Question about PRESERVATION!?!

OK, I'll answer my own question.

If the KJV (1611-1769?) Is the ONLY Word of God authorized by the Holy Spirit then the Church of England MUST (by virtue of the choice the the Holy Spirit) be the ONLY local church on the face of the earth authorized by God (per the claims also of the Church of Rome which was LVO for 1000 years until no one spoke Latin except RCC priests and Doctors writing perscriptions).

HankD

 

It would make the Church of England wrong and apostate. In other words, no difference!

 

Thank You skan,

But how about it KJVOs?

Are you going to join the Anglo-Catholic Church?

If not why not?

HankD

 

We can't! When the bible commands, we obey. When the bible forbids, we obey. When the bible is silent, it behooves us to be silent also.

 

Emily,

Not knowing how well versed you are on this issue makes it rather difficult as to how I should approach the answer to your question. On one hand, I do not want to insult your intelligence by being overly simplistic; on the other hand, I do not want to be too technical as to be beyond your ability to receive and understand the answer. I'll do my best to find a happy medium between the two.

In answer as to why I believe the Traditional Text is the Word of God today, let me explain to you why I believe that God's Word is not preserved in the Critical Text.

1. The newer manuscript evidence (late 15th thru 19th centuries) was discovered in places which I consider as suspicious. I find it very hard to believe that the manuscripts found in Egypt and Rome were copied by Bible-believing Jews. The Jews were God's choice as the preservers of the ancient text. (Romans 3:1-2)

The Traditional Text was copied and preserved by God's people in the earliest centuries of the church, and in the place where believers were first called Christians, where missionary work began, and where many of the original autographs were written.

2. Any honest defender of the Critical Text will admit that two manuscripts are at the heart and core of the text. These are Vaticanus and Siniaticus. Both were discovered late. (A.D. 1480 and A.D. 1859 respectively)The obvious question is, if these two are really the Word of God, why would God allow them to be lost for 950-1200 years? If they were the "best" manuscripts, why were they not available to God's people until lately?

3. Vaticanus contains the Apocrypha as Scripture, and Sinaiticus contains the "Shepherd of Hermas," the "Epistle of Barnabas," and other pseudepigrapha.

At this point, some may argue that the AV 1611 also contained the Apocrypha. That is certainly true, but it was never considered as Scripture. Also the Traditional Text does not include it. The KJV translators added it for its historical value.

4. The readings of the Critical Text are not as old as the readings of the Traditional Text. The ancient versions (the Syriac, the Italic, the Peshitto) most resemble the Traditional Text. These versions are at least 150 years older than "Aleph" or "B."

The writings of the early church fathers also favor the Traditional Text. The NT could be almost completely reconstructed from the quotations of the early church fathers's sermons and writings. These quotations strongly favor the Traditional Text.

I hope that helps you understand my position.

 

I've noticed a trend here on this forum. Everyone responds to the extreme KJVO posts, but a precious few respond to a well-thoughtout post that actually contains substance*. This leads me to the conclusion that there are just as many MV proponents that are unlearned in regards to the textual issue as there are KJVO.


*Not that I am setting up my posts as being exclusively well-thoughtout and with substance, but I try always to teach someone who has a sincere desire to learn. I may have misjudged Emily's motives this time. I think maybe she just wanted to argue. I could have saved myself a lot of time had I realized that sooner.

 

Pastor_Bob,I agree with you 110% .

 

Pastor Bob, if you assert that only the Traditional text is authoritative, or that the Traditional text is more authoritative than others, I can understand that point of view. However, to leap from that to a position that the KJV is the only acceptible translation for all people is simply not biblically founded. Any reasonable translation of the Traditional text would carry the same authoritative weight as the KJV.

 

Emily,

Not knowing how well versed you are on this issue makes it rather difficult as to how I should approach the answer to your question. On one hand, I do not want to insult your intelligence by being overly simplistic; on the other hand, I do not want to be too technical as to be beyond your ability to receive and understand the answer. I'll do my best to find a happy medium between the two.

In answer as to why I believe the Traditional Text is the Word of God today, let me explain to you why I believe that God's Word is not preserved in the Critical Text.

1. The newer manuscript evidence (late 15th thru 19th centuries) was discovered in places which I consider as suspicious. I find it very hard to believe that the manuscripts found in Egypt and Rome were copied by Bible-believing Jews. The Jews were God's choice as the preservers of the ancient text. (Romans 3:1-2)

The Traditional Text was copied and preserved by God's people in the earliest centuries of the church, and in the place where believers were first called Christians, where missionary work began, and where many of the original autographs were written.

2. Any honest defender of the Critical Text will admit that two manuscripts are at the heart and core of the text. These are Vaticanus and Siniaticus. Both were discovered late. (A.D. 1480 and A.D. 1859 respectively)The obvious question is, if these two are really the Word of God, why would God allow them to be lost for 950-1200 years? If they were the "best" manuscripts, why were they not available to God's people until lately?

3. Vaticanus contains the Apocrypha as Scripture, and Sinaiticus contains the "Shepherd of Hermas," the "Epistle of Barnabas," and other pseudepigrapha.

At this point, some may argue that the AV 1611 also contained the Apocrypha. That is certainly true, but it was never considered as Scripture. Also the Traditional Text does not include it. The KJV translators added it for its historical value.

4. The readings of the Critical Text are not as old as the readings of the Traditional Text. The ancient versions (the Syriac, the Italic, the Peshitto) most resemble the Traditional Text. These versions are at least 150 years older than "Aleph" or "B."

The writings of the early church fathers also favor the Traditional Text. The NT could be almost completely reconstructed from the quotations of the early church fathers's sermons and writings. These quotations strongly favor the Traditional Text.

I hope that helps you understand my position. </font>[/QUOTE]Triple Amen!

 

Askjo, please don't quote entire, long posts just to voice your agreement. It's quite annoying to see a new post, scroll through a huge quote, just to get to someone's "amen".

 

John, I assert that the Traditional Text is the text that most accurately reflects the originals. I do not hold the view that the KJV is the only acceptable translation for all people. I agree, that would not be biblically founded.

I agree except I would be more specific and say that any "reliable" translation of the Traditional Text...

 

This is a very interesting comment. You don't hold the view that the KJV is the only acceptable translation, because that "would not be biblically founded". Is it "biblically founded" that the "traditional texts" most accurately reflect the originals? If you reject one view because it is not biblically founded, why do you hold that view about the traditional texts if it too is not biblically founded?

God bless,
Brian

 

</font>[/QUOTE]I agree with Dr. Tom Cassidy - 100%! Amen! What about you, Bob?

 

I have a technical difference (or enhancement) with/to doctors Cassidy and Griffin.
I would add that translations are part of the preservation of God's Word. That is preservation via derivation because presumably translations are ultimately derived from original language MSS.

HankD

 

As has been demonstrated a plethora of times here on the BB, there is no verse in the Word of God that mentions the KJV. I often marvel at the astuteness of those that would hang that challenge out there, because there are countless topics that are not specifically mentioned in the Bible.

It is my conviction that the KJV is but one of many translations that could be named the Word of God. I realize that there were pre-1611 which were the Word of God. Since I believe that the Traditional Text is the Word of God, when it is accurately translated into any language it remains the Word of God.

Yes, and here is why I believe this. The Word of God speaks very clearly of preservation. That means that God's Word is available to me somewhere. Through historical (quotations of the church fathers etc...) and Scriptural (Rom 3:1,2) evidence, it is clear to me that the Traditional Text accurately preserves the originals.

 

I'm curious what biblical principles you derive from Romans 3:1-2 and how you apply them the the current textual debate. I've wondered about this passage myself and what impact it should have on the textual debate.

thanks,
kman

 

I agree. But I also believe the other texts are the word of God as well. I even believe the LXX is the word of God.

Yes, and here is why I believe this. The Word of God speaks very clearly of preservation. That means that God's Word is available to me somewhere. Through historical (quotations of the church fathers etc...) and Scriptural (Rom 3:1,2) evidence, it is clear to me that the Traditional Text accurately preserves the originals. </font>[/QUOTE]I'm sorry, but I don't follow your logic here.