Doctrine of Bible Preservation

<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?

 

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?

 

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.

 

&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 ]

 

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

 

<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?

 

Ps. 145,
I have no problem with your last post. It seems very reasonable to me.

 

<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.

 

<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.

 

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

 

<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 ]

 

<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.