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
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
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
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...