"...it is written" supports preservation of Scripture

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Pastor_Bob, Jan 21, 2003.

  1. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    The phrase " it is written " rendered from the Greek perfect tense form gegraptai , is used 65 times in the Greek New Testament as a direct reference to Scripture. This form of the Greek verb grapho, "I write" is used 67 times. Each time it is used, it always indicates the preservation of its object.

    The perfect tense is a "completed action with continous results." The Word of God is not contained in some lost text but is found in an existing text that God has preserved. The Word of God is preserved in both the OT and the NT and is in a "state of continuous existence.

    1 Cor. 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written , that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. (KJV)

    Heb 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. (KJV)

    Joh 20:31 But these are written , that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (KJV)

    Source: Christopher B. Raper
    " It is written " Greek perfect tense of gegraptai supports preservation of Scripture - 2001
     
  2. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    i havta agee.

    it is HOW preservation takes place that's in question. some KJBOs believe something happened big time in 1611, when the last impurities n uncertainties were finally removed. others think that, well, it took a few more years (till about 1769, if i recall) to weed out "printers' errors." yet others say that ALL the KJB revisions r equally pure n preserved.

    many KJBOs resent it that God has preserved His Word forever in heaven--somehow, that's NOT practical to their minds, n they complain "of what USE is that?" well, God said it, n i believe it--2Tim 3:16-17.

    as to HOW He continues to preserve His Word on earth, He's certainly left the evidence on pottery, vellum, papyri, paper, n nowadays on hard drives. are they identical? i'd say git real. are there real differences between them? hmm, when has it ever been otherwise! why? i dunno--altho it's possible to make some guesses (Dt 29:29 n such passages come to mind).

    but are they--all the words--perfectly preserved to this day--u bet. we just need to do a little homework on the 2% or so of variants.
     
  3. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    When you look at "what is written" in teh NT citations, and compare them with the OT sources, it shows that the KJOnly position is inadequate. The quotes of the OT are not identical in the NT citation, thus showing that "it is written" does not require the exact wording to be considered authoritative and the word of God.

    The KJV passages very often do not quote the OT source word for word. It takes the liberty of "changing" the words, something that is anathema to a KJonly person. However, it is the reality of the text. Notice how the NT did not consider their lack of a perfectly preserved text to be a problem for them. They readily quoted texts that weren't perfectly preserved and quoted them as teh Word of God and quoted them authoritatively.

    So, Bob, you bring up a good point ... one that shows yet another inadequacy of the KJOnly position.
     
  4. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pastor Larry, Will you give permission to reprint this post? It answers almost every KJVO objection when discussing "final authority".
     
  5. Siegfried

    Siegfried
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    689
    Likes Received:
    0
    Surely you don't mean to suggest that the human authors of the NT would have endorsed dynamic equivalence in translation, do you? ;) [​IMG]
     
  6. Siegfried

    Siegfried
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    689
    Likes Received:
    0
    So which text is it and how do we know which one? Forever Settled offers a solution. Do you disagree? If so, what text do you think is the solution?
     
  7. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    Of course you realize that the OT was written in Hebrew, quoted by NT authors in Hebrew, then translated into the Greek, then translated into the English. As in any translation, there will be a loss of "exact wording."

    Your next question/comment is predictable so I will just say, exact wording is not key provided the original meaning is preserved and unaltered and derived from a faithful compilation of reliable manuscripts.

    What is your basis for assuming those in the NT did not consider their text to be a perfectly preserved text. No where do they say, "The majority of extant manuscripts read this way..."

    The very fact that they quoted them with authority implies their confidence in perfect preservation.

    Although I don't agree with your assesment of this topic, my motive was to show providential preservation of the Word of God. There are some who would question that God providentially preserved His Word for us today.

    [ January 22, 2003, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Bob 63 ]
     
  8. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    The Old Testament text that would qualify, IMO, is the Masoretic Hebrew Text. This is the basis for the KJV Old Testament.

    The preface of the NASV says:
    You can see the texts are not the same. The NIV uses the same as well as some additional sources.

    The New Testament text that would qualify, IMO, is the Textus Receptus (Scrivener's, which is basically Beza's 5th edition of 1598)

    The Greek text the MVs commonly use is the Nestle/Aland Greek New Testament. It has undergone 26 revisions to date.

    The Greek text of the KJV and the Greek text of the MVs have approximately 5600 variations between them.

    I choose to believe that we have something more tangible than "pottery, vellum, papyri, paper, n nowadays on hard drives." God is not going to preserve His Word for us then say, "It is out there somewhere; now go find it." If God gave us clear commands to heed His Word, love His Word, and apply His Word to our lives, then I choose to believe that He has made His Word readily available to us complete and just the way He wants us to have it.

    [ January 22, 2003, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Bob 63 ]
     
  9. Siegfried

    Siegfried
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    689
    Likes Received:
    0
    </font>[/QUOTE]You've answered the "Which text?" question but not the "How do we know which?" part. Are you saying the texts you name are identical to that which is settled in heaven?

    I emphasis the how question because I wonder if your rational basis for choosing them is because they happen to be the texts that support your version of choice, not because you think they're intrinsically stronger texts.

    I don't think we can say what God is or is not going to do unless He specifically tells us. This is opinion. You may have an argument for your opinion, but it's analogical, not exegetical.

    Would you also say that "If God wants us to obey His word, he's going to make the meaning plain. He's not going to say, 'The meaning is out there somewhere. Now go find it' "? Why not choose to believe that God makes the meaning of His Word just as plain as the text?
     
  10. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is exactly what I would say. This is the traditional orthodox position but it differs significantly from the KJVOnly position espoused by most here. The KJVOnlies here decry the NKJV because the wording is different. However it was translated from the text as the KJV.

    The difference here would lie in teh criteria from determining a text compiled of reliable manuscripts.

    [/qb]Because their quotations differ from the MT in some places, showing that the text they were using was different than the Hebrew text. The MT has perhaps greater difficulties in some respects than the NT does. The difference is that no one knows Hebrew and so it is hard to carry on a conversation about it.

    I think this is a non sequitur. I could more easily argue that their authoritative quotation shows that perfect preservation is not necessary to have God's word. For quoting a "Perfectly preserved text," there are a lot of variations.

    I don't know of anyone here who doubts providential preservation. I certainly don't. What we disagree with is miraculous preservation, which would be necessary to have a perfect preservation. The traditional orthodox position has been providential preservation, not miraculous preservation.
     
  11. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    This answer is not widely accepted but remains the answer nonetheless...by faith.

    The OT text I mentioned, the traditional Masoretic Hebrew text, the 2nd Rabbinic Bible, Daniel Bomberg Edition, edited by Ben Chayyim in 1525. This text has lasted over 475 years. It is tried and proven.

    The NT Greek text I mentioned the Textus Receptus based on Beza's Fifth edition of 1598 has been around for over 400 years without a revision.

    The Greek text which underlies the MVs, the Nestle/Aland Greek text has gone through 26 revisions since 1898. The N/A text closely follows the W/H text. That means in the last 105 years, the underlying text of the MVs has changed 26 times. That means there is an updated, changed, different edition of the Greek NT on average every 4.04 years.

    I find it very obvious which text to rely on.

    Because of verses like these:
    Isa 29:14 Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid. (KJV)

    1 Cor 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
    20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
    21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. (KJV)

    1 Cor 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; (KJV)

    God does not reveal all truth to all people. He gives us light, as we respond to that light He gives us more light. The answer is not to find an easier to understand bible; the answer is to get to know the Author of the Book.
     
  12. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is a false dichotomy. If God gave His Word originally in the language of the people, it is no great leap to assert that He did not intend for grammar and diction to be a barrier for getting to know Him.

    If I were trying to get to know someone by written correspondance, it would be critical that we share a common vernacular.

    [ January 23, 2003, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: Scotty aka Scott J ]
     
  13. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    I am not trying to get to know God by written correspondance. I want a personal relationship with Him. I want to be on speaking terms with God.
    Php 3:10 That I may know him , and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; (KJV)

    God not only gave us His Word, He offers us a personal relationship with Him and access to His very presence anytime we need Him.
    Heb 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. (KJV)

    We may certainly turn to the Word of God in times of trouble; but unless we cry out to the God of the Word, we will not receive the help we need.

    Ps 3:4 I cried unto the LORD with my voice, and he heard me out of his holy hill. Selah. (KJV)

    Ps 34:6 This poor man cried, and the LORD heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles. (KJV)

    Ps 34:17 The righteous cry, and the LORD heareth, and delivereth them out of all their troubles. (KJV)

    Now, God's answer may lead us to the Word of God, and I am confident that when it does, He will give us the understanding to receive the help we need.
     
  14. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am not trying to get to know God by written correspondance. I want a personal relationship with Him. I want to be on speaking terms with God.</font>[/QUOTE] Did you really miss the gist of what I wrote this badly or are you being obtuse? You posted this comment then proceeded to quote Bible verses as proof. That shows a recognition that God is not speaking to you verbally. God speaks to us through the scriptures as illuminated by the Holy Spirit. But this illumination has nothing at all with the mechanics of language.
    Is this an answer to something you construed from my post? I don't have any objection to this statement.


    God's answer may lead us to the Word of God??? I would say that any answer we might think God will's for us should be subject to scripture. A Spirit led Christian will never trust feelings or intuition over scripture.

    Forgive me if I have misunderstood the implications of your post but you seem to be saying that you are guided by something that supercedes or at least precedes scripture.
     
  15. Siegfried

    Siegfried
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    689
    Likes Received:
    0
    This answer is not widely accepted but remains the answer nonetheless...by faith.
    [comparison of revision frequencies edited out for space] . . . I find it very obvious which text to rely on.
    </font>[/QUOTE]So is longevity/stability the sole criterion for establishing the best original language texts of scripture in one's belief system?.

    We could debate your exegesis, but that would open up an unnecessary can of worms.

    Regardless, the Scripture you quote does not substantiate a dichotomy you propose between the necessity of certainty in the text and the necessity of obscurity in at the interpretation stage.

    Do I recall correctly that you have also suggested in the past that obscurity in translation should not be considered an obstacle to using old translations? That argument would seem to fit with what you're suggesting here.

    I agree with you that it will always be the case that not all will understand. That doesn't preclude our responsibility to make it as easy as possible for unbelievers to grasp the message of the gospel. In fact, it seems to me that those passages you cite point to difficulty on the part of unbelievers, not believers. I'm not sure I can agree with you that God is trying to hide truth from His people.
     
  16. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    The importance of "it is written" was to show the authority of God's word. When Satan tempted Christ, Christ was not arguing for the preservation of Scripture by his answers. He was demonstrating the authority of Scripture.
     
  17. Steve K.

    Steve K.
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    it is written;what is written?
    I'm in agreement with preservation but apparently becoming a minority.
    The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

    The above promise from the King James Bible tells us that God intends to preserve His WORDS forever. Notice how the new versions destroy this promise by making you think the context is God's PEOPLE rather than His WORDS:

    NIV....... you will keep us safe

    NASB... Thou wilt preserve him

    NRSV... You, O Lord, will protect us

    REB...... you are our protector

    LB......... you will forever preserve your own

    NAB...... You, O Lord, will keep us
     
  18. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Steve, This is because the KJV translation is a little ambiguous. The Hebrew gender agreement requires that the preservation refer to the righteous man, not the words of verse 6.

    But even if you don't accept my explaination, just read the KJV in context. The subject of the Psalm is the peril and preservation of the godly man, not the words of God.
     
  19. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    Where in the world did you get the idea that I think God hides truth from His people?
     

Share This Page

Loading...