The Doctrine of Preservation?

[robycop3]

HG:The only people I see who demand as you do that the language of the KJV is archaic is people who promote 200+ versions of the Bible in English.

OK, lessee your lista 200 English versions. This does not include "editions" of the same version, such as the AV1611 and the 1769 Blayney's edition, nor partial editions. I wanna see a lista 200 SEPARATE English versions or an admission that you're blowing smoke.

 

[Johnv]

... now i suppose you'll blame God that the KJV is still used more than any other version and He isn't able to supercede anything man does.

That's incorrect. The NIV has continually outsold the KJV since 1984. Today, the NIV is the most commonly used English Translation, in additionion to the beign the most commonly purchased.

Newer versions deny this and you say no doctrines are effected by them.

Actually, according to your rationalization, "newer" versions affirm this, and the KJV denies it. Let's see what the NIV (the most commonly used and best selling English translation today) says:

I asked:
What metal is used in Deuteronomy 8:9?
You said:
Iron and an alloy of copper/ brass...
The correct answer:
The Hebrew word for the first metal is Iron. The Hebrew word and context for the second metal is Copper.
The NIV says:
Copper.
The KJV says:
Brass.
By your own standard, the NIV affirm it and the KJV denies it.

I asked:
In Genesis 42:1-3 and 5, what type of food crop is being referred to?
You said:
Grain
The correct answer:
The Hebrew word used here is Grain.
The NIV says:
Grain
The KJV says:
corn
By your own standard, the NIV affirm it and the KJV denies it.

I asked:
In Solomon 2:12, what kind of animal was heard?
You said:
a turtle dove...
The correct answer:
The Hebrew word used here is dove.
The NIV says:
dove
The KJV says:
turtle
By your own standard, the NIV affirm it and the KJV denies it.

I asked:
What was in the offerings described in Leviticus chapter 2 and 14?
You said:
A whole burnt offering is never without the meat offering...
The correct answer:
The Hebrew phrase referrs to an offering of grain.
The NIV says:
a grain offering
The KJV says:
a meat offering
By your own standard, the NIV affirm it and the KJV denies it.

If you wish to discuss in further detail, don't derail this thread, start a new one.

The thread was derailed when your first claimed that the doctrine of presevation referrs to only the KJV. Yet, by your standards, the KJV fails the preservation test, which means that your standard for preservation is wrong.

 

[Harold Garvey]

HG:The only people I see who demand as you do that the language of the KJV is archaic is people who promote 200+ versions of the Bible in English.

OK, lessee your lista 200 English versions. This does not include "editions" of the same version, such as the AV1611 and the 1769 Blayney's edition, nor partial editions. I wanna see a lista 200 SEPARATE English versions or an admission that you're blowing smoke.

Start here and don't miss "More...." at the bottom of the page:http://www.tyndalearchive.com/Scriptures/index.htm

 

[Harold Garvey]

That's incorrect. The NIV has continually outsold the KJV since 1984. Today, the NIV is the most commonly used English Translation, in additionion to the beign the most commonly purchased.

Then as you presume the NIV to be "better" and in more hands, why is the world going further into an apostate condition?

you cannot blame the lack of sales on the KJV, but you can include the NIV on the list of possibilities.:smilewinkgrin:

Actually, according to your rationalization, "newer" versions affirm this, and the KJV denies it. Let's see what the NIV (the most commonly used and best selling English translation today) says:

I asked:
What metal is used in Deuteronomy 8:9?
You said:
Iron and an alloy of copper/ brass...
The correct answer:
The Hebrew word for the first metal is Iron. The Hebrew word and context for the second metal is Copper.
The NIV says:
Copper.
The KJV says:
Brass.
By your own standard, the NIV affirm it and the KJV denies it.

No, actually, and with other versions which hold true to the context, the KJV has it right and the NIV is simplistic rationalization from a depraved mind.

I asked:
In Genesis 42:1-3 and 5, what type of food crop is being referred to?
You said:
Grain
The correct answer:
The Hebrew word used here is Grain.
The NIV says:
Grain
The KJV says:
corn
By your own standard, the NIV affirm it and the KJV denies it.

The KJV uses grain, correctly, then also makes the cultrual insertion as a nuance to aptly relate the term in English, yet according to other cultures understanding.

"Grain" alone is too vague, but maybe that's what you like a "VAGUE" Bible!:smilewinkgrin:

I asked:
In Solomon 2:12, what kind of animal was heard?
You said:
a turtle dove...
The correct answer:
The Hebrew word used here is dove.
The NIV says:
dove
The KJV says:
turtle
By your own standard, the NIV affirm it and the KJV denies it.

In its poetic vernacualr the KJV is not at all wrong to use the term "TURTLE" TO represent the turtle dove.

Again you applaud the vagueness of the NIV. The dove could be any one of the many different doves in this day and time the Song was penned. the KJV makes a distinction and you object!:smilewinkgrin:

I asked:
What was in the offerings described in Leviticus chapter 2 and 14?
You said:
A whole burnt offering is never without the meat offering...
The correct answer:
The Hebrew phrase referrs to an offering of grain.
The NIV says:
a grain offering
The KJV says:
a meat offering
By your own standard, the NIV affirm it and the KJV denies it.

No, by the implication of the whole burnt offering you would like to confuse the reader to think meat was omitted and only grains were used, that is a BIG error on your behalf and it also makes your applauded version WRONG!

The thread was derailed when your first claimed that the doctrine of presevation referrs to only the KJV. Yet, by your standards, the KJV fails the preservation test, which means that your standard for preservation is wrong.

Your type is the only people I know who object to the KJV being a fine example of preservation of the Bible.

I have shown the reasons the KJV is that fine example of preserving the full intent of each passage you bring into question and you still deny it.

Your thinking is too much akin to a derailed mind's way of rationalization of the truth.

 

[Harold Garvey]

Turlte dove

Somethign of distinction about the turtle dove and WHY the KJV has it RIGHT:"Emblems of love

The Turtle Dove by Sophie Gengembre Anderson.Perhaps because of these biblical references (especially the well known verse from the Song of Songs), but also because of its mournful voice and the fact that it forms strong pair bonds, Turtle Doves have become emblems of devoted love. In Renaissance Europe the Turtle Dove was envisaged as the devoted partner of the phoenix. Robert Chester's poem Love's Martyr is a sustained exploration of this symbolism. It was published along with other poems on the subject, including William Shakespeare's poem "The Phoenix and the Turtle" (where "turtle" refers to the turtle dove).

The Turtle Dove also features in a number of folk songs about love and loss. One of these is well known in a setting by Ralph Vaughan Williams.[2] The turtle dove is also often mentioned as one's object of love in later popular song lyrics, most commonly in the 1950s and 60s, such as "The way I walk" by Jack Scott; ("Come on and be my little turtle dove"), "Woman Love" by Gene Vincent ("I want a loving baby to call me turtle dove") and "Bachelor Boy" by Cliff Richard ("Then I'll get married have a wife and a child, And they'll be my turtle doves").

Turtle Doves also feature in the song "The Twelve Days of Christmas", as the gift "my true love gives to me" on the second day of Christmas; by the end of the song, she ends up with 22 of them.

Both Buddy Holly's hit 1957 song "That'll Be the Day" and Alabama's 1983 hit Dixieland Delight refer to affection as "turtle doving".

In the film "Home Alone 2: Lost In New York" starring Macaulay Culkin and Joe Pesci, Mr. Duncan, the toy store owner of Duncan's Toy Chest, tells Kevin MacCallister (Culkin) about the friendship and love bond between two turtle doves. He gives Kevin a tree ornament of a pair of turtle doves and tells Kevin to keep one and give one to someone special, explaining that as long as each has the ornament their friendship will be forever. At the film's conclusion, Kevin gives one of the turtle doves to the Central Park pigeon woman, who helps save him from the two bandits."

I guess the intention behind the NIV is to cause people to become unfamiliar with the word of God by the above reference showing this to be a strong implication of such deviant practice!:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Johnv]

Then as you presume the NIV to be "better" and in more hands, why is the world going further into an apostate condition?

Since only 20% of the world speaks English, the state of worldwide apostacy cannot be blamed on English translations.

you cannot blame the lack of sales on the KJV, but you can include the NIV on the list of possibilities.

Yet you cited the popularity of the KJV as support for its superiority.

(regarding Deuteronomy 8:9 and te KJV's use of the word "brass") No, actually, and with other versions which hold true to the context, the KJV has it right and the NIV is simplistic rationalization from a depraved mind.

No, the KJV got it wrong. The Hebrew word is "nchosheth", which means "copper". The Jews dug copper out of the ground, not brass. Brass is a man-made alloy (which, btw, was not known to the Jews of the day).

(regarding Genesis 42:1-3 and the KJV's use of the word "corn") The KJV uses grain, correctly, then also makes the cultrual insertion as a nuance to aptly relate the term in English, yet according to other cultures understanding. "Grain" alone is too vague, but maybe that's what you like a "VAGUE" Bible!

You're dead-wrong there, on two counts. The KJV does not use the word "grain", it uses the word "corn". Corn was not known to the Jews. It was not known to that part of the world until about the 13th century. Also, the Hebrew word used is "bar", which simply means "grain" ini general, not a specific kind of grain. Your assertion of "grain" being "vague" is contrary to what was written.

In its poetic vernacualr the KJV is not at all wrong to use the term "TURTLE" TO represent the turtle dove.

The "turtle dove" is a species of dove common in England when the KJV was translated (it was also a symbol of love in 17th century England). The Hebrew word does not say what kind of dove it is, neither did OT Jews equate the turtle dove to love. The Hebrew word here simply means "dove". If any other translation were to infuse "poetic vernacular"l, you would decry it as an inferior translation.

(in regards to Leviticus chapter 2 and 14 using the phrase "meat offering") No, by the implication of the whole burnt offering you would like to confuse the reader to think meat was omitted and only grains were used, that is a BIG error on your behalf and it also makes your applauded version WRONG!

This demonstrates your obvious lack of KJV English. The word "meat" once had the definition of tribute. The phrase "meat offering" in Old English meant "tribute offering". It does not mean "flesh" here. In the Hebrew, it was a tribute offering of grains.

Your type is the only people I know who object to the KJV being a fine example of preservation of the Bible.

I don't object to the KJV being a good example. I object to the notion that the KJV must be considered doctrinally superior to all translations.

I have shown the reasons the KJV is that fine example of preserving the full intent of each passage you bring into question and you still deny it.

That's not what I asked for. I asked for scriptural support for the notion that that the KJV must be considered doctrinally superior to all translations.

 

[Tom Bryant]

So John, you making any headway? :tongue3:

 

[Johnv]

So John, you making any headway? :tongue3:

Obviously not. [Personal attack snipped]

 

[Harold Garvey]

Since only 20% of the world speaks English, the state of worldwide apostacy cannot be blamed on English translations.

Within the English speaking realm it still holds true no matter how much you play devil's advocate.

Yet you cited the popularity of the KJV as support for its superiority.

Due reason

No, the KJV got it wrong. The Hebrew word is "nchosheth", which means "copper". The Jews dug copper out of the ground, not brass. Brass is a man-made alloy (which, btw, was not known to the Jews of the day).

You've got your head in the sand of irrationality.

brass and bronze both are historically correct, copper is less than accurate.

You're dead-wrong there, on two counts. The KJV does not use the word "grain", it uses the word "corn". Corn was not known to the Jews. It was not known to that part of the world until about the 13th century. Also, the Hebrew word used is "bar", which simply means "grain" ini general, not a specific kind of grain. Your assertion of "grain" being "vague" is contrary to what was written.

http://www.biblegateway.com/topical/Corn/Nave

Your refusal of language usage is putrid.

The "turtle dove" is a species of dove common in England when the KJV was translated (it was also a symbol of love in 17th century England). The Hebrew word does not say what kind of dove it is, neither did OT Jews equate the turtle dove to love. The Hebrew word here simply means "dove". If any other translation were to infuse "poetic vernacular"l, you would decry it as an inferior translation.

[Personal attack snipped]

The turtle dove also migrates through Turkey and Africa.

This demonstrates your obvious lack of KJV English. The word "meat" once had the definition of tribute. The phrase "meat offering" in Old English meant "tribute offering". It does not mean "flesh" here. In the Hebrew, it was a tribute offering of grains.

Give tribute to whom tribute is due. The reference found in the passage is of the meat offering which is the shadow of the body of Christ without the atoning blood present. your implying the Lord didn't even know what he was foreshadowing and according to the prophetic aspect of the Prophetic Book we all know as the Holy Bible.

[Personal attack snipped]

I don't object to the KJV being a good example. I object to the notion that the KJV must be considered doctrinally superior to all translations.

Your words hang you.

That's not what I asked for. I asked for scriptural support for the notion that that the KJV must be considered doctrinally superior to all translations.

Of course you got what you didn't ask for, it's your dperaved way of denying the very facts that prove your fallacious ideas so WRONG.

You demand a version to fit your limited view of historical proofs of the cultural nuances of translation and word usage. [Personal attack snipped]

 

[Harold Garvey]

[attack snipped]

 

[Mexdeaf]

Don't need arms to let the Lord defeat your stupendous lack of knowledge.

Your knowledge only lets you go as far as a limited intellect and the failure of receiving of facts will let you go, and sadly that is into the realm of idiocy.

Personal attacks reported.

 

[Johnv]

Anyhoo, getting nack to the OP, the doctrine of preservation isn't a core scriptural doctrine, and is not a Baptist Distinctive. As such, it falls under the purvue of invididual liberty.

Many of the verses cited prior aren't referencing scripture as we canonically know it. Most of scripture had not even been penned yet.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Personal attacks reported.

Attack noted.

 

[Harold Garvey]

Anyhoo, getting nack to the OP, the doctrine of preservation isn't a core scriptural doctrine, and is not a Baptist Distinctive. As such, it falls under the purvue of invididual liberty.

Many of the verses cited prior aren't referencing scripture as we canonically know it. Most of scripture had not even been penned yet.

Does this make you a B D onlyist?

the problem you niow have is there are Baptists adding the doctrine of preservation into the Baptist Distinctives. Of course this is to the objection of many, like yourself.

I see what I showed as the many versions in English has gone without challenge, but the nature of the beast carries on as usual.

Since preservation is a means of conservatism, objections to its being a distinctive indicates anti-conservatism.

 

[Johnv]

the problem you niow have is there are Baptists adding the doctrine of preservation into the Baptist Distinctives. Of course this is to the objection of many, like yourself.

What churches are adding this to the distinctives? Certainly, none in this thread. The doctrine of preservation is not a scriptural essential doctrine, nor is it a doctrine of the Baptist Distinctives. Individual Baptists are permitted to believe in it or not as a matter of individual soul liberty, the same way that individuals are permitted to believe in calvinism, arminiamisn, preterism, pre-mil rapture, etc. They're all nonessentials, not a doctrinal requirement of Scripture or of being a Baptist.

Since preservation is a means of conservatism, objections to its being a distinctive indicates anti-conservatism.

On the contrary. Adding a doctrine to the distinctives violates the Distinctive of Individual Soul Liberty, and is thereby liberal. Allowing a person to decide for themselves where they stand on the issue is consistent with the Distinctive of Individual Soul Liberty, and therefore ategorically conservative.

 

[Harold Garvey]

What churches are adding this to the distinctives? Certainly, none in this thread.

you make a good observation: no churches have spoken here, but then again, I've never heard a building speak before either.

The doctrine of preservation is not a scriptural essential doctrine, nor is it a doctrine of the Baptist Distinctives.

yes, i see just where you're coming from on this one, most I know believe it is a very impiortant distinctive. People like you who promote multi-English versions don't believe it is relevent or important.

Individual Baptists are permitted to believe in it or not as a matter of individual soul liberty, the same way that individuals are permitted to believe in calvinism, arminiamisn, preterism, pre-mil rapture, etc. They're all nonessentials, not a doctrinal requirement of Scripture or of being a Baptist.

yes, you're exactly correct, again, especially when it's a "pick and choose" religion".

You have a cunning way of providing evidences of just what is wrong with Baptists in general. You deserve an award.

On the contrary. Adding a doctrine to the distinctives violates the Distinctive of Individual Soul Liberty, and is thereby liberal. Allowing a person to decide for themselves where they stand on the issue is consistent with the Distinctive of Individual Soul Liberty, and therefore ategorically conservative.

What I've found to the contrary of soul liberty is just what you seem to think it is. it is not liberty to choose something against Scripture. Since His word is forever settled in heaven and our model prayer is for things on earth to be as it is in heaven, you promoting apostacy against the very model prayer Jesus gave us all.

I'm at liberty to obey the word of God and fulfill every jot and tittle of the law in Christ, not to pick and choose what I believe and what is also contrary to the Bible.

BTW, I can get that doctrine of preservation aspect from nearly any version.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Harold Garvey]

Oh, also, I see you're not continuing with this "HG is this fellow Salamander" witchhunt.

 

[Johnv]

yes, i see just where you're coming from on this one, most I know believe it is a very impiortant distinctive. People like you who promote multi-English versions don't believe it is relevent or important. yes, you're exactly correct, again, especially when it's a "pick and choose" religion".

The doctrine of preservation is NOT a Baptist Distinctive. That's a matter of fact, not a matter of belief.

What I've found to the contrary of soul liberty is just what you seem to think it is. it is not liberty to choose something against Scripture.

Indivisual Soul Liberty dictates, among other things, that an individual is to be allowed liberty to decide nonessential beliefs for themselves. Preservation is a nonessential. It is not a core doctrine of scripture.

Oh, also, I see you're not continuing with this "HG is this fellow Salamander" witchhunt.

I never voiced my opinion on whether you are Salamander or not. In the end, it won't matter, since I suspect you will be banned quite soon (given that fact that you've had multiple posts edited, that you've already been warned by a moderator, and that your pattern of posts shows no desire to accommodate the moderators).

 

[Harold Garvey]

The doctrine of preservation is NOT a Baptist Distinctive. That's a matter of fact, not a matter of belief.

My beliefs are awarded facthood when they are facts. they are distinctive.

Indivisual Soul Liberty dictates, among other things, that an individual is to be allowed liberty to decide nonessential beliefs for themselves.

Liberty now dictates? I believe you mean lawlessness.

ISL is submission to the authority who grants the freedom to choose according to the dictates of the law and remaining within boundaries of the law. It never tells the authority what it will and won't do.

Preservation is a nonessential. It is not a core doctrine of scripture.

It is core in principle which makes for doctrine. It is profitable that the word of God is beneficial to all to adhere to its doctrines.

Preservation is essential. It is taught throughout the Scripture.

To be forever settled means it is forever preserved. Jesus tells us as a model for prayer for things to be on earth as it is in heaven. What you're saying gopes against the very model of prayer Jesus told his disciples to use as a guide in praying.

I never voiced my opinion on whether you are Salamander or not. In the end, it won't matter, since I suspect you will be banned quite soon (given that fact that you've had multiple posts edited, that you've already been warned by a moderator, and that your pattern of posts shows no desire to accommodate the moderators).

Quick to judge aren't we, my Brother. Your insertion shows your desire. the only reason behind your remarks are you also want me banned because I challenged you and the falseness of your belief system on preservation.

What is telling is only your kind has brought up the subject of having me banned and voiced a desire to have it this way.

I wonder, are sinners allowed in your congregation or do you do a theological investigation upon every person who walks through the door?

You put the framework into play to describe a patternwork, then you voice your expectations. Your psots have been edited for your attacks, you then will soon be banned as well according to your thinking.

I can be mistaken, but on this I am not.

 

[Deacon]

My beliefs are awarded facthood when they are facts. they are distinctive.

No, no, ya gotta stop! my gut's hurting from laughing so hard.

Rob