Doctrine of Bible Preservation

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Psalm145 3, Aug 6, 2001.

  1. Psalm145 3

    Psalm145 3
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2001
    Messages:
    317
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe the whole issue of Bible versions hinges on this point. Did God preserve His Word? I could multiply verses that indicate He did preserve every word.

    If God did not preserve His Word, then we don't have a Bible. We just have book full of errors that have some of God's words in it, and we're not really sure which words were God-breathed, since the originals don't exist.

    It is unreasonable to believe that a sovereign, all-powerful, loving God would not keep His Word.

    Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
     
  2. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    And much conflict over this "doctrine" (not sure I agree with use of that term) is from arrogant English-speaking minority in the world who claim that God DID preserve His Word, but in 1611 in an English translation!

    His Word is preserved. I have Greek and Hebrew from which I can accurately discern God's Word and translate it into thousands of languages.

    Praise the Lord for the Bible and for good translations of it!
     
  3. Psalm145 3

    Psalm145 3
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2001
    Messages:
    317
    Likes Received:
    0
    In the critical Greek text there are approximately 2,800 words omitted as compared to the Received Text, and 45 whole verses omitted or seriously questioned.

    If God preserved His Word, then one of these texts is definately NOT the inspired, preserved Word of God. A choice MUST be made.

    No translation can be any better than the text upon which they are founded.
     
  4. Chris Temple

    Chris Temple
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Psalm145 3:
    I believe the whole issue of Bible versions hinges on this point. Did God preserve His Word? I could multiply verses that indicate He did preserve every word.

    If God did not preserve His Word, then we don't have a Bible. We just have book full of errors that have some of God's words in it, and we're not really sure which words were God-breathed, since the originals don't exist.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    The people of the world speak over 6,000 languages, and only 10% of the world speaks English: Where is the preserved word of God for them?
     
  5. Mikayehu

    Mikayehu
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    0
    I realize how good you think your argument sounds Ps. 145, but will you think about something for a second. Just consider the Received Text. These TR manuscripts which are so remarkably similar were for the most part people's Bibles, not museum pieces. The people rightfully trusted those manuscripts to be preserved by God just for them, totally sufficient for their faith and practice, just as we rightfully trust the KJV. Did their manuscript differ from their neighbor's? Of course, but I would be wrong to say one had the Word of God and one did not. So, whatever the doctrine of preservation is, it did not mean to early Christians that they had a perfect Bible. (They knew their Bible differed from other's.) Why must you take it to mean that now?
     
  6. Psalm145 3

    Psalm145 3
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2001
    Messages:
    317
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The people of the world speak over 6,000 languages, and only 10% of the world speaks English: Where is the preserved word of God for them? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Good question Chris, and I'm glad you asked.

    The preserved Word of God is the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text of Daniel Bomberg, as edited by Jacob ben Chayim, and the Traditional Received Greek Text.

    The Authorized Version of the English Bible is a true, faithful, and accurate translation of these two providentially preserved Texts.
     
  7. Mikayehu

    Mikayehu
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ps. 145, you noted,
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The preserved Word of God is the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text of Daniel Bomberg, as edited by Jacob ben Chayim, and the Traditional Received Greek Text. The Authorized Version of the English Bible is a true, faithful, and accurate translation of these two providentially preserved Texts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But, what do you do when the KJV departs from those texts? So, then using your argument earlier, can we apply it to the KJV versus the Traditional text? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Then one of these texts is definately NOT the inspired, preserved Word of God. A choice MUST be made. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If I've mistated your position, feel free to correct me. It is not unusual for me to misunderstand people on message boards.
     
  8. Rockfort

    Rockfort
    Expand Collapse
    x

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2000
    Messages:
    659
    Likes Received:
    0
    &lt; The Authorized Version of the English Bible is a true, faithful, and accurate translation of these two providentially preserved Texts. &gt;

    True or false:
    The King James Bible is absolutely inferior to "providentially preserved Texts."

    [ August 07, 2001: Message edited by: Rockfort ]
     
  9. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    Psalm 145

    The people of the world speak over 6,000 languages, and only 10% of the world speaks English: Where is the preserved word of God for them?

    Good question Chris, and I'm glad you asked.
    “The preserved Word of God is the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text of Daniel Bomberg, as edited by Jacob ben Chayim, and the Traditional Received Greek Text.
    The Authorized Version of the English Bible is a true, faithful, and accurate translation of these two providentially preserved Texts.”

    The problem that you have with this position is that most of the 90% of the world’s translations come from the Critical Text, not the TR. The Wycliffe Bible Translators do not use the TR, and most other groups doing Bible translation work do not use the TR. Most of the world does not have a Bible based on the TR, and much of the world has only one translation to rely on. I work in the nation of Pakistan. Their national language is Urdu and they have a Bible translated into that language, but it is not from the TR. Are you suggesting to me that all these individuals, who do not speak English, have no Bible? When I go there I am compelled to preach and teach from that Bible; it is the only one that they have. And God blesses it.

    DHK
     
  10. Chris Temple

    Chris Temple
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The Authorized Version of the English Bible is a true, faithful, and accurate translation of these two providentially preserved Texts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    No believer can argue with that, so long as the emphasis is on "a true, faithful, and accurate translation and not THE ONLY true, faithful, and accurate translation.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
    The preserved Word of God is the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text of Daniel Bomberg, as edited by Jacob ben Chayim, and the Traditional Received Greek Text. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    So then any reliable translation of the above texts, in any language, is the actual Word of God, no?
     
  11. Psalm145 3

    Psalm145 3
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2001
    Messages:
    317
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> So then any reliable translation of the above texts, in any language, is the actual Word of God, no? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Yes, that is true.

    I believe people can be saved even with Bible versions translated from inferior base text. Even some of the most perverted translations still have enough of the Gospel kept intact, but I believe growth will be hindered. The best translations are based on the preserved Word of God in the Traditional Received Text.

    If "King James Only" defines one who believes the English is superior to the Hebrew and Greek texts upon which it was based, I am not King James Only.

    If "King James Only" defines one who believes that God has given an inerrant Scripture in Greek and Hebrew and that He has preserved that in the Received Text underlying the King James Bible and other Reformation Bibles and that we have an accurate translation of it in the English language in the Authorized Version, call me King James Only.
     
  12. Mikayehu

    Mikayehu
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ps. 145,
    I have no problem with your last post. It seems very reasonable to me.
     
  13. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Throwing out a fact here, that causes me to question the "only" position -

    Often refer to the TR (Textus Receptus) as the true, accurate, preserved text.

    TR did not exist until 1624, thirteen years AFTER the AV1611.

    Hundreds of times the AV1611 (and subsequent revisions of the KJV) vary from the TR.

    How does that affect the logic of accepting a text that differs from the AV1611 as perfect AND the AV1611 as perfect.

    Doesn't make sense to me . . . :confused:
     
  14. Psalm145 3

    Psalm145 3
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2001
    Messages:
    317
    Likes Received:
    0
    Over the years the Greek text of the New Testament was collated by a number of different editors. The most famous of these were Desiderius Erasmus, Theodore Beza, Robert Stephanus and the Elzevir brothers.

    It is Beza's edition of 1598 and Stephanus's edition of 1550 and 1551 which were used as the primary sources by the King James translators.

    The Elzevir brothers published three editions of the Greek New Testament in 1624, 1633 and 1641. In the preface to their edition of 1633 they coined a phrase which was to become so popular as to be retrofitted to texts which preceded it by many years. They stated in Latin "textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum..." i.e. "According to the text now held from the volume received..." Thus the title "Textus Receptus" or "Received Text" was born.

    So we see that, even though the name "Textus Receptus was coined twenty-two years after the Authorized Version was translated, it has
    become synonymous with the true Greek Text originating in Antioch.
     
  15. Psalm145 3

    Psalm145 3
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2001
    Messages:
    317
    Likes Received:
    0
    God promised to preserve His Word in every detail to every generation. The doctrines of "verbal, plenary inspiration" and "preservation" are linked together. What good are perfect writings if they no longer exist?

    Here are some verses that teach the doctrine of Bible preservation:

    Psalms 12:6,7 Isaiah 40:8
    Psalms 100:5 Isaiah 59:21
    Psalms 117:2
    Psalms 119:89
    Psalms 119:152 Matthew 5:18
    Psalms 119:160 Matthew 24:35

    1 Peter 1:23
    1 Peter 1:25

    Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

    Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
     
  16. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
    TR did not exist until 1624, thirteen years AFTER the AV1611.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Of course it existed prior to 1624. All that happened in 1624, and again in 1633, was that the term was printed on the inside of the cover of those particular editions. If it was "universally received" it had to exist prior to that time or it could not have been "universally received." That is like saying, because my Lincoln was manufactured in 1997, that Lincolns did not exist prior to that. Well, of course they did. Now, I realize the illustration breaks down because of the use of the term Lincoln prior to 1997, but just the same, we are talking about a text-form, not a name. [​IMG]
     
  17. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    This verse causes tremendous problems for your side since, by your own admission, the TR has 2800 that the eclectic text doesn't have. That is called "adding." According to this verse you just quoted, it brings the plagues on those who added them.
     
  18. adam1946

    adam1946
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2001
    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is some serious food for thought: If God never preserved his Word, then God never preserved his people! Think about it!

    I'm KJV only nothing else comes close... Brother Glen
     
  19. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:


    This verse causes tremendous problems for your side since, by your own admission, the TR has 2800 that the eclectic text doesn't have. That is called "adding." According to this verse you just quoted, it brings the plagues on those who added them.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    A very good point, Larry. One I've made myself quite often in my personal dealings with KJVOs, and one I've never really gotten a straightforward answer to. (When I make it, I do it somewhat tongue-in-cheek, as context is really not speaking to the entire Bible.) But I'm curious as to the answers you get to it.

    [ August 24, 2001: Message edited by: TomVols ]
     
  20. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by adam1946:
    Here is some serious food for thought: If God never preserved his Word, then God never preserved his people! Think about it!

    I'm KJV only nothing else comes close... Brother Glen
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Are you just throwing this out from your own mind or do you have some Scripture about it? These two things are obviously unrelated. but it shows the lack of substance of much of the KJVOnlyist arguments.

    First, God did preserve his Word. That is why we have it. And whether you want to admit it or not, he even preserved the variants and manuscript families that you do not like. Think about it: How do we have something (Alexandrian and Western readings) that has not been preserved? The answer is that if it wasn't preserved we don't have it. It is obvious that God did preserve them.

    Second, preserving the Word and preserving the people are two distinct issues that are unrelated. Preserving his people is a clearly stated doctrine with Scripture to back it up as to the fact of his preservation of them. Preserving his Word has obviously happened but there is no Scripture as to how or where (what family of manuscripts) he chose for it. That is why it is entirely proper and orthodox to say that God preserved his Word in the multitude of the manuscripts.

    Unless you have come up with something no one else has had for 1900 years, you have no idea what the original manuscripts said. For all you objectively know, anyone one of many variants in the text could be the authentic reading. Yet you cannot precisely determine that because you do not have the originals to compare them with. The TR could have made all the wrong choices and you would never know it.
     

Share This Page

Loading...