The Preservation of the Holy Scriptures

[tall73]

Actually Tall, the Author of ALL Scripture is God.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
2 Pet 1: 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
We often ‘refer’ to the writers of the Bible as its ‘authors’; but that is not a correct assertion.

​

I quoted the same verse from 2 Peter to illustrate that men were inspired. However, the men are still often referred to as the authors because it says that the men were writing to the churches:

Eph 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus:

1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

2Co 2:9 For this is why I wrote, that I might test you and know whether you are obedient in everything.


Etc.

Beyond simply that point however, there are differing views of inspiration. Some, and most Baptists, hold that God verbally inspired each word of Scripture. Even among those who hold such, some think God gave just word as He would want, while others see God selecting from the existing vocabulary of the biblical writer, which they see explaining why Amos writes more like a farmer than Isaiah, for instance. Others do not see every word as being dictated by God. Some see the those "moved" by the Holy Ghost as not being given each word but given some message by divine inspiration that they then put in their own words, and from their own experience and background, reflecting their own word choices.

In this model you have a more human element. This is likely getting closer to what PrincetonGuy might hold at this point.

The point being, folks refer to them as authors because they wrote it down. They are still inspired. But the precise nature of that has been debated for sometime. Some do not hold to God being the soul source of information. As many in my old denomination said "the Bible writers were God's pen-men, not God's pen". What we know is God chose to reveal His word through people, not simply drop it down completed from heaven in written form. So yes, folks often refer to them as authors. And at the same time many see them as inspired (though secular critics would not, despite what the text says).



Now again, I am not going to jump through every hoop, one at a time, for days with your endless questions about textual criticism, etc. I asked you to clarify something about your view so that I could respond to your other posts. Instead you have gone off on a one at a time series of questions about textual criticism and my view of it, understanding of it, relation to it etc.

Very little of this has had anything to do with preserving the Scriptures, and you have been studiously avoiding any of the questions I asked you on that point. You have yet to actually spell out your view of the matter and how the KJV is the exact replica of the autographs, only in English.

If you want to present the methods of the KJV translators for constructing their eclectic text, show it if you wish. I have no interest in going point by point through your series of questions just so we can get to what your view is. State your view.

I will go back and respond to the other posts by you that I did not previously as it appears you are not going to clarify what I asked you about any time soon.

 

[Blue Wren]

Has anybody heard, about the Gospel of Thomas? I just saw a short documentary, about this, on PBS. What do you think of it?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/maps/primary/gthomas.html

 

[tall73]

“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.

Since I was the one referencing evidence you might want to ask me what I would accept rather than put words in my mouth and categorize them as "the critic of preservation". I already indicated I thought the Scriptures were preserved, but that I do not hold that the KJV is the exact reproduction in every particular of the autographs, only in English.

And the evidence that would suffice is what you wound up saying later on in this very post:

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.

Since we do not have the autographs, and since we do not have a monolithic text, we have to look at the manuscript evidence or paper trail.

That paper trail doesn't have a bunch of manuscripts that cover large part of the Scriptures that have the same readings as the KJV. So I do not find that evidence compelling that the KJV is the reproduction of the autographs, only in English, because it doesn't match any of the actual manuscripts.

 

[tall73]

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.

Why do you talk about the "critic" when addressing my post? I already said I think the texts are preserved in the various manuscripts, not in a monolithic way, but with variants. Now you are saying the same thing, but arguing with the "critics."

You did this earlier as well, even indicating my view of the various text types was off, and then going on about positions of the critics.

Stop recycling your old posts and talk to me, or don't pretend to talk to me by quoting my posts.

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”.

The disciples had plenty of faith about the resurrection, etc. as they had eye witnesses, the prophecy of Scriptures, etc. Faith does not mean without any evidence.

In the same way you talked about a paper trail. Now I already responded to their comment, regarding "being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages'.

If by pure they mean with nothing added or taken away, that is simply not true as you already acknowledged. The originals are in there, but we have variant readings, so much so that we cannot immediately know which are which.

And if what they mean is that God preserved whole manuscripts, exactly correct manuscripts throughout time, then why don't we see those that agree with the KJV in its readings?

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’?

I have accepted it as He left it, with variants. It is those who claim the KJV is the exact duplicate of the autographs who must show that this is the case. And simply saying they know it by faith without any manuscript evidence, or without explaining how no similar lengthy manuscripts match it in readings does not suffice.

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

If you quote my posts, talk to me, not everything that has been said and then act like I said it.

If you can't respond to what I actually said then don't quote my posts at all.

 

[tall73]

“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

The manuscripts are what I spoke of, and the very thing you admitted to:

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.

Now if you would read what I said and respond to what I said instead of spending your time responding to critics, what has been said in general, etc. it would help.

 

[tall73]

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.

Now explain how that tells you that the KJV is the exact replica of the autographs, only in English, when it is an eclectic text, drawing from various Byzantine readings, including minority readings, and making reference to earlier English Bible versions as well.

Since it does not for any great length match any of those MSS, how are those helping your with your position, if it is your position as it is Joe's that the KJV is the exact replica of the autographs, except in English?

 

[tall73]

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

This is clearly a favorite topic of yours. However, it does nothing to demonstrate your position on the KJV of the Bible.

So why not show how you got that before going off on extended tangents? If you assert, as does Joe, and as it formerly seemed you do, that the KJV is the perfect reproduction of the autographs, except in English, then you need to demonstrate that. And it will not be found in later critics who were not even alive at the time the KJV was written.

 

[tall73]

The relevance of knowing that the London Baptists believed in the preservation of Scripture “by His singular care”

Note what they did not say in this quote. They did not say KJV version is a perfect reproduction of the autographs, only in English. Nor have you clarified what they meant by pure. Nor have you clarified how it could be said that it was throughout all ages if they have reference in any way to the KJV, as no lengthy text has the same readings as the eclectic KJV.


It is clear that we have the manuscript evidence, with variants. In that respect, the Scriptures have been preserved.

Your evidence for your position is not clear. The exact nature of the position of the London Baptists is not clear. Nor have the agreed with your position either.

And as PrincetonGuy pointed out, various groups have believed various things over time.

There is nothing about the London Baptists that makes their view the only view of inspiration or preservation. Yet even if it was it does not go as far as yours, and they do not present the actual evidence for their view in the portion you quoted.

You noted the "paper trail". Show how the paper trail supports your view.

Note, that is not the same as talking down about later critics, talking down about the change in views over time, talking down about PrincetonGuy's view, etc. If you cannot explain your own view without referencing the views of later critics all the time then there is something wrong with your view.

 

[tall73]

The above link gives evidence as to why the Scriptures need to be preserved by God.

Jack

You went on at length speaking about your disagreement with PrincetonGuy's views on the subject, but then the only thing you to do demonstrate that God preserved the Scriptures--the very topic of the thread--is to link to a Google book?

Since that is the whole topic, why wouldn't you summarize the salient points in your own words? Is it that complicated? Why should he have to go read book to get the evidence for your position in a discussion forum?

Why is it you are in a hurry to talk about everything but the evidence for your position?

 

[tall73]

PrincetonGuy, did you read the Baptist Confession of 1646, and 1689? Just in case you didn’t; here it is again:

“Paragraph 8. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old),14 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 therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them.15 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 read,16 and search them,17 therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,18 that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.19
14 Rom. 3:2
15 Isa. 8:20
16 Acts 15:15
17 John 5:39
18 1 Cor. 14:6,9,11,12,24,28
19 Col. 3:16”

The Second London Baptist Confession of 1689. 1

So what is the relevance here? Again, the relevance is that there were clearly Baptist in 1689 that believed the Scriptures “being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them”.

The question to be asked is, “Why do many have the ‘perspective’ you now share, while others (like myself), still believe as they did in 1689”? There is a very simple answer.

“Unlike the literature of various other religions, the Bible has always been subject to some measure of scholarly criticism and correction. This criticism undoubtedly developed because Jews and Christians conceive of religion as historical, as the product of definite historical events. Even though the great majority of the Old and New Testament writings are, in fact, anonymous, they have always been ascribed to particular human authors. It has therefore been considered legitimate for other human beings to evaluate them. They have never been regarded simply as a literature transmitted directly from heaven or as so remote from the contemporary human condition as to render them immune to critical study. This is in distinct contrast, for example, to the Islamic and Hindu scriptures (see Koran; Veda). Despite its long standing, however, the notion of critical biblical study has changed radically over the years.”

Biblical Scholarship

Notice the above words: “This criticism undoubtedly developed because Jews and Christians conceive of religion as historical, as the product of definite historical events. Even though the great majority of the Old and New Testament writings are, in fact, anonymous, they have always been ascribed to particular human authors.”

This is an absolute lie. The proof of this is in the 1689 Baptist Confession. These men in no way believed that the Scriptures were written by human authors. Now allow me to clarify a major point. God used humans to WRITE the Scriptures, but it is the Holy Spirit that gave those same humans the ‘words’ which they were to write. This is why the Bible is called the “Word of God”.
2 Timothy 3: 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
2 Peter 1: 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

So why do some people now believe that the Scriptures were authored by human authors, vs. God; as is clearly shown in the Confession of 1689? A simple look at history gives us the answer.

Johann Salomo Semler | biography - German theologian | Encyclopedia Britannica

““Johann Salomo Semler, (born Dec. 18, 1725, Saalfeld, duchy of Saxe-Saalfeld [Germany]—died March 14, 1791, Halle, Brandenburg), German Lutheran theologian who was a major figure in the development of biblical textual criticism during his tenure (1753–91) as professor of theology at the University of Halle.
Semler was a disciple of the rationalist Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten, whom he succeeded on his death in 1757 as head of the theological faculty. Seeking to study biblical texts scientifically, Semler evolved an undogmatic and strictly historical interpretation of Scripture that provoked strong opposition. He was the first to deny, and to offer substantial evidence supporting his denial, that the entirety of the text of Old and New Testaments was divinely inspired and fully correct. He challenged the divine authority of the biblical canon, which he reexamined in order to determine the sequence of composition of biblical books, their nature, and their manner of transmission. From this work he drew a crucial distinction between an earlier, Jewish form of Christianity and a later, broader form.”

Please notice the following:

There are three things shown here that are noteworthy: 1) Semler was professor of theology starting in 1753 (this is only one year after Johann Gottfried Eichhorn was born); showing that Semler was at least one gerneration before Eichhorn; 2) Semler was a disciple of the rationalist Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten (this gives indication that it may to well to examine of Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten as well); and 3) “He was the first to deny, and to offer substantial evidence supporting his denial, that the entirety of the Old and New Testaments was divinely inspired and fully correct. He challenged the divine authority of the biblical canon, which he reexamined in order to determine the sequence of composition of biblical books, their nature, and their manner of transmission”.

Please notice, Semler was a theologian, who denied the Divine inspiration of the Scriptures. The question of the hour at this juncture is simply this: On or by what authority does he deny “divine inspiration” and thereby challenge “divine authority of biblical books, their nature, and their manner of transmission”? Did Semler actually believe that his 'intellect' and or learning allowed him that authority? I guess he did, (along with a lot of other scholars that have followed in his footsteps).

How did Semler arrive at his conclusion?

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) German philosopher
Wolff (1679-1754) was the most eminent German philosopher between Leibniz and Kant.
Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) German philosopher
Baumgarten (1706-1757)was a follower of the philosophical teachings of Christian Wolff
Semler (1725-1791) was a disciple of the rationalist Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten

Through the years there was a building belief among much of the intellectual philosophers that the Word of God was not the “Divine Word of God”. This belief was first made public by Johann Salomo Semler. Again I remind the reader, ““Johann Salomo Semler, (born Dec. 18, 1725, Saalfeld, duchy of Saxe-Saalfeld [Germany]—died March 14, 1791, Halle, Brandenburg), German Lutheran theologian who was a major figure in the development of biblical textual criticism during his tenure (1753–91) as professor of theology at the University of Halle.”

By the end of the 1700's and into the 1800's the work of Textual Criticism was gaining a much better footing with the works of Johann Gottfried Eichhorn. The key thing to remember here is that one of the men that brought Textual Criticism through its infancy, (Johann Salomo Semler) denied not only the “inspiration of the Scriptures”, but also the “authority” of the scriptures.
Why then do we have this debate?

The simple answer is, German rationalism led to textual criticism. Textual critics do not believe in 'Providential Preservation. They insist (according to them) that because God nowhere 'promised' to preserve His Word perfectly, He did not do it. That job was left to man. That is why we have textual critics, to put the Word of God back together the way it was 'in the originals'.

Let me make this clear.
1. God gave His Word perfectly to man. (Inspiration)
2. God then leaves His Word to the care of men to preserve. (Which men fail to do, because we are sinners, and prone to error.)
3. God then appoints more men (sinners who are prone to error) to find the errors that the other men made, (without giving them a true copy of the originals to judge what is in error), to then produce a Bible that is almost without error (because we can never be sure we have all the errors out (because we don't have a perfect template to go by)).
That is what the scholarly textual critics want us to believe.

Rules of Textual Criticism

“When the manuscripts differ, how do scholars decide which words are the original ones? There is more to it than simply choosing the readings of the oldest available manuscripts. Here are three historically important sets of rules published by some influential scholars of textual criticism: Bengel, Griesbach, and Hort.”

I am not going to post “Griesbach's Fifteen Rules”, but Griesbach, (which I am sure you will agree) was a major Textual Critic along with Bengel and Hort.

Now about this time many people are saying, “All those guys have been dead and gone for years”. Well, you are right. The question then is simple; Have the beliefs of both Semler, Eichhorn, and others continued unto this generation? It takes but a small amount of research to get our answer. I must say before I continue, I am fully aware that I will be accused of giving in to a conspiracy theory, but, what can I say? The men that we are going to look at, have passed as well, but a bit more recently. Between 1994 and 2012; hence, these men truly have had a direct influence on the Bibles we hold in our hands (unless you're holding a King James Bible).

Jack

Jack, you seem confused on a few things. The issue is not why Princetonguy believes as he does. Yes, he likely has a number of different presuppositions.

The problem is you keep talking about the critics but never actually gave the evidence for your view, which is the topic of this thread.

An astute reader would show pages on pages of Joe saying he knows it because he knows it, and he believes it because he believes it. And they would see him saying he saw it in the Scriptures, but when asked where he can't say, and says "did the scriptures say they were not preserved"?

Then they see you spelling out in various details the views held historically by various groups, particularly the textual critics of the modern times.

You know what has not been seen? An actual defense of your view, evidence for your view, an explanation of how your view is anything other than Joes' I know it because I know it statements.

15 more pages of your thoughts on how wrong the presuppositions of the textual critics may be, and how wrong the presuppositions of PrincetonGuy may be will not support YOUR view.

So why not explain your view about preservation, how it relates to the KJV (because afterall that was the original purpose of the thread that got locked before and which this continued). And then why not present the "paper trail" evidence of how that view makes sense.

 

[tall73]

Why are we 370 posts in and no one has explained yet how the paper trail of manuscript evidence supports the KJV being the exact replica of the autographs, only in English?

 

[tall73]

These are just a few of the many things stated by Bruce Metager, the leading textual critic of the 20th century. It really sounds as though textual critics sincerely believe in what the Bible says, doesn't it?

Jack

It is really starting to sound like you have a whole lot to say about the textual critics, and modern versions, and just about nothing to say to support the view that the KJV is the exact replica of the autographs, only in English.

 

[tall73]

A quick note: The reason for providing the above information is quite simple: there is a direct connection from Johann Semler, all the way to the late Dr. Bruce Metzger. The problem began when Semler publicly denied the Divine inspiration and authority of the Holy Scriptures. Since that time, textual critics like him, have been hacking away at the Scriptures.

That is my opinion; based upon the above information, and much, much more.

Jack

Fantastic, you don't agree with the presuppositions of the critics. Can you explain how that supports YOUR view?

Because so far we have not seen you spell out how the paper trail of manuscripts supports your view. Taking shots at Metzger isn't going to cut it.

 

[tall73]

In addressing this post, I would like for the sake of the reading audience; to keep this dialogue at its most basic terminology. When 'technical' terms are used, I would like to supply the most basic definition possible, lest we may loose any participants that may not be familiar with the terminologies of the subject. Agreed?

Jack

I don't think there were many technical terms used. Nor do I think your general course of the last several posts has simply been to clarify definitions.

You seem to want to go back through yet more discussion on the critics, their assumptions, their presupposition, their wrong-headedness in regards to inspiration, etc.

Please note, that none of that supports your view. We are still waiting on you to support your view based on the paper trail of the manuscripts.

 

[tall73]

Absolutely false and malicious lies about Christians who have devoted their lives to serving our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus are NOT evidence for the preservation of the Bible....

Indeed they are not. Jack has yet to give the evidence, from the 'paper trail" of the manuscripts that supports his argument.

Which is why all this about critics doesn't do him much good.

 

[tall73]

Tall,
Do you agree with the following?

Piece #2
“The Critical Text”
(Referring to the N/A text, and the UBS text.)
The critical text is an eclectic text compiled by a committee, using a set of rules to determine which readings, from a large number of manuscripts, with oftentimes many variants, are most likely to be closest to the original.

The rules used may be seen in the sources that follow:

Rules of Textual Criticism
Textual Criticism

Jack

This is not piece two to any explanation of YOUR view of the preservation of Scriptures. This does not explain anything about how the KJV is the exact replica of the autographs, except in English.

If the critics referenced had never been born your view would still be the same, as you do not hold to their views. So again, stop writing about the critics. Present the evidence for your view form the 'paper trail' of the manuscripts, or admit it has no evidence.

 

[tall73]

Actually, we will now change things up a bit. I will now give you some information, upon which I will ask you a question.
Keeping all that we have both agreed upon, and stated up to this point: I now present the following:
“In his essay Prodromus Novi Testamenti recte cauteque ordinandi [Forerunner of a New Testament to be settled rightly and carefully], (Denkendorf, 1725), Johann Albrecht Bengel, a Lutheran schoolmaster, published a prospectus for an edition of the Greek Testament which he had already begun to prepare (published in 1734).”
Rules of Textual Criticism
“In the Introduction to his second edition of the Greek New Testament (Halle, 1796) Griesbach set forth the following list of critical rules, by which the intrinsic probabilities may be weighed for various readings of the manuscripts. Rules for the prior evaluation of documentary evidence, such as the ones formulated by Bengel, are implicit in Griesbach's theory of the manuscript tradition, and so they are not taken up here. What follows is a translation of Griesbach's Latin as it was reprinted by Alford in the Introduction of his Greek Testament (London, 1849. Moody reprint, page 81).”
Rules of Textual Criticism
“In 1881 two English scholars, B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, published a very influential edition of the Greek Testament: The New Testament in the Original Greek (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1881). The Introduction and Appendix of Notes on Select Readings volume of the original edition was written by Dr. Hort, and in it he set forth the arguments and general theories upon which the text was reconstructed, and provided explanations for many specific textual decisions.”
Rules of Textual Criticism
“The application of critical methods in the editing of classical texts was developed principally by three German scholars, Friedrich Wolf (1759-1824), one of the founders of classical philology, Immanuel Bekker (1785-1871), and Karl Lachmann (1793-1851).”
Textual Criticism
We know that all the ‘critical’ MSS since 1881 were developed by the rules already given. All of the above excerpts were taken directly from sources that support textual criticism. As you can see, the earliest date above is 1725, relating to Bengel. This means that the rules for what we now refer to as modern “textual criticism” did not come into existence until the early 1700’s. Since these rules were not ‘in play’ during the days of Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, the Elzevirs, or the King James translators; we are now faced with the question: What was the ‘methodology’ used by these men during the ‘eclectic’ process?
So that is the question I pose to you now: What was the ‘methodology’ used by these men during the ‘eclectic’ process?

Jack

Jack, why have you posted page after page of the critics view when it doesn't matter a hill of beans for your view, which is different than the critics?

I am not going to spell out my take on what methods the KJV translators used so you can quibble with my phrasing of that as well.

State your view. State how you think the KJV folks worked. But what ever else you do, state how the paper trail of the manuscripts supports your view of preservation. And state how the KJV is the exact replica of the autographs, except in English, as outlined by the manuscript evidence.

And I truly do not want to hear one more thing about the critics until you give the evidence for your view.

 

[tall73]

Please likewise note Jack that you can spell out your view, and the evidence for it, without asking me one more solitary question. It is unnecessary to see whether I agree with your view in every detail in order for you to state your view. Surely any one who has read this far in the thread has been in suspense long enough. State your view, and the evidence for it.

Please show us how the 'paper trail' of the manuscripts demonstrate that the KJV is the exact replica of the autographs, only in English.

 

[tall73]

Since in the entire thread this is the only argument I have seen that even tries to spell out some evidence of sorts that God's word is preserved in the KJV (rather than simply saying it is), I will try to address it.

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.

Just to clarify, at any given point in time since the inspiration of the Scriptures the Scriptures must then be present, and preserved, correct?

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.

If we take those verses to indicate that the word of the Lord is then preserved, then those words should be preserved from that time, right on through to the present.

Yet, no where in that manuscript trail do we see documents of long segments of Scripture that match the KJV in all its readings. So how can the KJV be the exact preserved word of God?

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.

Whether they are indignant or not is missing the point. If you assert that the KJV is an exact replica then you need to trace the evidence through the manuscripts which were preserved that shows what you assert.

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.

I don't think anyone in this thread has doubted God's ability to preserve His word. That does not establish that the KJV is the preservation of that word. For that you would have to show how the manuscript evidence shows that.

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!

But if He did preserve them then did not all the people from that point on not need them? And shouldn't they have had them if they were preserved? And wouldn't God's promise apply to each and every one of them just as it does to us?

And indeed He did preserve His word. But you have not demonstrated that the KJV is an exact replica.

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.

Why don't you think God produced an exact copy of His word sometime before 1611?

And if He did, why do we not see the manuscripts that agree with the KJV in its readings?

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.

Just as your belief that the KJV is the perfect replica of the originals, only in English cannot be challenged, because you base it on nothing.

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?"

Yet those who hold that it took a committee of scholars commissioned by the king to figure out which readings were the right ones think that God wrote perfect Scriptures, but no one could use them either until they performed this service in 1611.

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.

Then you ought to be able to show "over the centuries" various manuscript copies of God's word that agrees in every respect with the readings of the KJV. However, you cannot.

They are found in the Authorized Version.

So you assert, but give no evidence for such.

 

[tall73]

Has anybody heard, about the Gospel of Thomas? I just saw a short documentary, about this, on PBS. What do you think of it?

Primary Sources - Gospel Of Thomas | From Jesus To Christ | FRONTLINE | PBS

Yes, in this case the article references the "sayings gospel" of Thomas. Some of the sayings are also seen in the Scriptures as we have then today. Others are not found in the Scriptures. Obviously the sayings gospel did not make the canonical cut.

John acknowledges that the gospel of John for instance does not record all the ACTIONS of Christ, and certainly, we don't have all the words either preserved from all of Christ's ministry.

Joh 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.

So there could be some legitimate sayings of Jesus there that were not in the Scriptures as we know them.

Some view it as a proto-gnostic text. And of particular note as unusual is this section:

114 Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life."
Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."

The notion of "living spirit" as able to inherit the kingdom is seen by some as an early form of gnosticism.