KJV and God preserving His Word

[MikeWatson1]

I have understood the preservation of God's Word thru all generations to be the available access to translate the original copies. 

I have heard though the teaching that the KJV, and older Bibles before it are the only ones that have preserved it rightly.

I am not sure about this and would like to know how someone arrived at this teaching.

I believe the Bible is inerrant, infallible etc..but have understood that to be the original copies.. not later translations. 

The flaw in this is that God is preserving the Word in all generations..and so the original copies aren't that.  I thought that that flaw in reasoning is mitigated by the fact of the original copies being preserved in all generations.

[TheGloryLand]

I post this on my website, I hope it helps. TGL

English Is The Closest Thing There Is Today To A Universal Language. Upwards Of 350 Million Speak It As Their First Language, With Many More Than That Using It As A Second Language. It Has The Largest Vocabulary Of Any Language (550,000 Separate Entries In Webster’s Third New International Dictionary). English Has Become The Diplomatic Language Of The United States, And The Standard Language Of Science, Technology, Business And Communications. It Has Been The Primary Medium Through Which The Word Of God Has Spread During These Last Centuries Of Church History. Before Giving Several Reasons Why The English Of 1611 Was Better Suited As A Vehicle For Divine Revelation, Let Us Note Briefly The Preparations Which Led To The AV’s Translation. 

The Authorized Version Was The Culmination Of Some 100 Years Of Preparation. There Was Intensive Study Of The Greek Text ( Not To Mention Hebrew). The Five Greek Editions Of Erasmus, The Four Of Stephanus, The Nine Of Beza Provided The Translators With A Refined Text, Representative Of That Which Was In The Majority Of Manuscripts, And Had Been Acknowledged (John 16:13) By God’s People Through The Centuries. There Were No Fewer Than Seven “Preparatory” English Translations: Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthews,Great, Taverners, Geneva And Bishops. The AV Translators Themselves Were Men Of Unparalleled Scholarship, Representing The Combined Intellectual Might Of Oxford And Cambridge. But Far More Importantly, They Were Marked By A Holy Awe And Deep Reverence For The Word Of God. It Is This Latter That Places Them Poles Apart From The Translating Teams Of Today. Coming Back Now To The English In Which Our Authorized Bible Was Written, It Is An Evidence Of God’s Providence That After Nearly Four Centuries, So Little Can Be Found To Be Archaic. Certainly There Are “Profound Differences” Between Current And Elizabethan English. But, The AV Is Not Elizabethan English! 

As A Comparison Will Show, There Is A Great Difference Between AV English And The Wordy, Affectatious Elizabethan Style. Far From Our Bible Being A Product Of That Day’s Literary Style, The English Language After 1611 Owes Its Development To The Authorized Version! “The King James Version Was A Landmark In The Development Of English Prose. Its Elegant Yet Natural Style Had Enormous Influence On English -Speaking Writers” (World Book Encyclopedia). This Partially Explains Why The AV Is Ever Fresh And Lucid While Most Else From That Period Is Quite Difficult To Read. Edward F. Hills Speaks On The Misconception That The English Of The AV Is Elizabethan: The English Of The King James Version Is Not The English Of The Early 17th Century. To Be Exact, 

It Is Not A Type Of English That Was Ever Spoken Anywhere. It Is Biblical English, Which Was Not Used On Ordinary Occasions Even By The Translators Who Produced The King James Version. As H. Wheeler Robinson (1940) Pointed Out, One Need Only Compare The Preface Written By The Trans- Lators With The Text Of Their Translation To Feel The Difference In Style. And The Observations Of W.A. 

Irwin (1952) Are To The Same Purport. The King James Version, He Reminds Us, Owes Its Merit, Not To 17th-Century English_ Which Was Very Difficult_ But To Its Faithful Translation Of The Original. Its Style Is That Of The Hebrew And Of The New Testament Greek. Even In Their Use Of Thee And Thou The Translators Were Not Following 17th-Century English Usage But Biblical Usage, For At The Time These Translators Were Doing Their Work These Singular Forms Had Already Been Replaced By The Plural You In Polite Conversation (The King James Version Defended, Des Moines: Christian Research Press, 1984, Pp.218). In 1604 When James I Authorized Preparations For A New English Version Of The Bible, A Watershed Was Reached Not Only In The History Of Bible Translation, But Of The History Of The English Language Itself. One Hundred Years Ago John Burgon Wrote: “If You And I Believe That The Original Writings Of The Scriptures Were Verbally Inspired By God, Then Of Necessity They Must Have Been Providentially Preserved Through The Ages.” This Is The Crux Of The Matter; Does God Preserve That Word Which He Originally Inspired? And If So, To What Extent? Is It Merely The Concepts And Basic Message That Is Kept Intact; Or Does Preservation, As Inspiration, Extend To The Words Themselves? That The Bible Declares Both The Fact And Extent Of Its Preservation Is Made Abundantly Clear In The Following: 

“Know Now That There Shall Fall Unto The Earth Nothing Of The Word Of The LORD” (2Kings 10:10). 

“The Words Of The LORD Are Pure Words: As Silver Tried In A Furnace Of Earth, Purified Seven Times. Thou Shalt Keep Them, O LORD; Thou Shalt Preserve Them From This Generation For Ever” (Psalm 12:6,7). 

“For The LORD Is Good, His Mercy Is Everlasting; And His Truth Endureth To All Generations” (Psalm 100:5). 

“For Ever, O LORD, Thy Word Is Settled In Heaven” (Psalm 119:89). 

“Thy Word Is Very Pure: Therefore Thy Servant Loveth It” (Psalm 119:140). 

“Concerning Thy Testimonies, I Have Known Of Old That Thou Hast Founded Them For Ever” (Psalm 119:152). 

“Thy Word Is True From The Beginning: And Every One Of Thy Righteous Judgments Endureth For Ever” (Psalm 119:160). 

“Every Word Of God Is Pure” (Proverbs 30:5). 

“The Grass Withereth, The Flower Fadeth: But The Word Of Our God Shall Stand For Ever” (Isaiah 40:8). 

“So Shall My Word Be That Goeth Forth Out Of My Mouth: It Shall Not Return Unto Me Void, But It Shall Accomplish That Which I Please, And It Shall Prosper In The Thing Whereto I Sent It” (Isaiah 55:11). 

“For Verily I Say Unto You, Till Heaven And Earth Pass, One Jot Or One Tittle Shall In No Wise Pass From The Law, Till All Be Fulfilled” (Matthew 5:18). 

“Heaven And Earth Shall Pass Away, But My Words Shall Not Pass Away” (Matthew 24:35). 

“And It Is Easier For Heaven And Earth To Pass, Than One Tittle Of The Law To Fail” (Luke 16:17). 

“The Scripture Cannot Be Broken” (John 10:35). 

“Being Born Again, Not Of Corruptible Seed, But Of Incorruptible, By The Word Of God, Which Liveth And Abideth For Ever” (1 Peter 1:23). 

“But The Word Of The Lord Endureth For Ever” (1 Peter 1:25). We Have A Strange Anomaly Today; Christians Claimed To Believe What The Bible Says About It’s Own Inspiration But Virtually Ignore The Equally Direct Statements Concerning Preservation. To Say That You Believe In The Full Inspiration Of Scripture While At The Same Time Accepting The Textual Theories Inherent In The Modern Versions, Is About As Incongruous As Taking Genesis One Literally While Holding To The Theories Of Darwin. The Questioning Of The Bible’s Preservation Is The Starting Point Of All Other Kinds Of Apostasy. Satan In Genesis 3 Did Not Begin His Attack By Questioning Whether There Was A God,Or Whether God Created, Or Whether The Doctrine Of The Trinity Is True. Nor Did It Begin With The Question Of Whether God’s Word Was Inspired In The Originals. Apostasy Began When Satan Asked Eve, “Yea Hath God Said”? 

“Eve, Are You Certain That You Presently Have A Full Recollection Of What God Said”? When Doubt Was Given A Bridgehead At This Point, The Other Defenses Soon Fell. The Same Principles Applies Today: Has God Preserved His Word And Kept Intact His Original Word Of Inspiration Or Has He Not? It Is A Fact, That The One Common Denominator In All The Varied Errors, Deviations, And Heresies Is That Their Advocates Will First Criticize The Standard Received Edition Or Translation Of Scripture. Like All Other Bible Truths, The Scripture’s Teaching On Its Own Preservation Is To Be In The First Instance Accepted By Faith. Edward F.Hills In His Book, The King James Version Defended Calls It ” The Logic Of Faith”. The Facts And Evidence Of Such Preservation Will Then Follow. The Bible’s Preservation Is Rooted In The Eternal Counsels Of God. The Scriptures Are As Eternal As God Himself. 

“For Ever, O LORD, Thy Word Is Settled In Heaven” (Psalm 119:89). The Old Testament Text Was Preserved By The Aaronic Priests And The Scribes Who Grouped Around Them. 

“Unto Them Were Committed The Oracles Of God” (Romans 3:2). In The New Testament Dispensation Every Believer Is A Priest Under Christ. Hence, The NT Text Has Been Preserved By Faithful Christians In Every Walk Of Life. “Howbeit, When He, The Spirit Of Truth Is Come, He Will Guide You In All Truth” (John 16:13). It Was Not The Pronouncements Of Church Fathers Or Counsels That Determined The Text And Canon Of The New Testament. Rather, The Holy Spirit Guided His Own Into The Acceptance Of The True Word Of God. Such Copies Proliferated, While Defective Ones Were Ignored. The Holy Spirit Continues This Work Today In The Questions That Arise Over The Wording In The Modern Versions. 

Preservation Has To Do With The Actual Words Of Scripture, Not Merely The General Teaching Or Concepts. This Is Made Clear In The List Of Verses Just Given. Advocates Of The Modern Versions Commonly Say: “There Is Not A Single Doctrine Missing.” But What They Fail To Tell You Is That The Words Which Support And Develop These Doctrines Are Frequently Missing. Thus, The Force Of The Doctrine Is Diminished. As Inspiration Of The Scriptures Is Verbal So Also Preservation Must Be Verbal. 

Preservation Has Taken Place In The Diffusion Of God’s Word, Not In Its Being Hidden Or Stored. Stewart Custer In Seeking To Somehow Equate The Use Of Vaticanus And Sinaiticus With The Doctrine Of Preservation Said: “God Has Preserved His Word In The Sands Of Egypt” (Stated In A Debate At The Marquette Manor Baptist Church In Chicago, 1984). To Take Such A Position, Would Mean That Believers Have Had The Wrong Text For 1800 Years, And It Has Been Only With The Advent Of Two Liberal British Churchmen, And The Retrieval Of Two Disused Alexandrian Manuscripts That We Now Have The “True Preserved” Word Of God. No! The Miracle Of Preservation Was Operative While The Scriptures Were Being Disseminated. “The Lord Gave The Word: Great Was The Company Of Those That Published It” (Psalm 68:11). “Have They Not Heard? Yes Verily, Their Sound Went Into All The Earth, And Their Words Unto The Ends Of The World” (Romans 10:18). 

As So Few Can Read The Original Languages, God’s Promise To Preserve His Word Has No Practical Relevance If It Does Not Extend To Translations. The Scripture Frequently Affirms”…That We Are Born Again By The Word Of God” James 1:18; 1 Corinthians 4:15; 1 Peter 1:23. If A Translation Cannot Be Equated With The Actual Word Of God, Then Ultimately This Leads To The Situation That One Must Know Hebrew And Greek Before They Can Be Saved, Or Built Up In The Faith. Romans 10:17; Matthew 4:4. Further, The Bible’s Use Of The Term “Preserved” Demonstrates That It Is An Absolute And Not A Relative Term. To Speak Of The Bible, Or In This Discussion, A Translation As Being “Almost Preserved” Is A Misnomer. Either It Is Preserved Or It Isn’t, Either It Has Errors Or It Doesn’t. Either The Flower Fades And The Grass Withers Or It Does Not.

 

Sorry it is a bit long

[MikeWatson1]

1 hour ago, TheGloryLand said:

I post this on my website, I hope it helps. TGL

English Is The Closest Thing There Is Today To A Universal Language. Upwards Of 350 Million Speak It As Their First Language, With Many More Than That Using It As A Second Language. It Has The Largest Vocabulary Of Any Language (550,000 Separate Entries In Webster’s Third New International Dictionary). English Has Become The Diplomatic Language Of The United States, And The Standard Language Of Science, Technology, Business And Communications. It Has Been The Primary Medium Through Which The Word Of God Has Spread During These Last Centuries Of Church History. Before Giving Several Reasons Why The English Of 1611 Was Better Suited As A Vehicle For Divine Revelation, Let Us Note Briefly The Preparations Which Led To The AV’s Translation. 

The Authorized Version Was The Culmination Of Some 100 Years Of Preparation. There Was Intensive Study Of The Greek Text ( Not To Mention Hebrew). The Five Greek Editions Of Erasmus, The Four Of Stephanus, The Nine Of Beza Provided The Translators With A Refined Text, Representative Of That Which Was In The Majority Of Manuscripts, And Had Been Acknowledged (John 16:13) By God’s People Through The Centuries. There Were No Fewer Than Seven “Preparatory” English Translations: Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthews,Great, Taverners, Geneva And Bishops. The AV Translators Themselves Were Men Of Unparalleled Scholarship, Representing The Combined Intellectual Might Of Oxford And Cambridge. But Far More Importantly, They Were Marked By A Holy Awe And Deep Reverence For The Word Of God. It Is This Latter That Places Them Poles Apart From The Translating Teams Of Today. Coming Back Now To The English In Which Our Authorized Bible Was Written, It Is An Evidence Of God’s Providence That After Nearly Four Centuries, So Little Can Be Found To Be Archaic. Certainly There Are “Profound Differences” Between Current And Elizabethan English. But, The AV Is Not Elizabethan English! 

As A Comparison Will Show, There Is A Great Difference Between AV English And The Wordy, Affectatious Elizabethan Style. Far From Our Bible Being A Product Of That Day’s Literary Style, The English Language After 1611 Owes Its Development To The Authorized Version! “The King James Version Was A Landmark In The Development Of English Prose. Its Elegant Yet Natural Style Had Enormous Influence On English -Speaking Writers” (World Book Encyclopedia). This Partially Explains Why The AV Is Ever Fresh And Lucid While Most Else From That Period Is Quite Difficult To Read. Edward F. Hills Speaks On The Misconception That The English Of The AV Is Elizabethan: The English Of The King James Version Is Not The English Of The Early 17th Century. To Be Exact, 

It Is Not A Type Of English That Was Ever Spoken Anywhere. It Is Biblical English, Which Was Not Used On Ordinary Occasions Even By The Translators Who Produced The King James Version. As H. Wheeler Robinson (1940) Pointed Out, One Need Only Compare The Preface Written By The Trans- Lators With The Text Of Their Translation To Feel The Difference In Style. And The Observations Of W.A. 

Irwin (1952) Are To The Same Purport. The King James Version, He Reminds Us, Owes Its Merit, Not To 17th-Century English_ Which Was Very Difficult_ But To Its Faithful Translation Of The Original. Its Style Is That Of The Hebrew And Of The New Testament Greek. Even In Their Use Of Thee And Thou The Translators Were Not Following 17th-Century English Usage But Biblical Usage, For At The Time These Translators Were Doing Their Work These Singular Forms Had Already Been Replaced By The Plural You In Polite Conversation (The King James Version Defended, Des Moines: Christian Research Press, 1984, Pp.218). In 1604 When James I Authorized Preparations For A New English Version Of The Bible, A Watershed Was Reached Not Only In The History Of Bible Translation, But Of The History Of The English Language Itself. One Hundred Years Ago John Burgon Wrote: “If You And I Believe That The Original Writings Of The Scriptures Were Verbally Inspired By God, Then Of Necessity They Must Have Been Providentially Preserved Through The Ages.” This Is The Crux Of The Matter; Does God Preserve That Word Which He Originally Inspired? And If So, To What Extent? Is It Merely The Concepts And Basic Message That Is Kept Intact; Or Does Preservation, As Inspiration, Extend To The Words Themselves? That The Bible Declares Both The Fact And Extent Of Its Preservation Is Made Abundantly Clear In The Following: 

“Know Now That There Shall Fall Unto The Earth Nothing Of The Word Of The LORD” (2Kings 10:10). 

“The Words Of The LORD Are Pure Words: As Silver Tried In A Furnace Of Earth, Purified Seven Times. Thou Shalt Keep Them, O LORD; Thou Shalt Preserve Them From This Generation For Ever” (Psalm 12:6,7). 

“For The LORD Is Good, His Mercy Is Everlasting; And His Truth Endureth To All Generations” (Psalm 100:5). 

“For Ever, O LORD, Thy Word Is Settled In Heaven” (Psalm 119:89). 

“Thy Word Is Very Pure: Therefore Thy Servant Loveth It” (Psalm 119:140). 

“Concerning Thy Testimonies, I Have Known Of Old That Thou Hast Founded Them For Ever” (Psalm 119:152). 

“Thy Word Is True From The Beginning: And Every One Of Thy Righteous Judgments Endureth For Ever” (Psalm 119:160). 

“Every Word Of God Is Pure” (Proverbs 30:5). 

“The Grass Withereth, The Flower Fadeth: But The Word Of Our God Shall Stand For Ever” (Isaiah 40:8). 

“So Shall My Word Be That Goeth Forth Out Of My Mouth: It Shall Not Return Unto Me Void, But It Shall Accomplish That Which I Please, And It Shall Prosper In The Thing Whereto I Sent It” (Isaiah 55:11). 

“For Verily I Say Unto You, Till Heaven And Earth Pass, One Jot Or One Tittle Shall In No Wise Pass From The Law, Till All Be Fulfilled” (Matthew 5:18). 

“Heaven And Earth Shall Pass Away, But My Words Shall Not Pass Away” (Matthew 24:35). 

“And It Is Easier For Heaven And Earth To Pass, Than One Tittle Of The Law To Fail” (Luke 16:17). 

“The Scripture Cannot Be Broken” (John 10:35). 

“Being Born Again, Not Of Corruptible Seed, But Of Incorruptible, By The Word Of God, Which Liveth And Abideth For Ever” (1 Peter 1:23). 

“But The Word Of The Lord Endureth For Ever” (1 Peter 1:25). We Have A Strange Anomaly Today; Christians Claimed To Believe What The Bible Says About It’s Own Inspiration But Virtually Ignore The Equally Direct Statements Concerning Preservation. To Say That You Believe In The Full Inspiration Of Scripture While At The Same Time Accepting The Textual Theories Inherent In The Modern Versions, Is About As Incongruous As Taking Genesis One Literally While Holding To The Theories Of Darwin. The Questioning Of The Bible’s Preservation Is The Starting Point Of All Other Kinds Of Apostasy. Satan In Genesis 3 Did Not Begin His Attack By Questioning Whether There Was A God,Or Whether God Created, Or Whether The Doctrine Of The Trinity Is True. Nor Did It Begin With The Question Of Whether God’s Word Was Inspired In The Originals. Apostasy Began When Satan Asked Eve, “Yea Hath God Said”? 

“Eve, Are You Certain That You Presently Have A Full Recollection Of What God Said”? When Doubt Was Given A Bridgehead At This Point, The Other Defenses Soon Fell. The Same Principles Applies Today: Has God Preserved His Word And Kept Intact His Original Word Of Inspiration Or Has He Not? It Is A Fact, That The One Common Denominator In All The Varied Errors, Deviations, And Heresies Is That Their Advocates Will First Criticize The Standard Received Edition Or Translation Of Scripture. Like All Other Bible Truths, The Scripture’s Teaching On Its Own Preservation Is To Be In The First Instance Accepted By Faith. Edward F.Hills In His Book, The King James Version Defended Calls It ” The Logic Of Faith”. The Facts And Evidence Of Such Preservation Will Then Follow. The Bible’s Preservation Is Rooted In The Eternal Counsels Of God. The Scriptures Are As Eternal As God Himself. 

“For Ever, O LORD, Thy Word Is Settled In Heaven” (Psalm 119:89). The Old Testament Text Was Preserved By The Aaronic Priests And The Scribes Who Grouped Around Them. 

“Unto Them Were Committed The Oracles Of God” (Romans 3:2). In The New Testament Dispensation Every Believer Is A Priest Under Christ. Hence, The NT Text Has Been Preserved By Faithful Christians In Every Walk Of Life. “Howbeit, When He, The Spirit Of Truth Is Come, He Will Guide You In All Truth” (John 16:13). It Was Not The Pronouncements Of Church Fathers Or Counsels That Determined The Text And Canon Of The New Testament. Rather, The Holy Spirit Guided His Own Into The Acceptance Of The True Word Of God. Such Copies Proliferated, While Defective Ones Were Ignored. The Holy Spirit Continues This Work Today In The Questions That Arise Over The Wording In The Modern Versions. 

Preservation Has To Do With The Actual Words Of Scripture, Not Merely The General Teaching Or Concepts. This Is Made Clear In The List Of Verses Just Given. Advocates Of The Modern Versions Commonly Say: “There Is Not A Single Doctrine Missing.” But What They Fail To Tell You Is That The Words Which Support And Develop These Doctrines Are Frequently Missing. Thus, The Force Of The Doctrine Is Diminished. As Inspiration Of The Scriptures Is Verbal So Also Preservation Must Be Verbal. 

Preservation Has Taken Place In The Diffusion Of God’s Word, Not In Its Being Hidden Or Stored. Stewart Custer In Seeking To Somehow Equate The Use Of Vaticanus And Sinaiticus With The Doctrine Of Preservation Said: “God Has Preserved His Word In The Sands Of Egypt” (Stated In A Debate At The Marquette Manor Baptist Church In Chicago, 1984). To Take Such A Position, Would Mean That Believers Have Had The Wrong Text For 1800 Years, And It Has Been Only With The Advent Of Two Liberal British Churchmen, And The Retrieval Of Two Disused Alexandrian Manuscripts That We Now Have The “True Preserved” Word Of God. No! The Miracle Of Preservation Was Operative While The Scriptures Were Being Disseminated. “The Lord Gave The Word: Great Was The Company Of Those That Published It” (Psalm 68:11). “Have They Not Heard? Yes Verily, Their Sound Went Into All The Earth, And Their Words Unto The Ends Of The World” (Romans 10:18). 

As So Few Can Read The Original Languages, God’s Promise To Preserve His Word Has No Practical Relevance If It Does Not Extend To Translations. The Scripture Frequently Affirms”…That We Are Born Again By The Word Of God” James 1:18; 1 Corinthians 4:15; 1 Peter 1:23. If A Translation Cannot Be Equated With The Actual Word Of God, Then Ultimately This Leads To The Situation That One Must Know Hebrew And Greek Before They Can Be Saved, Or Built Up In The Faith. Romans 10:17; Matthew 4:4. Further, The Bible’s Use Of The Term “Preserved” Demonstrates That It Is An Absolute And Not A Relative Term. To Speak Of The Bible, Or In This Discussion, A Translation As Being “Almost Preserved” Is A Misnomer. Either It Is Preserved Or It Isn’t, Either It Has Errors Or It Doesn’t. Either The Flower Fades And The Grass Withers Or It Does Not.

 

Sorry it is a bit long

Thank you sir. I'll have a good look at it

[SureWord]

6 hours ago, MikeWatson1 said:

I have understood the preservation of God's Word thru all generations to be the available access to translate the original copies. 

I have heard though the teaching that the KJV, and older Bibles before it are the only ones that have preserved it rightly.

I am not sure about this and would like to know how someone arrived at this teaching.

I believe the Bible is inerrant, infallible etc..but have understood that to be the original copies.. not later translations. 

The flaw in this is that God is preserving the Word in all generations..and so the original copies aren't that.  I thought that that flaw in reasoning is mitigated by the fact of the original copies being preserved in all generations.

The original copies are long gone.

I wouldn't get caught up in this. The main thing is did God preserve his word without error in a language you can read and understand? And where is it?

All the other questions like " Where was the word of God before 1611?" or debates about manuscripts and codices and translations are just diversions. Once you find where the word of God is then you can deal with them.

The litmus test is which bible are the scholars and critics always attacking and trying to correct? (I've seen scholars whose full time ministry is correcting every word in the KJV. That's no exaggeration either.) Which bible has stood the test of time? And which bible has produced the most fruit?

[MikeWatson1]

2 hours ago, SureWord said:

The original copies are long gone.

I wouldn't get caught up in this. The main thing is did God preserve his word without error in a language you can read and understand? And where is it?

All the other questions like " Where was the word of God before 1611?" or debates about manuscripts and codices and translations are just diversions. Once you find where the word of God is then you can deal with them.

The litmus test is which bible are the scholars and critics always attacking and trying to correct? (I've seen scholars whose full time ministry is correcting every word in the KJV. That's no exaggeration either.) Which bible has stood the test of time? And which bible has produced the most fruit?

Yeah.. I didn't mean the original copies exactly.. but the fact that the mountains of manuscript copies remain that allow today's scholars etc to do an accurate bible.

I guess my real question is why not the ASB or NKJV that come from the same source material?

My initial feeling is that the effort gone into the KJV and accuracy and reliability of it means the ASB and NKJV aren't really going to improve on it.

Anyway, thank you sir.

[Joe Chandler]

14 hours ago, TheGloryLand said:

I post this on my website, I hope it helps. TGL

English Is The Closest Thing There Is Today To A Universal Language. Upwards Of 350 Million Speak It As Their First Language, With Many More Than That Using It As A Second Language. It Has The Largest Vocabulary Of Any Language (550,000 Separate Entries In Webster’s Third New International Dictionary). English Has Become The Diplomatic Language Of The United States, And The Standard Language Of Science, Technology, Business And Communications. It Has Been The Primary Medium Through Which The Word Of God Has Spread During These Last Centuries Of Church History. Before Giving Several Reasons Why The English Of 1611 Was Better Suited As A Vehicle For Divine Revelation, Let Us Note Briefly The Preparations Which Led To The AV’s Translation. 

The Authorized Version Was The Culmination Of Some 100 Years Of Preparation. There Was Intensive Study Of The Greek Text ( Not To Mention Hebrew). The Five Greek Editions Of Erasmus, The Four Of Stephanus, The Nine Of Beza Provided The Translators With A Refined Text, Representative Of That Which Was In The Majority Of Manuscripts, And Had Been Acknowledged (John 16:13) By God’s People Through The Centuries. There Were No Fewer Than Seven “Preparatory” English Translations: Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthews,Great, Taverners, Geneva And Bishops. The AV Translators Themselves Were Men Of Unparalleled Scholarship, Representing The Combined Intellectual Might Of Oxford And Cambridge. But Far More Importantly, They Were Marked By A Holy Awe And Deep Reverence For The Word Of God. It Is This Latter That Places Them Poles Apart From The Translating Teams Of Today. Coming Back Now To The English In Which Our Authorized Bible Was Written, It Is An Evidence Of God’s Providence That After Nearly Four Centuries, So Little Can Be Found To Be Archaic. Certainly There Are “Profound Differences” Between Current And Elizabethan English. But, The AV Is Not Elizabethan English! 

As A Comparison Will Show, There Is A Great Difference Between AV English And The Wordy, Affectatious Elizabethan Style. Far From Our Bible Being A Product Of That Day’s Literary Style, The English Language After 1611 Owes Its Development To The Authorized Version! “The King James Version Was A Landmark In The Development Of English Prose. Its Elegant Yet Natural Style Had Enormous Influence On English -Speaking Writers” (World Book Encyclopedia). This Partially Explains Why The AV Is Ever Fresh And Lucid While Most Else From That Period Is Quite Difficult To Read. Edward F. Hills Speaks On The Misconception That The English Of The AV Is Elizabethan: The English Of The King James Version Is Not The English Of The Early 17th Century. To Be Exact, 

It Is Not A Type Of English That Was Ever Spoken Anywhere. It Is Biblical English, Which Was Not Used On Ordinary Occasions Even By The Translators Who Produced The King James Version. As H. Wheeler Robinson (1940) Pointed Out, One Need Only Compare The Preface Written By The Trans- Lators With The Text Of Their Translation To Feel The Difference In Style. And The Observations Of W.A. 

Irwin (1952) Are To The Same Purport. The King James Version, He Reminds Us, Owes Its Merit, Not To 17th-Century English_ Which Was Very Difficult_ But To Its Faithful Translation Of The Original. Its Style Is That Of The Hebrew And Of The New Testament Greek. Even In Their Use Of Thee And Thou The Translators Were Not Following 17th-Century English Usage But Biblical Usage, For At The Time These Translators Were Doing Their Work These Singular Forms Had Already Been Replaced By The Plural You In Polite Conversation (The King James Version Defended, Des Moines: Christian Research Press, 1984, Pp.218). In 1604 When James I Authorized Preparations For A New English Version Of The Bible, A Watershed Was Reached Not Only In The History Of Bible Translation, But Of The History Of The English Language Itself. One Hundred Years Ago John Burgon Wrote: “If You And I Believe That The Original Writings Of The Scriptures Were Verbally Inspired By God, Then Of Necessity They Must Have Been Providentially Preserved Through The Ages.” This Is The Crux Of The Matter; Does God Preserve That Word Which He Originally Inspired? And If So, To What Extent? Is It Merely The Concepts And Basic Message That Is Kept Intact; Or Does Preservation, As Inspiration, Extend To The Words Themselves? That The Bible Declares Both The Fact And Extent Of Its Preservation Is Made Abundantly Clear In The Following: 

“Know Now That There Shall Fall Unto The Earth Nothing Of The Word Of The LORD” (2Kings 10:10). 

“The Words Of The LORD Are Pure Words: As Silver Tried In A Furnace Of Earth, Purified Seven Times. Thou Shalt Keep Them, O LORD; Thou Shalt Preserve Them From This Generation For Ever” (Psalm 12:6,7). 

“For The LORD Is Good, His Mercy Is Everlasting; And His Truth Endureth To All Generations” (Psalm 100:5). 

“For Ever, O LORD, Thy Word Is Settled In Heaven” (Psalm 119:89). 

“Thy Word Is Very Pure: Therefore Thy Servant Loveth It” (Psalm 119:140). 

“Concerning Thy Testimonies, I Have Known Of Old That Thou Hast Founded Them For Ever” (Psalm 119:152). 

“Thy Word Is True From The Beginning: And Every One Of Thy Righteous Judgments Endureth For Ever” (Psalm 119:160). 

“Every Word Of God Is Pure” (Proverbs 30:5). 

“The Grass Withereth, The Flower Fadeth: But The Word Of Our God Shall Stand For Ever” (Isaiah 40:8). 

“So Shall My Word Be That Goeth Forth Out Of My Mouth: It Shall Not Return Unto Me Void, But It Shall Accomplish That Which I Please, And It Shall Prosper In The Thing Whereto I Sent It” (Isaiah 55:11). 

“For Verily I Say Unto You, Till Heaven And Earth Pass, One Jot Or One Tittle Shall In No Wise Pass From The Law, Till All Be Fulfilled” (Matthew 5:18). 

“Heaven And Earth Shall Pass Away, But My Words Shall Not Pass Away” (Matthew 24:35). 

“And It Is Easier For Heaven And Earth To Pass, Than One Tittle Of The Law To Fail” (Luke 16:17). 

“The Scripture Cannot Be Broken” (John 10:35). 

“Being Born Again, Not Of Corruptible Seed, But Of Incorruptible, By The Word Of God, Which Liveth And Abideth For Ever” (1 Peter 1:23). 

“But The Word Of The Lord Endureth For Ever” (1 Peter 1:25). We Have A Strange Anomaly Today; Christians Claimed To Believe What The Bible Says About It’s Own Inspiration But Virtually Ignore The Equally Direct Statements Concerning Preservation. To Say That You Believe In The Full Inspiration Of Scripture While At The Same Time Accepting The Textual Theories Inherent In The Modern Versions, Is About As Incongruous As Taking Genesis One Literally While Holding To The Theories Of Darwin. The Questioning Of The Bible’s Preservation Is The Starting Point Of All Other Kinds Of Apostasy. Satan In Genesis 3 Did Not Begin His Attack By Questioning Whether There Was A God,Or Whether God Created, Or Whether The Doctrine Of The Trinity Is True. Nor Did It Begin With The Question Of Whether God’s Word Was Inspired In The Originals. Apostasy Began When Satan Asked Eve, “Yea Hath God Said”? 

“Eve, Are You Certain That You Presently Have A Full Recollection Of What God Said”? When Doubt Was Given A Bridgehead At This Point, The Other Defenses Soon Fell. The Same Principles Applies Today: Has God Preserved His Word And Kept Intact His Original Word Of Inspiration Or Has He Not? It Is A Fact, That The One Common Denominator In All The Varied Errors, Deviations, And Heresies Is That Their Advocates Will First Criticize The Standard Received Edition Or Translation Of Scripture. Like All Other Bible Truths, The Scripture’s Teaching On Its Own Preservation Is To Be In The First Instance Accepted By Faith. Edward F.Hills In His Book, The King James Version Defended Calls It ” The Logic Of Faith”. The Facts And Evidence Of Such Preservation Will Then Follow. The Bible’s Preservation Is Rooted In The Eternal Counsels Of God. The Scriptures Are As Eternal As God Himself. 

“For Ever, O LORD, Thy Word Is Settled In Heaven” (Psalm 119:89). The Old Testament Text Was Preserved By The Aaronic Priests And The Scribes Who Grouped Around Them. 

“Unto Them Were Committed The Oracles Of God” (Romans 3:2). In The New Testament Dispensation Every Believer Is A Priest Under Christ. Hence, The NT Text Has Been Preserved By Faithful Christians In Every Walk Of Life. “Howbeit, When He, The Spirit Of Truth Is Come, He Will Guide You In All Truth” (John 16:13). It Was Not The Pronouncements Of Church Fathers Or Counsels That Determined The Text And Canon Of The New Testament. Rather, The Holy Spirit Guided His Own Into The Acceptance Of The True Word Of God. Such Copies Proliferated, While Defective Ones Were Ignored. The Holy Spirit Continues This Work Today In The Questions That Arise Over The Wording In The Modern Versions. 

Preservation Has To Do With The Actual Words Of Scripture, Not Merely The General Teaching Or Concepts. This Is Made Clear In The List Of Verses Just Given. Advocates Of The Modern Versions Commonly Say: “There Is Not A Single Doctrine Missing.” But What They Fail To Tell You Is That The Words Which Support And Develop These Doctrines Are Frequently Missing. Thus, The Force Of The Doctrine Is Diminished. As Inspiration Of The Scriptures Is Verbal So Also Preservation Must Be Verbal. 

Preservation Has Taken Place In The Diffusion Of God’s Word, Not In Its Being Hidden Or Stored. Stewart Custer In Seeking To Somehow Equate The Use Of Vaticanus And Sinaiticus With The Doctrine Of Preservation Said: “God Has Preserved His Word In The Sands Of Egypt” (Stated In A Debate At The Marquette Manor Baptist Church In Chicago, 1984). To Take Such A Position, Would Mean That Believers Have Had The Wrong Text For 1800 Years, And It Has Been Only With The Advent Of Two Liberal British Churchmen, And The Retrieval Of Two Disused Alexandrian Manuscripts That We Now Have The “True Preserved” Word Of God. No! The Miracle Of Preservation Was Operative While The Scriptures Were Being Disseminated. “The Lord Gave The Word: Great Was The Company Of Those That Published It” (Psalm 68:11). “Have They Not Heard? Yes Verily, Their Sound Went Into All The Earth, And Their Words Unto The Ends Of The World” (Romans 10:18). 

As So Few Can Read The Original Languages, God’s Promise To Preserve His Word Has No Practical Relevance If It Does Not Extend To Translations. The Scripture Frequently Affirms”…That We Are Born Again By The Word Of God” James 1:18; 1 Corinthians 4:15; 1 Peter 1:23. If A Translation Cannot Be Equated With The Actual Word Of God, Then Ultimately This Leads To The Situation That One Must Know Hebrew And Greek Before They Can Be Saved, Or Built Up In The Faith. Romans 10:17; Matthew 4:4. Further, The Bible’s Use Of The Term “Preserved” Demonstrates That It Is An Absolute And Not A Relative Term. To Speak Of The Bible, Or In This Discussion, A Translation As Being “Almost Preserved” Is A Misnomer. Either It Is Preserved Or It Isn’t, Either It Has Errors Or It Doesn’t. Either The Flower Fades And The Grass Withers Or It Does Not.

 

Sorry it is a bit long

That is the best post I have seen from you yet! Well said.

[Joe Chandler]

15 hours ago, MikeWatson1 said:

I have understood the preservation of God's Word thru all generations to be the available access to translate the original copies. 

This is the easy part. Here is just one passage of many pertaining to the inspiration of scripture. 2 Peter 1:19-21 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

15 hours ago, MikeWatson1 said:

I have heard though the teaching that the KJV, and older Bibles before it are the only ones that have preserved it rightly.

It gets more complicated here. There are a few manuscript families. The manuscript you choose is crucial to the translations stemming therefrom. No translation from a corrupt manuscript is accurate. The KJV and earlier translations were taken from the same manuscript family. Now the accuracy of the translation is the key. The KJV scholars are unsurpassed in their methods and scholarship. Compare the KJV and the Great Bible, the Bishop's Bible, or Tyndale's translation. All from the same manuscript family.

16 hours ago, MikeWatson1 said:

The flaw in this is that God is preserving the Word in all generations..and so the original copies aren't that.  I thought that that flaw in reasoning is mitigated by the fact of the original copies being preserved in all generations.

There is no flaw nor contradiction. An accurate translation of the correct manuscripts is a preservation of God's word, regardless of if that translation is English, French, German, or any other language. The flaw is the battle over which manuscript (originals) is used and the quality of the translation. There is a push to use the newer translations. Why? Sounds like you have bent your ear to the NIV, ESV, NKJV, ASV, NASV, crowd.

[TheGloryLand]

32 minutes ago, Joe Chandler said:

That is the best post I have seen from you yet! Well said.

I don’t personally know the author, but I thought it was pretty good.

[Joe Chandler]

Just now, TheGloryLand said:

I don’t personally know the author, but I thought it was pretty good.

It sounds like Ian Paisley in his book, My Plea for the Old Sword. Maybe not, I read it years ago. 

[MikeWatson1]

3 hours ago, Joe Chandler said:

This is the easy part. Here is just one passage of many pertaining to the inspiration of scripture. 2 Peter 1:19-21 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

It gets more complicated here. There are a few manuscript families. The manuscript you choose is crucial to the translations stemming therefrom. No translation from a corrupt manuscript is accurate. The KJV and earlier translations were taken from the same manuscript family. Now the accuracy of the translation is the key. The KJV scholars are unsurpassed in their methods and scholarship. Compare the KJV and the Great Bible, the Bishop's Bible, or Tyndale's translation. All from the same manuscript family.

There is no flaw nor contradiction. An accurate translation of the correct manuscripts is a preservation of God's word, regardless of if that translation is English, French, German, or any other language. The flaw is the battle over which manuscript (originals) is used and the quality of the translation. There is a push to use the newer translations. Why? Sounds like you have bent your ear to the NIV, ESV, NKJV, ASV, NASV, crowd.

I only use the KJV, but think I could use an translation like the ASB and NKJV along side it to get the right meaning of a passage.

The flaw in doing this is if the KJV is sound enough, why bother with the other ones I guess.

[MikeWatson1]

The other thing is :

King James avoided the scrupulousness of the Puritans by keeping the original ecclesiastical words out.  Those being congregation and assembly.  They were still used in some occasions.. but were mostly replaced with the word 'church'.

If congregation and assembly are better terms than the word 'church'.. then how does that marry up with the KJV being the only rightly preserved bible?

I think it is the context of when the word church is used.. that makes the meaning a congregation or assembly anyway.. but why not just use those words?

 

[Joe Chandler]

On 7/12/2023 at 2:04 PM, MikeWatson1 said:

I only use the KJV, but think I could use an translation like the ASB and NKJV along side it to get the right meaning of a passage.

The flaw in doing this is if the KJV is sound enough, why bother with the other ones I guess.

No, the flaw is that the Greek and Hebrew behind the ASB etc. use a different text. That means that the manuscripts themselves are wrong. Do a search on the comparison of bible versions and see all the differences. There are many. It isn't the translations that cause this, it is the underlying manuscripts. That is why most of the new translations agree among themselves. I am trying to answer your concerns, but you can study this out for yourself.