The Preservation of the Holy Scriptures

[Jack Koons]

In the thread pertaining to the poll for the "KJV Only", I began to engage in a good discussion with Tall73 about the "preservation" of the scriptures. I would, with Tall73's permission, like to continue this discussion.

I would like to make a few brief comments:

1) It is my opinion (whatever that is worth), that a discussion of this nature must begin, and maintain a particular level of professionalism.

2) We (the members of this forum), must always remember that we are ambassadors for Christ, hence, it is His testimony we harm, when we lack to represent Him in a positive way.

3) Each of us are indeed a product of our education, at least to some degree; and since we do not all share the se education, there is bound to be disagreement. May we disagree gracefully.

4) Finally, may we all consider what we may learn one from another, that all might be edified. I am a firm believer in the preservation of the Holy Scriptures, I hope we can discuss this issue in a way that honors our Heaveny Father.

Jack

 

[PrincetonGuy]

In the thread pertaining to the poll for the "KJV Only", I began to engage in a good discussion with Tall73 about the "preservation" of the scriptures. I would, with Tall73's permission, like to continue this discussion.

I would like to make a few brief comments:

1) It is my opinion (whatever that is worth), that a discussion of this nature must begin, and maintain a particular level of professionalism.

2) We (the members of this forum), must always remember that we are ambassadors for Christ, hence, it is His testimony we harm, when we lack to represent Him in a positive way.

3) Each of us are indeed a product of our education, at least to some degree; and since we do not all share the se education, there is bound to be disagreement. May we disagree gracefully.

4) Finally, may we all consider what we may learn one from another, that all might be edified. I am a firm believer in the preservation of the Holy Scriptures, I hope we can discuss this issue in a way that honors our Heaveny Father.

Jack

If we can stay on the subject of “The preservation of the Holy Scriptures,” I would like to participate in this thread. I have read many hundreds of posts, essays, books, and other documents in which it has been claimed by the authors that God promised to preserve His word, and yet in none of these documents have the authors quoted a passage in the Bible that I believe supports that viewpoint. They have quoted irrelevant passages in the Bible and have interpreted them in a manner inconsistent with the principles of the exegesis of literature, but they have never quoted a passage that can be said to be relevant when interpreted in a manner consistent with those principles. Furthermore, when these authors are shown how unreasonable their interpretations are, rather than defending their interpretations, they change the subject by insulting “modern versions” of the Bible and their translators, by insulting contemporary critical texts of the Greek New Testament and their editors, or by some other diversionary tactic. Therefore, I would appreciate it if Jack Coons would post, one at a time, passage in the Bible that he believes support his viewpoint so that we can discuss reasonable interpretations of these passages one at a time.

First, however, I would appreciate it if Jack Coons would very clearly state and explain his viewpoint regarding “The preservation of the Holy Scriptures.”

 

[SaintJoeNow]

The simple logic of faith by which we know the scriptures are preserved and given to us in English today:

QUESTION: Is the King James Bible inspired or preserved?

ANSWER: The original autographs were inspired. The King James Bible is those same autographs preserved up to today.

EXPLANATION: The best way to simply describe inspiration and preservation of the Bible is as follows:

Inspiration is when God takes a blank piece of paper (papyrus, vellum, etc.) and uses men to write His words.

Preservation is when God takes those words already written and uses men to preserve them to today.

Both of these actions are DIVINE and are assured by God as recorded in Psalm 12:6, 7.

6 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

7 Thou shalt keep them, 0 LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

In Psalm 12:6 God assures us that His originals are perfect. Even though penned by fallible men with the heinous sins of; murder (Moses and David), adultery (David), idolatry (Solomon), and denial of the lord (Peter), God's words are untainted by the sins of the penmen.

That the originals were inspired perfect in their entirety is an undisputed belief among fundamentalists today.

But most fundamentalists argue that only the "originals” were perfect. They say that today we have nothing but copies and translations of those copies. They seem indignant at the thought that any "mere translation" should be considered a perfect copy of the originals. They claim that copies and translations are products of uninspired men and therefore must all contain mistakes.

Fundamentalists clinging to this tenet are mislead. Their folly in accepting this erroneous teaching is fourfold.

1. It is somewhat confusing and unexplainable that a person could claim that God could not use, sinful men to preserve His words when all fundamentalists believe that he used sinful men to write His inspired words. Certainly a God who had enough power to inspire His words would also have enough power to preserve them. I highly doubt that He has lost such ability over the years.

2. Why would God inspire the originals and then lose them? Why give a perfect Bible to men like Peter, John, James, Andrew and company and not us? They had seen, heard, and touched the Lord (I John 1:1). We haven't! If anyone ever needed a perfect Bible it is us, nearly two thousand years separated from a Saviour we have never seen!

Why did God inspire a perfect original if He didn't plan on preserving it? Couldn't He have afforded some error, in His originals just as some believe He has allowed some errors in today's Bible! Or do critics of God's perfect Bible believe that God was unable to prevent errors in the copies. It would seem like only half of a God who had the power to do one but not the other.

3. It is a "convenient" faith which cannot be tested. In other words, it is rather safe to believe in a perfect set of originals which have been LOST. Since they are lost, no one can ever practically challenge such a belief. Adherents to such a shallow persuasion can rest safely in the fact that they will never be proven wrong since the evidence needed to prove them wrong (the "originals") is lost.

But if they dare put the same faith in a Bible available today, they know that they will definitely be bloodied defending their faith.

Thus, to believe in a perfect set of originals, but not to believe in a perfect English Bible, is to believe nothing at all.

4. Regardless of their arguments against the doctrine of a preserved perfect Bible, such a fact as much guaranteed by Scripture as the bodily return of Jesus Christ (Acts 1:8).

Psalm 12:7 plainly states, thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

Thus we have God promising to preserve the same words that He inspired. Not too much of a feat to overwhelm such an omnipotent Being.

The fearful fundamentalist launches two attacks on the Scriptural teaching found in Psalm 12:7.

1. They claim, "Verse 7 is talking about the Jews, not the Bible." Then to add credence to their claim they rush out and publish a translation that says just that in Psalm 12:7. Let's look at this verse in the New International Version.

"O LORD, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever."

This is an irresponsible and dishonest translation. The Hebrew word "shamar" meaning "to keep" which the New International Version translators render "you will keep us" is found in the future second person singular "thou shalt keep" and is directed to the THIRD person plural "them" and NOT the first person plural "us" as the New International Version translators rendered it. Thus we see it is the King James, God’s perfect, preserved Bible which has accurately preserved the reading of the originals, not the unreliable New International Version.

Psalm 12:7 is not God's promise to preserve the Jews, a promise which flourishes elsewhere in Scripture. It is God’s promise to preserve His words, and is a direct reference to those words as described in Psalm 12:6.

2. Oftimes a Christian, whose faith is too weak to accept the literal truth of Psalm 12:6, 7, will piously quote Psalm 119:89.

“For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.” Then they will state that God actually meant that He preserved His perfect Bible in Heaven, not on Earth. And they say this with a straight face! This escape to a house of straw is embarrassingly humorous.

First, it is foolish for anyone to believe that God inspired a perfect original on earth so that He could have it brought to Heaven. Is that supposed to be the reason that He wrote the originals? The answer is embarrassingly simple. The Bible is addressed to man, not God. God did not write a perfect book directed to man and then put it in a library in Heaven where man cannot benefit from its existence. Again we ask, "What good to us, here and now, is a perfect book locked up out of reach in Heaven?"

Secondly, Psalm 12:6 makes reference to His words being on earth. To preserve them somewhere other than on earth is not to preserve them at all. So we see then that God inspired the originals perfectly. Then over the centuries He has preserved those same word today. They are found in the Authorized Version.

 

[Hammster]

^^^Found in the Geneva Bible. That predates the KJV.

On the count of three, everyone switch.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Modern versions of the Bible cannot be the Word of God because they attack basic doctrines of the faith:


Let's Compare Isaiah 7:14

"Therefore the LORD himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

Most of the new translations have attacked the Virgin Birth of the Lord Jesus Christ by substituting the word "virgin" with "young woman" or "maiden." A young woman or a maiden is NOT necessarily a virgin. Mary, the mother of Jesus, WAS a virgin. In fact, Matthew tells us so in Matthew 1:23, when he QUOTES Isaiah 7:14 and uses the word "VIRGIN." What does YOUR translation say in Isaiah 7:14?


Let's Compare Luke 2:33

"And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him."

The King James credits Mary with being the mother of Jesus, but does NOT refer to Joseph as His father. However, many new versions imply that Joseph WAS the father of Jesus by changing out the word "Joseph" with the word "father."


Let's Compare Acts 20:28

"Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."

Many of the new versions attack the Blood Atonement of Christ in this verse by OMITTING the word "blood." Does your's? The Blood Atonement is a MUST for anyone to be saved (Matthew 26:28; Revelation 1:5; Leviticus 17:11; Hebrews 9:22), yet the new versions are taking it out of the Bible!


Let's Compare Colossians 1:14

"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:"

It is THROUGH THE BLOOD that we have remission of sins, but most new versions completely OMIT "blood" from the text. What about YOUR version?


Let's Compare Daniel 3:25

"He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."

This is one of the great Old Testament verses which magnifies the Lord Jesus Christ. As you can see, the verse says that the Son of God, which is Jesus Christ, actually appeared in the fiery furnace nearly 600 years before He was actually physically born. This shows us that Jesus Christ is ETERNAL. He is DEITY, a member of the Holy Trinity, the "Son of God." So the King James Bible EXALTS Jesus Christ.

However, if you have a new translation you may have trouble finding the "Son of God" in the passage, for many have changed it to read "a son of the gods," or something similar. Does your translation magnify the Lord Jesus Christ by properly referring to Him as the "Son of God," or does it pervert the text with pagan nonsense?


Let's Compare Micah 5:2

"But thou, Beth-lehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from old, from everlasting."

The King James gives us the superior reading by telling us that Christ is from "everlasting." That is, He is eternal, as we've already seen.

Do the new versions contain this reading? No, most of them do not. Some say that He's from "ancient times," and others say that He's from "days of old," but these terms do not imply that Jesus is Deity. The term "everlasting" DOES imply Deity. The King James is SUPERIOR, for it EXALTS the Lord Jesus Christ.


Let's Compare Luke 23:42

"And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom."

In this particular case, the dying thief is being saved. Romans 10:13 tells us that we are saved by calling upon the name of the "Lord," and this man addresses Jesus as "Lord." The new versions, however, rob Jesus of His Lordship by stealing the word "Lord" from the text! Is your version guilty or innocent?


Let's Compare Matthew 6:13

"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."

The King James says that the POWER, the KINGDOM, and the GLORY belong to God, but many new translations omit these important words. Does yours?


Let's Compare Revelation 11:17

"Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned."

This verse reminds us that Jesus is COMING AGAIN, or at least it does in the King James. In many versions (or perhaps we should say "perversions") the words "art to come" have been taken out of the text.


Let's Compare I Timothy 3:16

"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

This verse tells us that Jesus Christ walked on this earth as"God" in the flesh. We know this is true, for "Immanuel" (Isa. 7:14; Mt. 1:23) means "God with us." So it is correct to say that "God was manifest in the flesh." Do the new versions say this? No, most do not. Most new versions have taken the word "God" out of the verse and used the word "he" in it's place. As you can see, this is a much weaker reading.


Let's Compare II Timothy 2:15

"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

This is probably the greatest verse in the New Testament on Bible Study. Naturally, the new translation editors couldn't resist the temptation to change it. The word "Study" has been omitted by most all new versions. Does II Timothy 2:15 in your version tell you to "study," or has the verse been butchered to pieces by Satan's scribes?


There you have it, friend, eleven good examples of how the new translations are NOT better. Satan has been very successful in convincing our generation that the new translations are necessary and that they are better. They are UNNECESSARY and they are SATANIC! In fact, the Greek text from which ALL new translations are produced was constructed by men who were deeply involved in the OCCULT (B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort)! BEWARE OF ALL THE NEW TRANSLATIONS!

The King James Bible is based on over FIVE THOUSAND pieces of manuscript evidence, which is NINETY-FIVE percent of all manuscript evidence available. The new perversions (all of them) are based on the remaining FIVE percent.

Friend, if you've been led to believe that there are better translations than the King James Bible, then you've been deceived by the Devil. We urge you to forsake the new translations and return to the grand old Book that God has used and blessed for centuries. Use the Book that God uses: The King James Authorized Version.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Why the King James Bible eclipsed the Geneva Bible and stands today as the Word of God

The attack on the King James Bible comes in many forms chiefly with the proliferation of a multitude of modern versions that altered the Holy Bible in thousands of places. Then a more subtle form comes from the resurrection of the older English versions that God has bypassed in church history leaving them on the shelves in the annals of history. Of late, the promotion of the Geneva Bible comes into focus with the aim of replacing the King James Bible. It is the same strategy employed to deceive readers into thinking that going back to the originals is better and in this case, the original English version that the Puritans used. Below is a discussion taken from the Which Version Club to clear the myth that The Geneva Bible is the correct English Bible to be used by English speaking Christians.


<><><><><><><><>
For now let me very briefly clear up yet another MYTH...

To wit, the MYTH that the Puritans continued to use the Geneva Bible after the KJB was produced and in fact had to be almost coerced into using the KJB.

This is PURE MYTH.

In fact, it was the PURITANS who REQUESTED the translation of the KJB to begin with. Without the Puritans REQUESTING the KJB, there would never have BEEN a KJB.

Moreover, a great many of the KJB translators were themselves PURITANS, and contrary to our modern day myth-makers from established religious and orthodox seminaries, the Puritans adopted the KJB with virtual IMMEDIACY.

All one must do to confirm this is READ the quotations of such men as John Bunyan (who stated that he believed the Authorised Version to be the EXACT REPLICA of the autographs), John Owen, Richard Baxter, Thomas Boston, Thomas Brooks, Stephen Charnock, Thomas Goodwin, George Swinnock, and MANY others, and it will be discovered that these men ALL lived within a generation of the publication of the KJB, and that these men ALL used the KJB, NOT the Geneva Bible.

Don't be fooled by the MYTH that the Puritans stuck to the Geneva Bible after the KJB came out, because it just ain't so.

 

[Hammster]

Modern versions of the Bible cannot be the Word of God because they attack basic doctrines of the faith:


Let's Compare Isaiah 7:14

"Therefore the LORD himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

Most of the new translations have attacked the Virgin Birth of the Lord Jesus Christ by substituting the word "virgin" with "young woman" or "maiden." A young woman or a maiden is NOT necessarily a virgin. Mary, the mother of Jesus, WAS a virgin. In fact, Matthew tells us so in Matthew 1:23, when he QUOTES Isaiah 7:14 and uses the word "VIRGIN." What does YOUR translation say in Isaiah 7:14?


Let's Compare Luke 2:33

"And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him."

The King James credits Mary with being the mother of Jesus, but does NOT refer to Joseph as His father. However, many new versions imply that Joseph WAS the father of Jesus by changing out the word "Joseph" with the word "father."


Let's Compare Acts 20:28

"Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."

Many of the new versions attack the Blood Atonement of Christ in this verse by OMITTING the word "blood." Does your's? The Blood Atonement is a MUST for anyone to be saved (Matthew 26:28; Revelation 1:5; Leviticus 17:11; Hebrews 9:22), yet the new versions are taking it out of the Bible!


Let's Compare Colossians 1:14

"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:"

It is THROUGH THE BLOOD that we have remission of sins, but most new versions completely OMIT "blood" from the text. What about YOUR version?


Let's Compare Daniel 3:25

"He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."

This is one of the great Old Testament verses which magnifies the Lord Jesus Christ. As you can see, the verse says that the Son of God, which is Jesus Christ, actually appeared in the fiery furnace nearly 600 years before He was actually physically born. This shows us that Jesus Christ is ETERNAL. He is DEITY, a member of the Holy Trinity, the "Son of God." So the King James Bible EXALTS Jesus Christ.

However, if you have a new translation you may have trouble finding the "Son of God" in the passage, for many have changed it to read "a son of the gods," or something similar. Does your translation magnify the Lord Jesus Christ by properly referring to Him as the "Son of God," or does it pervert the text with pagan nonsense?


Let's Compare Micah 5:2

"But thou, Beth-lehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from old, from everlasting."

The King James gives us the superior reading by telling us that Christ is from "everlasting." That is, He is eternal, as we've already seen.

Do the new versions contain this reading? No, most of them do not. Some say that He's from "ancient times," and others say that He's from "days of old," but these terms do not imply that Jesus is Deity. The term "everlasting" DOES imply Deity. The King James is SUPERIOR, for it EXALTS the Lord Jesus Christ.


Let's Compare Luke 23:42

"And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom."

In this particular case, the dying thief is being saved. Romans 10:13 tells us that we are saved by calling upon the name of the "Lord," and this man addresses Jesus as "Lord." The new versions, however, rob Jesus of His Lordship by stealing the word "Lord" from the text! Is your version guilty or innocent?


Let's Compare Matthew 6:13

"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."

The King James says that the POWER, the KINGDOM, and the GLORY belong to God, but many new translations omit these important words. Does yours?


Let's Compare Revelation 11:17

"Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned."

This verse reminds us that Jesus is COMING AGAIN, or at least it does in the King James. In many versions (or perhaps we should say "perversions") the words "art to come" have been taken out of the text.


Let's Compare I Timothy 3:16

"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

This verse tells us that Jesus Christ walked on this earth as"God" in the flesh. We know this is true, for "Immanuel" (Isa. 7:14; Mt. 1:23) means "God with us." So it is correct to say that "God was manifest in the flesh." Do the new versions say this? No, most do not. Most new versions have taken the word "God" out of the verse and used the word "he" in it's place. As you can see, this is a much weaker reading.


Let's Compare II Timothy 2:15

"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

This is probably the greatest verse in the New Testament on Bible Study. Naturally, the new translation editors couldn't resist the temptation to change it. The word "Study" has been omitted by most all new versions. Does II Timothy 2:15 in your version tell you to "study," or has the verse been butchered to pieces by Satan's scribes?


There you have it, friend, eleven good examples of how the new translations are NOT better. Satan has been very successful in convincing our generation that the new translations are necessary and that they are better. They are UNNECESSARY and they are SATANIC! In fact, the Greek text from which ALL new translations are produced was constructed by men who were deeply involved in the OCCULT (B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort)! BEWARE OF ALL THE NEW TRANSLATIONS!

The King James Bible is based on over FIVE THOUSAND pieces of manuscript evidence, which is NINETY-FIVE percent of all manuscript evidence available. The new perversions (all of them) are based on the remaining FIVE percent.

Friend, if you've been led to believe that there are better translations than the King James Bible, then you've been deceived by the Devil. We urge you to forsake the new translations and return to the grand old Book that God has used and blessed for centuries. Use the Book that God uses: The King James Authorized Version.

The Geneva Bible has those readings. Ready to switch yet?

 

[SaintJoeNow]

The Bible clearly teaches preservation of scripture:

Some preacher says that the Bible is only for the scholarly and studious. No, the Bible is for anyone who wants to pick it up and use it, read it and hear it.


In Preservation, We Have the Originals

The Bible doesn't say that the man of God needs the &#8220;preserved&#8221; Words of God to profit him; but rather, the &#8220;Scripture given by inspiration of God.&#8221; People talk about the &#8220;originals,&#8221; but according to Psalm 12:6,7 we have the originals. Psalm 12:6,7, "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." God didn't promise in Psalm 12:6,7 to renew or republish His Words. No, rather, God promised to PRESERVE His Words, "as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times."

What we hold in our hands today in the form of the King James Bible is the PRESERVED inspired originals, which means the King James Bible has to be inspired. God's Word has been preserved. If the King James Bible is not inspired, then God did not preserve His Word, because His Word is inspired. Preservation MUST include inspiration if it is genuine preservation.

The word &#8220;preserve&#8221; in Psalm 12:7 means &#8220;to maintain.&#8221; Hence, God has maintained His inspired Word unto all generations, as He so promised, which means that those Words must remain inspired.

Psalm 119:89 proclaims, "For ever, O LORD, Thy word is settled in heaven." Notice that the originals are in Heaven. Before God ever spoke the universe into existence, the final Word of Revelation was already recorded in Heaven. Some Biblical scholars claim that the original manuscripts are only existent in the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic languages; but it is not a language that God promised to inspire, it is HIS WORDS. It is the &#8220;Words&#8221; of the Lord that are pure. God Words are inspired, no matter what language they are translated into. The text of our beloved King James Bible are the inspired Words of God.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

The Geneva Bible has those readings. Ready to switch yet?

Post number 6 answered your question before you asked.

 

[Hammster]

Post number 6 answered your question before you asked.

No, it didn't. I didn't ask the question that you seemingly answered.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

&#8220;As you can see, it appears everyone is adamant that the Bible of the early Pilgrims was the Geneva Bible and &#8220;certainly not the King's of England's Bible!&#8221;. Perhaps the record should be set straight as to whose Bible this was. It was certainly not the King of England's Bible. For far too long this rhetoric has been spouted. King James had nothing to do with the translation of this Bible nor did he even come up with the idea to produce a new translation. Here are the historical facts of the matter as laid down by Samuel Bagster in the wonderful book, &#8220;An Historical Account of the English Versions of the Scriptures&#8221; (published - 1841).


Soon after James I ascended the throne on March 24, 1603 a petition in the name of more than 1,000 ministers was brought before the King. The petition, called the &#8220;Millenary Petition&#8221;, was separated into 4 headings; 1) Things connected with the Church service; 2) Church ministers; 3) Church living and maintenance; and 4) Church discipline. Promptly, a letter was written in answer of these matters and sent to the King by the University of Oxford. Because of this James I decided to bring the matter to a public conference. Delegates representing the Anglicans and those of the petitioners were invited to the palace of Hampton Court the following January. The delegates representing the 1,000 ministers were Dr. John Reynolds, Dr. Thomas Sparke of Oxford, Mr. Chadderton and Mr. Knewstubbs from Cambridge. At the conference Dr. Reynolds took on the role as chief speaker and brought before the King a request &#8220;for a New Translation of the Bible&#8221; on the second day.


Prior to this day there is no historical record that the King had entertained such a notion as a new Bible translation. Dr. Reynolds' suggestion (which was really the suggestion of the 1,000 petitioners) found favor in the King's eyes and James I heard Reynolds and the others concerning the matter. During the conference, the Anglican delegates, led by Archbishop Bancroft, opposed the idea of a new translation. Despite Bancroft's efforts King James I gave permission to Dr. Reynolds and the delegates with him to proceed with the process of rendering a new translation of the Bible into the English language. &#8220;The method proposed by the king was this; that the version should be made by some of the most learned men in both the Universities, that it should then be reviewed by the bishops and other of the most learned ecclesiastics, that it should then be laid before the Privy Council, and last of all be ratified by Royal authority, so that in the whole Anglican establishment this translation so made should be used, and no other (Bagster, &#8220;An Historical Account of the English Versions of the Scriptures&#8221;, p. 149).&#8221;


For long King James I has been blamed for the removal of the notes found in the Geneva Bible. This is not an entirely true statement and the facts have been misrepresented as have most `facts' that are reported by the other side. While the King didn't necessarily agree with some of the notes there is absolutely no indication that he planned to force the translators to remove them. If anyone can produce information to the contrary I would be delighted to have it. Interestingly enough, the idea to have the notes removed entirely came from Archbishop Bancroft and not Dr. Reynolds, King James I or any of the petitioners. So, the next time you hear or read the lie that King James I wanted a new Bible because he didn't like the notes or that he was responsible for their removal you can present the facts. As I stated earlier, James I didn't like some of the notes but it wasn't until after Bancroft suggested that they be withheld from the new translation that James I commented on them.&#8221; (taken from Pilgrims and the Geneva Bible by Martin A. Shue)


.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

edited to eliminate repetitiion

 

[SaintJoeNow]

It is acknowledged that the Geneva Bible is largely in agreement of text with the King James Bible. No, I will not switch from the preserved Word of God in English, the King James Bible, to any former or latter translation for the reasons given in previous posts. I have acknowledged your assertion that the verses referenced for comparisons to modern versions are the same in the King James Bible.

I refer you back again to post numbers 6 and 8.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Do you have any other questions which were not answered in previous posts?

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Post number 6 answered your question before you asked.

the question you asked was "ready to switch. Post 6 did answer that question before you asked it. You suggested on the count of 3 that everybody switch, then you asked "ready to switch". No, I will never switch. Post 6 gives enough explanation why I will never switch to the Geneva Bible.



This post was intended to answer the assertion and question given at the end of post number 7

"The Geneva Bible has those readings. Ready to switch yet?"

I'm still fairly new here and never have been good on computers.

 

[Hammster]

It is acknowledged that the Geneva Bible is largely in agreement of text with the King James Bible.

Thanks.

It really doesn't matter why the AV was authorized. What matters is was it really necessary since the Geneva was largely in agreement. The NASB is largely in agreement with the AV. The NKJV is largely in agreement with the KJV. Etc.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

If we can stay on the subject of “The preservation of the Holy Scriptures,” I would like to participate in this thread. I have read many hundreds of posts, essays, books, and other documents in which it his been claimed by the authors that God promised to preserve His word, and yet in none of these documents have the authors quoted a passage in the Bible that I believe supports that viewpoint. They have quoted irrelevant passages in the Bible and have interpreted them in a manner inconsistent with the principles of the exegesis of literature, but they have never quoted a passage that can be said to be relevant when interpreted in a manner consistent with those principles. Furthermore, when these authors are shown how unreasonable their interpretations are, rather than defending their interpretations, they change the subject by insulting “modern versions” of the Bible and their translators, by insulting contemporary critical texts of the Greek New Testament and their editors, or by some other diversionary tactic. Therefore, I would appreciate it if Jack Coons would post, one at a time, passage in the Bible that he believes support his viewpoint so that we can discuss reasonable interpretations of these passages one at a time.

First, however, I would appreciate it if Jack Coons would very clearly state and explain his viewpoint regarding “The preservation of the Holy Scriptures.”

I was busy posting the doctrine of preservation with some of the supporting scriptures before I read this post. Posts numbers 3 and 8 clearly refute your arguments here.

Showing how modern versions of the Bible attack doctrines basic to the faith of Jesus Christ is a valid argument for proving they cannot be the Word of God.
The fact that the King James Bible is consistent in firmly upholding all fundamental doctrines in all passages is one of the proofs that it is the Word of God in English. The fact that many of the editors of the modern versions held unbiblical beliefs and conducted themselves in affairs which promoted sinful pleasures is also a valid argument as to why God did not use them to translate His Word. It is also a valid argument to point out that contemporary critical texts of the Greek new testament generally lend credibility to manuscript families where were considered to be corrupt, changed, and invalid to qualify as scripture.

I hope Jack does answer you...I'll get bored by myself here

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Thanks.

It really doesn't matter why the AV was authorized. What matters is was it really necessary since the Geneva was largely in agreement. The NASB is largely in agreement with the AV. The NKJV is largely in agreement with the KJV. Etc.

Sir, I hate to tell you that you are wrong, but you are wrong. Please bare with me for this sketchy history reference. The King James Bible, as did the Geneva Bible, held to the Textus Receptus manuscripts; that is why they are largely in agreement. The NASB, NKJV, NIV, RSV, and so forth held to the minority texts. There is a vast number of changes and deletions of words and passages in the modern versions. Remember, the serpent was largely in agreement with the Word of God when he said to Eve, "Yea, hath God said....". Remember, the serpent twisted things, changed words when he referred to what God had said, changed meanings of the things God had said. This is what the changes in the modern versions do. If you will be patient, later I'll post some comparison charts that show how the modern versions change key words and passages which alter fundamental doctrines in those places. The King James Bible is always consistent in all places to uphold all fundamental doctrines. The New King James Version is not the King James Version at all. Like all other modern versions, it is based on the minority text. Copyright laws dictate that there must me a large number of substantial changes from the derived source in order to obtain copyright for exclusive profits of the editors. That's part of why all modern versions in reality are vastly different from the King James Bible. The bigger reason they are different is the motivations of the editors and publishers who were dominated by ungodly people and ungodly organizations. These assertions can be documented, you can find them yourself if you look for them, but I will post the documentations when I get time.
It does matter why the AV was authorized. It is called the Authorized Version because it's translation was commissioned by the King of England for the English speaking world. William Tyndale was convinced that it was his life's calling in duty to God to make a good translation of the Bible in English. He was opposed by Roman (Catholic) authorities and betrayed into their hands to be burned at the stake. He knew this would be his fate as the Catholic Church was not far out of the Inquisition as the protestant reformation was shaking up the Catholic Church coming out of the dark ages. Tyndale was strangled and burned at the stake, and as he was dying he prayed "Lord, open the King's eyes". Rogers got into Tyndale's room and stole away Tyndale's unfinished work before Roman authorities could get it and burn it. Rogers carried on Tyndale's work until he too was martyred. For Tyndale's bravery and dedication to translating the scriptures into English knowing he would be burned alive if Romans got hold of him, after he was burned at the stake and prayed for the King's eyes to be opened as he was engulfed in flames, he won the hearts of England and Europe and the title "The Hero Of the Reformation".



Proverbs 22:1 says :The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.


It was the answer to Tyndale's prayer that the King of England commissioned translation of the Bible into English.

It matters very much why the King James Bible is the Authorized Version.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

A new and better translation than the Geneva Bible was needed because it was compiled in largely Calvinistic dominated Geneva (where it got it's name from) and some of the translation was considered to be corrupt do to Calvinistic influence. The footnotes were strongly Calvinistic implying that the Calvinistic interpretation of verses footnoted was the correct interpretation. The Puritans were not happy with it and quickly replaced it with the King James Bible after the AV was complete.

 

[Hammster]

Sir, I hate to tell you that you are wrong, but you are wrong. Please bare with me for this sketchy history reference. The King James Bible, as did the Geneva Bible, held to the Textus Receptus manuscripts; that is why they are largely in agreement. The NASB, NKJV, NIV, RSV, and so forth held to the minority texts. There is a vast number of changes and deletions of words and passages in the modern versions. Remember, the serpent was largely in agreement with the Word of God when he said to Eve, "Yea, hath God said....". Remember, the serpent twisted things, changed words when he referred to what God had said, changed meanings of the things God had said. This is what the changes in the modern versions do. If you will be patient, later I'll post some comparison charts that show how the modern versions change key words and passages which alter fundamental doctrines in those places. The King James Bible is always consistent in all places to uphold all fundamental doctrines. The New King James Version is not the King James Version at all. Like all other modern versions, it is based on the minority text. Copyright laws dictate that there must me a large number of substantial changes from the derived source in order to obtain copyright for exclusive profits of the editors. That's part of why all modern versions in reality are vastly different from the King James Bible. The bigger reason they are different is the motivations of the editors and publishers who were dominated by ungodly people and ungodly organizations. These assertions can be documented, you can find them yourself if you look for them, but I will post the documentations when I get time.
It does matter why the AV was authorized. It is called the Authorized Version because it's translation was commissioned by the King of England for the English speaking world. William Tyndale was convinced that it was his life's calling in duty to God to make a good translation of the Bible in English. He was opposed by Roman (Catholic) authorities and betrayed into their hands to be burned at the stake. He knew this would be his fate as the Catholic Church was not far out of the Inquisition as the protestant reformation was shaking up the Catholic Church coming out of the dark ages. Tyndale was strangled and burned at the stake, and as he was dying he prayed "Lord, open the King's eyes". Rogers got into Tyndale's room and stole away Tyndale's unfinished work before Roman authorities could get it and burn it. Rogers carried on Tyndale's work until he too was martyred. For Tyndale's bravery and dedication to translating the scriptures into English knowing he would be burned alive if Romans got hold of him, after he was burned at the stake and prayed for the King's eyes to be opened as he was engulfed in flames, he won the hearts of England and Europe and the title "The Hero Of the Reformation".



Proverbs 22:1 says :The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.


It was the answer to Tyndale's prayer that the King of England commissioned translation of the Bible into English.

It matters very much why the King James Bible is the Authorized Version.

You miss the point. But you KJVO types usually do. They at LARGELY in agreement. The same arguments you use to say that we should use the KJV are the same ones that say we should use the Geneva. Unless, that is, you are using extra-biblical reasoning like quoting mere men such as Tyndale and Bunyan.