Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

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

Defining a PERFECT BIBLE


Recommended Posts

  • Members
On 6/18/2020 at 7:44 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

So then, those who DO believe that God has preserved His Holy Word in and through a given translation need to provide Scriptural support that the Lord our God did indeed promise to preserve His Word through translations.  If this can be done, then a given translation may be presented as fulfilling this divine promise (if it fulfills the Biblical requirements for such).  However, if this cannot be done, then claiming such for any given translation goes beyond the specific doctrine that is taught in God's Holy Word concerning preservation.

This is a worthwhile statement with substance that few seem to interact with or even address. 

Edited by Jordan Kurecki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Psa 119:89 "LAMED. For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven."

I am curious, in what language is God's word forever settled in Heaven? If we are to believe that preservation is only in the original languages, (and thus, really, only then in the original autographs), then we must consider the language in which it was settled forever in Heaven. Greek? Hebrew? Proto-Hebrew? Or some heavenly writing? 

Since there are no existing copies of the autographs, that we are aware of, then the doctrine of preservation can't be of any use to anyone outside, maybe, the first 40-100 years of their writings, or less, lf we consider the wear and tear to regular use documents. 

The very meaning of "preservation" is  "to guard, watch, watch over, keep". If Hos word, which clearly is written for all men of all times, is only preserved in the original language and autograph, it is pretty worthless 2000 years later. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
16 minutes ago, Ukulelemike said:

Psa 119:89 "LAMED. For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven."

I am curious, in what language is God's word forever settled in Heaven? If we are to believe that preservation is only in the original languages, (and thus, really, only then in the original autographs), then we must consider the language in which it was settled forever in Heaven. Greek? Hebrew? Proto-Hebrew? Or some heavenly writing? 

Since there are no existing copies of the autographs, that we are aware of, then the doctrine of preservation can't be of any use to anyone outside, maybe, the first 40-100 years of their writings, or less, lf we consider the wear and tear to regular use documents. 

The very meaning of "preservation" is  "to guard, watch, watch over, keep". If Hos word, which clearly is written for all men of all times, is only preserved in the original language and autograph, it is pretty worthless 2000 years later. 

You can correct me if I am wrong. but It seems that you are making an appeal more on the basis of pragmatic use rather than what God actually promised. 

It seems that you are implying that people not having a preserved word is of no use to them, therefore God must have preserved his word for all people?

To try and draw out and prove a point, allow me to ask some questions.

IF, God's promise of preservation somehow means perfect translations in every language, consider the following: There are over 7,000 languages spoken in the world today, many of those languages have no translation of God's word, and many many of them only have Critical Text based translations, many of them even being dynamic equivalent translations. In other words, there are many languages that do not have the equivalent to the KJV in terms of source text and translational methodology. IF God's promise to preserve his word NECESSITATES that every language have a "perfect" translation... then we can ONLY conclude 2 things if we accept that premise:

1. God failed to keep his promise
2. The KJV is not actually the perfect preserved translation God promised. 

Some questions to ponder in relation to this, for all of those languages that do not have Textus Receptus based translation that reads like the KJV: Why does God's promise of preservation not apply to them, but it does to English? What about pre-1611? Was God's promise of preservation unfilled until 1611? On what basis does one pick one specific language (English) and a specific translation (KJV) and claim that translation in that particular language is the perfect preserved word of God? Are God's promises of preservation different for English speakers than other languages? Do English speaking people have some special elevated status in God's eyes than other language speakers? 

Alternatively I would like to suggest a 3rd option, which is that we are misunderstanding the promises of preservation that God actually made and reading into his promises our own presuppositions. 



 

Edited by Jordan Kurecki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
2 minutes ago, Jordan Kurecki said:



Some questions to ponder in relation to this, for all of those languages that do not have Textus Receptus based translation that reads like the KJV: Why does God's promise of preservation not apply to them, but it does to English? What about pre-1611? Was God's promise of preservation unfilled until 1611? On what basis does one pick one specific language (English) and a specific translation (KJV) and claim that translation in that particular language is the perfect preserved word of God? Are God's promises of preservation different for English speakers than other languages? Do English speaking people have some special elevated status in God's eyes than other language speakers? 

Alternatively I would like to suggest a 3rd option, which is that we are misunderstanding the promises of preservation that God actually made and reading into his promises our own presuppositions. 



 

Really, it is less "KJV" specifically, but the line of preservation. The TR has actually been translated into many, many different languages, all the way back to the early second century, including native American languages, Asian, European, etc. Yes, preservation takes time to get it around, to everyone, to every language and group, which is why we are still waiting. As well, especially over the last 30-40 years, the internet has made the different translations and languages much more accessible. But often, so long as his word is available in the language of, say, wide-spread trade, (as in Greek in the first century), many all over have read and understood that language well enough to have the word accessible to them. I can tell you, from being in the Navy, I've been all over, and most people spoke English, at least well enough to get the gospel. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
14 minutes ago, Ukulelemike said:

Really, it is less "KJV" specifically, but the line of preservation. The TR has actually been translated into many, many different languages, all the way back to the early second century, including native American languages, Asian, European, etc. Yes, preservation takes time to get it around, to everyone, to every language and group, which is why we are still waiting. As well, especially over the last 30-40 years, the internet has made the different translations and languages much more accessible. But often, so long as his word is available in the language of, say, wide-spread trade, (as in Greek in the first century), many all over have read and understood that language well enough to have the word accessible to them. I can tell you, from being in the Navy, I've been all over, and most people spoke English, at least well enough to get the gospel. 

By definition preservation cannot "take time to get it around", that would not be preservation. Preservation by definition is maintaining the existence of something already in existence. Translation is taking God's word which existed in the source text languages, and then taking it into the new language. It's not preservation if the word of God never existed in that language to begin with. It seems like you are confusing "preservation" of God's word with "propagation" of God's word. 

Do you think the first TR translation in any language is the "perfect preserved" word of God for that language? If so, why not accept any of the earlier English TR translations and reject the KJV as spurious? If you don't think the first TR language in any translation is the "perfect preserved" word of God in that language, at what point and using what criteria do you determine which translation is the "perfect preserved" word of God for that language? 

Edited by Jordan Kurecki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Members
On 10/7/2018 at 7:55 PM, Donald said:

It is vitally important, that every Christian believes that the Bible that they hold in their hands is PERFECT.  But this is something that Satan just will not sit still for.

Therefore, lets establish what makes a Bible IMPERFECT!

I will start,
First of all, “typos don’t count”!  Half of the KJBs I own, have typos, but they are still perfect, because they don’t stop me searching “that which is Spiritual”(1 Cor. 2:13), and finding the truth.

What does count, in making a Bible imperfect, are those Bibles that have had verses or passages changed or removed, by some scholar: Who feels he has the authority to correct God’s Word.

I am open, for more suggestions.

 

Donald - thank you for your very important post.

Greetings to all in the precious name of Jesus Christ.

Over 20 years ago, and during a year’s period of time, I fasted, prayed, and studied about the Bible translation issue. This was the most intense and rewarding “Christian journey” that I have ever engaged in.  I desperately needed to be certain that I had a Bible that was perfect and that I could hold in my hands.

The attachment is the story that I wrote describing this journey and the settled conclusion that I arrived at.

I hope that it is a blessing.

Brother Bruce

The Trial of God's Word.pdf

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...