Article on Biblical Preservation

I wasn't aware that God's Word had died.

 

I'd watch out for that guy. He's a nut!

Lacy Evans

 

Several major problems:

Not true at all. In Psalm 12, God promises to preserve the godly man, as is evidenced by teh context of the Psalm.

Secondly, there is the implication that those who reject the KJVO position reject God's power of preservation and resurrection. Such is not true. We firmly accept God's power of preservation and resurrection.

Thirdly, this article uses bad exegesis and hermeneutics when it uses Israel and Christ's pre-existence to argue for a textual position. Those things are wholly unrelated. They have nothign to do with each other and it undermines the authority of God's word to use it for such.

We have offered firm and clear proof in the NT citations of OT texts. It is quite clear that the two do not match perfectly. Therefore, it is quite clear that God did not use perfect preservation

Furthermore, the implication that the text somehow died and needed to be resurrection is what the KJVOs accuse us of. It is bad argumentation when you use it against us; and it is bad argumentation when you use it in support of yourself.

In a remarkable bit of irony, this author argues that God did in the KJV what this author says he didn't not do in the MVs...namely, restore a lost word. KJVOs routinely blast MV proponents for this supposed "heresy" that God's word was lost and needed to be restored. Yet, this KJVO authority espouses that very view. And why does he pick the KJV as the restoration? Why not the Geneva or the People's, the Mathews or Coverdale, the ASV, the RSV, the NASB, the NIV? Why the KJV? No real reason ... certainly not because God told him to choose the KJV. Not because there is any actual evidence to support this theory ... only because this author has asserted his unsupported opinion as a fact of orthodoxy.

Then this author does not understand the promise of inspiration. Every single person who believes hte historic doctrine of Scripture believes that inspiration ensures inerrancy in teh original autographs. The reason why we believe that the original autographs were not mutiliated is because we believe in teh power of God. God did not, however, tell us that that power was extended to anything other than the autographs. God has, in fact, shown by his providential working in the evidence that the promise cannot be extended beyond that. If you have two manuscripst that do not perfectly match, then one has an error. It does not matter how great or small that error is. It is still an error because it is not perfect. This is faulty thinking demonstrated for us yet again.

And to close with this is icing on the cake. Rather than use Scripture, he appeals to a foolish emotional argument that has no weight for people who think. There is a consistent argument for a false position using bad argumentation, misusing Scripture in an abusive way, and then to close with this argument ... What have we come to???

This article is yet further proof that there is little substance in KJVOnlyism. It is a concoction of man made opinion and faulty thinking, designed to appeal to people's emotions rather than their mind. The legitimate and proper use of Scripture cannot sustain such a doctrine as presented here.

 

That was an interesting article - so there really was no perfect Bible till 1769 and only Oxford got it right then.

Amazing.

 

I'm sure it is a troubling possibility. BTW do you believe there has ever been a perfect Bible?


Lacy

PS I never said there never was a perfect Bible before 1611. I have no idea if there was. I tend to believe that whatever the 1st century Christians carried was perfect too. It sure sparked an incredible world-changing revival.

Lacy

 

Pastor Larry:

Absolutely no such implication intended, brother. Rather, I was counting on our belief in the resurrection to be common ground for debate.

These are not ny primary arguments. (See the 10 commandments and Jeremiah's roll)I specifically called the other arguments "typical".

Even you believe that the Inspired writers could have "inspired paraphrases" don't you?
But notice:
The one time God gives us the chapter number of a verse, the quote is exact in the KJV. (Acts 13:33/Ps 2:7.) The burden of proof is on you to prove that the other quotes were not from other writings. Perhaps Isaiah wrote other books. There are many non-cannonical books mentioned in the OT. Personally, I'll stick with the inspired paraphrases.

Yes I do espouse that view. But I never blast my Christian brothers. (And I'm surely not any kind of "authority". I'm just a simple Baptist Preacher, in a little Baptist church.)

Fruit. Overwhelming Fruit. The same criteria for choosing which books to accept in the cannon. The same criteria for believing the Christian witness in general.

You know what "every single person believes? I doubt it. Show me the vaunted Biblical sanctification of the autographs in scripture. I don't see it.

Perhaps for some, I should state it less poetically. Look for the fruit.

Thanks for reading and at least considering the article Brother Larry. And thanks for the kind debating demeanor. Your post was very Godly, in my opinion.

Pastor Lacy

 

Oh my goodness. He's even taking on the martyr cloak that he will be hated because of his "Bible translation position". His quotes as so far out of context, it only proves that a person can make the scriptures say anything they want to when taken out of context.

"Ressurection and Preservation".....give me a break! Comparing things we believe with textual content (ressurection of the Bible in 1769, wow!)

Did this guy even go to Textual Criticism 101? He must have slept through it.

Wow, THAT is SAD. ...and the sad part, is that he will have followers who believe his "bleeding heart" martyrism of the 1769 KJVo belief.

Sad....sad......sad............

 

Actually, the Oxford got it wrong in Jeremiah 34:16. "But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom he had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids." It should read "ye" instead of "he." The Cambridge of 1762 gets it right as does the edition of 1611. The Hebrew is plural so it cannot read "he" as the Oxford reads.

 

Okay, okay, so its the Cambridge 1762 that is 100% accurate?

You know, KJVo's would like us to believe that we are arguing the inerrancy of God's Word. This is not the case at all.

 

Where in the world did I ever say anything like that in the article? If you are referring to the 1st scripture reference, it certainly had nothing to do with my being hated. READ! God preserves our hair by raising us up!

I'm glad I'm here to defend myself. Either you are making it up or you are skimming and not reading.

Lacy

 

Where did you ever get Jeremiah's autograph? I'll bet that thing is worth a fortune. There is no such thing as "The" Hebrew. There's lots of them.

Lacy

 

Well, Lacy, you might say that, but look at your article from the top down. As a former news reporter you write with an inverted pyramid style which tells the major items first, going to the details later. Looks like an inverted pyramid. By using this thought on your article, just look:


"
RESURRECTION! THE BIBLICAL METHOD OF PRESERVATION, BY PASTOR LACY EVANS


RESURRECTION!

The Biblical Method of Preservation
by: Pastor Lacy Evans

Luke 21:
17 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake.
18 But there shall not an hair of your head perish. "


Now, considering your title, who the article is by and the first sentence quoted right out of the Bible, what would you think it is referring to? That is up to you thought, but it does seem a bit misleading to me. Just my humble opinion.

If I am wrong, I appologize, but I might reword the first of my article so as to be very clear regarding this issue.

 

Hey, using your logic, how do you know its not the NIV? It is now outselling the KJV and if it continues then why don't you believe God raised it up at the perfect Bible? Like you say----look at the fruit.

 

Pastor Lacy:

Have you ever studied the history and the origins of the KJVO myth? Not just the obvious stuff beginning with Ben Wilkinson, but the actual act of preserving His word, as done by God Himself?

While God spoke with men from the very beginning, it wasn't WRITTEN until whoever wrote Job's story recorded it. Then came Moses. God directly told him to WRITE. And GOD HIMSELF wrote the 10 commandments.

What language did Moses write in? What language did GOD write in? History, both general and Jewish, shows us that the hebrew language has undergone extensive change from Moses'day to David's day to Malachi's day to now. Here's a link to a site typical of many others which has a brief history of the Hebrew language:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language/Introduction_and_History

In Acts 2, we don't know if Peter was preaching in Greek, Latin, Hebrew, or Aramaic, but we DO know the Holy Spirit caused each member of the multinational audience to hear him in his/her OWN language! Now, if a speaker of each language represented had written down what he'd heard & each of these accounts was to be translated into a common tongue, no two of them would've been alike. Actually, there's some evidence that at least a few members of that audience did indeed write down the Scriptures as presented by the apostles & took them to their own lands. This could account for at least part of the differences between the older mss.

The point of this is to show that, given the differences in the languages, now & then, that there cannot be one exact copy of God's words in any modern language. There are simply too many differences between languages to exactly translate any body of writion as large as the Scriptures word-for-word into another language. Even Greek, from which a large amount of English is derived, doesn't translate anywhere near 100% into English.

Once God places His word into a given language, He keeps it updated, as is evident in every long-used language. At one time, Caedmon's singing Scriptures were the most modern version available, as was Aelfric's written version, Wycliffe's, the AV 1611, and today's NKJV. Unlike the works of Shakespeare, the works of GOD'S are NOT frozen in time. God sees to it that His word is available in the language He's chosen for a particular people at a particular time. We are NOT bound to any given version of His word any more than GOD HIMSELF is.

KJVOism is a modern, man-made myth not supported by any evidence whatsoever, with its lack of SCRIPTURAL support being most telling. Now, while the KJV may be the version of preference for some people, it certainly isn't the ONLY valid English Bible translation there is.

 

If sales mattered, I could say, "Get back to me when the NIV catches up all-time." Of course I never used such "logic". Follow the fruit! Compare the revivals, restoration of Biblical truths, and general holiness of the church across all denominations when men carried KJV Bibles only, to the same today. Or you can provide your own criteria of Biblical fruit, then compare.

Lacy

PS Apology accepted. (I reread the article myself three times wondering, "What in the world? Has it been that long since I wrote it?")

 

I am not proposing a word for word translation. Actually, word-for-word translating is considered by some scholars to be quite sophomoric. The KJV translators certainly went beyond word for word translation. That is why I asked someone, "How would you translate 'between a rock and a hard place' into Spanish." Word for Word? You would end up with unintelligible rubbish. And with man, it might be difficult to get it right.

But I've said all along that the Bible emphasizes "scripture", not the original autographs. The affinity to the autographs displayed by most MVs skews our ability to even debate because we are speaking two different languages. (For example, the ridiculous question, "Where is the original AV1611?") Who cares? It's in the same place as all the other "originals"

Can God preserve "Scripture"? Biblically "Scripture" always refers to copies, translations, etc. It refers to usable, tangible, paper-and-pen words. And those words are to be trusted, relied on, referred to in all matters pertaining to life and Godliness. It never refers to autographs. There is no Biblical precedent for referring to original languages, autographs, ancient manuscripts, or linguists when there is a need for deeper truth. Instead the Bible commands us to study scripture.

Will God preserve "Scripture"?

I hope so. If He did how would we know? I believe He'd make it really obvious. (Like he did in the 1st century.)

Maybe I'm wrong. If I am, I will be found guilty at the Judgment Seat of believing every word of the greatest book in history. (A fact that is easily verifiable using any criteria.)

Lacy

 

Correct! The Cambridge KJV is more accurate than the Oxford KJV.

 

Oh, really? And what do you know about Hebrew manuscripts? Can you read Hebrew? Do you know how many differences there are between the Ben Asher text and the Ben Chayyim text? Can you give us the chapters and verses on the variants?

 

What about what Paul writes in the following?

Gala 6:11 (NASU) See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand.
Colo 4:18 I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand. Remember my imprisonment. Grace be with you.
2The 3:17 I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand, and this is a distinguishing mark in every letter; this is the way I write.
Phle 1:19 I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand, I will repay it (not to mention to you that you owe to me even your own self as well).