Jump to content


Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Tyndale

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. In the book entitled Thou Shalt Keep Them: A Biblical Theology of the Perfect Preservation of Scripture edited by Kent Brandenburg, the following definition is given for preservation: “complete, inerrant protection and general accessibility of every writing (vowels and consonants, words, and orders of letters and words) of the Bible, the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments, for every generation of believers” (p. 13). Ken Brandenburg asserted: “The position taken by the men writing this book is that scripture teaches God has preserved every and all of His Words to the very letter, and these Words are available to every generation. This is verbal, plenary preservation. These Words are preserved in the Hebrew and Aramaic Old Testament and the Greek New Testament” (p. 23). KJV defender D. A. Waite asserted: “To have any kind of genuine Bible preservation, you must have the verbal plenary preservation of God’s Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words, not through ‘translations’” (Fundamentalist Deception on Bible Preservation, p. 98).
  2. The preserved Scriptures in the original languages were the preserved word of God before 1611, and they remained the preserved word of God after 1611. The preserved Scriptures in the original languages were used as the standard and authority for the making of many of the revisions made to the 1611 edition of the KJV. Bible translations are translations of the preserved word of God in original languages. By definition, are Bible translations independent and underived or are they dependent on and derived from their sources?
  3. How is the fact that God chose to give additional revelation to Jeremiah conflict with the doctrine of the preservation of the Scriptures or the model of preservation? The new additional words that God gave to Jeremiah were not part of the preservation of previously given words of God since they had not been given earlier. Only after the additional words were given by God to Jeremiah do those exact words need to be preserved in copies.
  4. I never stated that you agreed with the definition or type of preservation that I understand to be indicated in the Scriptures. You jump to an incorrect conclusion if you incorrectly claim that I claimed that. I had quoted Pastor Markle, and acknowledged his stated agreement concerning preservation, not yours. You fail to demonstrate that I made any false statements as you alleged. I am not sure which exact statements I made that you allege are supposedly false. In my opinion, you do not prove that I twist any of your statements. In my opinion, you perhaps misunderstand or misrepresent what I stated. I had stated: "In my understanding, exact word preservation or jot and tittle preservation would have to concern preservation of the original language words of Scripture. In my opinion, you in effect would have to change the definition or meaning of preservation to attempt to use it concerning Bible translations." You replied: "If that is your definition of preservation than any language outside of the Hebrew and Greek texts cannot be be the preserved word of God." The issue is not my definition of preservation. The points I raised were concerning what type of preservation is actually taught in the Scriptures and whether the meaning of preservation is being changed when attempts are made to apply it to Bible translations. Would you claim that the Scriptures do not indicate an "exact word preservation" or a "jot and tittle preservation"?
  5. KJV defender H. D. Williams asserted: “The model for preservation of inspired Words is also included in the Bible. God made the first copy of His inspired Words as the model. He copied the exact same Words that were on the first tablet containing the Ten Commandments (Exod. 34:1). He commanded Jeremiah to make a copy of the exact Words He gave him to record in the scroll that King Jehoiakim cut-up and destroyed with a penknife and by burning the manuscript (Jer. 36ff)” (Hearing the Voice of God, pp. 194-195).
  6. In our mutual discussion of the doctrine of preservation, did we not agree that it concerned preservation of the exact same original language words given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles? We seemed to use the term preservation concerning the Scriptures in the same sense to refer to exact-word preservation [the same exact words preserved unchanged] or jot and tittle preservation. The Encarta World English Dictionary gave as its first definition of preservation: "protection from harm" and gave as its second definition: "a keeping of something unchanged" (p. 1412).
  7. The road that I am on clearly maintained that the words of the Scriptures proceeded out of the mouth of God by inspiration to the prophets and apostles. I trust God's word. I do listen to God's word. You fail to prove your baseless allegations against me and my faith in God and in the Scriptures. Your allegation that I do not trust God's word anymore is false. I don't blindly trust the opinions of men. It appears that you accuse me because I do not agree with your non-scriptural opinions. Would a consistent application of what you asserted suggest that those who would follow a human, non-scriptural KJV-only agenda would cause their faith to decrease?
  8. I do not remember ever posting at this forum before. I do not recognize the present posters here as being anyone with whom I have engaged in discussion. If I had supposedly posted here before, I would be glad for someone to show me the old posts. I think that I have demonstrated that I am willing to attempt to back up what I post or assert.
  9. Your posts do not suggest that you actually give me the benefit of the doubt. You have not demonstrated that any of the information that I have posted is untrustworthy and unreliable, but yet you jump to your hasty unsupported allegation against me. I would welcome all posters checking out the information for themselves. I try not to post any claim concerning the KJV that I cannot support or back up. When a poster asked for the evidence or documentation for a statement that I made, I gladly provided it. If any assertion that I post is factually incorrect or is unscriptural, I would welcome the sound or scriptural evidence that shows that so that I could correct it. It appears that I am attacked or accused by some for being willing to back up what I claim in obedience to a scriptural truth [prove all things--1 Thess. 5:21] and for asking other posters to back up what they claim. The truth remains the truth regardless of who states it. Attacks on a person stating accurate or true information does not actually answer or refute what was stated.
  10. That is obviously an incorrect claim although you may not admit it. According to a consistent application of your very own words, the truths that I have cited directly from the KJV would not be truth. Did you not think about what you stated before you posted it? Did you forget the post where I cited Luke 16:10 in response to a poster who seemed to attempt to trivialize the presenting of facts and details from editions of the KJV? Are you intentionally skipping over the scriptural truths to which I have appealed? Is your unsupported, broad-sweeping allegation against me an attempt to avoid the truth that you have not actually demonstrated that I supposedly reject any scriptural truth? I disagree with some non-scriptural opinions based on what I consider to be scripturally-based reasons so is that a justification for the unsupported harsh allegations against me? Luke 16:10 He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much. The scripture references in some of my statements are to verses in the KJV, and I have directly cited verses from the KJV. A number of my points or statements clearly use words and phrases from the KJV and are based on scriptural truths. Do you not recognize the phrases and terms from the KJV in my statements? For one example, would your statement suggest that you do not consider the scriptural truth that I cited that God is without partiality and does not show respect of persons to be truth?
  11. You jump to wrong conclusions. I have actually answered several questions and requests. While one poster answered some of my questions, other posters do not answer my questions to them. Would you suggest that those who do not answer my questions look untrustworthy and unreliable? If not, is a double standard being suggested? Some questions are invalid when they assume something to be true that is not actually true. Questions can also be answered with questions. Why would I desire to answer the questions of those who would seem to attack my integrity, honesty, and faith in God and in the Scriptures and that do not discuss what I actually stated? It has not been demonstrated that anything I posted is actually untrustworthy and unreliable so evidently I am merely accused based on subjective opinions of men.
  12. Does that suggest that you do not care about the truth and simply try to suggest that I need to accept unproven opinions of men?
  13. Where do the Scriptures themselves state or teach that God changed the preservation of the exact specific words He had given in 1611? The preservation of the original language words of Scripture clearly did not end in 1611 since it is a fact that later editors of KJV editions used them in making hundreds of changes in the use of italics in KJV editions and in making corrections and revisions to the 1611 edition. For example, Benjamin Blayney, editor of the standard 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV, maintained that he made use of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages in his revising of the KJV. An unidentified man used a different edition of the Hebrew Masoretic text that was printed in the 1700's to make around 100 changes to the 1769 Oxford KJV's Old Testament in the early 1800's with the changes being first printed in Oxford KJV editions in 1829. Is your own unsupported opinion that the early English Bibles are incomplete based on speculations and histories according to flawed men and their agendas? Do you not apply your own stated measures that you used concerning my comments to your own claims or do you indicate a use of unjust measures or double standards as you dodge applying them to your assertions? How was the Bishops' Bible [of which the KJV was officially a revision according to one of the rules given to the KJV translators] an incomplete Bible? Do you prove your opinion or speculation to be true? Did the KJV translators claim that the Bishops' Bible was an incomplete Bible? What actual clauses or verses do you claim were added in the 1611 KJV that were supposedly missing in the Bishops' Bible?
  14. Is your own unsupported claim concerning the KJV based on speculations and histories according to flawed men and their agendas? If the world never really minded Tyndale or Geneva, why would they mind the over 50% or 70% of the KJV that was taken from Tyndale or the Geneva? Some KJV defenders have claimed that 70 to 90% of the KJV's New Testament came from Tyndale.
  15. Are you claiming that English-speaking believers before 1611 did not have the preserved word of God? Are you in effect suggesting that the KJV translators did not have the preserved word of God and did not translate from it? You present no consistent, sound, scriptural case for your attempted condemnation of my view of preservation based on what the Scriptures state and teach. I have editions of some of the actual texts used in the making of the KJV such as an edition of the Greek NT text edited by Erasmus and an edition of the Greek text edited by Stephanus. Are you saying that they are not the preserved word of God and that the KJV translators were not translating from the preserved word of God when they used them?

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...