Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Jordan Kurecki

Archaisms in the KJV.

Recommended Posts

Hey, RobyCop, I'm not sure why the nesting in your last two responses came out that way. I tried fixing it but can't.  Could you try deleting and redoing them? The way the nesting is coming out makes it look like your responses belong to those you are quoting - which I think is something neither of you would want. 😉

P.S. NoNic was not being offended, he was giving you valuable feedback about how some people view textspeak. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

 there's a fact that makes KJVO false and a myth,without figuring in the other factors: ITSTOTAL LACK OF SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT

there's simply NO AUTHORITY FROM GOD for KJVO!

Okay.

26 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

God causes all valid transletions made by Christians to come out as HE pleases.

Where is the scriptural support for that?

27 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

I believe He targets certain groups of people with certain translations. (Speaking only about English translations.)

Where is the scriptural support for that?

28 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

For instance, I believe He aimed the NKJV at those who favor the Textus Receptus and/or the Byzantine mss.

Where is the scriptural support for that?

34 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

I HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.

Well...It answered it, but all that I gathered from it was that you gave unconvincing answers as to what you believe. 

46 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

I'LL USE TEXTESE OR ANY OTHER NON-SCATOLOGICAL SLANG WHENEVER I JOLLY WELL PLEASE! If it offends someone, TUFF! 

O Ok. I c. Talk 2 u l8rz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, robycop3 said:

Experience, common sense, & audience request.

  Several years ago, a Korean doctor neighbor who was still learning English, was newly-saved, & asked me to borrow a Bible til his Korean-language edition arrived. Without thinking, I handed him a KJV. Next day, he came over, quite-disturbed over "suffer little children". I explained to him what it meant & then gave him a NASV to use.

Two things:

First of all, you explained to him the meaning and his knowledge grew.

Secondly, and far more importantly, you are constantly saying that you decide what is God's Word based on your understanding, your "experience, common sense, and audience request".

If you are deciding what is God's Word, then you are placing yourself in authority over God. It is UP TO YOU which rendering is correct in any given setting.

This matter of authority is why any man should choose a single version and stick to it - they accept it as God's Word ONCE and then accept it in everything it says.

God's Word is then AND ONLY THEN truly the authority in your life.

If I choose which version I think is best in each different situation, then I DECIDE what God's Word looks like.

Who then gave you the right and ability to decide when the Bible is right and when it is wrong?

Which version you choose is actually irrelevant to this aspect, but the choice of a SINGLE VERSION to be your authority is of utmost importance. 

You see this all the time in books that use multiple versions - they don't like a particular rendering, not for any doctrinal reason, but because it suits their own argument better. They decide what God's Word means based on their own ideas, their own experience, their own "common sense".

If they used a single version, they would simply not be able to support all their arguments, for their "preferred version" doesn't support ALL their ideas.

Multiple versions makes it very easy to use the Bible to support what YOU want to say - a single version restricts you to what the text says.

Edited by DaveW
Phone spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Matt Souza said:

I never put much weight into those who is against the KJV only when their only explanation is experience, common sense, & audience request. I'll put my faith and trust in God and His Word, not what man says. 

As to the original topic: While I believe the KJV is perfectly preserved for English speaking people, I do not have a problem with Archaic words being updated. Modern version failed because they have changed meaning of verses by re translating the verse.

Agreed. I would love a modern english equivilent of the KJV. Sadly most attempts have done beyond that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strangely enough, our friend gave a KJV to a someone who came up with a word that he didn't understand, and to alleviate the problem our friend here FIRST OF ALL explained the meaning of that word to the gentleman. The result was that the gentleman grew in his knowledge of God by the explanation, and ALSO grew in his knowledge of English. Our friend here presents this as a negative, but how is a gaining in knowledge a bad thing?

Also, our friend has unknowingly followed a Bible principle. That of explaining the meaning of a word that is unfamiliar - NOT OF CHANING THAT WORD, but explaining it.

1Sa 9:6-11
(6)  And he said unto him, Behold now, there is in this city a man of God, and he is an honourable man; all that he saith cometh surely to pass: now let us go thither; peradventure he can shew us our way that we should go.
(7)  Then said Saul to his servant, But, behold, if we go, what shall we bring the man? for the bread is spent in our vessels, and there is not a present to bring to the man of God: what have we?
(8)  And the servant answered Saul again, and said, Behold, I have here at hand the fourth part of a shekel of silver: that will I give to the man of God, to tell us our way.
(9)  (Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to enquire of God, thus he spake, Come, and let us go to the seer: for he that is now called a Prophet was beforetime called a Seer.)
(10)  Then said Saul to his servant, Well said; come, let us go. So they went unto the city where the man of God was.
(11)  And as they went up the hill to the city, they found young maidens going out to draw water, and said unto them, Is the seer here?
 

Interesting here that the writer of this passage inserts vs 9 as explanation to the readers, for in his current time the Man of God was called a prophet, but then in vs 11 which is a retelling of the actual account, the word used is not prophet, even though that would have been the common word in the writer's time, but the word "seer" is used because that is what Saul spoke on that day.

So what we have here is a direction by example of the writer of the book of 1 Samuel (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit remember) not to CHANGE the archaic word used to the modern term so the audience understood, but to EXPLAIN the archaic word for the audience.

I had just this example the other day - talking of the Seraphim of Isaiah 6 and the word "twain" is used in reference to the pairs of wings. I knew that there were some in our audience who might not understand that word, so I stopped momentarily and explained "the word "twain" simply means "two", and I could see the light of understanding shine in a few eyes to whom this was new knowledge. From then on when I read that verse as I did a few times, I didn't change it to "two" - they all understood it with no problem, and they now had a greater knowledge of the English language than they did when they came in, and when they read that word in other places of the Bible or indeed in other settings, they have understanding.

 

And by the way, what happens when you get to a word that is still in modern use but not common? - it is not an archaic word, but it still needs to be explained, and even moreso if there is no modern alternative.

When I was learning to be a photogrammetrist, (sorry for those don't know it is a specialised area of geomatics), they didn't find common English terms for things such as Parallax, but they taught me what Parallax meant. I had no idea what "Sterovision" was but instead of finding another word that I understood, they explained what it meant. They didn't find a common term for a graphic pantograph mechanism, they explained it to me. They didn't find a common word for a stereotriangulated solution, they explained what it was.

Personally I have found that when people come across a difficult or archaic word, often the first they will do is find a dictionary - especially nowadays on line. If they still don't understand, then will ask at church, and hopefully get a reasonable and sufficient answer.

I have some people here who are seriously deficient of education, but they ask questions, they seek understanding, they learn and they grow - and the learn how to understand the Bible.

 

Note: for those who understand neither the old word "photogrammetrist" nor the modern equivalent "Geomaticist", I will EXPLAIN IT for your understanding: It is the science of compiling map data from aerial photography, airborne laser scanning data, or other survey tied spatial data - I draw maps from photos taken from planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nehemiah 8:7-8 Also Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah,Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law: and the people stood in their place. 8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

We don’t need to change the Bible, just need to use good study materials and explain hard words and passages.

Share this post


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

Two things:

First of all, you explained to him the meaning and his knowledge grew.

Wouldn't have been necessary had I given him a version in contemporary English, which he was still learning.

Secondly, and far more importantly, you are constantly saying that you decide what is God's Word based on your understanding, your "experience, common sense, and audience request".

Not REALLY. God decided that a long time ago. I decide on which version(s) will best accomplish what I'm trying to do in a given situation.

If you are deciding what is God's Word, then you are placing yourself in authority over God. It is UP TO YOU which rendering is correct in any given setting.

What's up to me is choosing how I can best convey the info I'm trying to present. GOD has already provided the info itself.

This matter of authority is why any man should choose a single version and stick to it - they accept it as God's Word ONCE and then accept it in everything it says.

God's Word is then AND ONLY THEN truly the authority in your life.

Not ACTUALLY. God Himself is not limited to one translation, and neither am I. I believe in using as much as possible of what God has provided for our use.

If I choose which version I think is best in each different situation, then I DECIDE what God's Word looks like.

Not ACTUALLY. You decide which translation will be the most-understandable to your audience.

Who then gave you the right and ability to decide when the Bible is right and when it is wrong?

Those who made each translation, as well as what little intelligence God gave me. I didn't use it when I gave my Korean friend a copy of the KJV, forgetting he didn't know the now-archaic English of 400 years ago.

Which version you choose is actually irrelevant to this aspect, but the choice of a SINGLE VERSION to be your authority is of utmost importance.

Not at all. The same God who caused Wycliffe's translation to be made, caused the KJV to be made, & caused the NASV to be made. He caused each to be made for English speakers' use.

You see this all the time in books that use multiple versions - they don't like a particular rendering, not for any doctrinal reason, but because it suits their own argument better. They decide what God's Word means based on their own ideas, their own experience, their own "common sense".

 You must remember that every valid Bible translation is a product of God's perfect word being handled by imperfect men. each translator, or team of translators, has decided on what God's word in Koine Greek means in Evglish, to the best of their ability. Some have/had more ability than others.

If they used a single version, they would simply not be able to support all their arguments, for their "preferred version" doesn't support ALL their ideas.

Multiple versions makes it very easy to use the Bible to support what YOU want to say - a single version restricts you to what the text says.

 Well, actually, using only one version limits one to the beliefs and ideas of the translator(s) of that one version. The AV men themselves wrote, in their preface, "To The Reader" :

Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: [S. Aug. 2. de doctr. Christian. cap. 14.]

  I hope you readm that entire preface, as it'll prove to you that the AV makers themselves were not limited to only one translation, nor did they believe they were making the final, forever-authoritative English Bible translation. That preface is readily available on line. Unfortunately, almost all current KJV editions omit that preface.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Salyan said:

Hey, RobyCop, I'm not sure why the nesting in your last two responses came out that way. I tried fixing it but can't.  Could you try deleting and redoing them? The way the nesting is coming out makes it look like your responses belong to those you are quoting - which I think is something neither of you would want. 😉

P.S. NoNic was not being offended, he was giving you valuable feedback about how some people view textspeak. 

  I'll see what I can do. I tried to re-do them, but my attempts came out worse than ever.  But I believe I see where I messed up. I trued using the same quoting format that VBulletin uses.

As for my previous messages, I APOLOGIZE for accidentally misusing the quote/nesting system in this domain. It was not my intent to wrongly credit anyone for the various quotes.

And, BTW, my apologies for calling you "Sir" as I couldn't deduce your gender from your handle.. And also, I am a man.

Edited by robycop3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YOU decide which of the DIFFERENT - sometimes vastly different - renderings is correct according to WHAT YOU THINK is right...… You become the authority as it is based upon your decisions.

Just because you refuse to see that you are placing yourself in authority over God's Word does not make it less so.

I had the situation once when I was talking to a friend that I pointed out to him that he should choose one Bible for his family so that he could say to his children that they had one single authority.

He understood it when I said to him that if he picked and chose a different version for each situation, what he was doing was showing his children that if he didn't like what one bible said, he could choose another THAT SUITED HIM. That shows his children that the standard was not solid but changed according to circumstance.

Multiple versions means that YOU BECOME THE JUDGE OVER THE WORD of God.

YOU choose the one that SUITS YOU in any given situation.

YOU change the Word of God (by choosing what suits you) according to WHAT YOU WANT.

One single version that you make yourself accountable to means that YOU CHANGE to SUIT THE WORD OF GOD.

Which one of those is right? Should I change the Word of God, or should I let the Word of God change me?

 

And remember, at this point I am only arguing for a solid and firm foundation instead of a moveable and changing one, NOT what that foundation should be.

That is another matter.

10 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

  I'll see what I can do.

And, BTW, my apologies for calling you "Sir" as I couldn't deduce your gender from your handle.. And also, I am a man.

Oh yeah - if you were an advanced member in a practical rather than a technical sense you have known that.

The quoting thing is always a little bit hard - I think everyone realises it was not out of intent to deceive in some way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, robycop3 said:

Wouldn't have been necessary had I given him a version in contemporary English, which he was still learning.

And yet, overall it was to his profit - that cannot be denied. He profited in learning about the passage from God's Word, and he profited from learning more about the English language.

And he did so AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE ARCHAIC LANGUAGE.

 

By the way, each of the versions that you have noted still contain certain archaic language, so your use of that argument against the KJV is actually irrelevant.

Are you aware that the majority of changes made to the KJV in the production of the NKJV were done not for any translation or doctrinal issue, but simply to avoid the copyright implications? 

Copyright requires a % difference for something to be considered a "new work", and as such a number of changes were made for the sole purpose of avoiding the copyright issue.

Were they good changes or bad changes? one thing is certain - they were not made for any genuine reason that had any readability, doctrinal, or translational basis, but only for the sake of avoiding the copyright implications.

How does that make it better? Change for the sake of making changes - just in order to make it different...…………..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found it funny that the NKJV took out so-called archaic words in some passages - BUT then used the exact same archaic word in a different spot. It’s exactly what Dave said above: enough changes made to make sure they conformed to the copyright laws, not changes made to make the text easier to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Jerry said:

I found it funny that the NKJV took out so-called archaic words in some passages - BUT then used the exact same archaic word in a different spot. It’s exactly what Dave said above: enough changes made to make sure they conformed to the copyright laws, not changes made to make the text easier to understand.

Not trying to derail this thread, but is this Jerry, a blast from the past here on OB? 😁 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yuppers, I needed some fellowship so decided to pop by my old neighbourhood for a visit.

Share this post


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

And yet, overall it was to his profit - that cannot be denied. He profited in learning about the passage from God's Word, and he profited from learning more about the English language.

And he did so AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE ARCHAIC LANGUAGE.

 

By the way, each of the versions that you have noted still contain certain archaic language, so your use of that argument against the KJV is actually irrelevant.

Are you aware that the majority of changes made to the KJV in the production of the NKJV were done not for any translation or doctrinal issue, but simply to avoid the copyright implications? 

Copyright requires a % difference for something to be considered a "new work", and as such a number of changes were made for the sole purpose of avoiding the copyright issue.

Were they good changes or bad changes? one thing is certain - they were not made for any genuine reason that had any readability, doctrinal, or translational basis, but only for the sake of avoiding the copyright implications.

How does that make it better? Change for the sake of making changes - just in order to make it different...…………..

  It's for the better because it's mostly in contemporary language, & corrects some KJV goofs, such as "Easter" in Acts 12:4

 

  And in Britain, the KJV is copyrighted. Its holders are the Universities of Oxford & Cambridge, Ayers & Spottiswoode Co. & Harper Collins.

In the USA, most KJV editions are partially copyrighted, with virtually all having their extratextual material, illustrations, etc. copyrighted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Copywriting the supplemental material or even the particular format of a Bible edition is not the same thing as copywriting the text. Anyone anywhere in the world is free to copy, print, use and distribute the King James Bible text.

Like I say on my website: All Scripture quotations on this site are from the King James Bible. 
Used by permission of the Author.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ridiculous answer that avoids the point.

The point is that the NKJV text itself is owned by a corporation, but the only way they could do that was to make sufficient changes from the KJV to then own the copyright for the NKJV SO THEY COULD PROFIT FROM IT.

The changes they made are in the majority to satisfy the copyright requirements for them to own the rights NOT FOR ANY LINGUISTIC, TRANSLATIONAL, DOCTRINAL, OR EASE OF UNDERSTANDING PURPOSES.

FOR PROFIT.

FOR MONEY.

FOR CASH.

NOT FOR ANY GOOD THEOLOGICAL REASON.

NOT FOR UNDERSTANDABILITY.

NOT FOR ANY TRANSLATIONAL REASON.

How about then answer the ACTUAL points, rather than sidestepping them?

Share this post


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

YOU decide which of the DIFFERENT - sometimes vastly different - renderings is correct according to WHAT YOU THINK is right...… You become the authority as it is based upon your decisions.

Just because you refuse to see that you are placing yourself in authority over God's Word does not make it less so.

I had the situation once when I was talking to a friend that I pointed out to him that he should choose one Bible for his family so that he could say to his children that they had one single authority.

He understood it when I said to him that if he picked and chose a different version for each situation, what he was doing was showing his children that if he didn't like what one bible said, he could choose another THAT SUITED HIM. That shows his children that the standard was not solid but changed according to circumstance.

Multiple versions means that YOU BECOME THE JUDGE OVER THE WORD of God.

YOU choose the one that SUITS YOU in any given situation.

YOU change the Word of God (by choosing what suits you) according to WHAT YOU WANT.

One single version that you make yourself accountable to means that YOU CHANGE to SUIT THE WORD OF GOD.

Which one of those is right? Should I change the Word of God, or should I let the Word of God change me?

 

And remember, at this point I am only arguing for a solid and firm foundation instead of a moveable and changing one, NOT what that foundation should be.

That is another matter.

Oh yeah - if you were an advanced member in a practical rather than a technical sense you have known that.

The quoting thing is always a little bit hard - I think everyone realises it was not out of intent to deceive in some way.

  A preacher chooses what parts of God's word he's gonna preach from, on a given Sunday, and more than one preacher uses a different version  for each service.

Using multiple translations gives one a bettwe overview of Scripture. And it's a gimme that some translators are better than others, and some editors who put the translators' work into sentences are better than others. But I believe God gives different insights to each of them.

 Being confined to just one translations limits one to the  work of just one team of Bible-makers.  that's equivalent to a radio station playing only the works of one artist.

  I don't believe there's any set rule on this. But I DO know GOD is not limited to just one translation in any language, and I see nothing wrong with using any or all the various tools God has provided for us. But if you feel YOU should use only one translation, fine. I feel differently, as I'm a different person from you.

    My disagreement  isn't so much  with one's being "One-Version-Only" as it is when such a person tells another that HIS pet version is the ONLY valid version. That's simply a lie.

9 minutes ago, DaveW said:

Ridiculous answer that avoids the point.

The point is that the NKJV text itself is owned by a corporation, but the only way they could do that was to make sufficient changes from the KJV to then own the copyright for the NKJV SO THEY COULD PROFIT FROM IT.

The changes they made are in the majority to satisfy the copyright requirements for them to own the rights NOT FOR ANY LINGUISTIC, TRANSLATIONAL, DOCTRINAL, OR EASE OF UNDERSTANDING PURPOSES.

FOR PROFIT.

FOR MONEY.

FOR CASH.

NOT FOR ANY GOOD THEOLOGICAL REASON.

NOT FOR UNDERSTANDABILITY.

NOT FOR ANY TRANSLATIONAL REASON.

How about then answer the ACTUAL points, rather than sidestepping them?

   I bet that almost anyone who prints copies of the KJV does it to make money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I AM a proponent of the King James translation in opposition to the "modern translations," because of the difference in textual SOURCE for those translations.  However, for the sake of factual accuracy, I am compelled to provide a corrective.

33 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

 And in Britain, the KJV is copyrighted. Its holders are the Universities of Oxford & Cambridge, Ayers & Spottiswoode Co. & Harper Collins.

That is a factually accurate statement.

18 minutes ago, Jerry said:

Anyone anywhere in the world is free to copy, print, use and distribute the King James Bible text.

That is a factually inaccurate statement.  It would be more accurate to say -- Anyone anywhere in the world, EXCEPT IN THOSE PLACES WHEREIN BRITISH LAW GOVERNS, is free to copy, print, use and distribute the King James Bible text.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

Using multiple translations gives one a bettwe overview of Scripture. And it's a gimme that some translators are better than others, and some editors who put the translators' work into sentences are better than others. But I believe God gives different insights to each of them.

The great problem that I have with the position expressed above is that it completely misses two important facts:

1.  That the King James translation and the "modern translations" are translated from two DIFFERENT textual SOURCES.  (Even so, I would contend that the debate is NOT even really a translational debate, as much as it is a TEXTUAL debate.)

2.  That the Biblical DOCTRINE OF PRESERVATION should inform our decision concerning which textual SOURCE to accept.

Share this post


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

Okay.

Where is the scriptural support for that?[/quote]

  First, sorry I didn't answer your questions earlier.

The answer is, in Acts 2, where the HOLY SPIRIT caused all present to hear Peter's words in his/her own language. I believe God still superintends His word in  whatever languages it's presented in today. Also in 1 Cor. 14:11.

Where is the scriptural support for that?

 In all the places where God says He preserves His word.

Where is the scriptural support for that?

Same as above.

Well...It answered it, but all that I gathered from it was that you gave unconvincing answers as to what

you believe.

KJVOs leave me unconvinced.

O Ok. I c. Talk 2 u l8rz.

10-4, Back Door

 

2 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

The great problem that I have with the position expressed above is that it completely misses two important facts:

1.  That the King James translation and the "modern translations" are translated from two DIFFERENT textual SOURCES.  (Even so, I would contend that the debate is NOT even really a translational debate, as much as it is a TEXTUAL debate.)

2.  That the Biblical DOCTRINE OF PRESERVATION should inform our decision concerning which textual SOURCE to accept.

  Well, Sir, as none of us were present when any of those ancient Scriptural mss. were made, & we don't know who made most of them where or when, nor know what source(s) they used, I just accept all of them as habing been preserved by GOD for our use. Even if I knew their languages forward & backward, I don't believe I have any right to criticize any of them any more than I have a right to criticize the work of Shakespeare, whose language I DO know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

I bet that almost anyone who prints copies of the KJV does it to make money.

And once again you are missing the point and presenting something sideways.

The whole point of the NKJV is to own the copyright.... ANYONE who uses the NKJV to print a Bible must pay the owners of that copyright.

Plenty of people print KJV Bibles without making money, some without even covering their costs.

EVERY other Bible version (as far as I know) has a requirement to pay the copyright holders a reproduction fee.

THAT is why the NKJV was really produced - to gain rights to the reproduction fees. No matter what printer prints it, the NKJV copyright holder makes money.

And by the way Brother Markle, the UK copyright is regarding the veracity of the KJV text, meaning it cannot be changed and still called the KJV. It can be freely reproduced without payment to the UK copyright holders, as long as the text is preserved.

Not chasing money there......

Edited by DaveW
Phone spelling

Share this post


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

The great problem that I have with the position expressed above is that it completely misses two important facts:

1.  That the King James translation and the "modern translations" are translated from two DIFFERENT textual SOURCES.  (Even so, I would contend that the debate is NOT even really a translational debate, as much as it is a TEXTUAL debate.)

2.  That the Biblical DOCTRINE OF PRESERVATION should inform our decision concerning which textual SOURCE to accept.

42 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

Well, Sir, as none of us were present when any of those ancient Scriptural mss. were made, & we don't know who made most of them where or when, nor know what source(s) they used, I just accept all of them as habing been preserved by GOD for our use. Even if I knew their languages forward & backward, I don't believe I have any right to criticize any of them any more than I have a right to criticize the work of Shakespeare, whose language I DO know.

And that response reveals the foundational reason that you are open to multiple, various translations without any distinction in source or quality.  Your doctrine of preservation appears basically to be the following:

1.  God promised to preserve His Word.
2.  ALL of the textual manuscripts of God's Word available to us today are the means by which God fulfilled His promise of preservation.
3.  Since these textual manuscripts of God's Word contain multiple variations and differences, God must have intended ALL of these variations and differences to exist for us.
4.  Even so, the best way for us to understand ALL of the variations and differences that God intended for us is to use multiple translations whereby we can encounter these differences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 31 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

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...