Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Tyndale

Preservation and the KJV

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, weary warrior said:

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"?

How is the fact that God chose to give additional revelation to Jeremiah conflict with the doctrine of the preservation of the Scriptures or the model of preservation?

The new additional words that God gave to Jeremiah were not part of the preservation of previously given words of God since they had not been given earlier.  Only after the additional words were given by God to Jeremiah do those exact words need to be preserved in copies.

Edited by Tyndale

Share this post


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

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.

No sir, it didn't offend me. :)

No need to reword anything. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017/4/25 at 8:51 AM, Alan said:

Are any of the versions of the scriptures from 1881, the Revised Version of 1881, the 'preserved word of God?' Yes or No.

Do we need another Greek translation? Yes or No.

Do we need another English translation from another Greek translation?  Yes or No.

If so, please let me know which Bible is the preserved word of God.

Tyndale,

I am still waiting for a Yes or No answer. If the Authorized Version, the King James Version (or any of its revisions), is not the preserved word of God, let me know which one is.

When I get my Yes or No answer, I will know how to continue this discussion.

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Alan said:

Tyndale,

I am still waiting for a Yes or No answer. If the Authorized Version, the King James Version (or any of its revisions), is not the preserved word of God, let me know which one is

Alan

The preserved Scriptures in the original languages were the preserved word of God before 1611, and they remained the preserved word of God after 1611.  The preserved Scriptures in the original languages were used as the standard and authority for the making of many of the revisions made to the 1611 edition of the KJV.

Bible translations are translations of the preserved word of God in original languages.  By definition, are Bible translations independent and underived or are they dependent on and derived from their sources?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there ANY English version which is a perfect version of the Word of God available to us today?

This is a question which requires a simple answer - a Yes or no will do, but I would ask that if you say Yes, you provide a simple statement which nominates which version is the perfect version of the Word of God in English available to us today.

ONCE YOU HAVE done so, you may then outline the reasons all you like, but for my part I need to know this information from you.

 

Share this post


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

How is the fact that God chose to give additional revelation to Jeremiah conflict with the doctrine of the preservation of the Scriptures or the model of preservation?

The new additional words that God gave to Jeremiah were not part of the preservation of previously given words of God since they had not been given earlier.  Only after the additional words were given by God to Jeremiah do those exact words need to be preserved in copies.

I will speak slow.

And use small words.

Though I know my efforts will be wasted.

Jeremiah's word from the Lord, read before the king was, by definition, "the original". 

The king destroyed the "originals". They were no more. Nothing you have today of Jeremiah was translated from the originals, as they were were cut to shreds with a knife and burned in a fire. What Jeremiah re-wrote was not the same as what was before, for it had been added to. We don't know what it contained exactly, for we don't know what of the scripture that we have now was part of the added and what was ...original. Follow me so far?

Oh. Wait. What about the other time Jeremiah's "originals" were destroyed? That is in Jeremiah 51:63. Poor Jeremiah. Just couldn't keep a handle on those precious "original manuscripts", could he?

Forever, Oh Lord, they word is settled in Heaven. Whew!! Wait!! WHAT??? What a load off my mind! The pure word of God is settled in Heaven, not lost in the original manuscripts. So if a wise and Holy God wishes to give his people that speak another language a copy of His translated word, He can actually, through his indwelling Spirit, guide a translater through the translation process of the copies of manuscripts we have and we can have a perfect, preserved Word of God today? YES!!! Do we really think God is so stupid He would commit the preservation of his perfect word to fallible, foolish man without His constant help and intervention???

And will some over educated idiot please tell me why God would preserve his perfect Word in Heaven out of the reach of man, and not make that perfect word available to man, when it was written FOR man?!?

You said "The preserved Scriptures in the original languages were the preserved word of God before 1611, and they remained the preserved word of God after 1611.  The preserved Scriptures in the original languages were used as the standard and authority for the making of many of the revisions made to the 1611 edition of the KJV."

You are stating plainly that you do NOT hold the KJV 1611 to be the perfect, preserved word of God. Only you are too dishonest and too cowardly to come out and actually say the words. So I just did for you, for I despise a coward. You're welcome. And if you come back and say that you DO believe that the KJV is the preserved, perfect word of God in the English language, I will publicly apologize on here before all. But you won't.

I don't care what you believe, but for-crying-out-loud, at least have the manhood to stand up and say so.

God HATES these intellectual games. Let your yay be yay, and your nay, nay. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Word count, word additions, and word order.

Spanish: Tengo un armario secreto negro.

English: I have a black secret closet.

Word count: The "original" has five words, but the "English translation" has six words! Oh dear...

Word additions: The "translation" has added a word! Oh my...

Word order: If we look at the "original" and impose the "translated words" in its place, it would read as...

I have a closet secret black.

Oh my...that doesn't make sense! Oh dear...

The word count doesn't match, there's an addition to the "translation", and the word order is completely different...

...yet they say the exact same thing. Whew! 

The "English translation" is a perfectly preserved copy of the "original"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, weary warrior said:

Forever, Oh Lord, they word is settled in Heaven. Whew!! Wait!! WHAT??? What a load off my mind! The pure word of God is settled in Heaven, not lost in the original manuscripts. So if a wise and Holy God wishes to give his people that speak another language a copy of His translated word, He can actually, through his indwelling Spirit, guide a translater through the translation process of the copies of manuscripts we have and we can have a perfect, preserved Word of God today? YES!!! Do we really think God is so stupid He would commit the preservation of his perfect word to fallible, foolish man without His constant help and intervention???

Brother "Weary Warrior,"

Now, I am a bit confused about your position on this matter.

1.  You indicate your understanding that the Lord our God preserved His Word perfectly in heaven, as per Psalm 119:89.  Thus far I am understanding.

2.  Then you make reference unto the "original manuscripts" in connection to the word "lost."  Again, I believe that I am understanding; for I believe that all recognize that none of the original manuscripts still exist unto this day.  (However, I would note that the Biblical doctrine of preservation does NOT concern the original manuscripts themselves, but actually concerns the original writings (Scriptures - the words and wordings) that were contained in those original manuscripts.)

3.  Then you make reference unto "the copies of manuscripts we have," and that the translators used these copies in their translation process.  This is wherein my confusion begins.  Do you believe that the original writings (not the original manuscripts themselves, but the original words and wordings of those original writings) were still in existence unto 1611 within "the copies of manuscripts"?  Or, do you believe that the original words and wordings of the original writings were lost through deterioration or corruption down through the ages, such that the ONLY place wherein the Lord our God had preserved His Word with perfection unto 1611 was in heaven?  (Note: This question specifically concerns the definition for the doctrine of preservation -- Is the Biblical doctrine of preservation an "only-in-heaven-preserved-perfect" definition, or is the Biblical doctrine of preservation a "here-on-the-earth-from-generation-to-generation-preserved-perfect" definition?)
 

9 hours ago, weary warrior said:

You said "The preserved Scriptures in the original languages were the preserved word of God before 1611, and they remained the preserved word of God after 1611.  The preserved Scriptures in the original languages were used as the standard and authority for the making of many of the revisions made to the 1611 edition of the KJV."

You are stating plainly that you do NOT hold the KJV 1611 to be the perfect, preserved word of God. Only you are too dishonest and too cowardly to come out and actually say the words. So I just did for you, for I despise a coward. You're welcome. And if you come back and say that you DO believe that the KJV is the preserved, perfect word of God in the English language, I will publicly apologize on here before all. But you won't.

Throughout this discussion I have become a bit grieved.  It appears that you and others have not recognized Brother Tyndale's position on the doctrine of preservation until his quote which you have presented above, wherein he applies that doctrine of preservation ONLY unto the original words and wordings of the original language (Hebrew and Greek) writings.  Yet Brother Tyndale actually communicated his position on this matter in his very FIRST posting, as follows:

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. (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

In fact, Brother Tyndale even indicated with this original posting that his concern was over the specific definition for the Biblical doctrine of preservation -- Whether "the Scriptures teach word preservation" or whether they teach "thought or meaning preservation."  Indeed, he indicated his concern that the "terms relating to Bible doctrine" (in this context, the Biblical doctrine of preservation) should be appropriately "defined and explained."

As such, this thread discussion, although it does have application unto the King James translation, is foundationally about the BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF PRESERVATION and about the CORRECT BIBLICAL DEFINITION for that doctrine.  Now, when an individual claims that the King James translation is the "preserved" Word of God in English, that individual is ASSUMING a particular definition for the doctrine of preservation.  As such, the Biblical doctrine of preservation is the foundation of the matter, not the application unto the given translation.  Thus I contend yet again -- That it is time to "slow down" and stop discussing the application of the doctrine of preservation unto ANY given text or translation, and to start discussing ONLY the Biblical doctrine of preservation itself, to discern its correct BIBLICAL definition.

In conclusion, I present a thought that may be found offensive unto some -- I am not aware of any passage in God's Holy Word wherein the 1611 King James translation is specifically referenced; however, I am aware of various passages in God's Holy Word wherein the doctrine of Biblical preservation is specifically referenced.  As such, which carries more foundational weight of divine authority -- the doctrine concerning Biblical preservation or the doctrine concerning the 1611 King James translation?  In my estimation, whichever carries more foundational weight of divine authority should be our STARTING point.  (Note: I myself believe with conviction that the King James translation, encompassing its various revisions, IS the perfectly authoritative Word of God for English speaking people in our time.)

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Word count, word additions, and word order.

Spanish: Tengo un armario secreto negro.

English: I have a black secret closet.

Word count: The "original" has five words, but the "English translation" has six words! Oh dear...

Word additions: The "translation" has added a word! Oh my...

Word order: If we look at the "original" and impose the "translated words" in its place, it would read as...

I have a closet secret black.

Oh my...that doesn't make sense! Oh dear...

The word count doesn't match, there's an addition to the "translation", and the word order is completely different...

...yet they say the exact same thing. Whew! 

The "English translation" is a perfectly preserved copy of the "original"... (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Brother McWhorter,

The accuracy of your statement above is actually dependent upon the definition for "the doctrine of preservation."

It would certainly be accurate to state that -- "The 'English translation' is a perfectly ACCURATE copy of the 'original'."

It would certainly also be accurate to state that -- "The 'English translation' is a perfectly AUTHORITATIVE copy of the 'original'."

However, if an individual holds to a definition of preservation that is "jot and tittle" preservation, then it would NOT be accurate to state that -- "The 'English translation' is a perfectly PRESERVED copy of the 'original'."  This statement would NOT be accurate with such a definition specifically because the "jots and tittles" are NOT exactly (perfectly) the same.  In fact, with a "jot and tittle" definition for preservation, ANY work of translation whatsoever at all into ANY language would be contrary to preservation since every letter of every word would change form.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother "Weary Warrior,"

Now, I am a bit confused about your position on this matter.

1.  You indicate your understanding that the Lord our God preserved His Word perfectly in heaven, as per Psalm 119:89.  Thus far I am understanding.

2.  Then you make reference unto the "original manuscripts" in connection to the word "lost."  Again, I believe that I am understanding; for I believe that all recognize that none of the original manuscripts still exist unto this day.  (However, I would note that the Biblical doctrine of preservation does NOT concern the original manuscripts themselves, but actually concerns the original writings (Scriptures - the words and wordings) that were contained in those original manuscripts.)

3.  Then you make reference unto "the copies of manuscripts we have," and that the translators used these copies in their translation process.  This is wherein my confusion begins.  Do you believe that the original writings (not the original manuscripts themselves, but the original words and wordings of those original writings) were still in existence unto 1611 within "the copies of manuscripts"?  Or, do you believe that the original words and wordings of the original writings were lost through deterioration or corruption down through the ages, such that the ONLY place wherein the Lord our God had preserved His Word with perfection unto 1611 was in heaven?  (Note: This question specifically concerns the definition for the doctrine of preservation -- Is the Biblical doctrine of preservation an "only-in-heaven-preserved-perfect" definition, or is the Biblical doctrine of preservation a "here-on-the-earth-from-generation-to-generation-preserved-perfect" definition?)
 

Throughout this discussion I have become a bit grieved.  It appears that you and others have not recognized Brother Tyndale's position on the doctrine of preservation until his quote which you have presented above, wherein he applies that doctrine of preservation ONLY unto the original words and wordings of the original language (Hebrew and Greek) writings.  Yet Brother Tyndale actually communicated his position on this matter in his very FIRST posting, as follows:

In fact, Brother Tyndale even indicated with this original posting that his concern was over the specific definition for the Biblical doctrine of preservation -- Whether "the Scriptures teach word preservation" or whether they teach "thought or meaning preservation."  Indeed, he indicated his concern that the "terms relating to Bible doctrine" (in this context, the Biblical doctrine of preservation) should be appropriately "defined and explained."

As such, this thread discussion, although it does have application unto the King James translation, is foundationally about the BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF PRESERVATION and about the CORRECT BIBLICAL DEFINITION for that doctrine.  Now, when an individual claims that the King James translation is the "preserved" Word of God in English, that individual is ASSUMING a particular definition for the doctrine of preservation.  As such, the Biblical doctrine of preservation is the foundation of the matter, not the application unto the given translation.  Thus I contend yet again -- That it is time to "slow down" and stop discussing the application of the doctrine of preservation unto ANY given text or translation, and to start discussing ONLY the Biblical doctrine of preservation itself, to discern its correct BIBLICAL definition.

In conclusion, I present a thought that may be found offensive unto some -- I am not aware of any passage in God's Holy Word wherein the 1611 King James translation is specifically referenced; however, I am aware of various passages in God's Holy Word wherein the doctrine of Biblical preservation is specifically referenced.  As such, which carries more foundational weight of divine authority -- the doctrine concerning Biblical preservation or the doctrine concerning the 1611 King James translation?  In my estimation, whichever carries more foundational weight of divine authority should be our STARTING point.  (Note: I myself believe with conviction that the King James translation, encompassing its various revisions, IS the perfectly authoritative Word of God for English speaking people in our time.)

Pastor Markle,

I apologize for the lack of clarity on my part regarding my stand on this subject of preservation. The word of God has been preserved here on earth from the beginning, not in heaven only. I believe that God has always been present in the hearts of chosen men while they copied scripture in their own language, as well as while it was being translated into other languages, for the purpose of preserving it here on earth for man. Yes I believe the Textus Receptus is the preserved, perfect word of God in their respective languages, as I believe the KJV is in ours. 

The words "jot and tittle" only appears one time in scripture, and a true student of the scripture understands, as I am sure you do, that this passage has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

The term "original manuscripts" has become the pea in a carnival shell game, and my post regarding that was to expose it's abuse.

I'm on my way out the door to work, and apologize for the brevity of this answer. I hope it will serve for now.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, weary warrior said:

Pastor Markle,

I apologize for the lack of clarity on my part regarding my stand on this subject of preservation. The word of God has been preserved here on earth from the beginning, not in heaven only. I believe that God has always been present in the hearts of chosen men while they copied scripture in their own language, as well as while it was being translated into other languages, for the purpose of preserving it here on earth for man. Yes I believe the Textus Receptus is the preserved, perfect word of God in their respective languages, as I believe the KJV is in ours. 

The words "jot and tittle" only appears one time in scripture, and a true student of the scripture understands, as I am sure you do, that this passage has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

The term "original manuscripts" has become the pea in a carnival shell game, and my post regarding that was to expose it's abuse.

I'm on my way out the door to work, and apologize for the brevity of this answer. I hope it will serve for now.

Brother "Weary Warrior,"

I also am on my way out the door for some responsibility, so I will not be back until much later this evening (if at all today).

However, I thank you for your answer.  I believe that it was sufficient to remove my confusion.

As far as the phrase "jot and tittle," I believe that we may be in disagreement on this matter -- considering that I myself am the very one who originally introduced this phrase into the discussion on this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother McWhorter,

The accuracy of your statement above is actually dependent upon the definition for "the doctrine of preservation."

It would certainly be accurate to state that -- "The 'English translation' is a perfectly ACCURATE copy of the 'original'."

It would certainly also be accurate to state that -- "The 'English translation' is a perfectly AUTHORITATIVE copy of the 'original'."

However, if an individual holds to a definition of preservation that is "jot and tittle" preservation, then it would NOT be accurate to state that -- "The 'English translation' is a perfectly PRESERVED copy of the 'original'."  This statement would NOT be accurate with such a definition specifically because the "jots and tittles" are NOT exactly (perfectly) the same.  In fact, with a "jot and tittle" definition for preservation, ANY work of translation whatsoever at all into ANY language would be contrary to preservation since every letter of every word would change form.

Perhaps I haven't studied it enough, but my understanding of preservation (in short) is this...

to guard, in a good sense (to protect, maintain)

God has guarded his word, and God has protected and maintained his word...not just the thought behind his word and not our own interpretation of his words. He has preserved his actual word.

This began with the original inspired pennings, was continued through copies, and continued further through literal translation copies. Though the only reference to "jot and tittle" is referring to the law, I still believe that every jot and tittle of all of God's word was and is preserved from the original inspired pennings and their copies...to the faithful literal translation of those copies. The jots and tittles are simply the smallest letter and the smallest "accent mark" of the letters that make up his word, and they denote (by the Lord's reference to them) that even the most minute detail of God's law wouldn't pass until all was fulfilled.

Those jots and tittles were translated. Though there are still copies of the originals, I believe we also have them translated into English.

God has preserved his word...he has guarded it and protected it. He has allowed it to be translated into other languages.

Am I understanding you correctly; in that, you believe that only the copies of the original languages represent his preserved word? 

Edited by No Nicolaitans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother "Weary Warrior,"

I also am on my way out the door for some responsibility, so I will not be back until much later this evening (if at all today).

However, I thank you for your answer.  I believe that it was sufficient to remove my confusion.

As far as the phrase "jot and tittle," I believe that we may be in disagreement on this matter -- considering that I myself am the very one who originally introduced this phrase into the discussion on this thread.

Are you sure that the scriptures only promise a jot and tittle preservation?

If God only promised "jot and tittle", then would you also be consistent by believing that preservation does not apply to the New Testament as well since it is in Greek?

I also have some questions for others in this thread, but let me preface it by saying that I do believe that the King James Bible is without error.

Here is my question, Where does the bible promise that God would accurately translate his words into an English version in 1611 and then preserve them? Why do we not believe the Tyndale, Geneva, or Bishops bible to be the inspired "preserved" word of God?

Edited by Jordan Kurecki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to admit that I'm a bit confused at this point...

I would respectfully ask Pastor Markle (if he is inclined) to explain his meaning behind...

1. "jot and tittle" preservation

2. "generational" preservation

3. "biblical" preservation

At this point, and from what I gather from what HAS been said by Pastor Markle, I am assuming that by "jot and tittle" preservation, it leaves no room for translation into another language to be considered "preserved"?

Every language (that I'm aware of) has "jots and tittles"; which are, the smallest letter and the smallest accent (or mark) belonging to a letter. Letters make words. Small letters with their small marks are part of the letters that make words. In English, we have the letter i. I think I'm correct in saying that the letter i is the smallest English letter, and the dot of the i is the smallest mark. However, it can be faithfully translated into other languages without losing its integrity or meaning when translated.

Again, I use Spanish and English...

Spanish: adiós

English: goodbye

In that one simple word, I see a Spanish "tittle", but it loses nothing in the translation. It's the same word with the same meaning in another language.

Perhaps I'm too simple in my understanding, or the Lord hasn't brought me far enough along yet, but if we don't have God's word preserved that we can read, if we don't have access to his word that we can read and study...all of it...then there's a major problem as I see it...

Matthew 4:4
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Luke 4:4
And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

Deuteronomy 8:3
And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.

...if we are to live by every word of God, and God is the one who breathed his word into the writers...but we don't have every word...then we've been sold a bill of goods.

...if God expects us to live by his word and study his word...but we don't have every word...then we've been sold a bill of goods.

I have no problem understanding that the wording of any translation may (and does) differ from the original tongue. I have no problem understanding that word count, word additions (or subtractions), and word order will change from one language to another...I get it...it makes perfect sense to me and gives me no reason to doubt preservation. When one can translate something from one language into another, and though the word count, word additions or subtractions, and word order may differ...but they are still saying the exact same thing...then from my understanding...the original language translated into another language has been preserved. Those changes don't necessitate a "thought" preservation or an "idea" preservation; rather, they are a "word" preservation from one language into another. 

Sometimes, I long for the days when I just loved Jesus and was naive about this kind of stuff...

Pastor Markle, please don't take this as an attack on you. You know that I love and respect you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this just an issue of me saying, "The English translation is a perfectly preserved copy of the original"?

Is the word "copy" the culprit? If so, I can understand that. However, I'm a Southern boy with loosey-goosey grammatical meanings. What I know and understand...as well as the people in my area...may not be what others know and understand from other areas. Sounds a lot like what we're discussing here but on a secular level.

Would it rather suffice for me to say something along the lines of, "The translation preserves the wording of the original language into the other language; thereby, the same meaning is kept intact without error"?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, weary warrior said:

My belief and understanding of the truth concerning the perfect, preservation of the word of God for us today in the form of the KJV 1611, is solid and unshakable. I have no need, nor any wish, to pursue a subject past a point that is both purposeful and profitable to myself and my ministry. Learning is necessary. Teaching is commanded. But intellectual exercise for it's own sake is both vain and shallow. 

So, why then did I interject myself into the thread in such a vehement and passionate manner?

I am a preacher. That is what I do, it is who I am. I learn doctrine and truth in order to preach doctrine and truth, but learning is a means to an end. It is not the end. Preaching is the end. Therefor, when I become aware of wrong being perpetuated in Christ's name, it is the very essence of who I am, it is both the fire and the fuel that God has placed in me to stand up and roar "Thus sayeth the Lord". It's not always smooth, and it is rarely pretty, but it always comes from an honest place. My understanding of the core responsibilities of a man of God.

I am committed, nay, even commissioned, to warn of deceit and false brethren. The OP of this thread revealed his intentions in his very first post, and that intention was to use subtlety and deceit to sow seeds of doubt and discord among the brethren regarding the very foundation upon which we stand, our Bible. Yes, he said many things, and some of them sounded true. The most dangerous lies, however, have the greatest amount of truth in them, and the greatest liars look the most like us.

I would like to 'double-like' every word that Weary Warrior has said.

I would also like to interject a couple of thoughts. Please notice that I said, 'thoughts.'

1. Inspiration is not preservation. Both of these words need to be defined.

2. In dealing with preservation. some of the brethren have a problem with "how," and, with, "what means," and "who" God used to preserve His word. Remember, the scriptures are His words; not ours. And, "how," and, "with," and with "what means," and "who" God uses is up to God.

3. The hatred of the preserved words of God are so intense, that the truth is often hid under 'intellectualism' in order to hide the motive, the agenda, and the true intention of the scholar, the Bible teacher, the Bible corrector, and the greedy individuals who want to make money off of the selling of these new versions of the Bible.

4. I deliberately did not give an definition of the word 'preservation' due to, what I felt, the ulterior motives of this thread.

5. I trust Pastor Markle and his motives. If Pastor Markle wants to start a new thread on this issue I may, or may not, interject the definition of preservation that I feel is appropriate, and, or, my thoughts.

6. In my estimation, The words of the Lord Jesus, in its context, "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one title shall is not wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled," Matthew 5:18, is not dealing with either inspiration nor preservation. Matthew 5:18 may, or may not, be applicable to the issue of preservation in a secondary manner.

In conclusion, the Authorized Version, commonly called the King James Version of 1611 (and any of its revisions), are the preserved words of God.

Alan

Edited by Alan
changed 'world' to 'word'

Share this post


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

I have to admit that I'm a bit confused at this point...

I would respectfully ask Pastor Markle (if he is inclined) to explain his meaning behind...

Brother McWhorter,

I have every intention of responding with explanation; however, I am presently involved in a responsibility that is consuming a great deal of my time.  Thus I request some patience from you, and even from all.  I know that I have "stirred the pot" a little, and I do NOT intend to just leave it that way.
 

17 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Pastor Markle, please don't take this as an attack on you. You know that I love and respect you.

I do NOT at all view your comments as an attack.  I have (knowingly) presented some thoughts that are not the common expression.  As such, I expected questions to be posed.

In addition, I most CERTAINLY know that you love and respect me.  Our "forum friendship" is NOT AT ALL in jeopardy. 
 

15 hours ago, Alan said:

5. I trust Pastor Markle and his motives.

Brother Alan,

I thank you for your trust.  I pray that I will not harm it in any manner, although I may present some thoughts that are not exactly common on this matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the book entitled Thou Shalt Keep Them: A Biblical Theology of the Perfect Preservation of Scripture edited by Kent Brandenburg, the following definition is given for preservation:  “complete, inerrant protection and general accessibility of every writing (vowels and consonants, words, and orders of letters and words) of the Bible, the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments, for every generation of believers” (p. 13). 

Ken Brandenburg asserted:  “The position taken by the men writing this book is that scripture teaches God has preserved every and all of His Words to the very letter, and these Words are available to every generation.  This is verbal, plenary preservation.  These Words are preserved in the Hebrew and Aramaic Old Testament and the Greek New Testament” (p. 23). 

KJV defender D. A. Waite asserted:  “To have any kind of genuine Bible preservation, you must have the verbal plenary preservation of God’s Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words, not through ‘translations’” (Fundamentalist Deception on Bible Preservation, p. 98). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 8:54 PM, No Nicolaitans said:

I have to admit that I'm a bit confused at this point...

I would respectfully ask Pastor Markle (if he is inclined) to explain his meaning behind...

1. "jot and tittle" preservation

2. "generational" preservation

3. "biblical" preservation

At this point, and from what I gather from what HAS been said by Pastor Markle, I am assuming that by "jot and tittle" preservation, it leaves no room for translation into another language to be considered "preserved"?

Brother McWhorter,

I have a block of time today in order to provide some answers, and prayerfully some understanding.  From the beginning, I do thank you (and others) for your trust toward me; and I pray that I will not damage that trust.  (By the way, this is one place wherein I believe that Brother Tyndale made a mistake within this discussion.  He did not first develop any level of trust with his audience before he engaged in such a controversial matter, especially with an approach that is not the common manner of approach.)

3.  I use the phrase "Biblical" preservation as a reference unto the promise of the Lord our God and the doctrine of God's Holy Word wherein the Lord our God has informed us of HIs promise and practice to preserve the words and wordings of His inspired Scriptures (Writings).

2.  I use the phrase "generational" preservation as a reference unto my belief concerning the doctrine of Biblical preservation that the Lord our God has promised to preserve the words and wordings of His inspired Scriptures (Writings) for access unto each and every generation of His people.

1.  I use the phrase "jot and tittle" (precise) preservation as a reference unto my belief concerning the doctrine of Biblical preservation that the Lord our God has promise to preserve the words and wordings of His inspired Scriptures (Writings) unto the precision, not only of word-for-word, but even of letter-for-letter.

I take my belief in "jot and tittle" preservation from Matthew 5:18.  Indeed, I recognize that the primary thrust of Matthew 5:17-18 concerns the FULFILLMENT of God's Word and that the primary thrust of Matthew 5:19 concerns OBEDIENCE unto God's Word.  Nevertheless, I do believe that phrase, "one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law," does speak concerning the matter of Biblical preservation.   This phrase is connected unto a time period -- "Till heaven and earth pass."  This phrase speaks concerning the written Word of God, the Holy Scriptures -- "one jot or one tittle."  This phrase speaks concerning a continuing existence -- "shall in no wise pass."   (By the way, this is the second place wherein I believe that Brother Tyndale made a mistake within this discussion.  He did not first focus the discussion upon the Biblical definition for the doctrine of preservation before engaging in discussion concerning its application unto the King James translation.)

So then, what is a "jot" and a "tittle"?  The "jot" (yod) is the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet.  The "tittle" is a small distinction mark that distinguishes one Hebrew letter from another Hebrew letter.  When our Lord Jesus Christ made this statement, no single portion of the New Testament Scriptures (Writings) had been inspired and inscripturated.  Thus when our Lord Jesus Christ made this statement, He made the statement in relation to the Old Testament Scriptures (Writings) and in relation to the original language of those Scriptures.  As such, I believe that our Lord Jesus Christ was indicating that the preservation of God's Holy Word encompasses, not only a word-for-word preservation, but even a letter-for-letter preservation.  Furthermore, I believe that in principle this figure of speech encompasses both the Old Testament Scriptures (Writings) and the New Testament Scriptures (Writings).

Now, when I apply this doctrinal belief with PRECISION, I find that I cannot precisely apply it unto any given translation.  (Note:  Brother McWhorter, I believe that you and many others on this forum can recognize, and maybe even appreciate, my passion for precision in Bible study and Biblical doctrine.)  Letter-for-letter ("jot and tittle") preservation precisely requires that the very letters of the very words and wordings remain the same.  As is often stated in such discussions, "things that are different are not the same."  Even so, by definition any given translation from one language unto another CHANGES the very letters.  They do NOT remain the same.  So then, IF the doctrine of preservation requires a letter-for-letter ("jot and tittle") preservation, such that every letter of the original Scriptures (Writings), as inspired by God the Holy Spirit, must remain the same, then the doctrine of preservation cannot be PRECISELY applied unto any given translation into any other language, but can only be PRECISELY applied unto copies of the Scriptures in the original language.

For a practical consideration of this principles, we might consider the following scenarios:

Scenario #1 -- If (the case of the present day) we possessed (as we do) accurate manuscripts of the original language Scriptures (Writings), and we possessed an accurate translation of those Scriptures into English (as we do with the King James translation), would God's promise and doctrine of preservation have a fulfillment?  Answer -- YES.

Scenario #2 -- If (a hypothetical case) we possessed (as we do) accurate manuscripts of the original language Scriptures (Writings), but we did not possess the King James translation because no translation into English had ever occurred, would God's promise and doctrine of preservation have a fulfillment?  Answer -- YES.

Scenario #3 -- If (a hypothetical case) we possessed an accurate translation of the Holy Scriptures into English (as we do with the King James translation), but we no longer possessed accurate manuscripts of the original language Scriptures (Writings), would God's promise and doctrine of preservation have a fulfillment?  Answer -- NO.

Yet this raises a very, VERY significant question for those who speak and read English, but know nothing of Hebrew or Greek --

On ‎5‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 8:54 PM, No Nicolaitans said:

Perhaps I'm too simple in my understanding, or the Lord hasn't brought me far enough along yet, but if we don't have God's word preserved that we can read, if we don't have access to his word that we can read and study...all of it...then there's a major problem as I see it...

Matthew 4:4
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Luke 4:4
And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

Deuteronomy 8:3
And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.

...if we are to live by every word of God, and God is the one who breathed his word into the writers...but we don't have every word...then we've been sold a bill of goods.

...if God expects us to live by his word and study his word...but we don't have every word...then we've been sold a bill of goods.

In response to this, I must communicate a few points of understanding concerning Biblical inspiration and Biblical authority --

I believe that Biblical inspiration concerns the SOURCE for God's Holy Scriptures (Writings).  As such, I believe that this matter of SOURCE (inspiration) can be sub-divided into two primary aspects -- (1) Inspirational origin and (2) inspirational authority.  On the one hand, I believe that "inspirational ORIGIN" speaks concerning the inspiring work of God the Holy Spirit, wherein He moved in and through the original human penmen of the Holy Scriptures, such that they wrote God's Holy Word in a word-for-word (yea, even a letter-for-letter) manner precisely and perfectly as the Lord our God intended it and as He has settled it in heaven.  As such, I believe that the focus for inspirational ORIGIN concerns the Holy Spirit inspiration of the penmen so that the Holy Scriptures originated on earth with precise perfection.  On the other hand, I believe that "inspiration AUTHORITY" speaks concerning the inspiring work of God the Holy Spirit, wherein the Holy Scriptures themselves are infused with the living, powerful authority of God Himself.  As such, I believe that the focus for inspirational AUTHORITY concerns the Holy Spirit inspiration of the Scriptures themselves so that the Holy Scriptures ever exist on earth with absolute authority. 

So then, how does this apply unto our present discussion?  If I do NOT possess an original copy of the Holy Scriptures (Writings), but I DO possess a precisely accurate copy of the Holy Scriptures (Writings), can I claim that my precisely accurate copy is the preserved Word of God?  Answer -- ABSOLUTELY, YES.  Can I claim with precision that my precisely accurate copy possesses inspirational origin?  Answer -- Not precisely, since none of the various copyists were moved by the Holy Spirit in a manner of miraculous inspiration.  Can I claim that my precisely accurate copy possesses the divinely inspired words and writings (Scriptures) of God?  Answer -- ABSOLUTELY, YES; for my copy possesses exactly the same words and writings as the original.  So then, can I claim that my copy possesses inspirational authority?  Answer -- ABSOELUTELY, YES.

Now, if I possess a perfectly accurate translation (as we find with the King James translation) of my precisely accurate copy of the Holy Scriptures (Writings), can I claim with precision that my perfectly accurate translation is the preserved Word of God?  Answer -- Not precisely, for every single letter and word of my perfectly accurate translation is, by the very definition of translation, different from my precisely accurate copy of the Holy Scriptures in Hebrew and Greek.  On the other hand, can I claim that my perfectly accurate translation possesses absolute inspirational authority?  Answer -- ABSOLUTELY, YES; for my perfectly accurate translation is still the VERY Word of God, just simply in a different language than the original.  As such, with the King James translation the English speaker and reader does INDEED possess the means in English to live "by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

So then, with my own passion for precision, I myself do not use the modifier "preserved" to describe the King James translation, but only to describe the Hebrew and Greek textual families that underlie the King James translation.  On the other hand, I most certainly do use the modifiers "absolutely authoritative," or "divinely authoritative," or "perfectly authoritative" to describe the King James translation.  Along this very line, I am also quite comfortable using the modifier "inspired" to describe the King James translation, as long as the audience understands that I am speaking about inspirational authority, and not inspirational origin.  By this means I am able to hold forth with forceful conviction the inspirational authority of the King James translation without moving toward the false teachings (as I see them) of Ruckmanism.  Yet I fully recognize that many of my brethren, who hold unto the King James translation, but do not hold unto the doctrines of Ruckmanism, often use the modifier "preserved" to describe the King James translation in a manner that is very close to that in which I would use the modifier "authoritative."  Therefore, I do not usually get "worked up" over the matter.  In fact, I only get "worked up" when I begin to see the false doctrines (as I see them) of Ruckmanism coming forth.  (In my firm, convictional opinion, any hint concerning the "re-inspiration" of the King James translation is false doctrine, and is in direct contradiction unto the Biblical doctrine of preservation.)

(By the way, this is the greatest place wherein I believe that Brother Tyndale made a mistake within this discussion.  He presented a great deal of information that brought into question the use of the modifier "preserved" for the King James translation, but he did not communicate any real support for the INSPIRATIONAL AUTHORITY of the King James translation.  Even to this very moment, I know (because I asked, and he answered) his position concerning the preservation and authority of the competing Hebrew and Greek texts; but I do not yet know his position concerning the authority of the King James translation.  Thus many have responded unto his discussion as if he is intentionally seeking to undercut the authority of the King James translation itself.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 7:56 PM, Jordan Kurecki said:

Are you sure that the scriptures only promise a jot and tittle preservation?

If God only promised "jot and tittle", then would you also be consistent by believing that preservation does not apply to the New Testament as well since it is in Greek?

Brother Kurecki,

1.  Indeed, I am as sure as I can presently be with a deep conviction concerning the matter.

2.  I believe that our Lord's figure of speech concerning "a jot and a tittle" in Matthew 5:18 was intended to communicate a promise of letter-for-letter preservation, and that in principle this figure of speech encompasses both the Old and New Testament Scriptures in their original languages respectively.  In my posting above unto Brother McWhorter, I present my explanation as follows:

5 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

I take my belief in "jot and tittle" preservation from Matthew 5:18.  Indeed, I recognize that the primary thrust of Matthew 5:17-18 concerns the FULFILLMENT of God's Word and that the primary thrust of Matthew 5:19 concerns OBEDIENCE unto God's Word.  Nevertheless, I do believe that phrase, "one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law," does speak concerning the matter of Biblical preservation.   This phrase is connected unto a time period -- "Till heaven and earth pass."  This phrase speaks concerning the written Word of God, the Holy Scriptures -- "one jot or one tittle."  This phrase speaks concerning a continuing existence -- "shall in no wise pass."  

So then, what is a "jot" and a "tittle"?  The "jot" (yod) is the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet.  The "tittle" is a small distinction mark that distinguishes one Hebrew letter from another Hebrew letter.  When our Lord Jesus Christ made this statement, no single portion of the New Testament Scriptures (Writings) had been inspired and inscripturated.  Thus when our Lord Jesus Christ made this statement, He made the statement in relation to the Old Testament Scriptures (Writings) and in relation to the original language of those Scriptures.  As such, I believe that our Lord Jesus Christ was indicating that the preservation of God's Holy Word encompasses, not only a word-for-word preservation, but even a letter-for-letter preservation.  Furthermore, I believe that in principle this figure of speech encompasses both the Old Testament Scriptures (Writings) and the New Testament Scriptures (Writings).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother McWhorter,

I have a block of time today in order to provide some answers, and prayerfully some understanding.

Pastor Markle,

Thank you for taking the time and effort in providing your explanation. I understand your view and belief, and I understand how you derived them.

However, I respectfully don't agree. 

I pray the Lord gives you a wonderful evening brother.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Tyndale, an answer if you please?

On Mon May 01 2017 at 10:29 AM, DaveW said:

Is there ANY English version which is a perfect version of the Word of God available to us today?

This is a question which requires a simple answer - a Yes or no will do, but I would ask that if you say Yes, you provide a simple statement which nominates which version is the perfect version of the Word of God in English available to us today.

ONCE YOU HAVE done so, you may then outline the reasons all you like, but for my part I need to know this information from you.

 

 

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...