Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Before addressing what preservation is; we may want to address, what is being "preserved"?
In other words, what is the "object" being preserved?
The remaining details can be dealt with one at a time; but we must first determine what exactly is being preserved.
Please feel free to comment.
Jack
The Bible clearly teaches preservation of scripture:
Some preacher says that the Bible is only for the scholarly and studious. No, the Bible is for anyone who wants to pick it up and use it, read it and hear it.
In Preservation, We Have the Originals
The Bible doesn't say that the man of God needs the preserved Words of God to profit him; but rather, the Scripture given by inspiration of God. People talk about the originals, but according to Psalm 12:6,7 we have the originals. Psalm 12:6,7, "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." God didn't promise in Psalm 12:6,7 to renew or republish His Words. No, rather, God promised to PRESERVE His Words, "as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times."
What we hold in our hands today in the form of the King James Bible is the PRESERVED inspired originals, which means the King James Bible has to be inspired. God's Word has been preserved. If the King James Bible is not inspired, then God did not preserve His Word, because His Word is inspired. Preservation MUST include inspiration if it is genuine preservation.
The word preserve in Psalm 12:7 means to maintain. Hence, God has maintained His inspired Word unto all generations, as He so promised, which means that those Words must remain inspired.
If you believe that the KJV is part of God's maintaining the Scriptures throughout unto all generations can you show Bibles used throughout all generations that match ALL the readings of the KJV in other languages?
Don't have to. God gave and preserved His Word as He promised He would.
I'm sorry you believe you will never know what it is because the original writings are gone, and if you say "human error" precludes accurate preservation of scripture, you don't even have any basis for believing the lost originals accurately recorded God's Word to start with.
He always used the King James Bible because he knew it was something special, head and shoulders above all other translations. I know it's God's Word in English. I'm sorry you want to make your own version to suit yourself.
The Bible clearly teaches preservation of scripture:
Before addressing what preservation is; we may want to address, what is being "preserved"?
In other words, what is the "object" being preserved?
The remaining details can be dealt with one at a time; but we must first determine what exactly is being preserved.
Please feel free to comment.
Jack
Greetings JR,
Maybe, if God would make 36 or 48 hour days, I could spend more time in either of these forums. Since He did not ... Well you get the point. Regardless of what some may think of your entrance; you do not have me fooled by this enthusiastic proclamation.
While I do believe we agree on many things, we do not agree on the preservation of scripture (to wit, I will accept your humble acknowledgement of error upon our entry into the presence of His Majesty on high.
I do hope they do not give you the 'boot'!
Jack
That is a fact, and indeed that is stated in "The Translators to the Reader".In fact, it was the PURITANS who REQUESTED the translation of the KJB to begin with. Without the Puritans REQUESTING the KJB, there would never have BEEN a KJB.
The Geneva Bible is not a rival of the KJB, but in God's good providence, it is the KJB which became "THE BIBLE" for all English-speaking Christians worldwide for at least 350 years. Returning to the Geneva Bible has little or no merit, except for Calvinists.The Geneva Bible has those readings. Ready to switch yet?
Nobody who knows anything about this subject would make such a claim. The Byzantine or Majority Text does have minor variations within the manuscripts, and no one manuscript would represent the KJB. However, the majority of manuscripts which have been collated stand solidly behind the KJB. The Received Text is the sum total of what is found in the traditional Hebrew and Greek Texts, which are derived from copies of copies of copies.If someone claims the KJV is the EXACT word for word way that God wanted His word, the exact way it was originally, only in English, then should we not see these exact word for word manuscripts throughout time, only in other languages? Yet, we do not see that.
In 500 AD, the majority text would have been the critical text. The fact of the superiority of the critical text can be seen in the recent finds of papyri, which generally back up the critical text.Nobody who knows anything about this subject would make such a claim. The Byzantine or Majority Text does have minor variations within the manuscripts, and no one manuscript would represent the KJB. However, the majority of manuscripts which have been collated stand solidly behind the KJB.
Interesting how KJV only people and Bart Erhman use the same language. It makes it difficult to see the difference between the extreme scepticism of Bart Erhman and the KJV only crowd.The Received Text is the sum total of what is found in the traditional Hebrew and Greek Texts, which are derived from copies of copies of copies.
There is no doctrinal bias at all. The critical text has all the same doctrines as the Majority Text. If one goes by the differences, then the Majority Text has different doctrines from the TR.The important thing to note is that even after hundreds of years of copying, the variations are minor and insignificant, which indicates nothing less than Divine Preservation. On the other hand, the corrupt Minority Text shows wide variations within itself as well as well as from the Majority Text, and there is a very clear doctrinal bias in at least 1,500 passages.
Oh, and by the way, the KJV was translated from the TR and not the majority text. The differences between the TR and the Majority text can be easily seen in the critical apparatus of the Hodges and Farstat edition of the Majority Text. If the logical of your statements is used in the differences between the Byzantine and the TR, then the Byzantine takes away from the trinity because it does not have 1John 5:7.
Interesting how KJV only people and Bart Erhman use the same language. It makes it difficult to see the difference between the extreme scepticism of Bart Erhman and the KJV only crowd.
The important thing to note is that even after hundreds of years of copying, the variations are minor and insignificant, which indicates nothing less than Divine Preservation. On the other hand, the corrupt Minority Text shows wide variations within itself as well as well as from the Majority Text, and there is a very clear doctrinal bias in at least 1,500 passages.
The variations in the Byzantine text type prove that the copyists made mistakes, just as did the copyists that gave us the much more accurate Alexandrian text type. The variations in the Byzantine text type also prove that God did not preserve the Scriptures in manuscripts representing the Byzantine text type, or any other text type, because God does not make mistakesnot even little mistakes.
The variations in the Byzantine text type prove that the copyists made mistakes, just as did the copyists that gave us the much more accurate Alexandrian text type. The variations in the Byzantine text type also prove that God did not preserve the Scriptures in manuscripts representing the Byzantine text type, or any other text type, because God does not make mistakes—not even little mistakes.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?