"Logic" and Bible versions

That question is answered in scripture.

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2 Pet 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Now notice it does not say that these holy men were moved to write the scripture, but only spake. Now with Moses we know he literally wrote what God told him because the scriptures say so. But in other cases the prophet spoke while another man recorded what he said as in the case of Jeremiah.

Jer 36:4 Then Jeremiah called Baruch the son of Neriah: and Baruch wrote from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the LORD, which he had spoken unto him, upon a roll of a book.

Jer 36:17 And they asked Baruch, saying, Tell us now, How didst thou write all these words at his mouth?
18 Then Baruch answered them, He pronounced all these words unto me with his mouth, and I wrote them with ink in the book.

There are several times in Jeremiah where it is recorded that he spoke the word of God as God inspired him, but had Baruch write these words down.

And an interesting story in Jeremiah shows how God preserves his scripture. In this same chapter king Jehoiakim burned the original autographs that Jeremiah gave him.

Jer 36:23 And it came to pass, that when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the roll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth.
24 Yet they were not afraid, nor rent their garments, neither the king, nor any of his servants that heard all these words.
25 Nevertheless Elnathan and Delaiah and Gemariah had made intercession to the king that he would not burn the roll: but he would not hear them.

Now, if you want to get picky and insist only the original autographs are the inerrant word of God, then God's word was lost here. But God commanded Jeremiah to write the words again.

Jer 36:27 Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, after that the king had burned the roll, and the words which Baruch wrote at the mouth of Jeremiah, saying,
28 Take thee again another roll, and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll, which Jehoiakim the king of Judah hath burned.

So, that God preserves his word despite the actions of man is shown here.

 

Trying to figure out the logic of OTPLO preservation.

The concept seems to be that God only preserved His word in English in the KJV of 1611, or 1769, or some other revision/edition. We still have not been told which edition/revision/printing is absolutely perfect with no errors of any sort. If God preserved His word only in one translation it would seem to me that one of them would be totally perfect without a single error of any sort.

The logic also means that God did not preserve His word in English from its roots in the 10th century until 1611 (or sometime later). Is that consistent with the preservation concept?

Another topic is other languages. Apparently God's promise to preserve His word was only to English speakers? If not, in what other translations is His word preserved, and what about the places where there are translational conflicts. Someone mentioned earlier that most translations are from the KJV, and that assertion went unchallenged. What other language translations are taken from the KJV?

If this is the case, does it not require the acknowledgement that the KJV is superior to the Greek manuscripts? If not, why would anyone use a translation of a translation instead of going to the source? Using translation of translation as a base should we not be using Wycliff's New Testament since it was translated from the Vulgate, the Bible of choice for nearly a thousand years?

 

No not really. Note in this passage you quote

Two things are absent 1) What is defined as "all scripture" and 2) the nature of inspiration. In fact your translation missed translated the words Inspiration. The fact is that the Greek text specifically says God breathed for the inspiration. Interesting to note the connotation is more closely related to genesis in that God Breathed life into man. So how is scriptured inspired? By dictation? Or a compilation of diverse methods? What your next verse has to do with the nature of inspiration is beyond me.

except the later verse. Note "God Spake" then the term "as" then "they were moved by the Holy Spirit". Seems that as they were going about their business the Holy Spirit moved them and they wrote down Gods words. Not as dictation but as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. We know by Hebrews that the Holy Spirit speaks to us by diverse means. The Speach of God was revealed by the moving of the Holy Spirit. The first part of that verse is an argument for paradosis which you won't like very much.

We know in this passage that Jeremiah wrote by dictation as it is attested to just like the Law given to Moses that you previously quoted. However, this type of inspiration does not explain books like psalms, song of songs, Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, etc....

That only attest to how God used Jeremiah to suppose he did this in all cases is an assumption and not necissarily so.

in which case the second time would be an autograph. I don't get how that confounds the Innerrancy in the autographs?

He certainly preserved it at that time. I also say God preserved his words despite the errors of the transcriptionist. I question this: are all the words in the bible the Words of God? Or are some God's and some belonging to others? What is it that God Wants us to Know? Lot of questions here. I agree with DA Carson

 

The gospels were written well after Jesus died. They were passed down by oral tradition and then written later.

What date was the earliest gospel written?

 

Indeed....but don't expect one. I've been involved in this issue for the better part of three different decades. I have yet to see meaningful answers given to the fatal flaws in the sophistry of the KJVO sect. Truth be told, I don't know if 90% I've seen anything but defensive questions in retaliation.

By their logic, at some point the Word either didn't exist, doesn't exist now, or doesn't exist to a large group, thus there is no preservation, inspiration, inerrancy and infallibility of God's Word. As we have seen, it's clear KJVO proponents believe this.

Here's where Winman is different. He admits his views are those simply by faith. That's refreshing honesty. Of course, as Winman agreed, no amount of faith makes something true (JWs have faith, Catholics have faith, Mormons have faith...all that their belief system is true when it is not). But in the final analysis, the Word of God wins and the "logic" of KJVO loses.

 

Radical KJVO leadership has always defied logic, history, common sense and yes even the Scripture itself:

Revelation 14:6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

Their belief system is a classical example of what is called “Orwellian doublethink”

Excerpts of the definition of “doublethink” From his book 1984:

One of the favorite mantras of the KJVO following is “things which are different are not the same” which is in reference to the Modern Versions in that they differ from the KJV.

However, there are two differing editions of the KJV, the AD1611 Cambridge Edition and the AD1769 Oxford Edition, yet according to the KJVO teaching somehow both are the same inerrant, infallible word of God.

This unsettling historical and undeniable fact of their difference has caused a bizarre schism among our KJVO brethren: to defend one or the other edition as the ONLY word of God.

The following derision of the modern Cambridge Edition is not from a “joke” site:

The glaring inconsistency is that the AD1611 also spelled "Jesus" as "Iesus".

Another noteworthy thing: the author claims that "The Real Bible" has Genesis 1:1 as

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.​

The "counterfeit" has:​

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.​

Fact: The Hebrew has "heavens" (plural-dual - shamayim).
Orwellian doublethink: The KJV English is better than the original Hebrew.​

Similar attacks can be found against the Oxford.


HankD

 

I am not required to answer all your questions. It is obvious that if I did, you anti-KJVs would just come up with more questions. Sooner or later you will come up with questions I and others cannot answer, and in your mind that will prove you are correct on this issue, which would not necessarily be true. I for one am no scholar who spends a lifetime studying this subject, but I have studied enough to feel confident that the KJV is the preserved word of God in English.

I could ask you questions endlessly, trust me, I can find far more fault with the [Bible attack snipped] texts of Wescott and Hort than you will ever find with the KJV. If you want to trust the [Bible attack snipped] texts introduced by known heretics, that is up to you. Many today try to seperate themselves from W-H, but it cannot be done, their work is the foundation of the MVs.

And yes, my view is one of faith. I don't know if anybody has noticed, but faith is very important in the scriptures. We are saved by faith, not by scholarly proof.

As I have said before, you can spend from now till eternity researching this subject and not find an answer. You can find dozens of good and scholarly works that support the KJV, and for every one you find you can find a good and scholarly work refuting it.

Now, some of you might not grasp this, but that may be God's intention. He wants us to believe by faith. He promised to preserve his word in many verses. You either believe that or not. I happen to believe the reason God gave us the scriptures in the first place is because he loves us and wants us to know him. I do not believe he would hide his word within corrupt men's writings like those "Where's Waldo" books a few years back. I also believe the scriptures are a form of representation of Jesus himself. Jesus is perfect, he is not corrupt in any way whatsoever, and praise for that! But Jesus's very name is shown to be The Word of God.

Rev 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

You fellows don't seem to want to believe by faith, you constantly ask for proof. And when someone provides evidence, you just keep asking for more. I am beginning to believe no amount of evidence would convince you.

 

"Bible attack snipped"

That is comical, you can attack the KJV for days around here, but if you attack the texts of Wescott and Hort your post gets edited. :laugh:

 

Show me a single post where the KJV is called 'corrupt' and I will delete it, I assure you. In fact, show me an attack on the KJV.

 

Our Saviour is absolutely perfect without any blemish of any kind. Not even the slightest imperfection. If that comparison is valid there must be a printing/edition/revision of the KJV that is the same. Every KJV I have has slight differences. Sometimes it is spelling, sometimes punctuation, sometimes updated words, and sometime misprints. How do I know which of my KJVs it as without flaw as our perfect Saviour?

 

Isn't saying the KJV is full of errors an attack? Now really, I don't mind that, as we could not debate this issue if we could not say that. But as soon as I attack the Wescott-Hort text it gets edited. Saying a version is full or error is not any different from saying corrupt.

 

You err - we allow the opinion that versions have translational errors to go. You will see the comment often, 'Every translation has errors.' And it will not be snipped. You have been permitted to point out what you perceive as errors in the modern versions and not been snipped. Called the Bible 'corrupt' will get you snipped everytime.

 

Don't call me. When it comes to faith and Biblical veracity, you have believers and you have doubters. You have proponents and you have opponents, you have yea sayers and you have nay sayers. I believe it is obvious which side of the fence Winman and I are on.

 

Apparently you didn't read my response carefully. It is not that I cannot answer many of your questions, but I am not going to spend hours finding out answers for you. There are probably hundreds of scholarly books on this subject and you know that already. If you really wanted to know these answers, that is where you would look, not asking non-scholars on a forum.

Asking non-scholars endless questions in my opinion is a deceptive tactic to smear those who hold opposing views. Just because a non-scholar cannot answer all your questions does not prove that a position like KJVO is false.

I realized many years ago that a person cannot determine this through scholarship. I have said that from the beginning. It will always come down to whether you believe God preserved his pure word as he promised or not.

That is not saying I don't think a person should study, they should. But getting all your answers off a forum like this is a silly way of going about it. I would recommend going to the local library and checking out many good books on the subject.

You see, I don't really believe some here want answers. When they are given they are ignored. The real motive seems to paint those who are KJVO as superstitious, fanatical, backwoods hicks. If you want to believe that, fine. But there are many men who are very accomplished biblical scholars (like Pastor D.A. Waite who has headed the Dean Burgon Society for years), who are firmly convinced the KJV is the only preserved and inerrant version of the scriptures in English. You know, he has been a pastor for almost 60 years, for the first 20 years he believed in the W-H texts as that is what he was taught at Dallas Theological Seminary. But through his studies over the years he came to believe these texts serious error. Since then he has spent nearly 40 years now defending the KJV and fighting against the MVs. You can contact him at his website.

http://www.biblefortoday.org/

And if you do go to this site you will see he disagrees with some KJVOs that hold unscriptural views. Take a good look at this site and listen to some videos before you dismiss it. Many of your questions may be answered.

 

Winman and Cutter.......God bless you both! You now both can see why I don't post much on here. :tear: