The Preservation of the Holy Scriptures

[SaintJoeNow]

Then why would you hold that God did not keep that promise to all the believers before 1611?

I don't know what you are talking about. If people before 1611 believed God's word, they believed God's word. If they didn't, they didn't. If they knew what God's word was, they knew what God's word was. If they didn't know, they didn't know.

What are you trying to say?

Are you trying to complicate something that is simple?

Are you trying to say God did not keep His promise? Are you sure you want to be saying that in front of God?
You're not really saying that, are you? Surely I'm misunderstanding you.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Please give me chapter and verse in the Bible where it says that it is not God's word in English. If you cannot do this, you have no basis for trying to tell me I do not have the word of God in English, preserved from the originals in the King James Bible.

 

[now faith]

In 1517 Martin Luther reformed from the Roman Catholic Church.

Others protested before him such as Wycliffe, but Luther and Calvin are considered the main figures of the Reformation.

About the same time first Bible Translation from the critical text was published.

The Complutensian Polyglot Bible.

This version was financed and promoted by Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros, a Roman Catholic Cardinal.

Cisneros was considered a zealot and actively promoted the Crusades.

Most modern translations are translated from the critical text,being furthered along by Hort and Westcott
And Nestle & Alland at the beginning of the 20th century.

The first King James was in 1611 it's predecessor was the Geneva Bible,in which was more widely accepted for the first 40 years.

The apocrypha was removed from the King James in 1885.

The apocrypha still remains in Roman Catholic text.

What history tells me is the critical text was promoted and financed by the very religion that Protestants
Reformed from.

As well the only reformed Bibles that were mostly used in the beginning of the Reformation were the Geneva and the King James.

I do not deny there were other Bibles,but as far as most commonly used in history were the Geneva and King James,by Protestants.

And the most widely used Bible ever is the King James.

Other texts evolve as new enlightenment is gained,some up to 28 revisions.

The King James has not been changed,only the removal of books that were not considered Cannon.

 

[now faith]

Through the years since 1611 you mean? Because there was a whole lot of history before then, and many translations, and many converts.

a. No one has said the KJV is a poor translation.
b. No one has denied that it has been used in a great way.
c. That does not prove divine perfection in reproducing the originals.

It is point c. that this is about. Perhaps you will be more willing to discuss than Joe. If God preserved His word from the time of the founding of the church, and it exactly matches the KJV, why does no extant manuscript have the same readings as the text of the KJV?

The great scroll of Isaiah indeed does match,the only difference is translatable impossibility
Or what is considered a lexical gap.

 

[tall73]

In 1517 Martin Luther reformed from the Roman Catholic Church.

Others protested before him such as Wycliffe, but Luther and Calvin are considered the main figures of the Reformation.

About the same time first Bible Translation from the critical text was published.

The Complutensian Polyglot Bible.

This version was financed and promoted by Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros, a Roman Catholic Cardinal.

Cisneros was considered a zealot and actively promoted the Crusades.

Most modern translations are translated from the critical text,being furthered along by Hort and Westcott
And Nestle & Alland at the beginning of the 20th century.

The first King James was in 1611 it's predecessor was the Geneva Bible,in which was more widely accepted for the first 40 years.

The apocrypha was removed from the King James in 1885.

The apocrypha still remains in Roman Catholic text.

What history tells me is the critical text was promoted and financed by the very religion that Protestants
Reformed from.

As well the only reformed Bibles that were mostly used in the beginning of the Reformation were the Geneva and the King James.

I do not deny there were other Bibles,but as far as most commonly used in history were the Geneva and King James,by Protestants.

And the most widely used Bible ever is the King James.

Other texts evolve as new enlightenment is gained,some up to 28 revisions.

The King James has not been changed,only the removal of books that were not considered Cannon.

a. None of that demonstrates that the KJV is a perfect reproduction of God's word in English, which was the point in contention.

b. The translations before that include those before English was even a language. The Latin, the Syriac, etc. Wherever the Scriptures went they were translated. And of course many in the lands of the Eastern Roman empire spoke Greek so no translation was necessary.

 

[tall73]

Are you trying to tell me that the Bible says it is not God's word in English?

Can you give me chapter and verse where the Bible says it is not God's word in English?

You just changed your argument.

You said:

I don't have to understand the languages of the manuscripts copied from the originals to know by faith that I have God's preserved word in my own language. I am thankful that I was shown this in God's word shortly after I got saved before anybody could make me think that it's too good to be true.

You indicated that you were shown FROM GOD's WORD that God's word was preserved in your own language, which you have made clear is English.

This was your claim. I didn't force you to make this claim. I asked you to back it up and show the chapter and verse that states, as you said, that God's word would be preserved in your own language.

They then are you changing what is to be demonstrated? Why are you backing away from your claim? Do you not have such a verse?

 

[tall73]

Are you trying to tell me that the Bible says it is not God's word in English?


Can you give me chapter and verse where the Bible says it is not God's word in English?

You were the one who said you had been shown in God's word that it would be preserved in your own language. That is your claim, and your claim to back up. I have no burden to prove your statement.


Now as to what the Bible does NOT say, that is quite a few things. By your logic here someone could say that the book of Mormon is the true word of God, because they believe it, and the Bible doesn't say otherwise. However, you would not agree with that, would you?

By the same logic here someone could say the Koran is the true word of God, because they believe it, and the Bible doesn't say otherwise. However, you would not agree with that, would you?

By the same logic here someone could say the Harry Potter novels are the true word of God, because they believe it, and the Bible doesn't say otherwise. However, clearly you would not agree with that.

Your argument is that the KJV IS God's perfect word in English. That is your case to prove. And you said you had that proof in God's word. So stop trying to shift your burden of proof.

 

[tall73]

I don't know what you are talking about. If people before 1611 believed God's word, they believed God's word. If they didn't, they didn't. If they knew what God's word was, they knew what God's word was. If they didn't know, they didn't know.

What are you trying to say?

Of course you don't know what I am talking about. You have spent the better part of this thread studiously avoiding actually addressing what I have been talking about, and instead merely saying again and again what you know because you know.

Now what I am trying to say is that you have claimed the KJV is God's perfect word in English.

Why can you not find ANY manuscript that agrees with the KJV in its readings then? I asked you again and again to do so. You have not. If, as you state, God's word is exactly the same as the KJV, then we should see God's word in readings exactly like that of the KJV all throughout history. We do not see that at all.

The KJV is an eclectic collection of readings from late Byzantine manuscripts. It does not match any of the extant manuscripts, which should not be the case of your claims are accurate.

 

[tall73]

Are you trying to complicate something that is simple?

What is simple to see is that no manuscript that exists matches the KJV in all its readings.

 

[now faith]

Here is a comparison from the Ancient Hebrew Center,the researchers seem to be very bent on disproving
The comparisons.
Below is the King James Version of Isaiah 53:1-3.

[1] Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
[2] For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
[3] He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Below is the same passage from the Great Isaiah Scroll. Differences between the King James Version and the Great Isaiah Scroll are underlined. While these differences are not severe, at least in these few passages, it clearly demonstrates that more than 17 differences exist in Isaiah 53 between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the King James Version.

[1] Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
[2] For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor he hath comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire ourselves.
[3] He is despised and rejected of men and man of sorrows, and he knows grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; and despised him, and we esteemed him not.

This scroll was found in the 1940s I believe,it is clear a matter of grammar is involved but the context is on par.

 

[tall73]

Are you trying to say God did not keep His promise? Are you sure you want to be saying that in front of God?
You're not really saying that, are you? Surely I'm misunderstanding you.

I am saying that God did keep His promise and preserved His word in thousands of manuscripts. Some of these contain variants. That is reality. The percentage that these variants comprise is quite small, and most are not translatable anyway. They do not do away with any doctrine. Somewhere in those variants I believe are the actual words of God, and it is the desire of all to figure out which ones.

So God did preserve His word, and the church has been blessed by it since the church was founded by Christ, even in cases where there were some small portions that had variants, and some of the variants must be changes. Yet, God still used His word as He saw fit.

Now, that is quite different from what you claim. You claim that the KJV is the completely perfect word of God in English, correct in all its readings, and even inspired in the word choice for translation.

However, you don't offer evidence for that. You say you just know it. And then you said you learned it from Scripture, but won't say where.

The KJV matches no existing lengthy manuscript. So how can it be the perfect word of God if no other manuscript matches it, and it is itself an eclectic collection of Byzantine readings, with a bit of other English Bibles and Latin Vulgate thrown in?

If God has kept His promise so as to preserve His word perfectly throughout the Christian era, then show the texts that match the readings of the KJV from throughout the Christian era. You have continually refused to do this.

So, before 1611, do we have a manuscript that matches the readings of the KJV, or not?

 

[tall73]

Please give me chapter and verse in the Bible where it says that it is not God's word in English. If you cannot do this, you have no basis for trying to tell me I do not have the word of God in English, preserved from the originals in the King James Bible.

Stop trying to shift your burden of proof. You claim something, you must prove it.

Moreover, you claimed you had a text that did prove it. So show it. If you cannot, then why did you say you learned it from the Scriptures?

 

[now faith]

Thankfully to all Good night God Bless

 

[tall73]

Here is a comparison from the Ancient Hebrew Center,the researchers seem to be very bent on disproving
The comparisons.
Below is the King James Version of Isaiah 53:1-3.

[1] Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
[2] For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
[3] He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Below is the same passage from the Great Isaiah Scroll. Differences between the King James Version and the Great Isaiah Scroll are underlined. While these differences are not severe, at least in these few passages, it clearly demonstrates that more than 17 differences exist in Isaiah 53 between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the King James Version.

[1] Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
[2] For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor he hath comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire ourselves.
[3] He is despised and rejected of men and man of sorrows, and he knows grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; and despised him, and we esteemed him not.

This scroll was found in the 1940s I believe,it is clear a matter of grammar is involved but the context is on par.

What is it you are trying to show with this analysis?

Currently I am disagreeing with the notion of Joe that the KJV is God's perfect word in English, with all the same readings as the originals, and even the word choice was inspired. I do not believe evidence supports that claim.

Is that view your view also? If not, then please spell out your view so I can understand. I don't see currently the relevance of what you posted in regards to the Isaiah scroll to the discussion. Are you saying that the Isaiah scroll is the actual word of God, being early? Are you saying something else?

 

[tall73]

Thankfully to all Good night God Bless

Have a good evening, and God bless.

 

[now faith]

What is it you are trying to show with this analysis?

Currently I am disagreeing with the notion of Joe that the KJV is God's perfect word in English, with all the same readings as the originals, and even the word choice was inspired. I do not believe evidence supports that claim.

Is that view your view also? If not, then please spell out your view so I can understand. I don't see currently the relevance of what you posted in regards to the Isaiah scroll to the discussion. Are you saying that the Isaiah scroll is the actual word of God, being early? Are you saying something else?

I was providing a example of original manuscript,coinciding with the King James.

 

[tall73]

I was providing a example of original manuscript,coinciding with the King James.

Coinciding largely, but not matching exactly.

For instance, in Isaiah 53 which you reference above, note verse 11:

Isaiah Scroll:
Out of the suffering of His soul He will see light, and find satisfaction. Through His knowledge His Servant, the Righteous One, will make many righteous, and He will bear their iniquities.

KJV:
Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

The Isaiah Scroll includes the word "light". This is not found in the Masoretic text, or the KJV.

It is found in the LXX as seen here, and in Brenton's LXX translation:

Brenton's:
Isa 53:11 the Lord also is pleased to take away from the travail of his soul, to shew him light, and to form him with understanding; to justify the just one who serves many well; and he shall bear their sins.

LXX
Isa 53:11 ἀπὸ τοῦ πόνου τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ, δεῖξαι αὐτῷ φῶς καὶ πλάσαι τῇ συνέσει, δικαιῶσαι δίκαιον εὖ δουλεύοντα πολλοῖς, καὶ τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν αὐτὸς ἀνοίσει.

So this does not meet the requirement for Joe's perfect KJV, word for word match. More than that it speaks to the belief of some that the alternate readings found in the LXX may stem from a different underlying Hebrew text stream.


The above example is not the only instance of differences:

The text of the Great Isaiah Scroll generally conforms to the Masoretic or traditional version codified in medieval codices (all 66 chapters of the Hebrew version, in the same conventional order). At the same time, however, the two thousand year old scroll contains alternative spellings, scribal errors, corrections, and most fundamentally, many variant readings. Strictly speaking, the number of textual variants is well over 2,600, ranging from a single letter, sometimes one or more words, to complete variant verse or verses.

http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah

Emphasis supplied.

 

[Jack Koons]

And a trip to Wal-Mart will teach you profanity,should we put that in a bible?

Interesting observation Faith,

I was thinking on this matter this morning. In days of old "vulgate", or "vulgar" meant "common". Today, when many think of vulgar, we think of "profanity". I was actually thing about the fact that we now have an "urban" dictionary to define 'slang' and or profanity. The simple fact is, there is the basic proper use of any language, and then there are the many 'profane' or 'vulgar' uses of that same language. The question that needs to be addressed in relation to this issue, (separate from preservation), is, should God's Word be lowered to 'profanity' to reach the 'profane', or should they be reached with the Holy Word of God to lift them 'out of their 'profanity'?

Jack

 

[Avid]

... should they be reached with the Holy Word of God to lift them 'out of their 'profanity'?

So True!

I had actually tried to address this with a younger pastor, while remembering the admonition from a much older pastor. The older had warned about "slang" for unrighteous and ungodly behavior being used by "Church" people.

As I tried to convey thing concern to the younger pastor, he shrugged it off as, "Well, that is how the language is used now!" My compromise would be that, IF one insists on reaching out to the profane with a profane version of the language, that should be the LIMIT. Anyone that that truly works with should take on the responsibility of correcting themselves on the proper use of language. THEN they may learn the deeper meaning of the scriptures, and get spiritual understanding. Then they may seek the LORD with all their heart, and purify their minds.

I had suggested a good book written a few centuries ago to someone who had professed that the LORD was speaking to the. I pointed out how the man had left school at 9 or 10 to work his father's meager trade. He said he soon forgot what little he had learned. Later, however, the LORD got a hold of his life, and his wife taught him to read using the Bible.

This book I suggested is an excellent book that helped me greatly. The person I suggested it to seems to have thought it was going to be on a 3rd grade reading level. His comments showed a complete lack of understanding, and I don't have reason to think he ever read the small book. He does not seem to understand the impact of what knowing the LORD has and should have on a person's life.

THE HEAVENLY FOOTMAN;

OR,
A DESCRIPTION OF THE MAN THAT GETS TO HEAVEN:

TOGETHER WITH THE WAY HE RUNS IN, THE MARKS HE GOES BY;
ALSO,
SOME DIRECTIONS HOW TO RUN SO AS TO OBTAIN.
By J O H N . B U N Y A N.
​

http://www.achristianspirit.com/Footman.html

The problem stems from the erroneous idea that too many have that God like you and leaves you JUST AS HE FOUND YOU. The people do not seem to be even looking for THE STRAIT GATE.

 

[tall73]

Interesting observation Faith,

I was thinking on this matter this morning. In days of old "vulgate", or "vulgar" meant "common". Today, when many think of vulgar, we think of "profanity". I was actually thing about the fact that we now have an "urban" dictionary to define 'slang' and or profanity. The simple fact is, there is the basic proper use of any language, and then there are the many 'profane' or 'vulgar' uses of that same language. The question that needs to be addressed in relation to this issue, (separate from preservation), is, should God's Word be lowered to 'profanity' to reach the 'profane', or should they be reached with the Holy Word of God to lift them 'out of their 'profanity'?

Jack

Profanity no. Put in language they can understand, yes. Folks may put in swear words, but they generally know the non-swear words as well. That is different than expecting them to learn archaic vocabulary in order to understand the Scriptures. Anything someone has to learn before they get it is an impediment. There shouldn't be impediments to learning the Scriptures.

I can understand arguments about the underlying text. I still think the actual translation of the KJV is dated.