The Preservation of the Holy Scriptures

[SaintJoeNow]

Those holding to belief in the King James Bible being the one with the true Word of God and that others are corrupt translations that are come into being for replacing it are holding to that as a doctrine, not from what is conclusive in what is read from it. If they were right, it could not be easy to show any fault in that version, which it in fact is, without suggestion in this that the original autographs were faulty in that.
The supposed inerrancy in the translation would mean that, from the end of chapter 21 in 2 Chronicles into chapter 22, Jehoram was 32 years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem 8 years, and died, the inhabitants of Jerusalem then made Ahaziah his son king in his stead, so Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah reigned, and Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to reign. So from that inerrancy of the translation that is supposed, Ahaziah was older than his father, Jehoram.

I'm sure you are a Christian who is unaware of how you are using arguments common in atheism to discredit the word of God.


I've debated several atheists who use that same argument as proof that the entire idea of God giving His word is a fabrication of man and nothing more. I think this is one of the popular arguments promoted by modern day atheists. I have seen it on atheistic websites. They have a couple dozen of these things which are popularized in modern criticisms of the Bible used by Christians and taken by atheists to their logical conclusion of completely denying God which is where atheists want it to go.
You need to study better. The error is in the way you are looking at things. A simple web search will enable you to find the argument which correctly answers your skewed view. I'm not going to bother giving you the information. If you don't have the initiative to find it yourself when it is so easy to find, you won't appreciate me giving it to you.

 

[tall73]

I am going make a statement to which I hope will not offend anyone (well, mostly no one). After PrincetonGuy’s statement concerning the late Dr. Metzger in relation to the Church of Satan, I would no longer respond to PrincetonGuy’s comments. However, since he is somewhat ignorant concerning what I believe to be factual, I offer the following links as evidence to the contrary. Between the two links, I think you will see that I do not stand alone.

Is Inerrancy Enough? (A Defense of the KJV)
Textual Criticism: Fact and Fiction (4/4)

I will now present an excerpt from the latter:
....

I recommend the reading of Dr. Cassidy's entire four part article.

I read the first article and the four part article as well. However, it does not go as far as our friend Joe appears to.

He seems to argue derivative inspiration from proper text selection and proper methods, not that God particularly guided the translators of the KJV in every reading, word choice etc. to achieve the optimal translation into English.

His main point is the "traditional text" translated by formal equivalence will result in preserving the meaning and therefore result in residual inspiration (conveying the equivalents of the inspired words).

Now, first off, if that was all that is needed then the notion I presented some time ago, which Joe seemed quite upset about, a new translation of the majority text using a formal equivalence method, would be quite handy. It would meet all of his criteria. In fact the example I posted was conducted by clergy, so it would also meet the local church governance part. And it would certainly be by knowledgeable parties because the Eastern Orthodox church has, as the author noted, used that text from the beginning. And of course the people speak Greek (though a more modern form, but also still often read the koine).

So in this respect, if he is serious about the criteria, there could be later translations that would meet this critera. Of course, that doesn't appear to be his goal. His goal seems to be that the KJV would be the last version.

Which brings me to the real problem with his presentation. He keeps talking about the traditional text, vs all the other corrupt texts. But the traditional text is not monolithic either. So you can't get to all the right words of God without selecting exactly all the right readings. And he does not address this at all. He simply speaks as though the traditional text is one unit.

As we discussed before the text of the KJV is not just the majority text, and includes minority readings. It is an eclectic venture. And some would contend it even has a few readings based on no Greek text, but just the Latin. So if he is going to contend that all the words of God are there, he has to explain how all the right readings are chosen.

He also has to explain how even the later manuscripts do not agree in every reading with the KJV.

He leaves parts out of his explanation, just as you have left parts out of your explanation. If you are going to say it is all of God's word you have to explain how they got the readings they did. And just saying "traditional text" isn't going to cut it.

 

[tall73]

Now to look at a few selections from the article.

In Psalm 12:6-7 God says: "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." Here is a plain and simple statement concerning the doctrine of Bible preservation. Notice that God has not just promised to preserve His word, but has promised to preserve it from "this generation (the time of David) for ever." God has promised that every generation from the time of David until the end of eternity will have a preserved authoritative Bible.

and later

If God promised to preserve His word unto all generations (Psalm 12), those generations between 450 and 1850 must be included in that promise.

He touches on something that both you and Joe have seemed reluctant to do. It is not enough for God to bring about a perfect English Bible 1600 years after the birth of the church. Every generation from the time of David is supposed to have a preserved, authoritative Bible.

So where are these Bibles that agree with the KJV?

If anything the preserved Greek text would be the majority text, which was in use by the Eastern church, which he references. But it is not identical with the KJV.

So far I would say the article presents a more thought out argument that has yet been presented in this thread. However, it still falls short of connecting the dots because it does not spell out how the individual readings were selected from the majority text manuscripts.

I agree with this discussion of the preferred text being that which was in use by the church, which would be the majority text. Going beyond that to recover every exact reading is going to take more evidence, lacking in this article.

 

[tall73]

The 1937 BHK and the newer BHS are not only based on a few minor Hebrew manuscripts which contain many erroneous footnotes, but "corrections" were often made to these already inadequate and corrupt texts by referring to such things as the "Septuagint" or "LXX", which is nothing more than the Hebrew Scriptures translated into the Greek language. The "Septuagint" is a poor translation at best of the Hebrew due mainly to the fact that it does not follow the verbal and formal rules of translation, but is largely a paraphrase, changing the wording wherever the translators desired, seeking to "clarify" the meaning of the original.

Here I would disagree somewhat. The Hebrew language is the original for most of the OT, other than some Aramaic portions, on that of course I think all agree. And yes, there are some mistakes in the LXX.

However, it is not as simple as just that. First of all he argued for the text being in continual use, etc. While the Jewish people did in fact preserve the text up until the time of the church, after the time of the Christian church they suddenly had reason to not be as in favor of some readings of the text, particularly those that affirmed Jesus as Messiah.

The New Testament when quoting the old testament quotes LXX type readings around 80 percent of the time, with the other readings either following the Hebrew, or not following either completely. And the same church that he talks about having the Greek NT in continual use also uses the LXX as their Old Testament, in continual use, following the example of the apostles, etc. Moreover, some of the texts they quote from the LXX support the Christian doctrine more than the Hebrew Masoretic text.

To make it even more complicated there is now emerging some evidence that LXX like readings are also found in some of the Dead Sea Scrolls, in Hebrew. I posted a reading for instance from Isaiah 53 in the Isaiah Scroll, one of our earlier exchanges in these topics that had a more LXX type reading than the Hebrew.

So it is possible that the LXX is not always just making errors but is actually preserving a different Hebrew text stream.

Regardless, if the words the apostles wrote were inspired and quoted from LXX readings, that is about as strong of an endorsement as you could ever get. If you believe the Spirit inspired the words, then those words were following the LXX most of the time. On the other hand you could argue that unless the text was just problematic that the inspired words followed the version most people had at that time. Either way the LXX has some value.

So it is not out of bounds to look at occasional corrections from the LXX, especially if the passage is quoted in the inspired NT works.

 

[tall73]

He also stated this about the method of the KJV interpreters.

In the end, all of the people on all of the committees would have to be in total agreement before the translation was considered to be complete, and they would go on to the next book!

This is incorrect. I was just reading from a translation of the notes of John Bois today, and posted some information in the other thread. Sometimes they did not all come to agreement. And often this simply resulted in a marginal note that proposed another possible reading.

 

[tall73]

True intellectualism always agrees with simple common sense that a child can grasp, and of such simplicity is the gospel of Jesus Christ. The following excerpt from one of Jack's links above is an excellent example of intellectualism bearing the self-evident proof of childish simplicity.

The New Testament Manuscripts.

The Traditional Text. The Traditional text of the New Testament has existed from the time of Christ right down to the present. It has had many different names down through the years, such as Byzantine Text, Eastern Text, Received Text, Textus Receptus, Majority Text, and others.

The problem is the Majority Text is not the same as the TR, and that is not the same as the text ultimately underlying the KJV.

And the author never explained this point ,or explained how they got all the correct readings.

 

[tall73]

Now Jack, rather than simply dismiss the articles you posted, let me say that those articles only get part of the way there. However, they are a big improvement over where this thread went before. This is starting to get to what I thought the conversation would be about from the beginning. I already made it clear I don't favor the Alexandrian text, and also think that simply trying to guess how scribes might act is far from a fail-proof way to get at the original readings. So extensive treatises on the evils of the critical method, or character studies on the various proponents of textual criticism, or lists of where the modern versions deviate (due to the different text) are not what I was looking for. What I am looking for is an explanation and evidence of your position regarding the KJV.

Now, do you want to explain how they chose all the original readings from the non-monolithic majority text (and readings from English Bibles, and other sources)?

And then there is the other issue. Even if you use the correct method of translation, it does not guarantee that they got it all perfect. He indicates they were great scholars. I would not dispute that. That does not make their translation perfect. Again, if you wish to make that claim you have to show the evidence for that portion of it.


To put it another way, you implied before that no evidence would suffice because we don't have a monolithic text, or the autographs. I disagreed. So let me point out what would need to be presented to demonstrate that the KJV is the perfect translation of the autographs into English.


1. We both agree that the originals were inspired. DONE
2. The text has to be preserved. We both agreed the various manuscripts do preserve God's word, albeit, not in a monolithic way. DONE
3. The correct text type needs to be determined. We agree that the Majority text type is the correct one, as opposed to the Alexandrian (obviously not everyone in the thread does, but you and I do.). DONE
4. Some evidence needs to be presented that explains how the KJV translators were able to select every single correct reading of the original manuscripts, from the various readings available. Along with this it should be noted we can't just say "the traditional text. The KJV does not agree in all readings with the majority text, it has minority readings. NOT DONE
5. If we are going by the theory of derivative inspiration as the article pointed out then we need to have the correct translation method. We would agree in general on the formal equivalence method. DONE
6. Some evidence would need to be presented as to how the KJV managed to perfectly apply the correct method in every reading. Or if you go beyond just the derivative inspiration theory to the notion that God directly guided the translation, evidence needs to be presented where God said He would do this, or evidence that indicates that He did. NOT DONE

The two points on the list that are not yet agreed on are the sticking points. Please fill in the gaps.

 

[tall73]

One other issue needs to be addressed as well, I suppose. Do you endorse occasional updates in spelling etc. in the KJV as this changes over time?

The KJV has undergone a fair amount of that to be in its state today.

 

[kiwimac]

anti-word of Godism started in the garden of Eden when the serpent said to Eve, "yea, hath God said....?"

You are way off in your "ism" and ignoring the truth of the preservation of God's word. You might want to take the time to read the last several posts from Jack and myself and then put together something that sounds better informed.

We're not all Ruckmanites here who might imply you are not saved if you don't believe the King James Bible is the word of God. You are riding an old dead horse with that accusation.

Your statements show you are terribly uninformed about the history of the Bible and the history of the church as it was founded by Jesus Christ...or at least you are forgetting or ignoring those things...go back and read the last several posts and then make a better informed reply please.

Seems unlikely as I have been debating KJV-Onlyists for about 10 years now.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Check out Post 467 and Post 471......try to offer organized responses to those posts.

 

[Jack Koons]

Seems unlikely as I have been debating KJV-Onlyists for about 10 years now.

Then you should be fully aware that we do not all subscribe to the same school of thought on this issue.

Jack

I think that is what Joe was trying to say, I will stand corrected by Joe if I am in error.

 

[Jack Koons]

One other issue needs to be addressed as well, I suppose. Do you endorse occasional updates in spelling etc. in the KJV as this changes over time?

The KJV has undergone a fair amount of that to be in its state today.

No I do not. I seem to recall a supposed "update" of the AV back in 1881. This supposed update ended up requiring an entirely new Greek Text. I have a simple solution: the KJB isn't broke, so don't try to fix it. If the words are unfamiliar, get an 1828 Noah Webster dictionary, and you'll do just fine.

“The Revised Version (or English Revised Version) of the Bible is a late 19th-century British revision of the King James Version of 1611. It was the first and remains the only officially authorized and recognized revision of the King James Bible. The work was entrusted to over 50 scholars from various denominations in Britain. American scholars were invited to cooperate, by correspondence.[1] The New Testament was published in 1881, the Old Testament in 1885, and the Apocrypha in 1894.[1] The best known of the translation committee members were Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort; their fiercest critic of that period was John William Burgon.”

Revised Version - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 1870 the Convocation of Canterbury supported a motion from Bishop Wilberforce to revise the New Testament. Once again the same argument was used; older and better MSS have been found, and the desire for easier reading.
After the opening paragraph of the Preface the following is stated:

“I. Of the many points of interest connected with the Translation of 1611, two require special notice; first, the Greek Text which it appears to have represented; and secondly, the character of the Translation itself.”

Prefaces to the English Revised Version (1881-85)

The very first thing that is called into question is the Greek Text of Erasmus, and the second is the very character of the King James Bible.

Correct me if I am wrong, but this sounds like someone has set out to do a bit
more than revise the King James for ‘better reading’.

This is what happens when you give in an inch to modern scholarship. (Yes, they take a mile.)

I will address the so-called “gaps” soon. (That [soon] of course is relevant!)

Jack

 

[tall73]

No I do not. I seem to recall a supposed "update" of the AV back in 1881. This supposed update ended up requiring an entirely new Greek Text. I have a simple solution: the KJB isn't broke, so don't try to fix it. If the words are unfamiliar, get an 1828 Noah Webster dictionary, and you'll do just fine.

“The Revised Version (or English Revised Version) of the Bible is a late 19th-century British revision of the King James Version of 1611. It was the first and remains the only officially authorized and recognized revision of the King James Bible. The work was entrusted to over 50 scholars from various denominations in Britain. American scholars were invited to cooperate, by correspondence.[1] The New Testament was published in 1881, the Old Testament in 1885, and the Apocrypha in 1894.[1] The best known of the translation committee members were Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort; their fiercest critic of that period was John William Burgon.”

Revised Version - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 1870 the Convocation of Canterbury supported a motion from Bishop Wilberforce to revise the New Testament. Once again the same argument was used; older and better MSS have been found, and the desire for easier reading.
After the opening paragraph of the Preface the following is stated:

“I. Of the many points of interest connected with the Translation of 1611, two require special notice; first, the Greek Text which it appears to have represented; and secondly, the character of the Translation itself.”

Prefaces to the English Revised Version (1881-85)

The very first thing that is called into question is the Greek Text of Erasmus, and the second is the very character of the King James Bible.

Correct me if I am wrong, but this sounds like someone has set out to do a bit
more than revise the King James for ‘better reading’.

This is what happens when you give in an inch to modern scholarship. (Yes, they take a mile.)

I will address the so-called “gaps” soon. (That [soon] of course is relevant!)

Jack

While the RV is the only official update, I was referring to the more informal updates that happened over time. Do you only endorse the 1611 version then?

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Seems unlikely as I have been debating KJV-Onlyists for about 10 years now.

So you developed your debate skills by ignoring things like post 467 and post 471? Your anti-word of Godism does not enable you to answer post 467 and 471? The best you can to is insult people by calling them KFV-onlyists?

Why in the world do you feel it's so important to prove God did not give you his word in English so you have to debate it for ten years? While you have been trying to prove we do not have the word of God in English for the last ten years, I have been reading the word of God in English. I think you are wasting your time......wasting your time with me anyways, unless you give a coherent response to post 467 and to the comments and questions in post 471.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

While the RV is the only official update, I was referring to the more informal updates that happened over time. Do you only endorse the 1611 version then?

Do you endorse the Genesis 3:1 version? And I can't promise you will get a clear understanding of the question if you read a fraudulent version of the Bible.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

God said exactly what He said and you can't deny it.

If you don't know what He said, then you don't know and you can say you don't know and then I can say you are being honest. If you say God did not say what He said to me in my own language, I have to say you are calling my Father a liar and I have to say it's not my Father who is lying to me when somebody tries to tell me I can't know exactly what He said in the only language He gave me. I know what He said because I have it right here in black and white. Any book that makes changes to what God said is fraudulent. Nobody in this world is going to tell me that God has not given me His word in English. His word is life, the words Jesus speaks are words of life and I have them here in His book. Why in the world people want to believe God did not give them His word in English when they speak English is beyond me. You can't separate God from His word. Why do so many people feel like it's important for them to prove God's word is unclear?

 

[tall73]

Do you endorse the Genesis 3:1 version? And I can't promise you will get a clear understanding of the question if you read a fraudulent version of the Bible.

I read it in both a new version and the KJV. However you are going to have to rephrase your question if you want me to answer it.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Then you should be fully aware that we do not all subscribe to the same school of thought on this issue.

Jack

I think that is what Joe was trying to say, I will stand corrected by Joe if I am in error.

He's trying to paint "KJV-onlyists" like some kind of cult or a group against whom all prejudice is justified.... resorting to insults is a common tactic used to avoid reasonable discussion when a point is made that cannot be answered against logically. That's why these guys are ignoring post 467 and so many other posts.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

I read it in both a new version and the KJV. However you are going to have to rephrase your question if you want me to answer it.

The Genesis 3:1 version of the Bible is titled "Yea, hath God said..."

Does that help? The Genesis 3:1 Version is the basis of all modern versions, and that is why you can't provide an answer defending the NIV exposed in post 467.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

God said exactly what He said and you can't deny it.

If you don't know what He said, then you don't know and you can say you don't know and then I can say you are being honest. If you say God did not say what He said to me in my own language, I have to say you are calling my Father a liar and I have to say it's not my Father who is lying to me when somebody tries to tell me I can't know exactly what He said in the only language He gave me. I know what He said because I have it right here in black and white. Any book that makes changes to what God said is fraudulent. Nobody in this world is going to tell me that God has not given me His word in English. His word is life, the words Jesus speaks are words of life and I have them here in His book. Why in the world people want to believe God did not give them His word in English when they speak English is beyond me. You can't separate God from His word. Why do so many people feel like it's important for them to prove God's word is unclear?

Current Cambridge and Oxford editions* of the KJV do not only update the spelling and grammar of the 1611 editions; they also make changes that affect the meaning of the text. Who was inspired—the translators who made numerous mistakes, or the editors who corrected more than 400 errors in 1613, or the editors who corrected still more errors in 1629, 1638, 1744, 1762, and 1769?

Listed below are changes that have been brought to my attention. There may be many more of them.

Genesis 19:21 concerning this thing > concerning this thing also
Genesis 23:18 gates > gate
Genesis 39:1 hand > hands
Genesis 39:16 her lord > his lord
Genesis 47:6 any man > any men
Exodus 15:25 he made a statute > he made for them a statute
Exodus 21:32 thirty shekels > thirty shekels of silver
Exodus 23:13 names > name
Exodus 35:29 hands > hand
Leviticus 2:4 it shall be an unleavened cake > it shall be unleavened cakes
Leviticus 10:14 sacrifice > sacrifices
Leviticus 19:34 shall be as one born > shall be unto you as one born
Leviticus 20:11 shall be put to death > shall surely be put to death
Leviticus 25:23 were strangers > are strangers
Leviticus 26:23 be reformed by these things > be reformed by me by these things
Leviticus 26:40 the iniquity of their fathers > their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers
Numbers 4:40 houses > house
Numbers 7:55 charger of an hundred and thirty shekels > charger of the weight of an hundred and thirty shekels
Deuteronomy 5:29 keep my commandments > keep all my commandments
Joshua 3:11 covenant, even the Lord > covenant of the Lord
Joshua 7:14 households [2nd occurrence] > household
Ruth 3:15 and he went into the citie. > and she went into the city.
1 Samuel 18:27 David arose, he and his men > David arose and went, he and his men
1 Samuel 28:7 servant > servants
2 Samuel 16:8 to thy mischief >in thy mischief
2 Kings 11:10 in the temple. > in the temple of the LORD.
2 Kings 23:21 this book of the Covenant > the book of this covenant
1 Chronicles 7:5 were men of might > were valiant men of might
1 Chronicles 11:15 of David > to David
2 Chronicles 28:22 this > his
Job 33:22 His soul draweth near > Yea, his soul draweth near
Psalm 141:9 snare > snares
Proverbs 7:21 With much fair speech > With her much fair speech
Ecclesiastes 2:16 shall be forgotten > shall all be forgotten
Song of Solomon 4:6 mountains > mountain
Song of Solomon 5:12 water > waters
Isaiah 34:11 The cormorant and the bittern > But the cormorant and the bittern
Isaiah 49:13 heaven > heavens
Isaiah 49:13 God > the LORD
Isaiah 57:8 and made a covenant and made thee a covenant
Jeremiah 4:6 standards >standard
Jeremiah 31:14 be satisfied with goodness > be satisfied with my goodness
Jeremiah 31:18 thou art the Lord my God > for thou art the Lord my God
Jeremiah 51:12 watchman > watchmen
Jeremiah 51:30 their > her
Ezekiel 6:8 that he may > that ye may
Ezekiel 12:19 violence of them > violence of all them
Ezekiel 24:5 him > them
Ezekiel 24:7 poured it upon the ground > poured it not upon the ground
Ezekiel 48:8 they > ye
Daniel 3:15 the midst of a fiery furnace > the midst of a burning fiery furnace
Daniel 12:13 the lot > thy lot
Joel 3:13 the wickedness > their wickedness
Amos 8:3 Temples > temple
Zechariah 7:7 of the plain > and the plain
Malachi 3:4 offerings > offering
Matthew 12:23 Is this the son of David? > Is not this the son of David?
Matthew 14:9 othes > oath's
Matthew 16:16 Thou art Christ > Thou art the Christ
Mark 6:26 othes > oath's
John 11:3 sister > sisters
John 12:22 told > tell
John 15:20 the Lord > his Lord
Acts 5:34 a doctor of law > a doctor of the law
Romans 14:10 we shall all stand > for we shall all stand
1 Corinthians 10:28 The earth is the Lords > for the earth is the Lord's
1 Corinthians 12:28 helps in governments > helps, governments
1 Corinthians 15:6 And > After
Philippians 4:6 request > requests
2 Thessalonians 2:14 the Lord Jesus Christ > our Lord Jesus Christ
1 Timothy 1:4 rather than edifying > rather than godly edifying
2 Timothy 4:8 unto them also > unto all them also
Hebrews 3:10 hearts > heart
Hebrews 12:1 run with patience unto the race > run with patience the race
1 John 5:12 he that hath not the Son, hath not life. > he that hath not the Son of God
hath not life.
Revelation 13:6 dwelt > dwell

*Even the current Cambridge and Oxford editions of the KJV differ from each other—even doctrinally at Jeremiah 34:16,

Jer. 34:16 But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom ye had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids. (Cambridge KJV)

Jer. 34:16 But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom he had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids. (Oxford KJV)