Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Tyndale

Preservation and the KJV

Recommended Posts

On 4/24/2017 at 1:03 AM, Tyndale said:

While you did not answer my questions

The problem (as I see it) sir is that you have continuously ignored and/or refused to answer questions put forth to you, yet you pointed out that Pastor Markle didn't answer your questions. Your refusal to answer questions only serves to make you look untrustworthy and unreliable.

Perhaps it's me and me alone, but I see what appears to be a different style and personality in your posts on non-biblical subjects as compared to the posts that you make on biblical subjects...though I will admit that you seemed to veer from your normal "biblical-subject posting style" in your last response to me in this thread. This leads me to possibly consider that you are looking up the information that suits your purpose, compiling it, and posting it later. You appear to simply be posting what other men say, proclaim, believe, and teach. Perhaps you own all of the books that you quote from, but I've noticed one book that you neglect to quote from...the Bible. Perhaps you have quoted a verse or two, but off of the top of my head, I can't remember you having done so. Again, that only serves to make you look untrustworthy and unreliable.

Your refusal to answer questions and your continuous postings that most certainly appear to be thinly-veiled attacks against the King James Bible (or the King James only stance) only serve to make you look untrustworthy and unreliable.

So the King James translators were sinners...you pointed out some of them by name and their sins. In fact, you went to great lengths to do so when someone finally called you out on providing proof of your assertions...however...I'll go a step further and say that every one of them were sinners. If their sins are a reason not to trust the King James version, then let's just go ahead and use a Tyndale, Geneva, Bishop's...oh wait...they were all sinners too. Well, in that case, let's just get a Westcott & Hort/Vaticanus/Sinaiticus based modern version and...oh wait...they were sinners too. Well, at least the Nestle-Aland folks are continuously belting out updated versions that we can...oh wait...they're sinners too.

Oh dear...

 

Sir, after reading all of the information that you've supplied in this thread and others, you've convinced me of one thing...

...you're untrustworthy and unreliable.

We're not supposed to quote from any version other than the King James on this forum, but for your namesake...from the Tyndale bible...

Romans 16:17
I beseche you brethre marke them which cause division and geve occasions of evyll contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned: and avoyde them.
 

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you aren't meaning to come across as attacking the King James version...but...you are coming across as attacking the King James version. I'll be avoiding you from this point forward Tyndale...at this point and from everything that I've seen, I don't even know if I'd be willing to trust your canning advice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I still get ignored......

A simple question that would take but a minute to answer, and yet mr tyndale appears unwilling or unable to answer me.

Have ever been a member here under another name, and if yes, what name was it?

Surely this is not too difficult to answer..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, wretched said:

The long answer is: I don't care about any of these questions friend.

Does that suggest that you do not care about the truth and simply try to suggest that I need to accept unproven opinions of men?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

The problem (as I see it) sir is that you have continuously ignored and/or refused to answer questions put forth to you. Your refusal to answer questions only serves to make you look untrustworthy and unreliable.

 

You jump to wrong conclusions.  I have actually answered several questions and requests.  While one poster answered some of my questions, other posters do not answer my questions to them.  Would you suggest that those who do not answer my questions look untrustworthy and unreliable?   If not, is a double standard being suggested?

Some questions are invalid when they assume something to be true that is not actually true.  Questions can also be answered with questions.

Why would I desire to answer the questions of those who would seem to attack my integrity, honesty, and faith in God and in the Scriptures and that do not discuss what I actually stated?

It has not been demonstrated that anything I posted is actually untrustworthy and unreliable so evidently I am merely accused based on subjective opinions of men.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I am not worthy to answer your questions - they are too high for me. I am just a dumb bloke.

My question however is a simple one that can be answered simply and it carries no inherent slight or accusation.

It is a simple request for information.

Have you ever been registered here under another username, and if yes, what was the username?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Tyndale said:

Does that suggest that you do not care about the truth and simply try to suggest that I need to accept unproven opinions of men?

You have not one time brought forth any "truth" my friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, wretched said:

You have not one time brought forth any "truth" my friend.

That is obviously an incorrect claim although you may not admit it.  According to a consistent application of your very own words, the truths that I have cited directly from the KJV would not be truth.   Did you not think about what you stated before you posted it?  Did you forget the post where I cited Luke 16:10 in response to a poster who seemed to attempt to trivialize the presenting of facts and details from editions of the KJV?  Are you intentionally skipping over the scriptural truths to which I have appealed?  Is your unsupported, broad-sweeping allegation against me an attempt to avoid the truth that you have not actually demonstrated that I supposedly reject any scriptural truth?  I disagree with some non-scriptural opinions based on what I consider to be scripturally-based reasons so is that a justification for the unsupported harsh allegations against me?

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.

The scripture references in some of my statements are to verses in the KJV, and I have directly cited verses from the KJV.  A number of my points or statements clearly use words and phrases from the KJV and are based on scriptural truths.  Do you not recognize the phrases and terms from the KJV in my statements?  For one example, would your statement suggest that you do not consider the scriptural truth that I cited that God is without partiality and does not show respect of persons to be truth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it so hard for you answer my question?

Simple "Yes, and my previous username was ...... but I forgot my password" or whatever reason, or "No, never signed up here before".

 

Not hard, but I am just getting ignored.

You will hurt my feelings soon....... :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎4‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 9:56 AM, No Nicolaitans said:

 

Sir, after reading all of the information that you've supplied in this thread and others, you've convinced me of one thing...

...you're untrustworthy and unreliable.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Your posts do not suggest that you actually give me the benefit of the doubt.  You have not demonstrated that any of the information that I have posted is untrustworthy and unreliable, but yet you jump to your hasty unsupported allegation against me.  I would welcome all posters checking out the information for themselves.  I try not to post any claim concerning the KJV that I cannot support or back up.  When a poster asked for the evidence or documentation for a statement that I made, I gladly provided it.   If any assertion that I post is factually incorrect or is unscriptural, I would welcome the sound or scriptural evidence that shows that so that I could correct it.

It appears that I am attacked or accused by some for being willing to back up what I claim in obedience to a scriptural truth [prove all things--1 Thess. 5:21] and for asking other posters to back up what they claim.  

The truth remains the truth regardless of who states it.   Attacks on a person stating accurate or true information does not actually answer or refute what was stated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Tyndale said:

That is obviously an incorrect claim although you may not admit it.  According to a consistent application of your very own words, the truths that I have cited directly from the KJV would not be truth.   Did you not think about what you stated before you posted it? 

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.

 

This is the perfect example of prideful intellectualism friend. This is why God hates it. Satan lures you into "theology" instead of worship. Once this occurs in a believer's mind, satan begins to sift you like wheat. The striving for theological one upmanship begins, grows worse and soon you have forgotten completely your purpose on earth.

I have warned you repeatedly friend and will one last time. You are on the wrong road. This road you allowed your flesh to go down leads you to conclusions like this and now you don't trust God's Word anymore, now you think God's Word was authored by men. Now you have nothing to put your faith in.

Luke 16:10 in context has absolutely nothing to do with questioning the inerrancy of God's Word. There is no passage of KJB Scripture that hints at questioning God's Word. Perhaps one of the other versions you cite may but not the real Word of God.

One more time friend: All of the extra-Biblically information you post written by men is untrustworthy and unreliable. It is untrustworthy and unreliable because your sources are not inspired by God. Therefore they cannot be trusted to any real extent. And certainly not trusted OVER God's Word.

If you read something that casts doubt in your mind over God's Word - burn it friend. You will be much happier.

Listen to the Word of God and your faith will increase. Listen to men's agendas and your faith will decrease. It is as simple as that. If you are the type that requires external evidence to all you read in God's Word, you need to realize this second that without FAITH it is impossible to please God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, DaveW said:

 

My question however is a simple one that can be answered simply and it carries no inherent slight or accusation.

It is a simple request for information.

Have you ever been registered here under another username, and if yes, what was the username?

  I do not remember ever posting at this forum before.   I do not recognize the present posters here as being anyone with whom I have engaged in discussion.

  If I had supposedly posted here before, I would be glad for someone to show me the old posts.  I think that I have demonstrated that I am willing to attempt to back up what I post or assert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, wretched said:

 

I have warned you repeatedly friend and will one last time. You are on the wrong road. This road you allowed your flesh to go down leads you to conclusions like this and now you don't trust God's Word anymore, now you think God's Word was authored by men. Now you have nothing to put your faith in.

 

The road that I am on clearly maintained that the words of the Scriptures proceeded out of the mouth of God by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.  I trust God's word.  I do listen to God's word.  You fail to prove your baseless allegations against me and my faith in God and in the Scriptures.   Your allegation that I do not trust God's word anymore is false.  

I don't blindly trust the opinions of men.  It appears that you accuse me because I do not agree with your non-scriptural opinions.

Would a consistent application of what you asserted suggest that those who would follow a human, non-scriptural KJV-only agenda would cause their faith to decrease?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Tyndale said:

  I do not remember ever posting at this forum before.   I do not recognize the present posters here as being anyone with whom I have engaged in discussion.

  If I had supposedly posted here before, I would be glad for someone to show me the old posts.  I think that I have demonstrated that I am willing to attempt to back up what I post or assert.

Great, thanks.

That wasn't hard now, was it?

Some of your phrasing and terminology reminds me of someone here, but I can't remember who. Maybe it will come to me later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I normally don't do this, but a couple of days ago, I decided to try to find information on one of the authors that have been quoted in this thread. It was kind of like throwing a dart to pick one. I looked over the list and just chose one and proceeded to investigate...

...couldn't find a thing about him.

I found him mentioned. I found his book(s). I found his books mentioned. However, I couldn't find a single thing about him...his theological views...his church affiliation...his doctrinal views. Couldn't even find any secular information on him...

Nothing. He apparently is just some guy who wrote some things that people want to read.

I will also take one last opportunity to say this, Tyndale, unless something openly happens to change my mind, I am avoiding you. Therefore, I'll not respond to any of your quotes or replies to me. It's not my intention to be mean or offensive; it's me following scripture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I may request that we ALL "slow-down" for a moment, that we might FIRST consider the Biblical definition for the doctrine of preservation.  Such IS the foundational premise for this entire discussion.  Therefore, what PRECISELY is that Biblical definition; and what Biblical evidence can be provided for that definition?

(Note: This question is strictly concerning the definition for the doctrine of preservation, and NOT AT ALL concerning the application of that definition unto any given text or translation.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎4‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 11:11 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

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).

In our mutual discussion of the doctrine of preservation, did we not agree that it concerned preservation of the exact same original language words given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles?  We seemed to use the term preservation concerning the Scriptures in the same sense to refer to exact-word preservation [the same exact words preserved unchanged] or jot and tittle preservation.

The Encarta World English Dictionary gave as its first definition of preservation: "protection from harm" and gave as its second definition: "a keeping of something unchanged" (p. 1412).

Edited by Tyndale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KJV defender H. D. Williams asserted:  “The model for preservation of inspired Words is also included in the Bible.  God made the first copy of His inspired Words as the model.  He copied the exact same Words that were on the first tablet containing the Ten Commandments (Exod. 34:1).  He commanded Jeremiah to make a copy of the exact Words He gave him to record in the scroll that King Jehoiakim cut-up and destroyed with a penknife and by burning the manuscript (Jer. 36ff)” (Hearing the Voice of God, pp. 194-195). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Tyndale said:

KJV defender H. D. Williams asserted:  “The model for preservation of inspired Words is also included in the Bible.  God made the first copy of His inspired Words as the model.  He copied the exact same Words that were on the first tablet containing the Ten Commandments (Exod. 34:1).  He commanded Jeremiah to make a copy of the exact Words He gave him to record in the scroll that King Jehoiakim cut-up and destroyed with a penknife and by burning the manuscript (Jer. 36ff)” (Hearing the Voice of God, pp. 194-195). 

Apparently, H.D. Williams didn't know his Bible very well.

Jeremiah 36:32 Then took Jeremiah another roll, and gave it to Baruch the scribe, the son of Neriah; who wrote therein from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the book which Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire: and there were added besides unto them many like words.

What are you going to do with that, all ye wise touters of the "original manuscripts"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Williams is a friend of mine...albeit, not what one would consider a close friend. 

Though I haven't read the book in question...for the life of me, I don't see the problem with what he is purported to have said/written.

God said that he would write the words on the second tables that were on the first tables that Moses broke. 

(Exodus 34:1) And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.

God did tell Jeremiah to write again what was written before...

(Jeremiah 36:28) Take thee again another roll, and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll, which Jehoiakim the king of Judah hath burned.

The words were copied...the words were copied in the language they were written in.

If preservation leaves no room for language interpretation; thereby, affording no leeway for the addition of words from one language to another to ensure a copy of God's exact word into another language...then blame God. He's the one who confounded the languages at Babel. 

Then blame God for not being able to make up his mind. First he confounds the languages, then he gave the gift of tongues on the day of Pentecost...which is rather interesting, because...

(Acts 2:6-11)

 6  Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. note

 7  And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?

 8  And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

 9  Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,

 10  Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,

 11  Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

They weren't speaking Hebrew there...but they received God's word...and it came from God.

I believe the King James is the preserved word of God in English. If one has a problem with additions, word count, etc., then blame God for making different languages that don't line up the same.

I would also suggest trying to find what words meant in the 1600s instead of studying why men believe there are problems with the King James. It would be much more fruitful and a blessing.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017/4/27 at 6:33 AM, Alan said:

In my understanding, exact word preservation or jot and tittle preservation would have to concern preservation of the original language words of Scripture.   In my opinion, you in effect would have to change the definition or meaning of preservation to attempt to use it concerning Bible translations.   If that is your definition of preservation than any language outside of the Hebrew and Greek texts cannot be be the  preserved word of God. In fact, if this is the case than the manuscripts that you have quoted that saying that they are the preserved word cannot be the preserved word of God as there are variations within them. This is exact reason why the King James translators put words in italics (which you have rejected as there are variations in the words in italics).

What is your definition of preservation?  I will take up the definition of the word preservation later as I do not want to change the subject and stray from the other questions that you have not answered.  Exact word preservation or jot and tittle preservation would have to be changed to meaning preservation, thought preservation, or dynamic equivalent preservation in order to apply it to Bible translations.  If that be the case, than your translation is not a preserved bible as you previously stated it would have to be 'every jot and tittle'.  What type of preservation are you claiming for the KJV?  The KJV does not give a literal rendering of each original language word that the KJV translators had in their underlying original language texts. Neither does any other translations; including the Greek texts. Excluding the 1611 reprint editions, present editions of the KJV would not provide a "jot and tittle" preservation of the 1611 edition of the KJV.   Exact "jot and tittle" preservation would not allow even the spelling of words to be changed.   All the actual revisions and changes made to the 1611 edition of the KJV did not involve only spelling or grammar. As I stated before, according to you absolutely no English translation, or any other language outside of Hebrew and Greek can fit your definition.

Tyndale,

You are in serious error; I never did agree with your definition of preservation and plainly stated I did not. I would appreciate a clarification from you as soon as possible to set the record straight. I plainly said that I would define the word preservation later.

Alan

Edited by Alan
grammer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Mr. Williams is a friend of mine...albeit, not what one would consider a close friend. 

Though I haven't read the book in question...for the life of me, I don't see the problem with what he is purported to have said/written.

God said that he would write the words on the second tables that were on the first tables that Moses broke. 

(Exodus 34:1And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.

God did tell Jeremiah to write again what was written before...

(Jeremiah 36:28Take thee again another roll, and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll, which Jehoiakim the king of Judah hath burned.

The words were copied...the words were copied in the language they were written in.

If preservation leaves no room for language interpretation; thereby, affording no leeway for the addition of words from one language to another to ensure a copy of God's exact word into another language...then blame God. He's the one who confounded the languages at Babel. 

Then blame God for not being able to make up his mind. First he confounds the languages, then he gave the gift of tongues on the day of Pentecost...which is rather interesting, because...

(Acts 2:6-11)

 6  Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. note

 7  And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?

 8  And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

 9  Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,

 10  Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,

 11  Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

They weren't speaking Hebrew there...but they received God's word...and it came from God.

I believe the King James is the preserved word of God in English. If one has a problem with additions, word count, etc., then blame God for making different languages that don't line up the same.

I would also suggest trying to find what words meant in the 1600s instead of studying why men believe there are problems with the King James. It would be much more fruitful and a blessing.

 

 

NN, you are a brother that I respect, and if the way that I worded my comment regarding your friend was offensive to you in any way, I sincerely apologize and will re-word it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alan said:

Tyndale,

. . . I never did agree with your definition of preservation and plainly stated I did not.

Indeed, this is the reason that I suggested that we must "slow down" and begin with the BIBLICAL definition for the doctrine of preservation.  It really does not matter what Brother Markle's definition might be.  It really does not matter what Brother Alan's definition might be.  It really does not matter what Brother Tyndale's definition might be.  It really does not matter what any other person's definition might be.  On the other hand, it MOST CERTAINLY matters what the BIBLICAL definition actually is.  Once that foundational premise (doctrine) is settled, THEN (and ONLY then) we are in a position to discuss applications unto various texts, textual families, or translations.

1.  What did the Lord our God promise to preserve?

2.  For how long did the Lord our God promise to preserve it?

3.  Where did the Lord our God promise to preserve it?

4.  Unto what extent did the Lord our God promise to preserve it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pastor Markle,

I understand. I am of the persuasion that I am not the problem, wretched in not the problem, DaveW is not the problem, you are not the problem, nor is NoNicolaitans the problem. Tyndale has his own agenda in disparaging the Authorized Version, the King James Version of 1611 (and its revisions).

I am of the persuasion that  it is pointless to continue. In my estimation, he  is not honestly interested in any definition of preservation that we give. That is why I never gave a definition. And, most likely, will not give a definition in his posts.

Furthermore,  I am of the persuasion he will use what ever I say (and probably others), to his own advantage and disparage those brethren who do not agree with his personal definition, agenda, and beliefs. 

Alan

Edited by Alan
person to personal deleted offensive statement due to clariification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alan said:

Tyndale,

You are in serious error; I never did agree with your definition of preservation and plainly stated I did not. I would appreciate a clarification from you as soon as possible to set the record straight. I plainly said that I would define the word preservation later.

Alan

I never stated that you agreed with the definition or type of preservation that I understand to be indicated in the Scriptures.   You jump to an incorrect conclusion if you incorrectly claim that I claimed that.   I had quoted Pastor Markle, and acknowledged his stated agreement concerning preservation, not yours. 

You fail to demonstrate that I made any false statements as you alleged.  I am not sure which exact statements I made that you allege are supposedly false.  In my opinion, you do not prove that I twist any of your statements.  In my opinion, you perhaps misunderstand or misrepresent what I stated.

I had stated:  "In my understanding, exact word preservation or jot and tittle preservation would have to concern preservation of the original language words of Scripture.   In my opinion, you in effect would have to change the definition or meaning of preservation to attempt to use it concerning Bible translations."

You replied:   "If that is your definition of preservation than any language outside of the Hebrew and Greek texts cannot  be be the  preserved word of God."

The issue is not my definition of preservation.  The points I raised were concerning what type of preservation is actually taught in the Scriptures and whether the meaning of preservation is being changed when attempts are made to apply it to Bible translations. 

Would you claim that the Scriptures do not indicate an "exact word preservation" or a "jot and tittle preservation"?

 

Edited by Tyndale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...