The Preservation of the Holy Scriptures

[tall73]

I found that website again, but will not post it here since the attack against the King James Bible is so twisted in it's approach and skewed in historical fact that it will only give fuel of confusion for confused people....but the atheists there make the same comments and ask the same questions against the King James Bible as the Christians here do, and I think it's a shame. They use the same anti-preservation reasoning and arguments as the basis for complete denial of God, and many Christians use those same lines of reasoning to support evolutionary beliefs the same as many of the translators of modern versions supported them.

Joe, the atheists are quite wrong about God and His word being false.

On the other hand they ask the same questions because your view of the KJV translation is un-sustainable from the facts.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

People, including the King James Translators, realize that the reality is we don't have perfect translations, but we still have the Word of God.

And of course Jack pointed out that the KJV is still copyrighted in England. And the guy who got the right to print it for the king contracted with some others, and had big fights over the issue, with all of them at times making, and other times losing money.

You don't need permission to make copies of the King James Bible. You do need permission to make copies of the perversions of God's word which secure exclusive profits through copyright.

You don't have the word of God if the originals are lost and you do not believe God preserved His word without error. What you have is erroneous things that have been handed down with no concern from God for protecting His word to keep it as He gave it.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Believing we do not have the originals preserved and given to us in our own language is "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.

 

[tall73]

You don't need permission to make copies of the King James Bible. You do need permission to make copies of the perversions of God's word which secure exclusive profits through copyright.

You don't have the word of God if the originals are lost and you do not believe God preserved His word without error. What you have is erroneous things that have been handed down with no concern from God for protecting His word to keep it as He gave it.

http://www.cambridge.org/bibles/about/rights-and-permissions/

KING JAMES VERSION

Rights in The Authorized Version of the Bible (King James Bible) in the United Kingdom are vested in the Crown and administered by the Crown’s patentee, Cambridge University Press. The reproduction by any means of the text of the King James Version is permitted to a maximum of five hundred (500) verses for liturgical and non-commercial educational use, provided that the verses quoted neither amount to a complete book of the Bible nor represent 25 per cent or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted, subject to the following acknowledgement being included:

Scripture quotations from The Authorized (King James) Version. Rights in the Authorized Version in the United Kingdom are vested in the Crown. Reproduced by permission of the Crown’s patentee, Cambridge University Press

When quotations from the KJV text are used in materials not being made available for sale, such as church bulletins, orders of service, posters, presentation materials, or similar media, a complete copyright notice is not required but the initials KJV must appear at the end of the quotation.

Rights or permission requests (including but not limited to reproduction in commercial publications) that exceed the above guidelines must be directed to the Permissions Department, Cambridge University Press, The Edinburgh Building, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK (http://www.cambridge.org/about-us/rights-permissions/permissions/permissions-requests/) and approved in writing.

 

[tall73]

Believing we do not have the originals preserved and given to us in our own language is "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.

Even Jack has indicated the word of God was preserved in thousands of manuscripts. However neither of you have explained how the KJV is the perfect rendition in English.


Yet the KJV translators indicate all the English translations before theirs were the word of God.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Rights and Permissions | Cambridge University Press

Hmmmm, ok, so you straightened me out on the King James copyright.........but fact remains that all modern versions have to deviate from the King James Bible to secure copyrights for their editors and publishers. The changes have to be substantial. The word of God cannot be changed. The King James Bible remains the only translation consistent in upholding doctrine, the only translation brought into being through the blood of Martyrs, and the only translation that qualifies as the word of God in English.


There was no need to make a differing translation except for the desire of monetary gain of publishers and the desire to change doctrines of the Bible in order to establish "scholars" as the authorities rather than for believers to simply take God at His word.

I still know exactly what God said in my own language because I have it in black and white in the King James Bible. It's still the word of God, and all versions which followed are corruptions of God's word. There is only one Authorized English version.

If you won't believe it, you won't believe it and you will make the same arguments against the preservation of God's word as made by evolutionists and atheists.

The issue is believe God said exactly what He said and He made it clear for us, or you believe that you are God's tool for making His word clear to you. I still believe God and I don't believe you.

And I refer you again to post number 463

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Scorners make bizarre attacks on the biblical doctrine of preservation, and their desperation can be seen when looking at what they do with Psalm 12:6-7 and how the NIV boldly and dishonestly changes the passage to obliterate the Bible's claim to be pure and preserved (we could also say incorruptible)

Many corrupters of God's word will 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.

It boggles my mind how anybody can believe the NIV is a good translation...or any other modern translation after the King James Bible. They all make heretical changes in many places in the Bible, and they all had ulterior motives for doing it.

 

[tall73]

Hmmmm, ok, so you straightened me out on the King James copyright.........but fact remains that all modern versions have to deviate from the King James Bible to secure copyrights for their editors and publishers. The changes have to be substantial. The word of God cannot be changed. The King James Bible remains the only translation consistent in upholding doctrine, the only translation brought into being through the blood of Martyrs, and the only translation that qualifies as the word of God in English.

The translators of the KJV said that the other protestant English Bibles were also the word of God.

There was no need to make a differing translation except for the desire of monetary gain of publishers and the desire to change doctrines of the Bible in order to establish "scholars" as the authorities rather than for believers to simply take God at His word.

There was if they believed they were making the Bible better. You can debate whether they did. I think in some ways they did, but I agree that the Alexandrian texts are not an improvement.

If you read the introduction to the KJV by the translators they very much believed in improving translations over time.

I still know exactly what God said in my own language because I have it in black and white in the King James Bible. It's still the word of God, and all versions which followed are corruptions of God's word. There is only one Authorized English version.

If you won't believe it, you won't believe it and you will make the same arguments against the preservation of God's word as made by evolutionists and atheists.

The issue is believe God said exactly what He said and He made it clear for us, or you believe that you are God's tool for making His word clear to you. I still believe God and I don't believe you.

And I refer you again to post number 463

Joe, you still haven't actually given evidence as to why you believe God said it is the KJV that is God 's word in English. No verse of Scripture speaks of the KJV. And even the translators of the KJV said the earlier English translations were also the word of God.

Now why did they put marginal readings if they had the exact reading? Why did they speak of somethings the Spirit left unclear if everything was revealed to them?

Smearing us by comparing us to atheists will not answer these questions Joe.

 

[tall73]

It boggles my mind how anybody can believe the NIV is a good translation...or any other modern translation after the King James Bible. They all make heretical changes in many places in the Bible, and they all had ulterior motives for doing it.

Ulterior motives? Like King James insisting that the translation of key offices, etc. represent the episcopal structure of the church of England? That was one of the key reasons the Geneva Bible was suspect for them.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Ulterior motives? Like King James insisting that the translation of key offices, etc. represent the episcopal structure of the church of England? That was one of the key reasons the Geneva Bible was suspect for them.

I knew you would say this sooner or later. It's a cheap excuse for rejecting God's promise to preserve His word. You still insist that the originals were lost and errors were made in the copying, and some parts were lost in the copying and some parts are questionable as possible inserted errors. Then you claim you have the word of God...so where is it? Is it in your mind and after you sort through your personal preferences, God reveals it to you little by little but never completely accurate and entire as He originally gave it to His chosen scribes?

The whole approach of rejecting God's word is to elevate one's own intellect and refuse to concede that God is more capable than you are in giving His word in English, and He somehow needs you to translate it for Him. In this approach, you also ignore the hundreds, thousands, of doctrinally heretical changes in modern versions. Versions which came before the King James Bible rejected the manuscripts which were later incorporated and used to make the hundreds of substantial changes legally required for copyright, changes which muddy, confuse, ignore, or delete key words and passages upholding holy doctrine of the Bible.
Those modern versions not only vastly change the word of God, they were made out of spite. They were not made out of the sacrificial desire of men to serve God even at the cost of their own lives when they knew their lives were on the line for their work. They were made in rebellion against God. If you want evidence, look at the lives and beliefs of their translators and editors, and look at the changes they made in God's word. You do not want evidence or you would admit it is clearly evident and you would stop saying there is none. People who truly want evidence will accept the evidence provided. You do not. The only evidence you would accept would be the original writings preserved, and we all know they are not....and even if they were, you probably still would doubt it because how in the world could they be proven to be the originals?
The spirit behind modern versions was not the Holy Spirit, and that is why those versions so often change things like "the Son" referring to Jesus to "a son", and hundred of similar changes to the deity of Christ and the deity of the Holy Spirit, and the reality of the fire of Hell...changes that the Holy Spirit would never allow.

Please answer post 467 if you can.. I want to see you defend the NIV there, and tell me the NIV is God's word or any good at all as a translation.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

The translators of the KJV said that the other protestant English Bibles were also the word of God.



There was if they believed they were making the Bible better. You can debate whether they did. I think in some ways they did, but I agree that the Alexandrian texts are not an improvement.

If you read the introduction to the KJV by the translators they very much believed in improving translations over time.



Joe, you still haven't actually given evidence as to why you believe God said it is the KJV that is God 's word in English. No verse of Scripture speaks of the KJV. And even the translators of the KJV said the earlier English translations were also the word of God.

Now why did they put marginal readings if they had the exact reading? Why did they speak of somethings the Spirit left unclear if everything was revealed to them?

Smearing us by comparing us to atheists will not answer these questions Joe.

I have given lots of evidence repeatedly. You are like an atheist, and saying so is a fact and not a smear. You will not accept evidence because you say it is not scientific, the same as an atheist who will not accept evidence that God is there. Atheists use the same arguments against the preservation of scripture that you use and they appreciate your work. The comparison of your methodology in denying God's word in English to the methodology of Atheist who deny God completely is valid. Your argument is based on unbelief and rules out evidence because you are believing in unbelief regarding the preservation of God's word.

History and the word of God itself provides the evidence of God preserving His word and delivering it to the English speaking world under the authority of the King Of England who He placed there for that special period in history.

Will you say there is no evidence that nations rise or fall at God's command, and the king's heart is in the hand of the Lord and He turns it whatever way He pleases?

Will you say God does not care enough about what He said to be sure you get it straight in your own language? And don't bother resorting to centuries ago in remote jungle tribes who never heard the word of God in their language. English obviously has a special standing in the world as the only language anywhere near universal since God confused the singular language of the whole world passed down from the sons of Noah. God preserved His word for the English speaking world under the authority of King James because He wanted it translated into English for this day and age, and He promised He would preserve it and He is keeping His word.

Will you say that corrupted translations which incorporated text which were rejected for centuries by Christians as corrupt, invalidated willfully by people who inserted changes, are the word of God, even though they vary in thousands of places from the King James Bible?

Will you say you have the word of God but you don't know what it is because parts of it were lost and other parts are questionable?

You will not accept evidence of the preservation of scriptures in the English translation because you will not believe God cared enough to do it. That is not my problem.


It's like this, exactly as the NIV fraudulently changed the scriptural doctrine of the preservation of God's word in Psalm 12:6-7....

Please answer post 467 if you can, defend the NIV there and tell me how the NIV is the word of God when it makes that kind of changes in all dishonesty.....which is no surprise since one of the editors was a known practicing lesbian and psalm 12:6-7 had to be changed to keep it from questioning the changes she made to soften the what the word of God says against homosexuality. All modern corruptions of God's word are fraudulently sold as being God's word, and they all can be proven by their denials and changes against God that they cannot possibly be God's word, They are tares sown by the devil amongst the wheat.

 

[tall73]

I knew you would say this sooner or later. It's a cheap excuse for rejecting God's promise to preserve His word.

It is not an excuse at all, but a factual event in history that the King insisted on this. If you are going to go on and on about bias of other versions then you need to recognize the bias of your favorite.

You still insist that the originals were lost and errors were made in the copying, and some parts were lost in the copying and some parts are questionable as possible inserted errors.

Let's take it point by point.

a. You agree the originals were lost. So I am right to insist on that.
b. Errors were made in the copying or we would have a monolithic text, so I am right to insist on that.
c. In individual manuscripts yes it appears people made changes. I am right to insist on that.

I have not insisted that the manuscripts have lost all trace of any part of what God said.

This is all factual information. So my insistence on it is hardly a surprise.

 

[tall73]

Then you claim you have the word of God...so where is it? Is it in your mind and after you sort through your personal preferences, God reveals it to you little by little but never completely accurate and entire as He originally gave it to His chosen scribes?

It is as Jack said, among the manuscripts. And currently we do not know every word of the original.

Your insistence that you do is simply that, your insistence. Yet just as the KJV translators said, God preserved His word through various manuscripts, and in various translations, and those function as the word of God for the church. They indicated that some readings are not plain. They indicated that some things the Spirit has left uncertain.


The church has used what the church had.

Did you read their comments on the LXX? The church used it as the word of God. It was far from perfect.

 

[tall73]

The whole approach of rejecting God's word is to elevate one's own intellect and refuse to concede that God is more capable than you are in giving His word in English, and He somehow needs you to translate it for Him.

Completely untrue. I have already agreed with the KJV translators that the KJV, as well as the earlier versions, were in fact God's word.

I have never attempted to make my own wholesale translation. However, observing facts about translations is in fact legitimate.

My argument is not with the KJV. My argument is with your claim, which is not supported by the translators of the KJV, that it is a perfect translation and perfect in every reading. It is that part that you have never given evidence of. And you have failed to address the direct statements of the translators where they spell out that it is not true.

 

[tall73]

In this approach, you also ignore the hundreds, thousands, of doctrinally heretical changes in modern versions. Versions which came before the King James Bible rejected the manuscripts which were later incorporated

Joe, is bearing false witness still against God's word in English? I have said MANY times in these discussions that I prefer the majority text. I have said many times that I think the Alexandrian text is not the best. Why are you lumping me in with others instead of addressing what I am actually saying?

 

[tall73]

Versions which came before the King James Bible rejected the manuscripts which were later incorporated and used to make the hundreds of substantial changes legally required for copyright, changes which muddy, confuse, ignore, or delete key words and passages upholding holy doctrine of the Bible.

Did you forget we already covered the copyright issue? KJV, copyrighted also. Sold only by certain folks in England.

 

[tall73]

Those modern versions not only vastly change the word of God, they were made out of spite. They were not made out of the sacrificial desire of men to serve God even at the cost of their own lives when they knew their lives were on the line for their work. They were made in rebellion against God. If you want evidence, look at the lives and beliefs of their translators and editors, and look at the changes they made in God's word. You do not want evidence or you would admit it is clearly evident and you would stop saying there is none. People who truly want evidence will accept the evidence provided.

Joe, again I have already said I do not agree with the Alexandrian text. However, evidence AGAINST later versions is not evidence FOR what you claim for the KJV.

If an atheist translated a Bible it would not prove that the KJV was anything. It would only prove that an atheist translated a Bible. Endless rants about the modern versions do not prove that the KJV was a perfect translation.

And you have NOT presented any Scripture that specifically references the KJV Bible or its translators.

And yet you claim that its translators were guided by God, despite their direct statements that some things were left uncertain by the Holy Spirit.

 

[tall73]

The only evidence you would accept would be the original writings preserved, and we all know they are not....and even if they were, you probably still would doubt it because how in the world could they be proven to be the originals?

Again Joe you are directly contradicting my statement on this point earlier. I said that we could in fact establish it based on the manuscripts if we see God preserving such a record of His word throughout history. However, this supposedly perfect KJV translation does not match, reading for reading, any long manuscripts that we have. None. So the notion that an eclectic Bible, made to follow the Bishop Bible, would be exactly as the autographs, but have no manuscripts actually matching it is absurd.

If the Psalm is a promise for God to preserve every word as it was then we need to see that before 1611. It needs to be preserved throughout history. Because the Psalm was not a prohpecy that said sometime there will be this nation called England where the word of God will be found.

You say that the KJV MUST be a fulfillment of that Psalm, but cannot point to any other manuscript in history that matches the KJV readings in a single book.

There is nothing about the Psalm in question that points to the KJV. You are perfectly content with no one having perfect translations before 1611. So how can you point to the KJV and say God did this for them? Especially when the translators make it very plain that the Holy Spirit left some things uncertain, and had to put marginal readings with other options?

Joe, your evidence is just not pointing to what you claim.

 

[tall73]

Please answer post 467 if you can.. I want to see you defend the NIV there, and tell me the NIV is God's word or any good at all as a translation.

Joe, since I have already said I prefer the majority text, why would I defend something that goes against my own position? Why don't you find those who support the Alexandrian text to have your argument? And in the meantime, realize that no matter how much you bash the NIV, it won't prove right your claims about the KJV.

 

[tall73]

History and the word of God itself provides the evidence of God preserving His word and delivering it to the English speaking world under the authority of the King Of England who He placed there for that special period in history.

Will you say there is no evidence that nations rise or fall at God's command, and the king's heart is in the hand of the Lord and He turns it whatever way He pleases?

So then would you say that the LXX, also commanded by a ruler, and which the KJV authors say is the word of God (though they acknowledge errors), and which the apostles quoted about 80 percent of the time in referencing the OT is also God's word?

Will you apply your standard to the LXX?

a. Made on behalf of a ruler.
b. Used historically by the apostles themselves to fuel the spreading of the gospel to the then known world.

I will await your answer on how you apply your own tests. And if somehow you do not come to the conclusion that the LXX is word for word the originals based on those two criteria, then there is a flaw in your criteria.