Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

Defining a PERFECT BIBLE

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
8 hours ago, Tyndale said:

Exact word preservation would mean that the actual exact same original-language words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles would be the words that had to be preserved.   Different words in a different language would not preserve the exact same words as was given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles. (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Actually, this is a precisely correct statement.  

Do we believe in the doctrine of preservation?  I believe that we would declare - YES!!!  So then, what are the precise details of the doctrine of preservation as taught by God's Own Word?  Indeed, what precisely does God's Own Word promise to preserve?  Does God's Own Word promise to preserve the inspired Scriptures in a "jot and tittle" manner?  Does God's Own Word promise to preserve the inspired Scriptures through translations?  Does God's Own Word promise to preserve the inspired Scriptures in all languages of the world?  Does God's Own Word promise to preserve the inspired Scriptures in any particular language or languages?  

Now, if we are to answer these questions correctly, we must provide the answers from God's Own Word on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
11 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Actually, this is a precisely correct statement.  

Do we believe in the doctrine of preservation?  I believe that we would declare - YES!!!  So then, what are the precise details of the doctrine of preservation as taught by God's Own Word?  Indeed, what precisely does God's Own Word promise to preserve?  Does God's Own Word promise to preserve the inspired Scriptures in a "jot and tittle" manner?  Does God's Own Word promise to preserve the inspired Scriptures through translations?  Does God's Own Word promise to preserve the inspired Scriptures in all languages of the world?  Does God's Own Word promise to preserve the inspired Scriptures in any particular language or languages?  

Now, if we are to answer these questions correctly, we must provide the answers from God's Own Word on the matter.

These are really solid questions for people to think through. 

Edited by Jordan Kurecki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I heard someone say this years ago,
and it is still just as truthful today, as it was then.
"The Bible that I hold in my hand, is God's infallible word."

 

Now, it is not hard to find scriptural support for this statement.
Just choose any of the verses in Psalms 119.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
13 hours ago, Donald said:

I heard someone say this years ago,
and it is still just as truthful today, as it was then.
"The Bible that I hold in my hand, is God's infallible word."

 

Now, it is not hard to find scriptural support for this statement.
Just choose any of the verses in Psalms 119.

 

To play devils advocate here 

I know one Ugandan language that has a Bible that is missing the comma in 1st John 5:7.

Can that Ugandan use Psalm 119 as proof that the bible he holds in his hand is infallible? 

What about the many other language translations that are also missing 1 John 5:7?

You have two options here

1. Admit that God failed to keep his promises in Psalm 119 that everyone would have a perfect translation of the scriptures

2. Re-examine what Gods promises about his word really are. Pastor Markle gave some excellent questions to think through earlier in this thread. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

H. D. Williams asserted:  “Translations of the Words of God are words that have been ’tooled’ by men [Exod. 20:25, Deut. 27:5].  Words declared pure by God in the received Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts, which were made available throughout the generations of men for translations, have not been ’tooled’ by man (2 Pet. 1:19-21)” (The Pure Words of God, pp. 29-30).  Williams claimed:  “If we attribute purity and inspiration to the translated Words of God in any language, we are in reality claiming double inspiration, double purity, and double Apostolic or prophet-like men who chose them and who wrote them” (p. 63).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On ‎6‎/‎2‎/‎2020 at 12:54 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

  Does God's Own Word promise to preserve the inspired Scriptures through translations? 

No, I do not find any scriptures where God clearly promised to preserve the inspired Scriptures through Bible translations made after the end of the giving of the New Testament?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

What the LORD asserts in Psalms 119 (as well as all over God's Word), is that He has "given us", His Word, so that we can know the TRUTH about Him and how to know Him better.

THE "workings" of this marvellous interaction, between "a believer & God's Word", goes beyond the printed words on a page. Because "we have the actual author of the original autographs", in our hearts. And as we STUDY God's Word, the Holy Spirit reveals the TRUTH to us, at the Spiritual level that we are at.

Therefore, as we STUDY God's Word DEEPER,
(1)by Simply meditating on the words in our Bibles, or
(2)going even deeper, by comparing what the original languages have to say, and revealing all the wrangling that has taken place, in order for is to have God's Word in our language...

....What is happening goes beyond, questioning God's ability to preserve his word for us.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Disagreeing with human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning is not actually questioning God's ability to preserve His word for us.

I believe what the Scriptures state and teach about their preservation.   It has not been soundly demonstrated that I question God's ability to preserve His word for us.

Where do the Scriptures say or teach that the word of God is bound to the textual-criticism decisions, Bible-revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England priests/scholars in 1611?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 6/17/2020 at 9:47 AM, Tyndale said:

No, I do not find any scriptures where God clearly promised to preserve the inspired Scriptures through Bible translations made after the end of the giving of the New Testament?

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Jesus said.....

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." John 16:33

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)
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

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)
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

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)
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

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 9 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
×
×
  • Create New...