Bill Combs on Divine Preservation

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by RedGhost, Aug 4, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. RedGhost

    RedGhost
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    I see he doesn't go for that "Psalm 12:7" blarney, nor the "exact word" theory.
     
  3. RedGhost

    RedGhost
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's correct.

    Before the advent of the King James Only movement...I think most evangelicals took the doctrine of biblical preservation for granted. Now...in response to claims form the KJO group...scholars are having to dig down and clarify the doctrine..what exactly does the scripture teach regarding this subject.

    regards,
    RG.
     
  4. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    preservation

    Below are some comments about preservation from a pastor who defended the KJV as the best overall English translation while disagreeing with the KJV-only view.

    Pastor Glenn Conjurske observed: “Let it be understood that the only foundation which has ever been professed for this [KJV-only] system is the supposed Bible doctrine of the preservation of the true text of Scripture, and it is precisely this doctrine of preservation which has often been given up in order to accommodate the facts concerning the Textus Receptus and the King James Version” (Olde Paths and Ancient Landmarks, Jan., 1997, p. 12). Conjurske asked: “how can they seriously maintain their doctrine of the preservation in perfection of the true text of Scripture, while they designate as the true text a text which never existed in the world before 1881--a text which was constructed in 1881 [by Scrivener]?“ (pp. 13-14). Conjurske added: “To adopt this text as the true Textus Receptus is in fact to give up their foundation. Whatever this may be, it certainly is not ’preservation.’ It is absolutely inconsistent with the very idea of preservation” (p. 14). He asserted: “These men have filled the church of God with disputes about ‘preservation,‘ without ever understanding their own doctrine” (p. 14). Conjurske pointed out that KJV-only people have told believers that “it must be a public and open preservation, of a text which is in common use in the hands of the people of God” (p. 15). Conjurske asserted that “it must be a still greater fairy tale that the true Greek text never existed on the earth at all--not in any manuscript or printed edition whatsoever--until Scrivener constructed it in 1881” (p. 16). Conjurske also wrote: “The fact is, the agreement is not perfect, either between the manuscripts and the printed Textus Receptus, or between the manuscripts themselves, nor between the various printed editions of the Textus Receptus, nor between the King James Version and the manuscripts, nor between the King James Version and any edition of the Textus Receptus” (Feb., 1994, pp. 42-43).
     
  5. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Did a generation of English-speaking believers before 1611 die using their imperfect and varying English translations without suffering any harm? Was the Holy Spirit not fully interested in preserving the Scriptures before 1611?
     
  6. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Conjurske makes an interesting point here: on what scriptural basis can we know that we have recovered the entire word of God? I have often wondered if the preserved word of God is partially (or even mostly) still buried in a clay jar somewhere in the middle east. Without the original autographs, how can we be sure?

    Do modern discoveries of ancient manustripts mean that previous translations of the Bible were less than the complete and accurate revelation? If so, did God withhold the whole Truth from those previous generations? And if we already have the complete and accurate revelation, what is the point of searching for more manuscripts and incorporating them into our translations?

    Additionally, I often feel that the preserved word of God probably exsists in widely distributed portions within many different English translations. Haven't we found problems with certain passages in an otherwise well done translation, while enjoying wonderfully rendered verses in what is an overall inadequate translation? I think it may take the sum total of all translations to incorporate the whole word of God (past and present, published and unpublished, English and non-English).
     
  7. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,973
    Likes Received:
    129
    IMHO, If one examines the O.T. use in the N.T. (as quoted by Christ and the disciples) we are left to conclude that preservation of God's word is less than a word to word equivanent (even concerning the preservation in the original languages).

    Rob
     
  8. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    The article for which you posted the URL has all those scriptures listed, except he made the mistake of including Psalm 12:6-7

    Virtually all our knowledge of God comes from scripture. If we don't believe God both miraculously and providentially preserved it, we have no basis for our faith. After all, faith comes by hearing(of Jesus), & hearing, by the word of God.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...