If the KJVO belief about preservation is true...

Taken to its logical end, the essence of the KJVO error is this (IMO) :

Every day that goes by that the Scripture is not in the "koine", the common language of the current generation as when first given, a little more of the Scripture is lost to that generation.

This was the error of the Church of Rome and the Latin Vulgate. Latin became the "inspired" language of the Church for over 1000 years until no one (except the "educated") had a clue as to what the Scriptures said.

HankD

 

I think this is a good point. Why are the KJVO advocates not responding?

 

The answer is very simple. The originals themselves have been destroyed by extended use. That is why copies were made to replace them. The original autographs are no longer in existence. Reliable copies of the inspired originals replaced the originals. Reliable copies of those copies relaced the first generation copies etc...

If Psalms 12:6-7 meant preserving men, are those men still around today? Of course not, their offspring is still around today. It can be equally applied to the preservation of God's Word.

Has every generation had these same Scriptures? Unless God lost them, every generation has had them. Do you believe God lost them, or allowed them to be lost?

 

Well said PastorBob.

 

Amen Pastor Bob.

 

They certainly ARE preserved. Luke 17:33 "whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it" and 2 Tim 4:18 says the Lord "will preserve [me] unto his heavenly kingdom". Don't confuse preservation of men with physical, mortal life of men.

JYD recently admitted God did, at least part of Isa 61:1-2. He won't explain how this can possibly be consistent with the KJV-only understanding of "preservation" though.

 

And I tell you(for the last time) that Jesus is God and He can change scripture as He see fit,once again look at Jeremiah 36:32;if you have a problem with Him changing Scripture,do like I suggested before,ASK HIM WHY... So, having said that, then answer me thiso you know where I can get a copy of A(as in ONE(1))INFALLIBLE, INERRANT BIBLE??
2.Can I get a copy of it in English???

 

On the same line, don't confuse preservation of Scripture with physical, tangible original autographs.

 

Even if this were the case the KJV would still have an error at Luke 4:17-18 since it says Jesus was reading from Isaiah. It does not say He was speaking scripture into existence. He certainly has a right to do so but if that is what He was doing then the KJV records His activity inaccurately.

You have one... and the NASB and NKJV would also be options.

The KJV, NKJV, and NASB all accurately communicate everything that God chose to reveal of Himself in the originals. His WORD is not diminished by a few minor word problems. They are inerrant in everything they teach. There is not one doctrine lacking. The miracle of providential preservation isn't that God preserved a single set of human words, it is that His Word is preserved by copyists in spite of man's sinful condition.

Yep. Usually for less than $10.

 

I asked for one(1),Eine,unne that can be called Inafallible.

 

Once again the poly-versionist's jump the gun and claim that the KJV is full of errors.It was said several times that God can and will add to His Words as He wishes;Jeremiah 36:32 CLEARLY SAYS THIS,but obviously that is not egnough.We have a case here where Jesus was asked by the Pharasees about divorcement, Jesus tells them in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 what Moses WROTE down concerning divorce.But in Matthew 19:7-9 he ADDS TO WHAT MOSES WROTE DOWN ,showing that He is God and He does what He pleases.

 

I have to disagree with your assessment of what I believe. I do not believe God preserved the KJV; I believe the KJV is God's preserved Word. I do not believe the KJV was inspired by God in the same sense that the originals were inspired. I believe the KJV accurately reflects the originals due to the preservation process.

This statement is based on a false premise. That is why I make the distinction that always results in an uproar. The KJV is God's Word preserved in the English language. God can and has given His Word to peoples of other languages.

First, for me this is no "made-up doctrine." Secondly, you'll not find a group of people more dogmatic on the issue of inerrancy than the KJV crowd. In fact, we alone believe we can hold God's inerrant Word in our hands. IMO, it takes greater faith to believe that God supernaturally preserved His Word than it does to believe that His Word exists only in the multitude of manuscripts and not available without multiple and differing translations.

In a nut shell, the Word of God is the foundation upon which I have built my life and the lives of my family. The foundation I have chosen is represented by the King James Version Bible. The MVs, by omitting a verse here and there, begin to "chip away" at the foundation. Anytime the foundation is weakened, the structure is in danger of collapsing. I cannot afford to take the risk.

The KJV has been tried and proven for nearly 400 years. Many men and women have also built their lives upon the foundation represented in the KJV. Does that give me the right to stand and boast that I possess the only true Word of God. Not at all. It should serve to humble me and overwhelm me with thanksgiving to God that He has provided me with the means to live by every Word that proceedth out of the mouth of God.

 

On the same line, don't confuse preservation of Scripture with physical, tangible original autographs. </font>[/QUOTE]I don't - and I can't believe that's what you think I'm saying after all this time.

 

And I tell you(for the last time) that Jesus is God and He can change scripture as He see fit,once again look at Jeremiah 36:32;if you have a problem with Him changing Scripture,do like I suggested before,ASK HIM WHY...

</font>[/QUOTE]I did ask him why. He said he didn't change it, someone else did.

But the 'why' isn't my main question at this point. My question, for the 4th (5th?) time is how does this change jive with the KJV-only understanding of "preservation"? Doesn't "preservation" mean "unchanged"?

If you mean infallible and inerrant in the KJV-only sense, (ie. word-for-word perfection, any changes of any words makes it not God's word) then the answer to both questions is "no". Because one was never promised, and if one was produced (e.g. in 2003 or 1978 or 1901 or 1611) then an "INFALLIBLE, INERRANT BIBLE" could not have existed prior to it. I don't understand why you and others simply cannot understand this SIMPLE SIMPLE point. But I can see why you'd want to change the subject.

 

Aye Caramba!

 

It is not my intention to misrepresent you in any way Brian. You and I have always had civil discourse in the past; I would like it to remain that way.

In another thread, it was implied that I have no Scriptural support for my views on preservation. I would like to give you the opportunity to express your view of preservation at this time with the Scriptural basis for your beliefs. Especially this statement:

Where in the Word of God do you find that there is no infallible, inerrant Bible available for us today? Where in the Word of God do you find the basis for the belief that the Word of God is found only in the multitude of manuscript evidence?