Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Preservation and the KJV


Recommended Posts

  • Members
3 hours ago, Tyndale said:

I wonder how it would be being courteous, kind, and patient for some posters to seem to attempt to attack personally my integrity, my faith in God, and my acceptance of what the Scriptures teach.  Perhaps the criticism is because it is thought that I may not blindly accept certain non-scriptural opinions of men that some may add to their doctrine of the Bible.

I do not consider learning or stating the truth a silly game or nonsense. 

Would the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth, guide believers to accept all truth or would He guide to accept only some truth while dismissing or avoiding other truth?  Why would presenting actual true facts concerning the KJV and concerning editions of the KJV seem be attacked by those who would claim to stand for the truth?  Would it be wrong to attempt to be faithful and true in what some may consider to be the least important details and facts concerning the KJV?

Luke 16:10

He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much

 

OK, Son. Carry on. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

NN, thank you very much for those words. I can see how you had a better teacher growing up in the faith.

KJVO is so bad here they are men that teach a man can not get saved unless the KJV is being used. Some mock the other translations not knowing they are mocking Jesus' birth, life, doctrine, death and resurrection. Things like this hurt my soul, because I love Jesus.

I'm having a hard time after learning the translation isn't identical to the original. I was taught even down the word “a” or “the” would match up in every case. They don't. 

I was told, “The Isaiah dead sea scroll matches up word for word, even the punctuation matches perfectly with the KJV.” Seen the photos of the scroll and its not true. Learning the teachings are false has been a crisis for me. I do not want others to go through this.

Jesus will help me and I'll get it unlearned.

The KJV Church I belong to teaches doing, then do some more. This has helped me a lot and my Pastor is so very careful to not add to the word and to not subtract from the word. 

My recommendation of the KJV means nothing, but the 400+ years of the Holy Ghost blessings mean everything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Every time this breaks out. I just can not understand it. Someone comes along and questions using the KJV. So, I trot out my trusty personal statement of faith and doctrines for the section on God's Word...

The Word of God

I believe the original texts are the divinely inspired Word of God in its entirety, written by men as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, and that it is the sole authority for the Christian's faith and conduct.  I believe the King James Version of the Bible is the preserved Word of God for teaching and preaching to English speaking people. This is what I will use when I quote scripture. I believe other English translations contain the Word of God.

The 1769 KJV fits me and I believe God is honored that I have it settled. MEVs are too much like casual conversation for me. I like to remember this is God speaking to me and answering questions I have; so, casual is not an option for me. The KJV makes me pause, think, and study God’s word for understanding. It causes me to meditate on God's Word and I know that pleases Him. (2 Timothy 3:15, Psalms 119:89)

The translators of the KJV had a dedication to God which is unsurpassed even shunned by translators and editors of today’s modern English versions (MEVs). If you want to have a casual conversation with me, that’s fine. If by opportunity we speak of God, the conversation will not be in the English of the KJV, just American English (unless I quote the little scripture I’ve memorized).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On ‎4‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 0:39 AM, Tyndale said:

Do the Scriptures teach word preservation or do they teach thought or meaning preservation?   Terms relating to Bible doctrine should be defined and explained.

From my reading and study of the Scriptures, I see the Scriptures teaching a preservation of the exact, specific words that proceeded out of the mouth of God by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.  According to their preface to the 1611 and according to their writings, I understand the KJV translators to maintain or teach that the preservation of the Scriptures concerned the original language words given to the prophets and apostles.

14 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Tyndale,

A question if I may (indeed, an honest question for information) -- What Hebrew and Greek texts or textual families, do you believe, represent God's work of preserving "the exact, specific words" that proceeded out of His mouth "by inspiration to the prophets and apostles"?

Brother Tyndale,

Would you please answer the question that I posted earlier today?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
16 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Tyndale,

A question if I may (indeed, an honest question for information) -- What Hebrew and Greek texts or textual families, do you believe, represent God's work of preserving "the exact, specific words" that proceeded out of His mouth "by inspiration to the prophets and apostles"?

While you did not answer my questions, I will consider yours.  I believe that God was just as faithful to preserve the exact, specific words of the original language Scriptures before 1611 as in 1611 and as after 1611.  I believe that a consistent, sound view of Bible preservation would be true both before and after 1611. 

I assume that you know that there are some variations or differences in the existing manuscript copies of Scripture that God has allowed to be preserved. 

The KJV translators made use of textually-varying Old Testament Hebrew Masoretic text editions and textually-varying Greek New Testament text editions along with some other textual sources in their textual criticism decisions and translating decisions, and they did not follow any one edition 100% and did not identify or name any one as being their sole perfect standard.  If it is satisfactory and proper for the KJV translators to use more than one edition, would not the same be true for other translators? 

In their preface to the 1611, the KJV translators maintained that "it has pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation."  In their preface, the KJV translators asserted:  "For as it is a fault of incredulity to doubt those things that are evident, so to determine such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption."

I would think that the scriptural truths concerning making righteous judgments, proving all things, using just measures, and not using unjust divers measures could provide some sound guidance concerning what consistent, sound, just criteria textual authorities should use to deal with textual variations.

D. A. Waite, a leading KJV defender and author, has maintained that there are no textual families and that all manuscript copies are like orphans.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I wonder if you would mind answering a question for me - and I would prefer a simple, straightforward answer because I am a relatively simple bloke.

Have you ever been a member of this site under a different name?

Actually another question, if I may - what name would that be, if you have indeed previously been a member here under a different name.

Just wondering, because your way of answering sounds familiar but I am not sure where from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
4 hours ago, Tyndale said:

I believe that God was just as faithful to preserve the exact, specific words of the original language Scriptures before 1611 as in 1611 and as after 1611.  I believe that a consistent, sound view of Bible preservation would be true both before and after 1611. 

I assume that you know that there are some variations or differences in the existing manuscript copies of Scripture that God has allowed to be preserved.

D. A. Waite, a leading KJV defender and author, has maintained that there are no textual families and that all manuscript copies are like orphans.

 

Do you therefore believe that the Great Uncial Codices are also the preserved word of God? 

A simple "yes" or "no" answer is all that is asked for...unless you believe that not all are God's preserved word. In which case, I would therefore ask, "Do you believe that any of the Great Uncial Codices are also the preserved word of God?"

A simple "yes" or "no" answer is all that is asked for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
4 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Do you therefore believe that the Great Uncial Codices are also the preserved word of God? 

A simple "yes" or "no" answer is all that is asked for.

If your question is not actually a simple question, it would not call for a simple answer.  Your question would seem to be actually complex and perhaps misleading or invalid.  Questions can be properly answered by questions.  I will properly explain why I consider your question to be complex or misleading.

I think that both a "no" answer and a "yes" answer could be misunderstood or suggest the wrong thing.   If "no" was given as an answer as your question is worded, it would in effect be saying that the majority of the New Testament text of the Uncial Codices that would be the exactly the same as that in the varying Textus Receptus editions would not be the preserved word of God.  Would you give the answer "no" to your own question and in effect assert that the majority of the New Testament text in the Textus Receptus is not the preserved word of God since both would be the same in the majority of their NT text?  If "yes" was given as an answer as your question is worded, it would be claiming that all the copying errors in the Uncial Codices are the preserved word of God.   I have not suggested that the Uncial Codices should be the standard, and I have not suggested that any textual corruptions should be accepted.

I do not believe that any copying errors introduced by imperfect men are the preserved word of God.  Would you claim that the actual copying errors in the Greek NT manuscripts used by Erasmus were the preserved word of God?

Edited by Tyndale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
8 hours ago, Tyndale said:

While you did not answer my questions . . .

Brother Tyndale,

I do apologize.  I intended my first posting above as  a form of answer to your questions --

On ‎4‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 10:54 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

As for myself:

1.  I believe that the Biblical doctrine of preservation teaches a perfect, generational, precise ("jot and tittle") preservation of the words and wordings which the Lord our God originally gave through the inspiration of His Holy Spirit.

2.  I believe that the King James translation is, by our Lord God's wondrous providence, a perfectly accurate translation of that which He has preserved from generation to generation in a perfectly precise ("jot and tittle") manner.

3.  As such, I believe that the King James translation carries the absolute authority of divine inspiration for the English reading peoples of our present day.

However, it appears that this response was not sufficient.  Therefore allow me to be more precise with your individual questions --

On ‎4‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 0:39 AM, Tyndale said:

Do the Scriptures teach word preservation or do they teach thought or meaning preservation?   Terms relating to Bible doctrine should be defined and explained.

I believe that God's Word teaches "word preservation."  Indeed, I believe that God's Word teaches "jot and tittle" preservation, that is -- preservation unto the very letters and spellings.  Furthermore, I believe that God's Word teaches generation preservation, such that God has promised to preserve His Scriptures from the time of their original giving for each and every generation of His people.

On ‎4‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 0:39 AM, Tyndale said:

Would the scriptural teaching that no words of men were to be added and no words of God were to be omitted or changed relate to the doctrine of preservation and would they suggest that preservation directly concerned the original language words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles? 

By precise definition, "jot and tittle" preservation (as I hold) cannot precisely be applied unto anything other than "the original language words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles."

On ‎4‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 0:39 AM, Tyndale said:

In translating the Scriptures, do translators sometimes have to add words in order for their translation to be understandable in the different language, suggesting that preservation may not directly apply to translations that add some words of men?  Would any words added by translators for which there were no original language words of Scripture be preserving actual words that proceeded out of the mouth of God to the prophets and apostles?  

I do not believe that the doctrine of "translation" is equivalent to the doctrine of preservation; for the very moment that you change (translate) from one language to another, you are compelled to change the "jots and tittles."  Rather, I believe that the doctrine of translation (which is more implied in God's Word, than precisely declared) should be primarily concerned with ACCURACY in a formal equivalence manner.  As such, the doctrine of translation MUST also be concerned with the authenticity of the texts from which the translation is being taken (which is the reason that I asked my question concerning the texts or textual families unto which you held as "authentic").

On ‎4‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 0:39 AM, Tyndale said:

 What exactly or precisely is meant by the assertion that the KJV is the preserved word of God? 

I myself often wonder at this as well; however, I myself do NOT make such a claim.  Rather, I hold that the King James TRANSLATION is a perfectly ACCURATE translation of that which the Lord our God preserved in the Hebrew and Greek.

On ‎4‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 0:39 AM, Tyndale said:

Does it mean that the KJV is a translation of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages? 

See my answer above.

On ‎4‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 0:39 AM, Tyndale said:

On the other hand, is it possibly intended to suggest that the KJV always has a literal, word-for-word translation of each original language word of Scripture so that it is claimed to preserve exactly the same number of words [without any addition or omission] as the number of words that God gave to the prophets and apostles along with preserving the same meaning of each word? 

If someone does intend this, then they are being foolish.  Furthermore, even if this description were a reality, it still would not fulfill the precise definition of "jot and tittle" preservation.

On ‎4‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 0:39 AM, Tyndale said:

If preservation is directly applied to different words in a different language, would that possibly suggest that meaning or thought preservation is in effect being claimed instead of exact, specific word preservation? 

Yes.

On ‎4‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 0:39 AM, Tyndale said:

Do the Scriptures themselves clearly and directly teach a preservation of different words than the exact, specific ones given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles?

No.

On ‎4‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 0:39 AM, Tyndale said:

How does the KJV directly preserve each and every specific word given by God to the prophets and apostles if there are at least a few times where the KJV translators themselves suggested in their marginal notes that they did not provide an English rendering for an original language word in their underlying text?

Are there different number of words in different editions of the KJV or do all editions of the KJV have the exact same number of words and have the exact same words?  Which of the varying editions of the KJV is the specific one that is claimed to have every preserved word of God?

These question are not really relevant to my position concerning the precise definition of "jot and tittle" preservation.

9 hours ago, Tyndale said:

While you did not answer my questions, I will consider yours.  I believe that God was just as faithful to preserve the exact, specific words of the original language Scriptures before 1611 as in 1611 and as after 1611.  I believe that a consistent, sound view of Bible preservation would be true both before and after 1611. 

Amen, and AMEN!!!!!!!

9 hours ago, Tyndale said:

I assume that you know that there are some variations or differences in the existing manuscript copies of Scripture that God has allowed to be preserved. 

The KJV translators made use of textually-varying Old Testament Hebrew Masoretic text editions and textually-varying Greek New Testament text editions along with some other textual sources in their textual criticism decisions and translating decisions, and they did not follow any one edition 100% and did not identify or name any one as being their sole perfect standard.  If it is satisfactory and proper for the KJV translators to use more than one edition, would not the same be true for other translators? 

In their preface to the 1611, the KJV translators maintained that "it has pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation."  In their preface, the KJV translators asserted:  "For as it is a fault of incredulity to doubt those things that are evident, so to determine such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption."

You assume correctly.  I am indeed aware of these facts.  However, these facts do not actually reveal your personal position in relation to the question that I asked --

On ‎4‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 7:28 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Tyndale,

A question if I may (indeed, an honest question for information) -- What Hebrew and Greek texts or textual families, do you believe, represent God's work of preserving "the exact, specific words" that proceeded out of His mouth "by inspiration to the prophets and apostles"?

I am desiring to know if you hold to the same Masoretic and "Received" textual authority as stands behind the King James translation, or if you hold to the textual authority which was lifted up by Westcott and Hort and which has continued to be lifted by present day textual criticism. 

9 hours ago, Tyndale said:

I would think that the scriptural truths concerning making righteous judgments, proving all things, using just measures, and not using unjust divers measures could provide some sound guidance concerning what consistent, sound, just criteria textual authorities should use to deal with textual variations.

Indeed.

9 hours ago, Tyndale said:

D. A. Waite, a leading KJV defender and author, has maintained that there are no textual families and that all manuscript copies are like orphans.

Well, then it would appear that Brother D. A. Waite and I do not agree on this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
17 hours ago, 1Timothy115 said:

 

The translators of the KJV had a dedication to God which is unsurpassed even shunned by translators and editors of today’s modern English versions (MEVs).

You are entitled to your opinion.  Can you provide sound evidence for your opinion?  Have you studied the actual Church of England doctrinal views held by the KJV translators?  Are you unaware of their acceptance of the Church of England's doctrine of baptismal regeneration?  Have you read and studied their lives and their writings?

Did you know that a good number of the KJV translators were active members of the state Church of England's Court of High Commission that persecuted professed believers for their faith?  Two of them were involved in having two men burned at the stake for their beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
13 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

 

I am desiring to know if you hold to the same Masoretic and "Received" textual authority as stands behind the King James translation, or if you hold to the textual authority which was lifted up by Westcott and Hort and which has continued to be lifted by present day textual criticism. 

 

I would hold to the traditional Hebrew Masoretic text.  That would also take into account the marginal notes in the Masoretic Text that the KJV translators themselves sometimes translated and used instead of the actual reading in the Masoretic Text.

I would hold to the traditional Greek New Testament text.  There were actual twenty to thirty varying printed Textus Receptus editions available before 1611 so there may be a few textual variations to be settled between them.   The traditional received Greek NT text may differ slightly from the TR editions because of a few places where conjectures were introduced by Erasmus and Beza [readings found in no known preserved Greek New Testament manuscripts and readings not known to have been received in every generation]. 

I do not hold to the Greek text edited by Westcott and Hort.  I do not hold to the Critical Text.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
11 minutes ago, Tyndale said:

I would hold to the traditional Hebrew Masoretic text.  That would also take into account the marginal notes in the Masoretic Text that the KJV translators themselves sometimes translated and used instead of the actual reading in the Masoretic Text.

I would hold to the traditional Greek New Testament text.  There were actual twenty to thirty varying printed Textus Receptus editions available before 1611 so there may be a few textual variations to be settled between them.   The traditional received Greek NT text may differ slightly from the TR editions because of a few places where conjectures were introduced by Erasmus and Beza [readings found in no known preserved Greek New Testament manuscripts and readings not known to have been received in every generation]. 

I do not hold to the Greek text edited by Westcott and Hort.  I do not hold to the Critical Text.

Brother Tyndale,

It appears then that you and I would stand in basic unity with one another on theses matters.  Having followed various of your postings on the subject, I am compelled to admit that you appear to be more studied on factual details than I am; however, our positioning on the texts and concerning the doctrine of preservation appears quite similar (if not, the same).

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
2 hours ago, Tyndale said:

If your question is not actually a simple question, it would not call for a simple answer.  Your question would seem to be actually complex and perhaps misleading or invalid.  Questions can be properly answered by questions.  I will properly explain why I consider your question to be complex or misleading.

I think that both a "no" answer and a "yes" answer could be misunderstood or suggest the wrong thing.   If "no" was given as an answer as your question is worded, it would in effect be saying that the majority of the New Testament text of the Uncial Codices that would be the exactly the same as that in the varying Textus Receptus editions would not be the preserved word of God.  Would you give the answer "no" to your own question and in effect assert that the majority of the New Testament text in the Textus Receptus is not the preserved word of God since both would be the same in the majority of their NT text?  If "yes" was given as an answer as your question is worded, it would be claiming that all the copying errors in the Uncial Codices are the preserved word of God.   I have not suggested that the Uncial Codices should be the standard, and I have not suggested that any textual corruptions should be accepted.

I do not believe that any copying errors introduced by imperfect men are the preserved word of God.  Would you claim that the actual copying errors in the Greek NT manuscripts used by Erasmus were the preserved word of God?

Okay...fair enough. 

As such, I would also agree that any copying errors are not the preserved word of God. 

However, Erasmus had a "majority" advantage over those who use other textual streams. Of which, Erasmus had the ability to compare the manuscripts.

Let me ask this...

Outside of the King James version, do you believe that there is a modern version of the Bible that you accept as being God's word?

Certainly, that is a "yes" or "no" answer? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
4 hours ago, Tyndale said:

You are entitled to your opinion.  Can you provide sound evidence for your opinion?  Have you studied the actual Church of England doctrinal views held by the KJV translators?  Are you unaware of their acceptance of the Church of England's doctrine of baptismal regeneration?  Have you read and studied their lives and their writings?

Did you know that a good number of the KJV translators were active members of the state Church of England's Court of High Commission that persecuted professed believers for their faith?  Two of them were involved in having two men burned at the stake for their beliefs.

Sound evidence? Sound enough for me...reading any forward from MEVs in comparison with the preface of the 1611. I have not read them all but enough to be disgusted.
Doctrinal views...not in any detail whatsoever, glances at some of the authors sins is as deep as I've gone.
Baptismal regeneration...Yes, and I reject it, somehow God insured that I could see it was incorrect by reading my KJV.
Studied their lives...some very limited study and I understand the translators accepted some views I don't hold.
Prosecuted professed believers...didn't think about the timing but, yes I can see this now.

I agree the lives of the translators were not perfect, outright sinners, me too. I believe God can use deficient men and sinners to preserve His word for English speaking people. Why, do I believe this? He used that murderer Moses to preserve His word. Some of your answers seem to be harsh. I understand these issues are important to you and I can see God using you to keep the rest of us in proper perspective. That is good. Please don't forget to be humble...I'm your brother in the Lord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

That I am aware of, God has yet to use anyone perfect to write, translate, preserve or preach His perfect word (save for Jesus Himself). Praise God, He has maintained it through His power and authority, and not through our imperfect ability.

I have done some certain study on the subject but not nearly what has been done by many here. I have no qualm with Brother Tyndale's sstudy on the matter, nor his pointing out the problems with the KJV translators. Even those few who were not Church of England, but were of the Puritan persuasian, were themselves reformed. But again, bless God, He kept them all at least honest enough to keep out their issues of baptismal regeneration and reformed doctrines. I have even heard the rumors/accusations that King James was homosexual, and therefore the Bible he authorized was not reliable, yet if he was, he was honest enough to demand nothing allowing any kind of that behavior to be added in, either.

I think, for all their flaws, they at least, (or for the most part) truly believed they were doing holy work and God's true word, not as the critics believe, who treat it as any book, to be changed or 'fixed' as they see fit. I don't think anyone holds up the translators as somehow more spiritual or godly than many others, though certainly their abilities in the ancient languages were masterful, they were, however, believers, and God used them well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...