Question about PRESERVATION!?!

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Butterflies4mami, Jan 4, 2004.

  1. Butterflies4mami

    Butterflies4mami
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Messages:
    137
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've noticed all the debating surrounding the KJVO issue, and must confess I have learned quite a bit by reading and not debating.
    This is my question:
    If God promised to preserve His Word and we are to pattern our lives after the Bible, then when can we and when can we not apply the Scriptures literally to our life?
    If the arguement is, " that was written in a different time to a different people", then WHEN does it apply to us? If "whosoever will" apllies to us, then why not "abstain from the appearance of evil" or " let her ask her husband at home", or "not to usurp authority over a man", etc. etc...
    My point is not really each of these sperate issues per se, but instead the philosophy behind what is & is not meant for us today!
    In Christ,
    Peggy [​IMG]
    PS. What about all the teaching of preservation? Are only the salvation passages preserved?
     
  2. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
     
  3. LRL71

    LRL71
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    0
    </font>[/QUOTE]:cool:

    Absolutely on target, Dr. Griffin! Glad to have you quote the former moderator, as this is the best concise definition of the terms for each listed above.

    I would like to add to what was asked by the original post of this thread regarding "Preservation". This should not be confused with "Inspiration", "Infallibility", or "Inerrancy". I hope that Dr. Griffin will also post something about each as they relate to Bible doctrines. Let's say that the debate with KJV-onlyists (and their counterparts, KJV-preferred's) is that "Preservation" can also be made as a Bible doctrine on the level of Inspiration, Inerrancy, and Infallibility. Specifically, they interpret "preservation" with the idea that God somehow preserved the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts in a way that the KJV reflects the original text(s) as closest (if not, identical with) the original manuscripts that were inspired by God. KJV-p's and KJV-o's will prove that such a doctrine exists by quoting Scripture to prove their 'doctrine' of preservation.

    Those of us who do not hold to their view of preservation will disagree, although some will still make the case of 'preservation' being in the category of a doctrine, but not interpret such a doctrine as to mean what the KJV-o's and KJV-p's hold to (sort of a generalized preservation doctrine that does not specifially target the preference of any text-type, but that God has preserved the biblical texts). Those, who like myself, who do not hold to any biblically based doctrine of preservation will hold to what was described above by Dr. Cassidy's description of preservation, in that it can be observed that God has preserved the text of the Old and New Testaments so that they are with us today, although not in a pure form as would be reflected in the original manuscripts (this is why textual criticism is so necessary!). I hope that I am conveying this well and being even-handed to both sides in the descriptions of each position.
     
  4. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    All teachings in the Bible in one way or another are there for our edification. Every single command in the New Testament applies to us, anything cultural that didn't apply to us was not included in the canon.

    People ignore parts of scripture they don't want to bother with, its really that simple. It's not just women's issues, when's the last time you saw anyone turn the other cheek? Such behavior should be commonplace, but it's just not. What does that mean? I have no idea.

    God was smart enough to tell us what He wants us to do, we just need to do it without grasping at every excuse to explain away everything difficult.

    Joh 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

    1Jo 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.

    1Jo 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

    How am I doing? Not too well, worse than you think. But what I will not do is pretend I'm doing OK by explaining away everything difficult.

    I'm sure someone will pipe up about grace and how we don't need to be too concerned about obedience. It's true, grace is key: not to slothful rebellion but rather to serving the Lord as He deserves. We have not resisted unto blood, striving against sin.
     
  5. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    timothy 1769 said:

    I'm sure someone will pipe up about grace and how we don't need to be too concerned about obedience.

    Since there is no commandment to pay the KJV some special respect that we would not pay to the NIV or NASB, it is not "obedience." It is "letting KJV-onlyists get their way."

    Phooey on 'em.
     
  6. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sure, I'm not really addressing textual or translational issues here.
     
  7. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Same goes for "preservation" issues. We're not bound by any Scripture to swallow the KJV-onlyists' version of that, either.
     
  8. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    </font>[/QUOTE]Hey! He's my Bible and Theology teacher here at the Seminary. It's a small world. Where did you get that quote? Was it from something he posted on here before he left? (When we asked permission to create an account on the Seminary LAN for the Baptist Board he gave his permission but walked away muttering to himself.) [​IMG]
     
  9. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    </font>[/QUOTE]Will you allow me to ask a question as a basis of my response to the question posed by Butterflies4mami ?

    Can we agree that translations do partake of derivative inspiration? That is, a "copy" or a "translation" is the Word of God to the degree that it reflects and reproduces the original text.

    The Bible is the inspired Word of God because it was translated from words which were breathed out by God, and because those words did not lose their inspiration when they were translated. The quality of inspiration was not lost from the words that were accurately translated.

    I am in no way aruging for "double-inspiration" or that the translators were used by God to "reinspire" the Word of God. The fact is that the words of God were already inspired before the translators ever read them.

    It is my conviction that the doctrine of inspiration demands the doctrine of preservation. The only reason for God to have His Word written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit was so that it would be preserved for all future generations.

    There is a logical and necessary linkage of these two doctrines. God did not lose His perfect words after taking special care in superintending the words as they were written, guaranteeing that the words written were His own words.

    Consider these quotes by men much more learned than myself:
    Now to the question posed in the opening post:
    I believe the answer is quite simple; you can safely apply all of God's Word to your life. The Bible itself is very clear on this matter. Consider these verses:
    Matthew 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them , I will liken him unto a wise man...

    Psalm 119:9 Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word.

    These verses and a host of others more than affirm the wisdom of applying God's Word to your life. How much Scripture is applicable to you and I today? II Timothy 3:16 " All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

    Peggy, God has given you and I every resource necessary to live a life that is pleasing to God. He tells us that we are to live by "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." What kind of God would make that specification and then not give us those very words so that we may indeed live by them?
     
  10. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Doc Cassidy and I are cyber-friends and have met and shared a cup of coffee. He is more rigid in the KJV paradigm than I am (obviously) and was here on the BB for many years.

    Simply got tired of fighting some of the "control-freaks" here and walked away. He still posts on the FFF (FundamentalistsForums) and we are involved in a discussion on preservation there.

    You can learn much from him. Just DON'T let him try to teach you how to drive a Harley. You don't want your leg in a cast . .
     
  11. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    AMEN Pastor Bob. While we are not exactly on the same position on the KJVonly compendium, we certainly agree here 100%.

    And how thankful we should be to have so many good English translations of God's Word . . when other language groups don't even have John 3:16 translated for them.

    I say this to our shame.
     
  12. LRL71

    LRL71
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    0
    I hate to be the one to split hairs over someone's words, but I have a few questions about the above comments (I have already read Dr. Griffin's gracious reply from a later post on this thread)

    What is exactly meant by "derivative inspiration"?? In the paradigm of KJV-onlyists, this would mean that even the words of manuscripts (and even a translation: the KJV) are 'inspired'. Let's be careful here! Inspiration only applies to the original autographs, and cannot be construed to mean that the quality of the manuscripts or even translations are 'inspired' by God. This can become a technical point, but nevertheless the KJVo's have merged the biblical doctrine of inspiration into a 'supernaturally preserved' King James Bible!

    Another point, where would one 'logically' presume that inspiration would lead one to develop a Bible doctrine of 'preservation'. So far, I haven't seen a single text of Scripture that states that God would supernaturally preserve the Bible text. To go even further, there is no Scripture reference that God would supernaturally preserve the Bible text perfectly so as to have preserved the extant manuscripts to read exactly like the original autographs. Thirdly, one cannot construe the Bible to say that God had supernaturally preserved the Bible text in any one text family (i.e.-- a majority of NT manuscripts or through the Alexandrian text type). Yes, another technical point, but one that KJV-onlyists continue to blur: They believe that God supernaturally preserved the text of the Bible into the translation of the King James Bible. I would also add that Pastor Bob's church's website has this in their doctrinal statement: We believe the Bible has been supernaturally preserved in the Textus Receptus (traditional Received Text), and therefore has been preserved for the English-speaking people in the Authorized King James Version. We endorse only the King James Version and faithful translations of the Textus Receptus in other languages as being the Word of God. It is rather presumptive to assume that God supernaturally preserved the Bible into the KJV, especially when the Scriptures are silent about preservation as how the KJV-onlyist would define it. To have this in a church doctrinal statement is equating their doctrine of preservation equal to that of the historical Christian doctrine of Inspiration, Inerrancy, and Infallibility. Does one have some special knowledge of prophecy that God has done what the KJV-onlyist says? May it never be! This is obviously heresy!

    It can be observed that the text of the Hebrew/Aramaic OT and the Greek NT are with us today, despite the volume of errors that have crept into the text through the transmission of the Bible text through the manuscripts. If one demands of God to make sure that we have exactly what was in the autographs, then we are most certainly doomed to uncertainty since there are no two manuscripts which read identically. Obviously, this is can become silly, but we know that with the great mountain of textual evidence, the Bible text, in its entirety, is with us today. We are left to pick through, sort, categorize, and argue! about how to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. Will we be absolutely sure that we have been able to root out every error (through our fallible means) to get to what the autographs exactly read? No, certainly not! To assume that the KJV/TR is exactly (or, closest to) the original autographs is certainly a blind leap of idiocy, not of genuine faith. Can we be sure that God has preserved for us the text of the Bible for even us-- today: Yes, but not supernaturally! The faithfulness of scribes throughout the ages have attempted to reproduce (although with errors) the text of the OT/NT has led to the mountain of manuscripts that we have today. Could the Odyssey or Iliad hold such clout? Nope. The importance of the Scriptures being the very Word of God was important to those who handed down through the ages the text of the OT/NT. This is how we know that God has preserved the Bible text to us today.

    [​IMG]
    I've got to get off this infernal computer and go fishin'..... dinner anyone? If you're single & female, let me know [​IMG] !
     
  13. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have! I am amazed at how much knowledge he has accumulated. We ask him a question in class and the stuff just pours out of him!
    That's funny! I wasn't here when he broke his leg, but some of the other students told me it was pretty serious. He was off his feet for over 6 months. But he is back to normal now.

    Both of his Harley's are in a museum! He has had them since he was a kid back in the 1950's. But he still rides his Valkyrie every day! That is one of the most impressive motorcycles I have ever seen. And he is very good at riding it. His wife (who is my CE instructor) goes with him a lot. She seems to have a lot of confidence in his riding ability. I prefer my car. [​IMG]
     
  14. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    I have a clogged toilet in the basement that has the same description! [​IMG]

    (DON'T YOU DARE tell him I said that)
     
  15. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    Too late! He walked into the media room and was reading over my shoulder. He almost hurt himself laughing! He walked out muttering something about "he who laughs last laughs best."
     
  16. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    Yes, that is exactly what I mean when I use the term "derivative preservation." Again I assert, any copy or translation is the Word of God to the degree that it reflects and reproduces the original text. It is my conviction that the KJV does have a derivative preservation. But, that does not refer to the "extent" that it is inspired, but to the "reason" it is inspired. It is inspired to the degree that it accurately represents the original inspired text.

    Maybe should reword your statement to reflect what you actually believe. You should have said, "Inspiration only applied to the original autographs..." Statements like the one you gave lead us to believe that you actually have something that is inspired. Of course I know you don't believe that.

    I, on the other hand, do believe that I have something that is inspired as a result of God's preservation. You see, there is no lesser inspiration or lower degree of inspiration. Inspiration is inspiration. Let me illustrate: I, too, believe that the original autographs were inspired by God. I believe in verbal/plenary inspiration. (For those unfamiliar with this term, it simply means that I believe that all Scripture is equally inspired and that every word of Scripture is inspired.)

    Now, if the scribe who made the first generation copy of the original copied it accurately, then we can rightly say that his copy is the inspired words of God. If the scribe that copied the second generation copied it accurately, then we can rightly say that his copy is the inspired words of God.

    If a man takes an accurate copy and translates it into another language that faithfully represents the accurate copy, we can rightly say that his transaltion is the inspired words of God.

    The Word of God was inspired when it was first given by God to the original penmen. It did not lose its inspiration just because it was copied or translated. Why would it? It did not "expire." As a result, whenever the right readings are found and put together properly, the result is that we have the inspired Word of God. And if that text is then correctly translated into a modern language, it is still the inspired Word of God.

    I think you have generalized a bit here. I can only speak for myself, but I am not limiting this "inspiration" or "preservation" to the KJV. I believe these terms can be applied to any translation that accurately represents the originals.

    The very fact that there is a doctrine of the Canon proves that the ancient church had a doctrine of preservation of Scripture. It is obvious that the ancient church believed God had preserved the thirty-nine books of the OT and the twenty-seven books of the NT.

    Mt 5:18 "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

    This passage reveals the mind of God. He intends to preserve His word. The OT prophecies will not be fulfilled until we are in the new heaven and the new earth. In other words, God will preserve His words forever.

    Mt 24:35 "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

    These words refer to fulfillment and preservation. Those words guarantee that every word of our Scriptures will be preserved and they teach that the Word of God is true.

    John R. Rice, noted in many threads here as a true Fundamentalist and opposed to KJVOism said this regarding this passage and also Mark 13:31 and Luke 21:33:
    Am I to understand that you think that His Word has been lost? Do you think that the church today has God's Word theoretically and not actually?

    God did preserve His Word intact, and I believe He gave the church actual possession of it. God did this by preserving His Word in all of the witnesses. The Greek manuscripts, the ancient versions, the lectionaries, and the writings of the early church fathers all were witnesses to the text.

    Then God taught His people how to know the words of God. There were mistakes made in some of the copies to be sure, but where a mistake was made, God saw to it that it was corrected in other witnesses, and He gave guidance to His people to know the correct reading so that we have the Word of God today.

    Let me say very quickly that it is not my church. The Lord has given me the honor and privilege of Pastoring this group of people. The church is the Lord's; I'm just the undershepherd.

    Again, you are generalizing here. The statement clearly leaves the door open for any and all faithful translations of the proper text.

    Let me say this as kind as I possibly can; if or when the Lord allows you to Pastor, you can put whatever you like in your doctrinal statement. Our's contains what we believe, not what you believe.

    Although I admire your passion of this issue, you are 100% wrong.

    Everything that a supernatural God does He does supernaturally. He may use men to accomplish it but He is still the force behind it.
    John 15:5 ...for without me ye can do nothing.
     
  17. Emily

    Emily
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Messages:
    247
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pastor Bob


    but WHY do you believe that it was the Textus Receptus that is the perfect word of God? WHat proof do you have that this is what God was talking about in those scriptures?
     
  18. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,130
    Likes Received:
    320
    I agree that "derivation" is a good term also in the realm of "inspiration".

    Once we say a translation is inspired then we have the NWT translators (for instance) demanding equal time for their translation.

    In john 1:1 the NWT says …and the word was a god (adding the indefinite article, and – I believe – lower case “g” in “god”). Who are you (who claim translational inspiration) to say that their version is not inspired because it was a common thing for the KJV translators to add indefinite articles where the context required them. This for a very obvious reason, Koine Greek has no indefinite article (“a”) but only the definite article (“the”) . So, Is the NWT inspired? Why or why not? Who makes the rules?

    Somewhere in all this (and IMO), if we are going to use the word “inspired” when referring to a translation, we also need to use a form of the root word “derive”.

    If we believe (as some do) that the KJV or NASB is “inspired” Scripture because of its literal nature, IMO we need to qualify that statement and say that the words are inspired via derivation from the original language texts and the faithfulness thereof to those words. Of course the JW’s attribute a high degree of literalness (perhaps the highest) to their NWT.

    Now of course the KJVO will object that the original language texts are not the original autographs and this is true, so we need further qualification such as – as they are faithful to those original autographs.

    But of course the KJVO are in the same boat with everyone else as there is no original archetype 1611 document (It disappeared by the year 1660) with several revisions since 1611 until now, they have no “sure word of God” to compare any of these editions but simply proclaim the KJV the perfect Word of God and ignore the obvious facts mentioned above and can not tell us which (if any) of the editions is the real thing.

    Besides, even if this document was found what can of worms does this open since it was corrected at least once before it was lost showing that the KJV translators did NOT believe it was perfect infallible and inerrant down to the very words and became "Bible Correctors". Enter now the KJVO double-speak double-standard “things which are different are not the same (unless we say otherwise)” and any one who corrects the Scripture is "antichrist (unless we say different)".

    All that to say again; when speaking of the inspiration of the words of a translation of the Scriptures we (IMO) must carefully define and qualify our terms.

    Yes, you can define or not define “inspired” in relationship to a translation anyway you wish at your local Church without any qualification of terms whatsoever but in so doing you give permission to every cult Tom, Dick and Harry to claim the same.

    Again, my opinion.

    Done blathering.

    HankD
     
  19. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    My bible and theology teacher says:

    1. Originals given by inspiration.
    2. Copies given by preservation.
    3. Translations given by derivation.

    A translation is inspired in that the history recorded in the translation is inspired history, the promises recorded in the translation are inspired promises, and the prophecies recorded in the translation are inspired prophecies.

    But, what must be kept in mind is that the individual words in the translation are not given by inspiration.
     
  20. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,130
    Likes Received:
    320
    Amen (and if they were what would that make the Church of England?).
     

Share This Page

Loading...