BaptistBoard.com  
     

Increase font size: 0, 10, 25, 50%
Register FAQ Social Groups Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Left Container Right Container
 
Go Back   BaptistBoard.com > Baptist Board.com Archives (read only) > 2000-02 Archive

2000-02 Archive 2000-2002 Archive.

Fewer Ads for Registered Users - Register Now!

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 09-11-2002, 02:41 PM
Bible-belted Bible-belted is offline
1,000 Posts Club
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,110
Post

DocCas,

I agree with the interpretation you give. I was referring to the way KJVOs interpret the verses. They think that what is preseved are the words of the Lord, not the godly people. Thank you for the clarification.

I believe inpreservation, just not hte means of preservation advocated by KJVOs. I hold that preservation took place throght he manuscript evidence we have. Certainly none ofthe texts used to prove preservation necessarily imply a particular method of interpretation.

PastorBob,

You cannot determine the truth of a textual or translational matter based on how well it fits your interpretation. That is pure eisegesis.
  #12  
Old 09-11-2002, 02:54 PM
Pastor Larry Pastor Larry is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 21,763
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by DocCas:
Not only is Preservation biblical, it is logical. Why would God give us the bible, taking meticulous care with the very words of Scripture (verbal inspiration), then allow them to be lost? Would not God, who gave us His word by the miracle of inspiration not also keep them through the miracle of preservation?
Then why are there long periods of the OT where the Law was not available? I agree with you on the basic idea of preservation, but I am not sure this "logic" approach is a good approach to the discussion.
  #13  
Old 09-11-2002, 05:44 PM
Ed Edwards Ed Edwards is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Heavenly Central Oklahoma
Posts: 15,715
Post

\o/ Glory to the Lord \o/

\o/ Praise be to Jesus \o/

God, by His Divine Providence, has preserved
His infallible written word for this generation
in all English Translations.


LRL71 speaking of providential preservation:
"How would this apply to the
King James and not to any other versions? Lots
of questions, and hopefully a lot of 'friendly' dialogue."

Well, i'm sure there will be lots of dialogue [img]smile.gif[/img]
perhaps even some friendly. Personally i believe
as denoted above. And i really don't know why the
Doctrine of providential preservation of the Bible
applies only to one flavor of the KJV, namely
the 1873 edition. But i'm willing to learn.

To inhibit my learning, it seems that most KJVO
persons i ever contact copy thier material from
some KJVO source. That means that i an amature
am suddenly debating with a professional.
Here i am a live person disputing a recording [img]smile.gif[/img]

KJVONLY: "You mean that Psalms 12:6-7 is not true??? How so?????? "

Oh, a scripture. You obviously don't think enough
of the scripture to bother typeing it up or even
sniching an electronic copy of it for posting here.
I'll discuss it when it appears in this topic.
Please cite the source for my convience, i look up
thousands of scriptures each day in dozens of versions,
and your complete citation of source would be
appreciated. Thank you.

Isn't that the verse that has the phrase
"preserve them (words) FROM this generation forever"?
KJVOs invariably read as "preserve
them FOR this generation forever". But what is
a zapped preposition or two among debaters

DocCas: "Not only is Preservation biblical, it is logical.
... Would not God,
who gave us His word by the miracle of inspiration
not also keep them through the miracle of
preservation?"

Amen, Brother DocCas -- Preach it.
And is the same Mighty God who Inspired the
written word and who devinely Preserved it
unto this generation then limited to ONE AND ONLY ONE
book, the KJV1873?

I don't think so, therefor I believe:

God, by His Divine Providence, has preserved
His infallible written word for this generation
in each English Translation.


DocCas: "No one can seriously argue against the biblical
doctrine of Preservation due to easily observable
facts such as the perpetuity of the bible."

Amen, Brother DocCas -- Preach it!
And why do some insist on then preaching that
God's divine perservational providence is
LIMITED to ONE AND ONLY ONE KJV1873?

Pastor Bob 63: //Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words:
as silver tried in a furnace of earth,
purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them , O LORD, thou shalt
preserve them from this generation for ever. (KJV)//

Would you please include in your scripture citation
the edition of the KJV you are using? I look up thousands
of scriptures each week. I have three different KJVs
in which to look to check and see if you even
copied this scripture correctly. Thank you.
BTW, your KJV quotation did NOT match the first
KJV i looked in.

ALso the beam in the eye of the KJVO in this
verse is "from". If it read "for" i would be convinced,
but it keeps reading "from".

God, by His Divine Providence, has preserved
His infallible written word for this generation
in each English Translation.


my discussion to this point does not deny that
the Holy Scripture teaches the providential
preservation of the Holy Scripture.

Pastor Bob 63: "Who is lying, God or the NIV translators?"

Neither is lying. The KJV-user is lying.

Pastor Bob 63: "Providential preservation can be and has
been realized in a translation of Scripture."

Amen, Brother Postor Bob 63 -- Preach it!
God, by His Divine Providence, has preserved
His infallible written word for this generation
in each English Translation.
  #14  
Old 09-11-2002, 05:48 PM
LRL71 LRL71 is offline
Active Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: North Port, FL
Posts: 580
Exclamation

Wow! I have got quite a reponse to my question! Thank you all for answering.

Now, understand that I am *NOT* KJV-only, and I believe that the so-called 'doctrine of providential preservation' is...... heresy!

No one here (as of yet) has defined what the doctrine means, and where the Bible defines this doctrine *specifically* as meaning the providential preservation of the transmission of the text. Also, no KJV-onlyist has proven how this 'doctrine' applies to *only* the KJV, and not other translation, whether contemporary to the time of the early English versions or to modern versions.

Someone has implied that Psalm 12:5-8 is proof of the doctrine of providential preservation. I shall now prove why this is wrong, and I would venture to say that there is no other passage in the Bible that says *anything* about providential preservation of the text of the Bible.
I have been through seminary, and have about five years of Hebrew (including one year in college), as well as nine years of Greek. Why is it important to know the original languages?? Well, let me apply it to the deceit of the KJV-onlyists on Psalm 12:
I would urge anyone to read an article by Doug Kutilek, "Why Psalm 12:6,7 is not a promise of the infallible preservation of Scripture", which I will briefly outline from his pamphlet. Grammatical proof of my assertion is as follows:
Pronouns indicate the presence, whether expressed or implied, of an antecedent (previous) noun. Verse 7 declared that God will keep *them* and preserve *them*, but what is the antecedent to these pronouns? Based on the English text (and I will only use the King James), there appears to be two possibilities: words, in verse six-- and this one is the closest relative, or in verse five, which are the 'poor' and 'needy'. The pronoun in verse 7 ('them') is plural, and solely based on the English tense, it could be ambiguous as to its antecedent. Now, here's the kicker.....
We have a Hebrew text underlying the translation of the English KJV. When we look at the Hebrew, the ambiguity is perfectly clear! Hebrew, like many other languages, has a feature inherent that English lacks: grammatical gender. In English, we don't have gender; an example to demonstrate its foreign concept to those who only know English is like this: in German, the word 'spoon' is of the masculine gender, for 'knife' it is neuter, and for 'fork' it is feminine. The use of gender in other languages than English is a common practice. Hebrew works the same way, that is, different words have different genders, and the pronouns *must* match the gender, case, and number *exactly*! This is how we know what 'them' in verse 7 refers to.

In the Hebrew of Psalm 12, the pronouns translated 'them' in verse 7 are both masculine gender. The first 'them' in verse 7 is plural in number, while the second is singular (literally, 'him'). This means that the antecedent noun can be expected to be masculine in gender and plural in number. Now, the KJV-onlyist has a problem with using this verse to prove that it teaches a 'providential preservation' doctrine: in verse six, the Hebrew word for 'words' is a *feminine* plural noun in both cases, while the words 'poor' and 'needy' in verse 5 are both masculine and plural! Gender and number antecedents of 'them' is not 'words' (of verse six), but the 'poor' and 'needy' of verse 5!

Based on the clear evidence from grammar and its proper explanation of the context from the Hebrew text, it can be concluded that Psalm 12:6-7 says nothing about the doctrine of providential preservation.

Kiss your doctrine of preservation goodbye!
  #15  
Old 09-11-2002, 06:11 PM
Pastor Larry Pastor Larry is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 21,763
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by LRL71:
No one here (as of yet) has defined what the doctrine means, and where the Bible defines this doctrine *specifically* as meaning the providential preservation of the transmission of the text.
I would have given you a definition of it but I didn't qualify since I didn't fit the second half. Simply put, providential preservation means that God preserved his word providentially (as opposed to miraculously) in the multitude of the manuscripts copied throughout church history. I do believe in providential preservation. The KJVOnlyist believes in miraculous preservation, not providential preservation.
  #16  
Old 09-11-2002, 06:15 PM
DocCas DocCas is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 4,103
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by LRL71:
Kiss your doctrine of preservation goodbye!
You obviously did not read my earlier post. I did an exegesis of Psalm 12:6-7 which you seem to have overlooked, not to mention all the scriptural proof I gave that God does, indeed, preserve His word. So, by your saying we can "kiss our doctrine of preservation goodbye" I guess we can kiss the bible goodbye. Kiss biblical exegesis goodbye. In fact, kiss our very faith goodbye, for how do we learn of our faith, from the word of God! How very, very, very sad.

[ September 11, 2002, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: DocCas ]
  #17  
Old 09-11-2002, 06:20 PM
DocCas DocCas is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 4,103
Post

Mr. Edwards, is it just me or did you smoke your socks for lunch?

You bring up the 1873 edition of the KJV, which, of course, we all know as Scrivener's KJV, and, as I am sure all of us know, it has been out of print for decades. The KJV most of us use, who use the KJV, is either the 1762 Cambridge or the 1769 Oxford edition, so, all of your concerns about God only preserving Scrivener's 1873 KJV seem to have been misplaced. God has preserved His word. Period. Not in a version, not in a translation, not in any particular single manuscript or textform, but in the plethora of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts available to us today. [img]smile.gif[/img]
  #18  
Old 09-11-2002, 06:22 PM
Pastor_Bob's Avatar
Pastor_Bob Pastor_Bob is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 3,319
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by LRL71:
Someone has implied that Psalm 12:5-8 is proof of the doctrine of providential preservation. I shall now prove why this is wrong, and I would venture to say that there is no other passage in the Bible that says *anything* about providential preservation of the text of the Bible.
Kiss your doctrine of preservation goodbye!
If God didn't mean what He said...why didn't God say what He meant?

1John 2:27 "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." (KJV)
  #19  
Old 09-11-2002, 06:48 PM
DocCas DocCas is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 4,103
Post

Pastor Bob, see my exegesis of Psalm 12:5-8 on the first page of this thread, the 5th post down. [img]smile.gif[/img]
  #20  
Old 09-11-2002, 07:03 PM
LRL71 LRL71 is offline
Active Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: North Port, FL
Posts: 580
Talking

Quote:
Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
I would have given you a definition of it but I didn't qualify since I didn't fit the second half. Simply put, providential preservation means that God preserved his word providentially (as opposed to miraculously) in the multitude of the manuscripts copied throughout church history. I do believe in providential preservation. The KJVOnlyist believes in miraculous preservation, not providential preservation.
Pastor Larry,

You and I share the same first name!

Anyway, your definition is short, sweet, and to the point. Yes, you are correct as to the definition of preservation: providential versus miraculous. We can agree to providential preservation as you have stated it, although I don't believe that it is a *doctrine* proven from a verse (or verses) in Scripture. I tend to believe that the KJV-onlyist twists this to make it into a doctrine based on Psalm 12. I have proven that this is not so, and would venture to say that the definition of preservation from the KJV-onlyist [believers], whether Ruckmanite or the more moderate elements, is completely untenable. We can see from church history and Jewish OT history that God has providentially preserved His Word, although the copying and transmission of the text has allowed errors of various kinds. Only the original documents are 'inspired', and to say that God has perfectly preserved the 'inspired' text is...... heresy!!! If God has providentially preserved the transmission of the Biblical text from error, then why do no two manuscripts, whether Hebrew/Aramaic OT or Greek NT have perfect agreement? Their doctrine is inherently false and their definition of preservation (as a Biblical doctrine) is also *false doctrine*! To go even beyond this, in saying that their definition of the providential preservation of the Biblical text *only* applies to the KJV English Bible or the Greek Majority Text/Textus Receptus is even a further stretch of falsehood! Even if we accepted their definition of the 'doctrine' of providential preservation, how and why would it apply to *only* the KJV/Majority Text/TR? Nothing in Scripture defines any kinds of methods of textual criticism, let alone does it say anywhere in Scripture that the majority readings of the transmitted text have precedence over the current methods of modern textual criticism.

The KJV-only [believers], regardless of how ridiculous or moderate their belief that their beloved KJV is superior (if not the *only* true Bible) to any modern version of the Bible in not only repugnant, but belies their blissful ignorance in discussing this issue with any integrity. Dealing with the KJV-onlyists is like dealing with [ad hominem attack deleted; editor]. I once was KJV-only, but when I came to know the truth of the deceit of KJV-onlyism (again, regardless of rabid Ruckmanites or the moderate KJV-onlyist), the truth set me free. Let us who know the truth about this heresy be always on the offense, not the defense. Of special note, I have no problem with the believer who loves his/her KJV Bible, and would recommend it to anyone who desires to use it, nor do I have any desire to see scores of KJV Bibles being burned in huge bon-fires! My angst is with the disgusting divisiveness of this *silly* and immature issue that has needlessly seen many believers separate themselves. I believe that the average KJV-onlyist is sincerely concerned about liberalism, but they *must* consider all sides to the issue before making a stand on the Bible. [img]graemlins/type.gif[/img]

[Editor, let's try to keep this from descending into a name-calling contest.]

[ September 11, 2002, 07:13 PM: Message edited by: DocCas ]
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:09 AM.


The Fundamental Top 500   The Best Baptist Web Sites at Baptist411.com  
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Style Copyright: Wrestling Clique Wrestling Forum
Ad Management plugin by RedTyger
 
 

Christian Web Hosting for BaptistBoard.com is provided by BaptistHost.net