and Greek manuscriptes. So are you saying that the people who translated the KJV were inspired in their translation efforts?

 

[Bible-boy]

If you are claiming that the translators of the KJV were inspired in their translation efforts and the God's Word has been preserved down through the ages, which translation was the inspired translation prior to the KJV in 1611?

If you hold that a translation is the inspired text then you might as well agree with the Roman Catholic Church and use Jerome's Latin Vulgate (an earlier translation) for your "onlyist" position (JLVO).

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by HomeBound:
Okay big guy, were are they, the ORIGINAL Manscripts that the translators used?

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]Are you really so completely terrified of dealing with the truth that you must evade, deflect, and change the subject every time?

FTR, I believe we have Bibles that derive their inspiration from the originals. I believe the Bible is infallible but the men who preserved/translated it are not. I believe the Bible is inerrant. All of this started with and is predicated on the originals.

Now, please stop avoiding the problems with your view. Give us at least one perfect Bible that preceded the KJV. Explain how the perfect KJV can be a perfect preservation if it was derived from various imperfect documents and is different from every Bible that came before it.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
That's just it, I use the King James Bible as my final authority. If something does not line up with it, it is wrong, no matter what it is.

So, it is just a personal preference for you, and not necessarily something that all Christians should have to do? It is ok for me to use my MVs, then?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[HankD]

Leviticus 6:21 NASV: "... as a soothing aroma to the Lord." KJV: "for
a sweet savour unto the Lord." (Whoever heard of soothing a sovereign
God!) The same is found in Leviticus 8:28, 17:6, and 23:18.

Dear homebound,

No translation is perfect, one could pick apart the KJV of the Bible as well for weaknesses in the choice of words.

KJV Ephesians 4:
30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

grieve: vb 1 to cause grief or sorrow to : DISTRESS : 2 to feel grief : sorrow.
The Merriam Webster Dictionary

If one causes grief or sorrow torwards another person one needs to sooth that person:

Were the KJV translators wrong in saying that a sovereign God could be "grieved"?

OR

KJV Genesis 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Who ever heard of a sovereign God repenting?
Were the KJV translators wrong with this particular choice of a words?

HankD

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
That's just it, I use the King James Bible as my final authority. If something does not line up with it, it is wrong, no matter what it is.

Nope, you are using the 1769 Revision. King James was dead in 1769.

Jesus didn't use the 1769 Revision, he used the Septuagint. Your statements (here and in other threads) impliy that you identify the Bible with King James, rather than God.

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by HomeBound:
That's just it, I use the King James Bible as my final authority. If something does not line up with it, it is wrong, no matter what it is.

So, it is just a personal preference for you, and not necessarily something that all Christians should have to do? It is ok for me to use my MVs, then?

Joseph Botwinick </font>[/QUOTE]Let me say this. I don't know really how to explain how the KJB is God's inspired, infallible, inerrant word as for I am still studying and learning each day, but I believe it by faith. I believe that the Holy Spirit will guide you to all truths and that is what he has done for me. Sure I've listen to alot of KJBO and alot of the MVO and I believe the KJBO crowd to be correct about the King James Bible. Besides, it only makes since that there be only 1 book that is God's, so there is no confusion. Sometimes I have trouble explaining things so I do apologize. It just tears me up that people would want to attack, take away from the word of God and I will defend it to the best of my knowledge. I guess you can say that Dr. Griffin, Pastor Larry, and other bring things from the more educated side of the discussion while I try to use practical judgement.

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by HankD:
Dear homebound,

No translation is perfect, ...

See, this is what I'm talking about. If there is know perfect Bible, then how do you believe what you believe to be true? How do you KNOW your saved. What if 1 John 5:13 is not perfect? This is what I am talking about that don't make no sense to me, believing in a perfect God who can do all the wonderful things that are around you and then he can't even inspire and preserve a simple 8x10 book, SIMPLY AMAZING!

 

[BrianT]

Homebound, it is good that you want to be practical. It is good that you have faith. And it is fine to be still studying and learning. But we don't understand *why* you have faith in KJV-onlyism instead of in something else. I know someone that "has faith" that Adam and Eve carried around a leather-bound, English KJV. I know someone else that "has faith" that after we die, the righteous will each be given their own planet to populate. I know someone else that (used to) "have faith" that Jesus was going to return in 1999. Why do people "have faith" in things that are not in scripture? Scripture not only doesn't tell us to have faith in those things, it doesn't even mention them! So why have faith in them? Scripture not only doesn't mention to have faith in KJV-onlyism, it doesn't even mention KJV-onlyism - so why have faith in it? The verses about preservation are wonderful verses, but the moment you interpret them to support KJV-onlyism, you imply those verses were lies before 1611. Those verses were *true* before 1611, before the KJV existed - thus they are not about the KJV, and any faith in KJV-onlyism is *additional* to scriptures.

God bless,
Brian