If the KJVO belief about preservation is true...

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Daniel David, Feb 5, 2003.

  1. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    then where are the original Scriptures?

    I must confess that I read these posts and squint my eyes in amazement. Many people present evidence that totally convinces themselves of truth. Then, they present it to others. These others demonstrate where the "proof" is lacking and they are told that they just reject the proof.

    Here is the question. Where are the originals? If the interpretation of Psalm 12:6-7 that KJVO people put forth is true, then where are the Hebrew Scriptures? Has every generation had these same Scriptures?

    This whole argument breaks down very fast. The TR had a point in time when it was put together. Every generation has not had access to the TR.

    It is my belief that KJVO theology is as bad as liberal theology. Both deny inerrancy. The KJVO goes further by pushing its theology of preservation upon what inerrancy is supposed to mean.
     
  2. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Amen, brother. Will keep this as a valid quotation in my file.

    (And turn it over to the KJVO thought police when they ask if we know any perverse MV'ers. God forbid.) :eek:
     
  3. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,124
    Likes Received:
    319
    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
     
  4. ruthigirl

    ruthigirl
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    89
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think this is a good point. Why are the KJVO advocates not responding?
     
  5. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    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?
     
  6. AV Defender

    AV Defender
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well said PastorBob.
     
  7. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen Pastor Bob.
     
  8. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    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. [​IMG]
     
  9. AV Defender

    AV Defender
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    0
    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 this:Do 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???
     
  10. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    On the same line, don't confuse preservation of Scripture with physical, tangible original autographs.
     
  11. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  12. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bob, the preservation is for the righteous. Are there righteous people here today? Of course.

    Now, this is where the KJVO becomes more than a stretch. They say that God has preserved the KJV (whichever edition or revision no one ever knows) and everything else is corrupt because his word in exclusively in the KJV.

    Since God didn't write in English, he apparently wasn't able to preserve the Scripture for all those generations. What about other languages? Did God not preserve it for them? You see, I don't say it is laughable, it is totally unbelievable though.

    The truth is that the KJVO position on preservation is completely unsupported by Scripture.

    If God can perfectly preserve the KJV, surely he could perfectly preserve the Hebrew and Greek texts. It is merely a leap of faith that God preserved it in the Masoretic and TR. The problem is that every generation has not had either of those.

    To those who are KJVO, whenever you think of preservation, think about where all of those Hebrew and Greek manuscripts are. Until you can produce those, it is meaningless that you try to prove preservation with the KJV as an example.

    I will be very transparent here. This made up doctrine is an affront to Scripture and an attack on inerrancy. I will sit down and never preach again if I ever question inerrancy.

    I appreciate many on this forum. Many have labored to answer every claim, and every critique thrown at them. Scott, Pastor Larry, Ransom, and others are excellent in defending the doctrine of revelation (not the book) and inerrancy.

    I personally have respect for Pastor Bob and believe he is a man of conviction that examines the issue. We clearly disagree, but he is someone who has concluded his position from the testimony of Scripture and not the rewriting of history.
     
  13. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can anyone else believe this? This goes beyond what many of the self-proclaimed liberals on this board would say.

    One passage that we all know and recognize is that God bings himself to his word. Why in the world would he change his word?

    Is this really the best explanation put forth? Why not just believe that the LXX and the Hebrew text that Christ read from are the same on this point.

    This is so tragic. Instead of realizing that your theology on preservation is errant, this type of stuff is presented.

    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  14. AV Defender

    AV Defender
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    0
    I asked for one(1),Eine,uno_One that can be called Inafallible.
     
  15. AV Defender

    AV Defender
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  16. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    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.
     
  17. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  18. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
    [​IMG]
     
  19. AV Defender

    AV Defender
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Aye Caramba! :rolleyes:
     
  20. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    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?
     

Share This Page

Loading...