The Preservation of the Holy Scriptures

[tall73]

The Scriptures warn us against filthy communication.

Col 3:8 But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.

Eph 4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.
Eph 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.
Eph 4:31 Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice:


Eph 5:4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.


So we should not resort to such speech. However, that in no way prevents us from putting the Scriptures in modern language, free from profanity, that people can more easily understand.

 

[Jack Koons]

I agree brother, and i believe that was Jack's attempt in starting the thread.

Well, I'm glad that at least one person figured it out!!!

Jack

 

[PrincetonGuy]

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

In 1966, Merriam-Webster, in their Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, shocked the English-speaking world (and much of the rest of the world) by declaring that neither they nor anyone else has the authority to decide what is proper English and what is not, but that each user of the English language must decide that for himself. Editors around the world published reviews of this new dictionary and its new declaration. The editor of “Scientific American” found the declaration to be appalling (to say the least) and warned that it would result in the crippling of publishing research in the English language.

Therefore, in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, we do not find labels such as “standard” or “colloquial,” but comments such as “usually considered vulgar.” In their newer dictionaries we find comments such as, “usually vulgar” or “sometimes vulgar.” Interestingly, we find the latter comment on the word ‘[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse],’ perhaps in sensitivity to the use of the word in the KJV.

2Ki_18:27 But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] with you?
Isa_36:12 But Rabshakeh said, Hath my master sent me to thy master and to thee to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men that sit upon the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] with you?

1Sa_25:22 So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]eth against the wall.
1Sa_25:34 For in very deed, as the LORD God of Israel liveth, which hath kept me back from hurting thee, except thou hadst hasted and come to meet me, surely there had not been left unto Nabal by the morning light any that [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]eth against the wall.
1Ki_14:10 Therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam him that [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]eth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel, and will take away the remnant of the house of Jeroboam, as a man taketh away dung, till it be all gone.
1Ki_16:11 And it came to pass, when he began to reign, as soon as he sat on his throne, that he slew all the house of Baasha: he left him not one that [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]eth against a wall, neither of his kinsfolks, nor of his friends.
1Ki_21:21 Behold, I will bring evil upon thee, and will take away thy posterity, and will cut off from Ahab him that [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]eth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel,
2Ki_9:8 For the whole house of Ahab shall perish: and I will cut off from Ahab him that [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]eth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel:

(All of the words in brackets ( [] ) are the result of Christian Forums editing my post, including the KJV, for using “curse” words! When the KJV was revised in 1884, the editors chose to use much more ‘delicate’ terminology.)

 

[Jack Koons]

Well, now that things seem to have calmed down a bit, please allow me to address a few things.

You have only presented "I know" as evidence. We do not believe it.
Since you are not even trying to discuss the evidence but just presenting your view in circles I guess we can do the same.
We do not believe that it is true simply because you know it is true.

“the evidence”; now that is an interesting two words. The real question to be asked here is, “What evidence would it take to persuade the critic of ‘preservation’”? The answer of course would be, “That which does not exist”!
Allow me to illustrate:
1) The “original autographs” would suffice … but they do not exist.
2) A monolithic text would suffice … but it, does not exist.

The answer as to why the former does not exist is simple, they wore out. That plain, that simple.
But what about the latter? Why has God not satisfied the critic with a monolithic text? Could it be that He doesn’t have to? What I mean is, could it be that God is not obligated to preserve the Holy Scriptures as the critics demand He preserve them, for their satisfaction? I find it interesting that this entire “argument” of the ‘preservation of the Scriptures’ is a relatively new argument. Please allow me to explain.

In 1689 the London Baptists put forth a confession that contained the following:
(Chapter 1, Paragraph 8) “The Old Testament in15 Hebrew which was the native language of the people of God of old, and the New Testament in Greek which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations, being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore16 authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them17. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read18 and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they19 come, that the Word of God dwelling20 plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.
15Romans 3:2; 16Isaiah 8:20; 17Acts 15:15; 18John 5:39; 191 Corinthians 14:6, 9, 11, 12, 24, 28; 20Colossians 3:16”
Source: 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith | The Reformed Reader
Notice the words: “being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages”
It would seem as though, as late as 1689, these Baptists had a differing view concerning the preservation of the scriptures that do the Baptists of today. It is quite clear that within 200 years of that date, the view of both inspiration, and preservation had both changed dramatically.
Point # 1 of the 14 point Niagara Bible Conference Creed reads as follows:
“1. The verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scriptures in the original manuscripts.”
https://truthisfundamental.wordpress.com/1878-nbcc/

You see folks, up until 1689 we Baptist had a differing view than that which is being presented today. Now you may ask, what was their evidence? Their evidence, was the convicting power of the Holy Spirit … and that brought about “faith”. (Ever heard of that word?)
The truth of the matter, is that everything concerning God, is about faith, not tangible “evidence”.
Hebrews 11: 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
We could go so far as to say that if one cannot accept certain things by faith, it would be sin:
Ro 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

Consider this: Did God give us the entire Bible as a monolithic text? Come to think of it, no He did not. What did God do? He gave us ‘progressive revelation’ as He saw fit. God is not obligated to preserve His Word in a particular manner, but when He does choose a manner to do it, who are we to say it doesn’t meet our ‘criteria’?
And just for the record: it has been said that God never promised to preserve His Word, therefore He didn’t. May I suggest that that is a very, very poor argument? Are you seriously suggesting that God is only permitted to do that which He commits to do, with a promise?

Jack

By the way, this doesn’t mean there is not “evidence” of a real good “paper-trail”, it just means there is no monolithic text.

 

[Jack Koons]

Yet there is in fact evidence of Jesus, and of the resurrection. The Scriptures themselves are in fact evidences, and the NT is the most attested to book in all of history. Moreover, we have this as the testimony of the church throughout its life.

And if your claim is true that the KJV is God's word in English, then you should be able to show that. You have not done so. You have simply claimed it is so because you know it.

You cannot find one manuscript that actually agrees with the readings of the KJV. So why would you think it is the right one?

“The Scriptures themselves are in fact evidences” … But WAIT!!! Isn’t that the whole point of this thread, how do we KNOW that God has “preserved” the scriptures that are “evidences” of Him?

Jack

 

[now faith]

“The Scriptures themselves are in fact evidences” … But WAIT!!! Isn’t that the whole point of this thread, how do we KNOW that God has “preserved” the scriptures that are “evidences” of Him?

Jack

If the King James is not the inspired word of God then what is?

Hebrews: 11. 3. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

This thread is indeed a bit more than a whose Bible is better topic.

 

[now faith]

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:

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

Emphasis supplied.

Now we have another issue.

The King James was Translated by a very diverse and knowledgeable panel of 47 scholars.

Even though as stated it is not exact in translation,it still has more contextual integrity than modern versions.

What is truly unique is that the great Isaiah Scroll was not used in translation.

The dead sea scrolls were found in 1947.

I believe it is not the accuracy of the King James being vindicated,but the King James is the standard to authenticate the scroll.

 

[now faith]

The Masoretic text predates the LXX and by 3rd century the LXX or [Septuagint] was not widely accepted by Jewish scholars.

It was promoted by The Church of Rome,by Augustine.

There are concerns by theologians on the Alexandrian text.

Brenton 's Septuagint was completed in 1849,Codex Vaticanus being it's primary source.

This is my opinion but I would find any text to be ambiguous when it's primary source is Rome Catholic.

Not to bash anyone's religion,only seems logical not to rely on information from who we have protested.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

It would seem as though, as late as 1689, these Baptists had a differing view concerning the preservation of the scriptures that do the Baptists of today. It is quite clear that within 200 years of that date, the view of both inspiration, and preservation had both changed dramatically.
Point # 1 of the 14 point Niagara Bible Conference Creed reads as follows:
“1. The verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scriptures in the original manuscripts.”
https://truthisfundamental.wordpress.com/1878-nbcc/

You see folks, up until 1689 we Baptist had a differing view than that which is being presented today.

Individual Baptists and other Christians have proposed over the centuries a multitude of differing concepts regarding the inspiration and preservation of the Holy Scriptures. In 1840, François Samuel Robert Louis Gaussen published in Paris his now classic work, La Théopneustie, ou pleine inspiration des saintes écritures. An English translation (by David Dundus Scott) of the classic was published in 1858 by W. G. Blackie and Co. as Theopneustia: The Bible, it’s Divine Origin and Entire Inspiration, Deduced from Internal Evidence and the Testimonies of Nature, History, and Science.

Now you may ask, what was their evidence? Their evidence, was the convicting power of the Holy Spirit … and that brought about “faith”. (Ever heard of that word?)
The truth of the matter, is that everything concerning God, is about faith, not tangible “evidence”.

Most fortunately, Gaussen did not rely upon his presumption (sometimes mistakenly called “faith”). Instead, he relied upon the actual evidence for the divine inspiration of the Bible. What we want from you is actual evidence for the preservation of the Bible, for it is our position that the position presented in your posts is nothing but erroneous presumption.

God is not obligated to preserve His Word in a particular manner, but when He does choose a manner to do it, who are we to say it doesn’t meet our ‘criteria’?

To say that God preserved His word is to say that He preserved it according to the criteria of the speaker.

And just for the record: it has been said that God never promised to preserve His Word, therefore He didn’t. May I suggest that that is a very, very poor argument? Are you seriously suggesting that God is only permitted to do that which He commits to do, with a promise?

No one is making that argument; we are simply saying that God did not promise to preserve His word, and that the argument that He did promise to preserve it is based upon misinformation.

By the way, this doesn’t mean there is not “evidence” of a real good “paper-trail”, it just means there is no monolithic text.

Evidence, evidence—where is the evidence?

 

[PrincetonGuy]

The King James was Translated by a very diverse and knowledgeable panel of 47 scholars.

Even though as stated it is not exact in translation,it still has more contextual integrity than modern versions.

One of the primary reasons for the revision of the KJV in 1884 was that it seriously lacked contextual integrity—a problem that was resolved to a substantial extent in the 1884 Revised Version, and further resolved in the RSV.

What is truly unique is that the great Isaiah Scroll was not used in translation.

The Isaiah Scroll was not used in any translation of the Bible until after 1947.

I believe it is not the accuracy of the King James being vindicated,but the King James is the standard to authenticate the scroll.

The KJV is not any kind of a standard, and to claim that it is a standard is worse than using an early 17th century medical book to evaluate the accuracy of “modern” medical books.

 

[Jack Koons]

I believe it is quite clear that God did in fact preserve the Scriptures, in spite of what some may think, and or believe. The method and extant of this preservation is what is to be considered. While God did not choose to preserve His word in a monolithic text, we have today over 24,000 MSS in several languages bearing witness to the preservation of the Scriptures.


As I have already stated, and as the following link shows, it was believed in the 1600's that God did preserve the Scriptures.

Manuscript Evidence for the Bible (by Ron Rhodes)

The following excerpt was taken from the above source:

"God's Preservation of the Bible
The Westminster Confession declares: "The Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek, being immediately inspired by God and, by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them."

The Westminster Confession makes a very important point here.
The fact is, the God who had the power and sovereign control to inspire the Scriptures in the first place is surely going to continue to exercise His power and sovereign control in the preservation of Scripture.
Actually, God's preservational work is illustrated in the text of the Bible.
By examining how Christ viewed the Old Testament, we see that He had full confidence that the Scriptures He used had been faithfully preserved through the centuries.

Because Christ raised no doubts about the adequacy of the Scripture as His contemporaries knew them, we can safely assume that the first-century text of the Old Testament was a wholly adequate representation of the divine word originally given.

Jesus regarded the extant copies of His day as so approximate to the originals in their message that He appealed to those copies as authoritative.

The respect that Jesus and His apostles held for the extant Old Testament text is, at base, an expression of the confidence in God's providential preservation of the copies and translations as substantially identical with the inspired originals.
Hence, the Bible itself indicates that copies can faithfully reflect the original text and therefore function authoritatively."

Another excerpt, from another source:

https://books.google.com/books?id=a...omised+to+preserve+scripture&output=html_text

I could not copy the excerpt, but feel free to use the link.

The problem of course, (as I have already stated), is that the "definition" of both "inspiration" and "preservation", changed within 200 years of the publication of the 1649 and 1689 confessions. The question that we must ask, is why?

Jack

 

[SaintJoeNow]

1) You believe God's word is given to you in your own language.
2) You believe God's word is not accurately preserved from when He gave it.

For people who will not believe what the Bible says about the word of God being pure and infallible and never changing; and will not believe God actively guided the translation of His word into English to be freely given to the English speaking world without copyright (unlike all modern versions which serve mammon, and we all know you can't serve God and mammon which means all modern editors and publishers were in it for the money and not for God) and will not believe they have God's word in their hand...

I have to ask why they feel it is so important to prove me wrong? There's something going on here that is deeper than the debate, because it is not possible for man to persuade me that God has lied to me in His word and not told me exactly what He said.

Why do people feel it is so important to argue against the King James Bible being the word of God?

Why do people feel it is so important that others believe them against the King James Bible as the word of God in English?

Why do people want me to believe the King James Bible is not the word of God?

Why do they want to take my King James Bible away be telling me it is not THE Bible but is only one version of the Bible and nobody really has the Bible.

I have the Bible sitting here next to me, and I would be nice (though impossible) for the devil to leave it be.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I believe it is quite clear that God did in fact preserve the Scriptures, in spite of what some may think, and or believe. The method and extant of this preservation is what is to be considered. While God did not choose to preserve His word in a monolithic text, we have today over 24,000 MSS in several languages bearing witness to the preservation of the Scriptures.

What evidence does anyone have that God had anything at all to do with the “preservation” of these manuscripts? None! Absolutely None! We have millions upon millions of fossils from dinosaurs and other animals now extinct. Is this because God “preserved” the fossils? Why did not God instead “preserve” the dinosaurs and other animals now extinct?

Nearly all of the scholars of what is today known as Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians believe that it is a redaction of at least two original letters that God failed to “preserve.” The large majority of scholars of what is today known as The Gospel According to John believes that it is a redaction of the original. For a detailed (two volumes) study of the likely redactions from a moderately liberal Protestant perspective, please see the commentary on John by J. H. Bernard in the I.C.C. series. For a detailed (three volumes) study of the likely redactions from a moderately liberal Roman Catholic perspective, please see the commentary on John by Rudolf Schnackenburg. For a detailed (two volumes) study of the likely redactions from a conservative Roman Catholic perspective, please see the commentary on John by Raymond E. Brown in the Anchor Yale Bible series. All of these redactions occurred at a very early date and ALL of the pre-redaction manuscripts have been lost, but the evidence for these redactions is substantial.

As I have already stated, and as the following link shows, it was believed in the 1600's that God did preserve the Scriptures.

Manuscript Evidence for the Bible (by Ron Rhodes)

The following excerpt was taken from the above source:

"God's Preservation of the Bible
The Westminster Confession declares: "The Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek, being immediately inspired by God and, by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them."

The Westminster Confession makes a very important point here.
The fact is, the God who had the power and sovereign control to inspire the Scriptures in the first place is surely going to continue to exercise His power and sovereign control in the preservation of Scripture.
Actually, God's preservational work is illustrated in the text of the Bible.
By examining how Christ viewed the Old Testament, we see that He had full confidence that the Scriptures He used had been faithfully preserved through the centuries.

Of what relevance is this?

Because Christ raised no doubts about the adequacy of the Scripture as His contemporaries knew them, we can safely assume that the first-century text of the Old Testament was a wholly adequate representation of the divine word originally given.

Jesus regarded the extant copies of His day as so approximate to the originals in their message that He appealed to those copies as authoritative.

The respect that Jesus and His apostles held for the extant Old Testament text is, at base, an expression of the confidence in God's providential preservation of the copies and translations as substantially identical with the inspired originals.
Hence, the Bible itself indicates that copies can faithfully reflect the original text and therefore function authoritatively."

We have known for over 150 years that Genesis 1-11 is a severely redacted collection of epic tales, sagas, myths, or legends. Jesus and some of the writers of the New Testament used the very popular stories from Genesis 1-11 to teach their message, but there is no evidence of any kind that any of them believed that the stories were an accurate account of historic events. Indeed, the concept of history as an accurate account of historic events did not even exist in the ancient Hebrew world in which Genesis 1-11 was composed!

Another excerpt, from another source:

https://books.google.com/books?id=a...omised+to+preserve+scripture&output=html_text

Of what relevance is this?

The problem of course, (as I have already stated), is that the "definition" of both "inspiration" and "preservation", changed within 200 years of the publication of the 1649 and 1689 confessions. The question that we must ask, is why?

As I have already stated, individual Baptists and other Christians have proposed over the centuries a multitude of differing concepts regarding the inspiration and preservation of the Holy Scriptures. The reason for these varying concepts is obvious—they are merely human concepts conceived by mere humans of vastly differing backgrounds and education! Moreover, what does any of this have to do with the KJV or any one of the more than 400 translations of the Bible that have been made?

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I have to ask why they feel it is so important to prove me wrong?

The KJO movement, in its place of origin, has one and only one purpose—to destroy the people’s confidence in translations of the Bible that they are able to read and understand, with the hope that they will stop reading and believing the Bible and hence be servants of Satan rather than God.

P.S. I am neither saying nor implying that the individuals serving the KJO movement are aware of its place of origin.

 

[Jack Koons]

1) You believe God's word is given to you in your own language.
2) You believe God's word is not accurately preserved from when He gave it.

For people who will not believe what the Bible says about the word of God being pure and infallible and never changing; and will not believe God actively guided the translation of His word into English to be freely given to the English speaking world without copyright (unlike all modern versions which serve mammon, and we all know you can't serve God and mammon which means all modern editors and publishers were in it for the money and not for God) and will not believe they have God's word in their hand...

I have to ask why they feel it is so important to prove me wrong? There's something going on here that is deeper than the debate, because it is not possible for man to persuade me that God has lied to me in His word and not told me exactly what He said.

Why do people feel it is so important to argue against the King James Bible being the word of God?

Why do people feel it is so important that others believe them against the King James Bible as the word of God in English?

Why do people want me to believe the King James Bible is not the word of God?

Why do they want to take my King James Bible away be telling me it is not THE Bible but is only one version of the Bible and nobody really has the Bible.

I have the Bible sitting here next to me, and I would be nice (though impossible) for the devil to leave it be.

Well Joe, let's consider some things: 1) I believe God gave His Word perfectly via inspiration (as I stated earlier using the words of Dr. Thomas Cassidy); 2) I also believe that God has preserved His Word through the ages (as I have also previously stated, in accordance with the 1639, 1689 London Baptist Confession).

Now Joe, you may not be aware, but the Crown of England does hold the equivalent to our copyright on the AV of 1611, along with its subsequent editions. This would ensure the Throne of England to not to have to go through the process of 'authorizing' another 'Bible'; or dealing with 'a Bible issue' as they did prior to the publication of the KJV.

What modern critics refuse to accept, is the true nature of the origin of modern "textual criticism". Simply observe Post #273:

We have known for over 150 years that Genesis 1-11 is a severely redacted collection of epic tales, sagas, myths, or legends. Jesus and some of the writers of the New Testament used the very popular stories from Genesis 1-11 to teach their message, but there is no evidence of any kind that any of them believed that the stories were an accurate account of historic events. Indeed, the concept of history as an accurate account of historic events did not even exist in the ancient Hebrew world in which Genesis 1-11 was composed!

Of what relevance is this?

As I have already stated, individual Baptists and other Christians have proposed over the centuries a multitude of differing concepts regarding the inspiration and preservation of the Holy Scriptures. The reason for these varying concepts is obvious—they are merely human concepts conceived by mere humans of vastly differing backgrounds and education! Moreover, what does any of this have to do with the KJV or any one of the more than 400 translations of the Bible that have been made?

Folks,

Please be patient as I present my next post.

Jack

 

[Don Maurer]

My comments are in red.

1) You believe God's word is given to you in your own language.
Yes
2) You believe God's word is not accurately preserved from when He gave it.No, it is preserved, just not in the way a KJV only person envisions.


For people who will not believe what the Bible says about the word of God being pure and infallible and never changing; and will not believe God actively guided the translation of His word into English I have to break in here because I wonder if you believe that God guided the bible into non English speaking peoples languages? Take for instance the LXX, a greek translation of the Hebrew OT. Is that the Word of God to the greek culture? If you say yes, then what about the times the apostles quoted the OT and did not use the LXX, but other times they quoted the OT and used the LXX. to be freely given to the English speaking world without copyright (unlike all modern versions which serve mammon, and we all know you can't serve God and mammon which means all modern editors and publishers were in it for the money and not for God) and will not believe they have God's word in their hand...Oh this is not the point at all. In logic, it is called a category error. God cannot preserve his word if it cost anything? Well who paid all the professional scribes of the early church and later middle ages? You mean the printing presses of the reformation could not charge when Erasmus of Rotterdam first collated and published the TR?

I have to ask why they feel it is so important to prove me wrong?
Because your dependence on the reliability of the word of God is flawed. I am not saying the Word of God is not infallible and inerrant. I am saying your view is flawed and dangerous because if any under your ministry actually look into the things of the KJV only crown, they will fine them ... well.. I had better not go there. There's something going on here that is deeper than the debate, because it is not possible for man to persuade me that God has lied to me in His word and not told me exactly what He said.Well, somehow your talking past me here. I think in your mind if the KJV is not the word of God, then the word of God does not exist. I think you see no other alternative but these two extremes. There are other ways to arrive at the scriptures being inerrant and infallible, and for Gods word to be preserved.

Why do people feel it is so important to argue against the King James Bible being the word of God?This question seems to totally irrational to me. Many of your detractors would die for the doctrine that the word of God is being preserved. They have a different view of how it is preserved, but your statement here is not correct.

Why do people feel it is so important that others believe them against the King James Bible as the word of God in English? How many of your detractors would say that the KJV is not the word of God? They might say that there are better translations, but the questions are not the same. I suspect you fail to see the difference in those questions.

Why do people want me to believe the King James Bible is not the word of God? sigh, lets move on.

Why do they want to take my King James Bible away be telling me it is not THE Bible but is only one version of the Bible and nobody really has the Bible.Your statement does not make good sense. Yes, the KJV is only one version, but that does not mean no one else has the word of God.

I have the Bible sitting here next to me, and I would be nice (though impossible) for the devil to leave it be.

Joe, if you know anything about translations, you would know that there is frequently no word for word parallel between languages. To express a greek word in several different ways is not necessarily wrong. some translations attempt to get close to a word of word parallel, others are more flowing and loose. I enjoy the ASV for its word for word parallels to the greek. I see places where only one word could be used instead of 2 or 3 as in other translations. Nevertheless, I think your problem with the issue is one because you do not understand the process of translation.

I doubt I should be here. I do not want to wrangle here it just does not seem worth it.

 

[now faith]

One of the primary reasons for the revision of the KJV in 1884 was that it seriously lacked contextual integrity—a problem that was resolved to a substantial extent in the 1884 Revised Version, and further resolved in the RSV.



The Isaiah Scroll was not used in any translation of the Bible until after 1947.



The KJV is not any kind of a standard, and to claim that it is a standard is worse than using an early 17th century medical book to evaluate the accuracy of “modern” medical books.

The revision in 1884 was the removal of the apocryphal books.

The Isaiah Scroll being found in 1947 was my point.

The King James being equated to a medical book is a straw man statement.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

The revision in 1884 was the removal of the apocryphal books.

This statement is radically false. Here is the truth:

History of the English Revised Version (1881-85)

The Revised Version (1881-1895)

What is truly unique is that the great Isaiah Scroll was not used in translation.

The Isaiah Scroll being found in 1947 was my point.

?

The King James being equated to a medical book is a straw man statement.

No one in this thread has equated the KJV with a medical book. However, the point was accurately and appropriately made that setting the KJV as a standard of accuracy for current Bible translations makes no more sense than setting an early 17th century medical book as a standard of accuracy for current medical books.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

What modern critics refuse to accept, is the true nature of the origin of modern "textual criticism". Simply observe Post #273:

Post #273 concerned redaction criticism—NOT textual criticism. They are two distinctly different and unrelated disciplines. Furthermore, merely suggesting that redaction criticism and/or textual criticism are not valid disciplines for studying the Bible because of “the true nature of their origin” without posting any evidence in support of the suggestion lends no credibility to the suggestion. Indeed, my three references provide an abundance of evidence for redactions in the Gospel According to John—redactions that if real, incontrovertibly prove the falseness of the claim that God has continuously from the beginning preserved His word.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Now Joe, you may not be aware, but the Crown of England does hold the equivalent to our copyright on the AV of 1611, along with its subsequent editions. This would ensure the Throne of England to not to have to go through the process of 'authorizing' another 'Bible'; or dealing with 'a Bible issue' as they did prior to the publication of the KJV.

The revision of the KJV known today as the English Revised Version was authorized by a “Resolution passed by both houses of the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury.” (From the Preface to the English Revised Version. For the entire preface, see here:

Prefaces to the English Revised Version (1881-85)

I own an 1885 printing of the English Revised Version, and I have personally verified the accuracy of the Preface given on the website linked to above).