The Preservation of the Holy Scriptures

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,888
2,274
U.S.A.
✟108,918.00
Faith
Baptist
Before addressing what preservation is; we may want to address, what is being "preserved"?

In other words, what is the "object" being preserved?

The remaining details can be dealt with one at a time; but we must first determine what exactly is being preserved.

Please feel free to comment.

Jack

What good would it do to know what “object” is being preserved if we do not know what ‘preserved’ means? Moreover, how can we decide if an “object” has been and is being preserved if we do not know the meaning of the verb that tells us what the action is?
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟877,052.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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 “preserved” Words of God to profit him; but rather, the “Scripture given by inspiration of God.” People talk about the “originals,” 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 “preserve” in Psalm 12:7 means “to maintain.” Hence, God has maintained His inspired Word unto all generations, as He so promised, which means that those Words must remain inspired.


If you believe that the KJV is part of God's maintaining the Scriptures throughout unto all generations can you show Bibles used throughout all generations that match ALL the readings of the KJV in other languages?
 
Upvote 0

SaintJoeNow

Junior Member
Mar 4, 2015
1,255
344
USA
✟3,191.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
If you believe that the KJV is part of God's maintaining the Scriptures throughout unto all generations can you show Bibles used throughout all generations that match ALL the readings of the KJV in other languages?

Don't have to. God gave and preserved His Word as He promised He would. I'm sorry you believe you will never know what it is because the original writings are gone, and if you say "human error" precludes accurate preservation of scripture, you don't even have any basis for believing the lost originals accurately recorded God's Word to start with. God doesn't need you to try to get close to the originals so you can determine for yourself what His Word is in English...or do you think God is incapable of speaking to you in your own language? Or do you think God can speak to you in your own language, but you can't really know what He is saying unless you learn the original languages? How can you be happy in a faith like that? You'll always have to be fighting to prove your own translation of God's Word is the best. My mentor was not a KJV only man, but he was much more concerned about being filled with the Holy Spirit than he was about fighting to prove he was the authority for translating God's Word into English. He always used the King James Bible because he knew it was something special, head and shoulders above all other translations. I know it's God's Word in English. I'm sorry you want to make your own version to suit yourself.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Avid
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟877,052.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Don't have to. God gave and preserved His Word as He promised He would.

If you are saying that the KJV is the realization of that preservation then yes, you do need to back up your claim, or realize that not many are going to accept it.

You have been saying God preserved His word in a very precise way, word for word, MATCHING THE KJV. That is up to you to demonstrate.

I do not at all doubt that God has preserved His word. I do not equate that to saying that the KJV is word for word what He preserved. And if you say it is then point out the other versions throughout time, in whatever language you want, that match the KJV reading for reading.


If you cannot do that, we have no reason to believe your claim.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟877,052.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm sorry you believe you will never know what it is because the original writings are gone, and if you say "human error" precludes accurate preservation of scripture, you don't even have any basis for believing the lost originals accurately recorded God's Word to start with.

Given that all the variants, even of the most diverse text types, comprise only about 2 percent difference it is quite manifest that God has preserved His word sufficiently to sustain His church through the generations, allow people to know Him, to know His will and to receive His salvation. I do not have to hold to the notion that one translation in English is THE one-hundred-percent-pure word of God without evidence for that claim on your say so.

Can you show even one manuscript in any language that predates the KJV and matches ALL the readings of the KJV exactly? If not, then in what way was the word "preserved" in this precise word for word fashion which you assert?

The word of God in many translations, and in many manuscripts, even with variants, has been ministering and speaking to the Church of God, throughout the world, for generations on end, and that is good enough evidence to me of God's power.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟877,052.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
He always used the King James Bible because he knew it was something special, head and shoulders above all other translations. I know it's God's Word in English. I'm sorry you want to make your own version to suit yourself.

You have spoken about your view at length. You have not answered to the evidence to demonstrate that your view is actually factual. And if you want to convince folks, you need to engage the evidence.

You have not presented examples of KJV-like manuscripts. If God preserved them from the time of Psalms forward they would be there.

God has and does use various translations that we have in English, though all may have some issues.

The KJV is included in that list of translations with issues, as was already pointed out in the other thread.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟877,052.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The Bible clearly teaches preservation of scripture:


Did these perfectly preserved Scriptures which match the KJV in EVERY reading exist ANYWHERE before the KJV Bible?

If so, please post the manuscripts.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟877,052.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Before addressing what preservation is; we may want to address, what is being "preserved"?

In other words, what is the "object" being preserved?

The remaining details can be dealt with one at a time; but we must first determine what exactly is being preserved.

Please feel free to comment.

Jack

I see some value in your suggestion.

To me it is evident that whenever God has spoken to man His word has the desired effect that He wanted it to have. For some it brought conviction, for some condemnation, for some salvation, depending on how it was received. However, our discussion here seems more limited.

We do not in fact have ALL The words God ever inspired man to say available to us today. The Scripture speaks of various prophets in the Old and New testament that we do not have all the words they prophesied. So it cannot mean that every word ever inspired is preserved in some way we have access to. We do not.

It seems in this discussion we are particularly talking about the (mostly) agreed upon canon of Scripture. The Scriptures themselves went through the process of being recognized as Canon. Now I think that the inspiration in them was recognizable enough that there was little doubt in most cases in the NT, though a couple books were debated. So in one sense the canon and the process that brought it about is tied to this topic.

If the discussion is on the preservation of the canonical writings of the Old and New Testaments, then we have to look at some additional related topics.

The nature of inspiration becomes important. Some see the inspiration of the scriptures as word for word, verbal inspiration, just as God picked the words. Some do not. Some see even within verbal inspiration that some prophets use different vocabulary, often based on their own background. Hence they posit that God selected the words, but did so from the prophet' own vocabulary. Again, others don't see it this way. So the doctrine of inspiration, and particularly verbal inspiration, certainly plays into the whole question.

Was inspiration about every precise word to begin with? And was preservation to be the same?

Then we have to see if God did indeed promise to preserve these inspired writings.

Having said that, I also see value in what Princetonguy said in response to you. What does preserved mean in this instance?

If preserved only means that we have all the various manuscripts, with all the various readings, and the right ones are in there somewhere, well that is not all that helpful if what we are going for is a precise word-for-word preservation. Having all the options is not the same as having the one real, exact thing.

If someone claims the KJV is the EXACT word for word way that God wanted His word, the exact way it was originally, only in English, then should we not see these exact word for word manuscripts throughout time, only in other languages? Yet, we do not see that.

So then does preservation only mean that the whole church was muddled on God's exact words until the 1600's? Does preservation only mean that the true correct word for word Scriptures existed somewhere, but were not widely known until the 1600's? That is not really what I would think of as preservation of any real sort. And certainly it would not be a PRACTICAL preservation that allows the church to have God's word all along.

So at this point I am forced to hold on to the notion that God has preserved His word enough, throughout the whole church era, for the church to know Him, minister for Him, etc. All the readings agree in 98 percent of the Scriptures. That is preservation, though not word for word. Yet it is all the preservation that the church really had access to, and therefore the only preservation that really mattered.

If someone wants to present that God preserved things perfectly word for word throughout the whole church era, they have a lot of evidence to present that shows He did that. And they have a lot of explaining to do as to why it was not known throughout each generation which was the actually correct version. It seems the reality has been a bit messier, but no less effective in God accomplishing what He has wanted to accomplish through His people.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

cubanito

Well-Known Member
Nov 16, 2005
2,680
222
Southeast Florida, US (Coral Gables near Miami)
✟4,071.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Greetings JR,

Maybe, if God would make 36 or 48 hour days, I could spend more time in either of these forums. Since He did not ... Well you get the point. Regardless of what some may think of your entrance; you do not have me fooled by this enthusiastic proclamation.

While I do believe we agree on many things, we do not agree on the preservation of scripture (to wit, I will accept your humble acknowledgement of error upon our entry into the presence of His Majesty on high.

I do hope they do not give you the 'boot'!

Jack

Jack, God did make 48 hour days. Here's a riddle: if you stand on the Earth's driest desert, where the largest amount of the purest freshest water can be found, you can have 500 hour days. Where in the world is Carmen Sandiego now? (hint, it aint Califonia).

Truth is a rococo masterpiece Jack, not a minimalist pretention.

JR
 
Upvote 0

Job8

Senior Member
Dec 1, 2014
4,634
1,801
✟21,583.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
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.
That is a fact, and indeed that is stated in "The Translators to the Reader".

The Geneva Bible has those readings. Ready to switch yet?
The Geneva Bible is not a rival of the KJB, but in God's good providence, it is the KJB which became "THE BIBLE" for all English-speaking Christians worldwide for at least 350 years. Returning to the Geneva Bible has little or no merit, except for Calvinists.
 
Upvote 0

Job8

Senior Member
Dec 1, 2014
4,634
1,801
✟21,583.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
If someone claims the KJV is the EXACT word for word way that God wanted His word, the exact way it was originally, only in English, then should we not see these exact word for word manuscripts throughout time, only in other languages? Yet, we do not see that.
Nobody who knows anything about this subject would make such a claim. The Byzantine or Majority Text does have minor variations within the manuscripts, and no one manuscript would represent the KJB. However, the majority of manuscripts which have been collated stand solidly behind the KJB. The Received Text is the sum total of what is found in the traditional Hebrew and Greek Texts, which are derived from copies of copies of copies.

The important thing to note is that even after hundreds of years of copying, the variations are minor and insignificant, which indicates nothing less than Divine Preservation. On the other hand, the corrupt Minority Text shows wide variations within itself as well as well as from the Majority Text, and there is a very clear doctrinal bias in at least 1,500 passages.
 
Upvote 0

Don Maurer

^Oh well^
Jun 5, 2013
424
136
Pa, USA, Earth, solar system, milky way, universe.
✟53,230.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Nobody who knows anything about this subject would make such a claim. The Byzantine or Majority Text does have minor variations within the manuscripts, and no one manuscript would represent the KJB. However, the majority of manuscripts which have been collated stand solidly behind the KJB.
In 500 AD, the majority text would have been the critical text. The fact of the superiority of the critical text can be seen in the recent finds of papyri, which generally back up the critical text.

The Received Text is the sum total of what is found in the traditional Hebrew and Greek Texts, which are derived from copies of copies of copies.
Interesting how KJV only people and Bart Erhman use the same language. It makes it difficult to see the difference between the extreme scepticism of Bart Erhman and the KJV only crowd.


The important thing to note is that even after hundreds of years of copying, the variations are minor and insignificant, which indicates nothing less than Divine Preservation. On the other hand, the corrupt Minority Text shows wide variations within itself as well as well as from the Majority Text, and there is a very clear doctrinal bias in at least 1,500 passages.
There is no doctrinal bias at all. The critical text has all the same doctrines as the Majority Text. If one goes by the differences, then the Majority Text has different doctrines from the TR.

Oh, and by the way, the KJV was translated from the TR and not the majority text. The differences between the TR and the Majority text can be easily seen in the critical apparatus of the Hodges and Farstat edition of the Majority Text. If the logical of your statements is used in the differences between the Byzantine and the TR, then the Byzantine takes away from the trinity because it does not have 1John 5:7.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟877,052.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Oh, and by the way, the KJV was translated from the TR and not the majority text. The differences between the TR and the Majority text can be easily seen in the critical apparatus of the Hodges and Farstat edition of the Majority Text. If the logical of your statements is used in the differences between the Byzantine and the TR, then the Byzantine takes away from the trinity because it does not have 1John 5:7.


Minority readings between the Byzantine and the text of the KJV was what we had gotten to in the previous discussion which this one was based on. The KJV does not follow the bulk of the Byzantine Majority text at all points. The minority readings are especially controversial because some are promoting that the KJV is word for word an exact replica of the originals, only in English. And then they say it has been preserved.

If that is the case they should be able to find various manuscripts that have the exact same readings as the KJV in various languages. However, we don't see that.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟877,052.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Interesting how KJV only people and Bart Erhman use the same language. It makes it difficult to see the difference between the extreme scepticism of Bart Erhman and the KJV only crowd.

Please let's leave this kind of rhetoric out. We had enough of it in the previous thread. Stick to the facts at hand, because both sides makes various claims about how the proponents sound.
 
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,888
2,274
U.S.A.
✟108,918.00
Faith
Baptist
The important thing to note is that even after hundreds of years of copying, the variations are minor and insignificant, which indicates nothing less than Divine Preservation. On the other hand, the corrupt Minority Text shows wide variations within itself as well as well as from the Majority Text, and there is a very clear doctrinal bias in at least 1,500 passages.

The variations in the Byzantine text type prove that the copyists made mistakes, just as did the copyists that gave us the much more accurate Alexandrian text type. The variations in the Byzantine text type also prove that God did not preserve the Scriptures in manuscripts representing the Byzantine text type, or any other text type, because God does not make mistakes—not even little mistakes.
 
Upvote 0

SaintJoeNow

Junior Member
Mar 4, 2015
1,255
344
USA
✟3,191.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
The variations in the Byzantine text type prove that the copyists made mistakes, just as did the copyists that gave us the much more accurate Alexandrian text type. The variations in the Byzantine text type also prove that God did not preserve the Scriptures in manuscripts representing the Byzantine text type, or any other text type, because God does not make mistakes—not even little mistakes.

So God doesn't want you to know exactly what He said, He wants you to make decide for yourself what He most likely said?

Since His Word, according to you, is not preserved, why in the would should I accept your guess at what His Word is as believable? You are trashing everybody in the world except yourself and the original authors, and why do you even think they put God's Word down without error in the originals? You are saying we flat out do not have the Word of God because of error in copies. You are wrong. We have God's Word...well, I have it, I'm sorry you seem to think you can't have it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SaintJoeNow

Junior Member
Mar 4, 2015
1,255
344
USA
✟3,191.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
The variations in the Byzantine text type prove that the copyists made mistakes, just as did the copyists that gave us the much more accurate Alexandrian text type. The variations in the Byzantine text type also prove that God did not preserve the Scriptures in manuscripts representing the Byzantine text type, or any other text type, because God does not make mistakes—not even little mistakes.

Well that's simple, isn't it? You believe that God did not preserve His Word and the scripture is not preserved, so you don't have God's Word and you have nothing but your own authority to guess at what His Word actually said before all those idiots messed it up with mistake in the copies.

People try to complicate something that really simple. When God gave His Word to the prophets, when they wrote down His Word as they were moved to do so by the Holy Ghost, He made sure that it was preserved. The people who had the originals knew what they had, and they didn't leave it in the hands of The Three Stooges Copying Company, and all of the efforts of the Satanic Printing Press to get copies, make changes, and pass them off as the Word of God could not obliterate God's Word which He gave for our instruction to know Him. His Word is Truth. Jesus is His Word. Jesus is the Truth. His Word does not change. You don't tell Him what His Word is, you don't tell me what His Word is. He is His Word, He gave me His Word, He knows what He said and I know what He said because I have it in black and white.


If you want to try to separate God from His Word, or God's Word from God, go ahead but I won't buy your work. Make a thousand new translations of the Word of God, all in parallel so all the different translations can be compared and I can decide what I want my own personal 1001st translation to be, and I'll say "no thanks, I have the only authorized English translation, authorized by God Himself and I don't trust your authority; you're wasting your time trying to sell it to me." I have better things to do than to read long doctoral dissertations which attempt to replace simplicity with complication. The Word of God can't be copyrighted. You can go get your own personal translation copyrighted and published, probably make a lot of money like so many have done after the King James Bible was published, and are doing with new translations all the time now, but I won't buy it. Sorry. I'm sure you can find plenty of people to buy it, just tell them it's easier to read or better than the other translations, the same lies that sold all versions which came out after the King James Bible. People will buy it, but not me.
 
Upvote 0