What sealed the deal for you?

[Amy.G]

John, you're study is wonderful, but where does it leave us regarding the version issue?

In your opinion, which version is the preserved word of God? Or are all of them?

 

[gb93433]

When I read what Paul and Jesus did in their quotes that convinced me more than anything of using what was available and not spending time trying to educate non-believers of the errors of particular English translations which are all in error and do not always come close to accurately communicating what was communicated in a Jewish culture through the Greek language of the time.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Thanks, Mexdeaf. Someday I'll turn it into a book. The thing is, I can't be too vocal publically right now no matter what my position. You being a missionary will understand exactly what I mean! :smilewinkgrin:

Why John, whatever are you talking about ?

 

[John of Japan]

John, you're study is wonderful, but where does it leave us regarding the version issue?

In your opinion, which version is the preserved word of God? Or are all of them?

My studies trying to come to a Scriptural position surprised me. What I found out was that God appears to put far more emphasis in the Bible on human preservation than divine preservation, though virtually all of the books on the subject ignore human preservation in favor of divine preservation. So I emphasize human preservation while acknowledging divine preservation.

So, we should: have our own Bibles, memorize the Word of God, print Bibles (if we can), translate Bibles (if we have the gift), put Bible verses on the walls of our home, etc., etc.

Which version is the preserved Word of God? It must be in the original languages, since (1) I found many examples of words and phrases wherein the original is given in Scripture and then translation is given; (2) There are times when the human writers of Scripture correct the Septuagint (from which many NT quotes of the OT are made) with fresh translations from the Hebrew. So the best, most preserved Bible is that which is the best translation from the originals.

Then I hear it asked, which original language text? That is where I have to leave dogmatism behind, since the Bible doesn't teach us textual criticism. (I had a theory about comparing the OT quotes in the NT for evidence of text types, but a noted textual critic was kind enough to disabuse me of that.) But I am a TR/Byzantine/Majority advocate due to: (1) my presuppositions of inspiration, which I believe should produce a smoother text, thus the Byzantine/Majority; (2) my emphasis on human preservation, which I believe is better explained by the Majority/Byzantine text theories of Hodges, Robinson, Pickering, Sturz, Hills, etc. (3) The linguistic argument that Byzantine Greeks would be far better at human preservation than Egyptians to who Greek was a second language.

Does this all make sense? It's a very complicated issue.

 

[John of Japan]

Why John, whatever are you talking about ?

Hah! As if you didn't know! :saint: :smilewinkgrin:

 

[David Lamb]

Ed, by "editions" I don't mean editions of the actual text of the translation (although there have been two of those), I mean, for example, a "text only" edition vs. a "reference edition," vs. a study Bible, etc. Even the first one that Dr. Farstad gave me, which was a very early copy and had no cross-references in it, had the MT and AU textual variants.

The first one the Dr. Farstad gave me, and the wide-margin edition that I use in most of my Bible study, is the first edition of the text (1981?). The Precious Moments Bibles that my kids got a few years later, plus most of the others I have, are the second edition (which I think was put out in 1985). I cannot point to any specific changes between the two editions, but I don't think it was just correction of typos.

And of course there used to be a British edition of the NKJV (with "cockerel" instead of "rooster", "Saviour" instead of "Savior", and so on) known as the Revised Authorised Version (RAV).

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

And of course there used to be a British edition of the NKJV (with "cockerel" instead of "rooster", "Saviour" instead of "Savior", and so on) known as the Revised Authorised Version (RAV).

I remember the RAV. Have you any idea where one can be acquired?

 

[robycop3]

For me, it was quite simple...THE AV1611 ITSELF. Nowhere within it, either in its text or in the translators' extratextual material, is there any support for the KJVO doctrine.

The AV1611 shows the incorrectness of some of the KJVO arguments. The "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie" is a major one. The marginal note for the 2nd them in V7 proves the AV translators believed this verse is about the PEOPLE of that whole Psalm, namely David & friends who were fleeing from Saul, same as the translators of every other major English version did, or do.

I have read many worx by many KJVO advocates, and, with careful analysis of their points, I have reached the following conclusions, for which I have asked the KJVOs to attempt to disprove, with none being able. these conclusions are:

1.) KJVO is NOT found in SCRIPTURE whatsoever, not even by the slightest implication. That one fact alone proves it's not true.
As Christians we Baptists believe that Scripture is our highest written authority, and the doctrines we believe, indeed, all our knowledge of GOD, is drawn from Scripture. If one believes an ascriptural doctrine such as KJVO, he is placing that doctrine ABOVE SCRIPTURE in authority. And, since it's MAN-MADE, & not from GOD, that leaves only one other possible ultimate source....

2.) Virtually every KJVO work draws from 7TH DAY ADVENTIST official Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson's 1930 book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, a book written because of a squabble within the SDA cult, and not with the intent of starting a new doctrine. Why a Christian wants to believe a doctrine with a MAN-MADE origin, especially when that man was a CULT OFFICIAL, is beyond me.

3.) Many of the assertions made by the KJVO authors SIMPLY AREN'T TRUE. The aforementioned "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie" is a glaring example. Another is their criticism of MVs for calling Joseph Jesus' father in Luke 2, when the KJV does the VERY SAME THING! Much of the time, those KJVO authors simply don't know what they're talking about, or are being deliberately misleading. The whole collection of KJVO worx is steeped in error and dishonesty, and again, it's beyond me why a CHRISTIAN would believe such an outlandish collection of hooey unless he simply hasn't bothered to try to check out their VERACITY.

If one wishes to use only the KJV outta personal preference, fine, but no other reason holds any water, and we are not being honest in our Christian teachings if we teach KJVO in any manner.

Again, there's simply NO SCRIPTURAL BASIS for any KJVO doctrine, so it cannot be true. The AV1611 itself is my best witness for this.

 

[gb93433]

The whole collection of KJVO worx is steeped in error and dishonesty, and again, it's beyond me why a CHRISTIAN would believe such an outlandish collection of hooey unless he simply hasn't bothered to try to check out their VERACITY.

That is the major problem among many Christians. Most are too lazy to study the Bible for themselves. When I was pastoring I was amazed at how many told me that they just wanted me to tell them what they should know rather than lead them through the process.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

The "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie" is a major one.

Psalm 12:6-7 is inspired Scripture and should be handled as such at all times. With such a careless and flippant attitude toward the Word of God, your position loses credibility quite rapidly. You do, however, state your own conjecture as fact quite well. Perhaps there is a future in politics for you. :thumbs:

 

[readmore]

It is by personal observation that I have concluded that the KJV is the preserved Word of God. I have seen nothing that allows me to give the same endorsement to the MVs.

Forgive me, but this observation isn't worth a grain of sand. My kids read from modern versions more often than the KJV, and they don't "look like the world", whatever that means (I assume you mean have piercings, dress in contemporary clothing styles, etc.)

On the flip-side, I don't want my kids anywhere near what goes on in some KJVO churches. Harsh, stifling judgmentalism, racism, unloving, unfriendly members--you know this happens. Just as I know some churches that use MV's promote weak Christianity. I think you're just seeing what you want to see (with all due respect!)

 

[Salamander]

It was Jesus Himself....
His quotes in the NT does not match the quotes in the KJV OT...
Then I started researching the other quotes, and most are from the LXX...

Then I realized that the region of Israel he was from would have used the LXX more than the Masoretic at the time he walked on earth...

So, if Jesus didn't use the underlying text from the KJV OT... why should I claim it to be the only one I should use?

I read all the arguments, and it was one night, I got on my knees, and just asked God....
then it hit me, what did Jesus use?

I started researching that, and I quit being KJVO.

:laugh: One problem with that ideal, Jesus didn't need the LXX or any Masoretic MSS.

The only differences we see in the O.T. references is they were first in Hebrew, then in Greek, then in English.

 

[readmore]

Forgive me, but this observation isn't worth a grain of sand. My kids read from modern versions more often than the KJV, and they don't "look like the world", whatever that means (I assume you mean have piercings, dress in contemporary clothing styles, etc.)

On the flip-side, I don't want my kids anywhere near what goes on in some KJVO churches. Harsh, stifling judgmentalism, racism, unloving, unfriendly members--you know this happens. Just as I know some churches that use MV's promote weak Christianity. I think you're just seeing what you want to see (with all due respect!)

My apologies--the tone of that message got away from me (chalk it up to my six month old waking me up in the middle of the night?)

Let me just leave it at this--I don't feel the weak churches that use modern versions are indicative of churches that use modern versions as a whole any more than fringe churches that are KJV who exhibit hatred, racism, etc. are indicative of the whole of churches that are KJVO.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Psalm 12:6-7 is inspired Scripture and should be handled as such at all times...

Agreed. Might the way in which the Hebrew word translated here as "preserve" is used throughout scripture have any bearing upon the interpretation of this verse?

The Hebrew word here is natsar (Strong's #5341). It is translated "keep" 38 times in the KJV, only 13 times as "preserve", 1 time as "preserver", and about 7 other ways (63 total occurances). It is found elsewhere in the Psalms 8 times as "preserve" and each of these verses the thing preserved is human. Five of those speak of preserving "me" (Psalm 25:21, 32:7, 40:1, 140:1, and 140:4). The other three speak of preserving "him" (Psalm 61:7), "my life" (64:1), and "the faithful" (31:23).

Outside the Psalms this word dominantly refers to humanity: in Proverbs 20:28 "the king" is the subject of perserving; Isaiah 49:6 and 49:8 speaks of the "presered of Israel" and preserving "thee". The word is translated as the "preserver of men" in Job 7:20. Proverbs 22:12 is the only place where the thing to be preserved ("knowledge") is not clearly a living soul.

There are 5 other Hebrew words also occassionally rendered "preserve" in English. The concept is obviously one of conserving people. The additional 15 verses the KJV OT speak of: preserving the "seed of our father", preserving "life", preserve "you", preserve "us alive", preserve "them", preserving the city of Jerusalem (meaning the inhabitants), preserve "my soul", etc. I found nothing preserved other than precious created beings.

If the promise of preservation is not about people in Psalms 12:7 then it is a very unique application of the both the Hebrew word, and even the English word in the KJV.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

I don't feel the weak churches that use modern versions are indicative of churches that use modern versions as a whole any more than fringe churches that are KJV who exhibit hatred, racism, etc. are indicative of the whole of churches that are KJVO.

I did not mean to imply that all churches who use the MVs are worldly and liberal and that all KJV churches are conservative and spiritual. I have been around long enough to know that this isn't the case. That is why I said:

Mainstream Christianity has grown increasingly more carnal and worldly.

My point was that, in spite of the English Bible being put into the language of the "common man," even in multiple versions, it has not resulted in a greater commitment to Christ. In short, the MVs just haven't accomplished the work that they are said to have been designed to do.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Agreed. Might the way in which the Hebrew word translated here as "preserve" is used throughout scripture have any bearing upon the interpretation of this verse?

The interpretation of this passage is ambiguous as best. However, one should not base their doctrine of preservation on a single passage. There are many other which support preservation.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Bible Examples of Human Preservation of the Scriptures

1. After Moses destroyed the Decalogue (Exod. 32:19), God was able to replace every word through him (Exod. ch. 34)...

Moses did not destroy the Decalogue; Moses merely broke the tablets. God then transfered the words from His Mind in Heaven to the Earth a second time; Moses merely provided the second set of tablets under the Lord's command (the Scripture makes it very plain that God was the One that rewrote the Decalogue). I am making the distinction between two types of 'preservation': that of the words, and that of the materials.

What is meant by the Doctrine of the Divine Preservation of the Scriptures is the conservation of the Author's words in a perfect or unaltered condition; that is, maintaining God's words unchanged for future generations; in a word: purity.

Here we have intermingled with the preservation of words is 'documentary conservation', in modern terms. These are efforts to prevent the decay or protect against physical loss (inks fade, paper deteriorates, theft, flood damage, etc.). Placing delicate media into protective custody helps assure the materials' maximum useful life (the ark of shittem wood, etc.).

The preservation of the media is related to the preservation of written words on Earth. However, without faithful words upon the media, it becomes completely irrelevant whether the media survives or not.

 

[gb93433]

I did not mean to imply that all churches who use the MVs are worldly and liberal and that all KJV churches are conservative and spiritual. I have been around long enough to know that this isn't the case. That is why I said:
My point was that, in spite of the English Bible being put into the language of the "common man," even in multiple versions, it has not resulted in a greater commitment to Christ.

You are right. Obviously the early believers did not have a Bible and the majority could not read. Yet many had a heart for God.

 

[John of Japan]

Moses did not destroy the Decalogue; Moses merely broke the tablets. God then transfered the words from His Mind in Heaven to the Earth a second time; Moses merely provided the second set of tablets under the Lord's command (the Scripture makes it very plain that God was the One that rewrote the Decalogue). I am making the distinction between two types of 'preservation': that of the words, and that of the materials.

You're kind of playing with words here aren't you? Of course Moses destroyed the Decalogue if the term can mean the physical item--and I believe it can linguistically. If someone burned a Bible you could say, "You destroyed the Bible" while understanding theologically that it exists forever in God's mind.

What is meant by the Doctrine of the Divine Preservation of the Scriptures is the conservation of the Author's words in a perfect or unaltered condition; that is, maintaining God's words unchanged for future generations; in a word: purity.

I suggest you study the various things God is said to preserve in the Bible. For example, He preserved David's life--but not permanently and in a certain sense not perfectly, since David got sick sometimes, got old and then died.

My doctrine of preservation of Scripture stems partly from a study of God's preservation of many things in the universe. This helps get the wider picture before becoming specific concerning the preservation of Scripture. Then as I become more specific, I see many kinds of preservation of Scripure: Heavenly, humanly spiritual, physical, mental, translations, etc.

 

[robycop3]

Pastor Bob:Psalm 12:6-7 is inspired Scripture and should be handled as such at all times.

Then why do YOU do differently while trying to admonish me? If you treat V7 as a "word preservation" verse, then you're applying the teachings of MAN to it rather than the correct translation of the Hebrew, as the AV men & every translator of every major English version, old and new, has done. Certain men have skewed the CORRECT interpretation of this verse to fit their agenda. By agreeing with those men rather than the correct interpretation of the Hebrew, YOU are not treating it as Holy Writ.


With such a careless and flippant attitude toward the Word of God, your position loses credibility quite rapidly.

What's careless about using the CORRECT meaning?

You do, however, state your own conjecture as fact quite well. Perhaps there is a future in politics for you.

Well, there's little for you. Been writing propaganda for Hillary or Osama lately? They could use a myth or two.

Again, the AV1611 is the book that clinches the the truth that KJVO is incorrect.