What is preservations?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Salty, Aug 7, 2010.

  1. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,069
    Likes Received:
    216
    We all believe that the Word of God has been preserved.

    However all must admit that no original manuscripts have survived. But supposed they did. How could you proved they were original.
    In Washington we are told that the original Constitution of the US is on display. But how can you prove it? How do we know that it is not a 1812 reprint.

    Next issue - Yes Gods word is preserved- but how literally do we take that. As mentioned above we do not have the autograph. Now does preserved mean word-for word ? That would virtually be impossible with translations from one language to another - and possibly to a third or fourth language.
    Or does preservation simply mean (to use a broad term) the general meaning.

    Matt 24:35 says "...But my words shall not pass away" First, why does Matthew say "words" instead of "word" Is he only referring to the general teaching of Christ? Second, Remember at this time there was not the Bible as we have today.
    So specifically what does "The Preserved Word" mean?
     
  2. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    The preserved word is what GOD has chosen to have been preserved, in the ancient Scriptural mss we have today.

    We know JESUS said MILLIONS of words He didn't preserve. However, every word He chose to have been preserved IS preserved.

    Even if the extant ancient Scriptural mss are not word-for-word with the originals,(something we cannot ascertain without any original) we know they came out as GOD CHOSE.
     
  3. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    I wouldn't agree with this, many say they believe the scriptures are preserved, and in the next breath say the scriptures are full of error.

    Why are you trying to prove it? We are supposed to believe God's promises by faith, not proof. I can't prove God created the universe in six days, but I firmly believe it. I can't prove Noah's flood took place or that God divided they Red Sea, but I firmly believe both.

    Jesus said we are to live by "every word" that proceeds from God's mouth, so I believe it is safe to assume he would preserve every word. Would a just God require us to live by every word and not provide it?

    Now a translation must add words in some instances to make a translation intelligible into the language translated into. But as long as the exact meaning is translated, that is a word for word translation.
     
  4. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Incorrect. It is said that translations may have errors. That is very different than saying scripture has errors.

    I am pretty sure Salty is going rhetorical on this one, mate.

    John tells us in his gospel that not every word of Christ was written down as they would have filled many, many more books. Nor has every single word God has uttered been written down (such as the words He used to bring about creation). Those that have been written have been preserved for us, though.

    If it adds then it is not word for word. That goes completely against the definition of "word for word." 'Literal' would be the word you would use for this. Plus, in translating, there can be multiple words to choose from (especially in English) that all have the same meaning, so how would anyone be able to claim a translation to be "word for word" when there are several words that could fit the bill? That's rhetorical, by the way.
     
  5. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    The original autographs do not exist. If there is preservation, it must exist in the copies. If all of the copies have errors as some insist, then there is not preservation. So, to sincerely believe in preservation, one must believe there exists inerrant copies.

    Perhaps, but I have been asked for proof for what I believe many times by many different posters here. I have said from the beginning I believe God preserved his word by faith, I cannot prove it.

    Common sense would know this speaks of the written, recorded Word.

    Well, the KJBs that I own show all added words in italics. I can then know these words were added by the translators to make the scripture intelligible in English. I often read a verse and omit the italicized words just to see what the word for word translation is.

    I still consider it word for word translation. It is necessary to add words when translating on occasion. As long as the added words do not change the literal meaning of a verse in any way, I consider that accurate. If the added words do change the meaning, that would be a serious matter.

    And you will probably not agree, but I think God had a hand in the KJB translation. No, I do not think the translators were inspired, but I believe God brought about the whole Reformation, the men who started the work earlier and in many instances gave their lives, and I believe God brought the KJB to be for the English speaking peoples, and the spread of the gospel to all nations through the English speaking peoples.

    I can't prove that, but I believe it. One only needs look at history. I do not think it a coincidence that at the same time the KJB was translated that England became the world's first global superpower, taking the scriptures to every continent, and every nation on earth.

    Matt 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
     
  6. jbh28

    jbh28
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, it is the words that are preserved, not a particular copy.

    First it is true that no two particular copies of the Scriptures agree 100% with another. Which means that not one copy is 100% perfect. So, by your(non Bible) definition of preservation, God failed at it. This is the problem with the kjv only position(the one that says that we must have a perfect translation/copy to be preserved). The KJV translators used more than one copy for their work and a Greek NT to match the KJV didn't come for many years after the KJV was finished. So if the KJV is this perfect preservation, it is more like a resurrection as the Scriptures were not preserved before the kjv. Of course this isn't true because this isn't the biblical definition of preservation. Its the "words" that are preserved.


    Proof being biblical proof. You believe the creation by faith in the the Bible says. You believe in the parting of the red sea by faith in the Bible. That's the proof that is required for our biblical beliefs.
    They are added because the literal would change the meaning.
    The KJV is a word for word even with it at times using the dynamic equivalence.
    I'm sure God helped them in translating. But if you mean guiding them to not make any errors to make a perfect translation, then that means they were inspired like the original writers were and that would be double inspiration.

    I can't prove that, but I believe it. [/QUOTE]Cannot prove it from Scripture? Then why believe it then?
     
  7. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    First, I am no scholar, so I cannot say whether all copies agree or not. From what I have read, many copies agreed word for word.

    And just because some copies did contain errors does not mean all did. You are making an assumption not based on fact here.

    You are correct that the KJB translators used many sources to determine what was true scripture and which was not. They had very many tests to determine what was scripture. And it wasn't always what was in the majority. Just because a variant is shown in a majority of texts does not mean it should be there. If for instance a word or phrase was not found in early texts, even though these be a minority of the sources available, it could be shown that an error was introduced that spread into more modern copies, or just happens to be in a majority of the known texts.

    There are books that showed the many tests and safeguards the KJB translators used to determine exactly what was scripture and to weed out error. If I can find a good article on it I will post it here.

    But if you sincerely believe God's promise that he preserved his word, then you must believe God's word was preserved inerrant in some if not many copies.
     
    #7 Winman, Aug 7, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 7, 2010
  8. jbh28

    jbh28
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    You have a source for that? I have never read that. Remember, most copies are only fragments, not full copies of the Scriptures. Even if we did have two copies that were the same, they wouldn't be the full Bible.
    I was referring to the whole Scriptures. I'm sure it's possible that some fragments don't contain any errors.
    Surprised to see you say this. Textual criticism is more than just seeing what is the majority or what is older. There are many other factors that play into it besides these two.
    Yes, I have read about the KJV and it was well done in the way they did the translating work.
    God never promised in the copies. Per the OP, it's the words that are preserved. We know that no full copy of the Scriptures before the KJV is perfect(otherwise the KJV translators would have just used that). God said that his "words" would be preserved and I believe him.
     
  9. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would like to see something that shows where any manuscripts agree 100%, at least any from before the printing press.

    But you have no way of showing that any manuscript is 100% error free other than personal conviction... and the word of some "scholars" from the KJVO crowd.

    Hmmm... that sounds like, [gasp], textual criticism to me. Say it ain't so.

    Which I do without a doubt.

    *Nnnnnrrrrt!* Thanks for playing.

    God promised to preserve His word, not a specific manuscript. His word IS preserved, but not in a way that some, like yourself, are comfortable with. Because of this you and your brethren spin man-made rules and doctrines that support your will and wishes. This works out much like the emperor's new clothes... all nice and shiny in your mind but completely without substance in the real world.

    EDIT: Ninja'd by jbh28
     
    #9 Trotter, Aug 7, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 7, 2010
  10. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, now you are nit-picking. Some churches had some texts but not all. Other churches had other texts but not all. But many agreed word for word.

    If you say you believe in preservation, then you MUST believe that some copies were without error. That is what preservation is.

    When the KJB was translated there were many false texts circulating. They had to have tests to determine which texts were legitimate scripture and which were not. They knew of the Alexandrian texts for example but rejected them.

    What does that mean the words are preserved? Lots of words that are not found in the KJB are still in the English language today.

    If the original autographs do not exist (which they don't) and scripture is preserved (which it is) then it must be preserved in copies. That is plain logic.
     
  11. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Win is 100% in error, without support anywhere. There are 5500 manuscripts and fragments and NOT ONE agree with the another. No two alike. Sorry, but that is solid fact.

    All of God's actual breathed words are there, but sadly not one of the manuscripts does not have added or missing words. Product of falible man making the copies.

    So God gives us a brain and scientific method to compare, contrast, study and evaluate all the "variant" readings. Most are minor differences not amounting to the proverbial hill of beans. A few are major, almost all "additions" by the Byzantine Orthodox church (that used the text until the time of the Reformation). When a scribe saw "Lord Jesus Christ" is a text in Matthew, then in the parallel synoptice account in Mark it only said "Jesus Christ" it was changed to match.

    The newer the text/manuscript is, the more "redaction" (making it jive with other accounts) happens. So we go back to the old copies and find it before all those additions.

    This is hard work. I commend Nestle and the Alands (husband and wife) for the painstaking research. Their compile text is by far the most accurate and closest to the original we have.
     
  12. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    You parrot the same argument as jbh28 that God's "word" is preserved, whatever that means.

    God has always preserved manuscripts.

    Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

    Jesus did not merely speak of words, he spoke of well known and identified books. He spoke of the writings of Jonah, Daniel and many other writers by name. He was not speaking of mere words, but manuscripts, books written by these men and identified as scripture.
     
  13. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    And where is your reputable source for this? I said reputable.
     
  14. jbh28

    jbh28
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Name ONE please.
    the Bible NEVER says that copies would be preserved but WORDS would be preserved. So no, what you said is not what preservation is. Preservation is about the words, not copies.
    Any evidence that they had access and to which texts are you referring to?

    HUH?!?!
    I never said the words were not preserved in the copies. Of course that is where the words are preserved. But these particular copies have errors in them. Even the ones the KJV translators used had errors in them. That's why they had to make textual choices. If they had a perfect copy, they would have used it. Copies can have errors in copying the words, but the original words will always exist as promised.
     
  15. jbh28

    jbh28
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    "these are the words." he very much was speaking about the words and not the paper or whatever it was written on. The writings are the words. you will find these on paper. Are the original manuscripts preserved? If yes, then you have a point. If no, the preservation MUST be about words and not the manuscript.
     
  16. jbh28

    jbh28
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why don't you look at your source and list the two that are alike.
     
  17. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,131
    Likes Received:
    1,301
    God preserved all the words of the original manuscripts in the existing textucopia. Not one word has been lost. That is the whole point of the doctrine of preservation. Those who claim the autographs no longer exist so we can't know simply don't understand preservation.
    Just as God verbally and plenarily inspired His word, so also did He preserve it. Every word inspired by God has been preserved in the existing textucopia available to us today.
    Because God preserved His words.
     
  18. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,131
    Likes Received:
    1,301
    Actually Dr. Bob is wrong. There are several manuscripts that read exactly alike. Remember, many manuscripts are mere fragments, some containing only several dozen words. Also bear in mind that ALL the existing manuscripts agree in over 99.5% of the time. So the most we can accurately say is that no single manuscript or small group of manuscripts is 100% identical with the aggregate of that textform. Also remember that Dr. Bob likes to pontificate regarding that which he has very little first hand information. :)
     
    #18 TCassidy, Aug 7, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 7, 2010
  19. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,131
    Likes Received:
    1,301
    Actually the KJV translators did not use any Greek or Hebrew manuscripts. The used the Bishops Bible and revised it using Bomberg's 2nd Rabbinic Bible and Stephens 1598 Greek New Testament. :)
     
  20. jbh28

    jbh28
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Interesting, I thought they might have had some.
     

Share This Page

Loading...