Which KJV is Preserved?

Quote. I am not implying anything. I am stating clearly that I believe the KJV to be the culmination of the preservation process that God promised us in His Word. The English forerunners were a "work in progress."

Amen PastorBob, but I dont agree with the NKJV as being trustworthy; it has RSV, and NASV readings inserted in it.(Galatians 5:9)

[ November 05, 2002, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: Japheth ]

 

I am going to have to ask you to stop calling into question God's Word. God promised he would preserve it in Psalm 12:6-7. He foresaw english as the primary language. The NKJV uses english that everyone else uses. Therefore, if you are not NKJVO, you are not utilizing the best that God has given us. The KJV and all 14 of its revisions were merely part of the process of the NKJV.

 

I am going to have to ask you to stop calling into question God's Word. God promised he would preserve it in Psalm 12:6-7.

I dont have to question God's word; I HAVE IT in the KJV. Yes God promised to preserve his word alright, but not with RSV & NASV readings from corrupt Texts that came from Gnostics & Philosophers from Alexandria, Egypt.(GAL 5:9)

[ November 05, 2002, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: Japheth ]

 

Pastor Bob;
This is not a trick question. Do you believe that the Septuagint was actually written before the first century or that it is a fake, like some others I've heard?

Also, do you believe that it was used by Jesus and possibly even quoted by him and do we find some of those quotes in old manuscripts (or would we probably find them in the original manuscripts if they were not lost)? I know this seems off subject, but I think it has a relation to our Bible today. Just curious.....
THanks

 

I'm not denying your right to your opinion. You have every right to be incorrect.

I'm just asking for some rational, objective grounds for your belief that the process was completed in 1611, rather than continuing as it did over the centuries prior to that date as your own list indicates that it did.

I hate to be redundant, but you're the one claiming that the process is complete. The burden of proof is on you to show some evidence apart from your own opinion that the process is culminated in the KJV.

It could be? But you just got done saying that you believe the KJV is the culmination! You can't have it both ways.

Out of curiosity, if you do believe that another translation could improve on the KJV, how will you recognize that translation as an improvement. What are the criteria you use?

Let me know when you all get started so I can enjoy seeing it all take place.

[ November 05, 2002, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: Siegfried ]

 

So does the 1611. Smack dab in the margins, just like the NKJV. I am glad the king james version has finally gotten back to its roots.

 

Pastor Bob, I don't mean to put you on the spot, but you have made some very contradictory statements. Below are some statements you made in other threads, each followed by a comment from me, based on what you've said in this thread:

"There are those who will attribute to us the belief that God has not preserved His Word until 1611. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Only one that is grossly unapprised of the KJVO position would even suggest that."

Yet in this thread you are saying that God's word wasn't perfectly preserved before 1611, that the KJV improved on everything before it.

"God Himself has overseen the preservation of His Word. He has preserved the text of the OT and NT in a very pure form and it has been readily available to Christians in every age for the past 2000 years."

In that quote you said "God himself" and "very pure", yet in this thread you seem to imply that God himself needed several tries to get it right, and that those "very pure" Bibles weren't actually very pure at all, but all needed to undergo purification.

"We serve a God that never changes; why do we need a Bible that is constantly changing?"

Yet in this thread, you are arguing for a Bible that was constantly changing, constantly improving.

"quite simply, the answer is, "yes" there was a perfect God before 1611. "Yes" there was a perfect Bible before 1611."

Yet in this thread you say there wasn't a perfect Bible before 1611, that the culmination wasn't reached until after 1611.

"A common misconception about the KJVO philosophy is that we are presumed to believe that the KJV is the first and only perfect Word of God. That is simply not true."

Yet in this thread you are saying the KJV *is* the first and only perfect word of God, as its predecessors were not perfect and were in need of further purification.

 

[Confrontation based on a problem resulting from a misunderstanding deleted]

[ November 06, 2002, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: Siegfried ]

 

Amazing Siegfried...?

 

Amazing Siegfried...? </font>[/QUOTE]Well, not really. I do believe in total depravity, after all.

 

Pastor Bob, I think I'm finished with this for now. I must say that I'm a bit disappointed with the "solution" you've provided. The only other preacher I know of who believes the KJV purifies everything before it is Dr. Ruckman.

 

Again, I also believe in God's preservation promise, and find no fault in it. I think some simply have a wrong understanding of that promise. Maybe it would help if I asked you simple questions and you provided simple answers. Like, where the KJV differs from the TR, which is correct and which is incorrect? Or, was there, or was there not, a "perfect Bible" before 1611?

[ November 05, 2002, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

Hi,

Interesting topic. I'm kind of with Pastor Bob on this, although a bit more "extreme". Which AV is preserved? I believe there are two: the 1769, Benjamin Blaney, Oxford; and another of similar date, done in Cambridge. Which of these is the very words of God? Both of them. Wherever the texts differ from one another (hardly ever!), then both are true. All the differences are extremely slight, no doctrine is weakened by any differences, nothing is written contradicts the rest, and the wording is always true.

The same argument applies to the various editions done since 1611. They're all the perfect word of God. To show otherwise, you'll need to show us something that was written that wasn't actually true. BrianT asked why the printers weren't providentially guided by God to make no errors. Well, the same reason he didn't make sure all the copiers of the Greek manuscripts didn't make any errors. Of course there were errors. All I argue is that God worked in spite of these errors to preserve a perfect Bible.

The only basic difference between AVOs like myself, and most others, is that we believe God preserved his words perfectly (this could, conceievably, be in just one copy). The others believe he did not, and instead allowed it to become irreversibly corrupted. That's the difference.

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

 

The issue is much more than what is true and doesn't contradict the rest. "Preservation" is about accurately representing what was originally written. If someone re-wrote John 3:16 to say "Two plus two is four and pigs don't fly", that would be entirely true and wouldn't contradict the rest of scripture. Yet it would hardly be "the very words of God".

Do you understand the difference between "preserve" and "improve"?

 

Pastor Bob,
If the AV has at least 147 demonstrable changes to the text, how do you dare say God perfectly preserved the wording?

 

I appreciate your transparency and humble spirit. Thanks also for helping clear up the misunderstanding in our PMs.

I will edit my previous posts to reflect the resolution of our disagreement.

[ November 06, 2002, 09:47 AM: Message edited by: Siegfried ]