Presuppositionalism and KJV onlyism

AV, it is very simple. The preservation scriptures mean in A.D. 2005 what they meant in A.D. 1600, what they mean in A.D. 1200, what they meant in A.D. 500, and what they meant when they were first penned. The passages did not change meaning. If the preservation scriptures did not mean the KJV (or even a "single translation") in the year A.D. 1000, they cannot have changed meaning later.

Put another way: what do you think the passages that talk of preservation of scripture meant in the year 1605?

 

It may be faster, but it is hard to read and I won't keep this up long like this. It does not take an appreciable amount of time to do it correctly.

With respect to the definition of preservation, I haven't even seen you give one that I recall. Preservation simply means that God has preserved his Word. You believe that that requires a perfect translation. It does not. It never has. Even if it did, you have no basis for asserting it is the KJV.

With respect to the book of the Lord, yes I am very familiar with the term. But, as far as I can recall, the Bible never uses it with respect to a complete canon, or a completed and perfect translation. Therefore, you cannot use "book of the Lord" to promote a particular translation and claim to use the term biblically.

I see the point you are making. It is an incorrect point.

 

AV, what do you think the passages that talk of preservation of scripture meant in the year 1605?

 

AV, but whatever "received text" or translation of that time was A. not universally agreed upon, and B. different than the KJV. Did God's word change? Did God's word change meaning?

 

AV, the point is that there was no "single version" that was accepted exclusively, and no single version that was the same as the KJV.

"Preserved with variations"? Can you explain this more, and explain how this hasn't happend since the KJV?

 

Which one?

 

AV, I don't understand the relevance of your questions to the topic at hand, but I will answer anyway:

I don't know exactly how the church accepts a text, but it's largely to do with how a text agrees with texts the church already accepts.

Yes.

I cannot speak for others, although I'm confident there are some who choose what is easiest for them.

"Preserved with variations"? Can you explain this more, and explain how this hasn't happend since the KJV?

 

It depends on what you mean by "book." In these kinds of conversations, where people try to redefine widely accepted ideas, it is helpful to konw what I am agreeing with.

Obviously, when those words were written, as well as the rest of the canon that was later written, they were written in different books, different volumes, not in "one book" per se. In fact, they were not in "one book" until almost 400 AD. Furthemore, they were not in the KJV until 1600 AD.

Yet they were still the word of God.

YOu want to talk about those verses referring to whatever was the received text at that time, yet that is a changing standard which disproves your whole theory. Today, the "one book" that the church at large receieves is the NIV. Yet you do not want to accept that. The Greek text that the church at large receives is the eclectic text, and you do not what to accept that either. So not only is your argument philosophically flawed (since it is a changing standard), it also disproves your own original contention.

 

natters,
When I asked you to list your infallbile, inerrant word of God for Matthew 1:1, I wondered if you would choose from your library one of your favorite Greek texts (Nestle Aland 26th ed, or Tregelles, Trinitarian Bible Society, Westcott & Hort, or something) and put this verse in Greek.
It seems the position of those that believe there is no infallible book of the Lord in ANY language usually assert that no translation can be infallible and inerrant, pure and unadulterated. You then gave us Matt. 1:1 in what appeared to be the KJV. Help me understand your position. Are you saying all English versions are infallible and inerrant, no English versions are infallible and inerrant, all Greek texts are infallible and inerrant, or no Greek text is infallible and inerrant? I was hoping you would identify with specificity your perfect Bible or admit that no such entitity exists for the body of Christ (the church) today...
I can't gather from your posts your position.
A straw dummy argument that keeps arising is the assumed assertion that if a person holds to the KJV as the final 'book of the Lord' for English speaking people, that this means no other language has the book of the Lord. I don't believe that and apparently AV does not either.

natters, You had stated previously in essense that you don't know if scholarship or science will yield new light on manuscript evidence that will affect your belief in Matthew 1:1. You first said you know Matt. 1:1 is God's word by faith. Then you said the 'evidence' confirms this.

This is just one verse out of over 30,000.

Is it possible you don't have all of God's words, or too many of God's words, or some words of man/devils that you think are God's words?

Are you familiar with the fact that all texts are not the same and all versions are not the same?

Help me understand your position.
Thanks for your time.

 

I could have, or I could have used French or German or Cree. However, since we both speak English, I figured that would be easiest.

I believe terms like "infallible" and "inerrant" are to be applied to specific aspects of a Bible, not just a Bible as a whole. What I mean by this is that often in these discussions, people think a Bible is either inerrant, or it isn't, period - when in fact in can be inerrant in one aspect and errant in another. For example, a typo in one edition of a Bible means the "ink" is errant, but the inerrant message remains the same as an edition without the typo. Another example: one Bible may read "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ" in Matt 1:1, another read "This is a record of the ancestors of Jesus the Messiah", another "The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ", "A roll of the birth of Jesus Christ", etc., and despite the differences in ink, the message remains the same. So, to answer your question directly, all English versions are infallible and inerrant in their message if properly understood, but no English versions are infallible and inerrant in the sense of the ink on the paper.

I named a specific Bible. I said "The Geneva Bible, for one"

There are many of God's words which I do not have (e.g. see Mark 9:4, John 21:25, etc.). However, I believe I have the words that he intends for me to have.

Acutely, just as I am aware that all KJVs are not the same, yet I can accept any edition of the KJV as the word of God despite these errant (in the ink) differences, and the differences between any edition of the KJV and all the Bibles before it (in any language).

Now for AV's post:

Which is one of the many reasons I reject KJV-onlyism - because the church (the pillar and ground of the truth) rejects KJV-onlyism.

No, I simply meant that individuals are free to accept the canon or not. If they do not, they go against the church, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Did it change much between 1605 and 1611? If not, why don't we simply use the Bible they used in 1605 and accept it as the word of God?

 

natter, that really helps and I do appreciate your time. I am stepping out for several hours but would very much like to continue this discussion. I will post later.
Take care,