Article on Biblical Preservation

All the rest of this is old hat to me. What has amazed me, as a couple of posters have pointed out is the preserved publisher aspect!!

I happen to use the Oxoford so I guess I am safe? What about my sons who preach out of the Cambridge? Or anyone who uses an American publisher?

I am a KJV preferred, strongly. It is this kind of argument that makes me want to change my view.

 

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. </font>[/QUOTE]The BHS also got it right too with a plural you.

 

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). </font>[/QUOTE]Well it certainly proves that Paul wrote those letters. I'm not sure it is enough to base a whole doctrine on. (ie. The scriptures were ONLY inspired in the originals.) Did Paul know absolutely that his words would come to carry equal (greater) weight than the Old Testament scriptures? I doubt it. My point was that when anyone in the Bible referred to "scripture", it was always copies.

Lacy

 

Then why argue in favor of the KJVO myth, Pastor Lacy? All the various KJV editions are copies, aren't they? As God allowed the language to change, He caused His word to appear in the language of the day. After all, both language and His word are under His control.

 

Lacy,

You are forgetting one the prime theological texts on inspiration in the Bible, namely 1 Peter 1:20-21.

These verses are specifically speaking of the composition of the original autographs.

You also have verses such as 2 Samuel 23:2, while not specifically using the term "scripture" certainly refer to the autographs:

 

Brother Andy,

The plain reading of these verses, prove only that prophets spoke under the divine inspiration of God. There were lots of prophets. All of them (the true ones anyway) "spoke" prophecy but not all of heir prophecies were written down in scripture. (We have no idea what Saul prophesied about in I Sam 10. "Is Saul among the prophets?" We have no idear what Phillpp's daughters prophesied.)

The prophesy that was written down became scripture. So who was inspired, the prophet or the writer-downer?

I Pet 1 is about prophesy, not scripture. I agree there are some parallels. But unless you come at this verse with the preconceived notion that the Bible was only inspired in the autographs, I don't think you could ever interpret these verses like you have.

It seems to me to be the prime theological text on divine prophesy. But it never mentions the Bible.

Lacy

 

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? </font>[/QUOTE]You assume much. All I meant was that there is not just one "the" Hebrew. It doesn't take a semitary graduate to know that there are no extant Old Testament autographs. Right?

It's funny really. As you chide me for my presumed lack of scholarship you prove my point by asking me about two of the "lots of" [texts] I mentioned.

We throw around terms like "the Greek" and "The Hebrew" and "the originals". Qualify it. They are just more copies of copies of copies.

Lacy

PS The answers to your questions, so you will know. Not much. No. No. No.

But I do know a little about the Bible. I've stood on the "shore" and have seen just a glimpse of the "ocean". It is overwhelming, it is awful, it is intrinsically beautiful. It makes me hungry, thirsty, and longful all at the same time.

 

Just curious Lacy,

Why did you choose Oxford 1769 over Cambridge 1762? How do you that it the resurrected Word of God?

 

I assume you mean 2 Peter, since that is the discussion. And I would only ask, if it is not about Scripture, than why does v. 20 talk about "Scripture."

The Scripture is what is inspired (2 Tim 3:16). The men were "born along" by the Spirit as authors. In that sense, they were inspired as well, but only when writing Scriptures or speaking from special revelation.

As for Hebrew text, there are many, but not as many as there are Greek texts. The Hebrew text does have some difficulties, but like the Greek, it is unique among ancient manuscripts in the weight of preservation and identity. When we use terms like "the Hebrew" or "the Greek," we are referring generically to the original language texts.

 

I didn't assume anything. I asked you some questions.

Not quite. You said "There's lots of them." There aren't "lots of them."

Nobody mentioned either autographs or even manuscripts. The subject was "texts." You do know the difference between a manuscript and a text, don't you?

Not yet.

I didn't chide anyone. I asked you some questions. You came in here posing as some kind of expert on bible transmission but you don't seem to know anything about the subject when asked a few simple questions even a bible college freshman could answer.

No need to qualify it. I didn't mention "the originals." I asked you questions about the Hebrew texts.

Then please don't try to pose as an expert.

 

LEt me clarify ... my reference to "Hebrew text" and "reek text" should be "manuscripts." There are a few Hebrews text and a few Greek texts. There are many manuscripts of each.

 

Quite correct, 2 Peter. You hear that Andy! You made me look dumb! It's all Andy's fault.

Verse 20 says "prophesy of scripture". It could mean "prophesies that predicted particular scriptures" but it wouldn't make sense to me contextually. It could mean prophesy "belonging to", or "contained in" scripture. That makes more sense. But how could it mean just "scripture"?

Well said. I can't argue with any of that.

Lacy

 

I was wondering when someone would get around to this question. If you took a percentage of the total differences (compared to the total words.) you could definitely argue that they are mathematically insignificant. I think the overall testimony (fruit)of the KJV includes the TR, earlier TR-based Bibles, and all the "editions" of the KJV. When you get past the KJV's 1st printing (AV1611), then the differences REALLY start to become quite minimal. So I chose the last one. Historically, in 1769, the "changes" in the KJV stopped. The Bible says it's like silver purified seven times. I just picked the last piece of silver. (But they are all pretty valuable.) Perfect babies, perfect teenagers, and perfect adults.

Lacy

 

"prophesy of scripture" by itself may be ambiguois, but that phrase occurs within a context where Peter says (vs. 19) that they have the prophetic word. So, when Peter uses the phrase "prophesy of scripture" he is refering to the written record of the prophets that has been preserved in Scripture. In verses 20-21 he explains the origin of those Scriptures.

Andy

 

I was wondering when someone would get around to this question. If you took a percentage of the total differences (compared to the total words.) you could definitely argue that they are mathematically insignificant. I think the overall testimony (fruit)of the KJV includes the TR, earlier TR-based Bibles, and all the "editions" of the KJV. When you get past the KJV's 1st printing (AV1611), then the differences REALLY start to become quite minimal. So I chose the last one. Historically, in 1769, the "changes" in the KJV stopped. The Bible says it's like silver purified seven times. I just picked the last piece of silver. (But they are all pretty valuable.) Perfect babies, perfect teenagers, and perfect adults.

Lacy </font>[/QUOTE]So you really have no Biblical basis?

Do you then reject all American editions of the KJV?

 

I'm just "posing" as a simple Baptist preacher who read the Bible and came up with some conclusions that they didn't teach you at Bible College.

If you can show me just one Biblical appeal to "the original languages", I'll certainly take it upon myself to go back to Bible School. And I'll preach from the rooftops that nobody can know scripture without being an expert in Greek (the dead kind) and ancient Hebrew.

If you can show me one verse where it is clearly stated in the Bible that ONLY the autographs were inspired, I'll switch sides in a heartbeat.

Re-read the post you 1st responded to please. Then re-read the initial post on this thread to see what the subject of the thread is. (I didn't start the thread.}

Yes sir. Duly noted. I'll do my best, but know this: If I believe a truth, no fancy seminary [sic] graduate or Hebrew scholar is gonna make me cow until he answers with scripture and not just rehashed rhetoric. I went to college long enough to know the difference between a B.S. and a M.S. I've been soul winning enough to know the relative practical value of the two. I count it all dung. If you want to get a job, go to school. (I did.) If you want to preach, study your scriptures, get to soulwinning, dedicate yourself to the local assembly, and pray like your life depends on it.

Lacy

 

If I hadn't seen the article with my own eyes I would almost think that this was a satire on KJVO'ism.

ONLY the 1769 Oxford is the resurrected Bible?

AV1611, Cambridge 1762, all of the American editions are imperfect?

Bro Lacy, are you an incognito Oxford Bible salesman?

 

Smoke screen. This type of argument is offered by the KJVO when he can't respond to the real question.

More smoke screen. I have never made such a claim.

More smoke screen. I was replying to you not to what someone else posted. Had I been replying to them I would not have addressed your comments.

More smokescreen. Manuscript and textual evidence is not a matter of bible chapter and verse nor of "believing a truth" that is found nowhere in the bible. It is a matter of studying the available information and using the intellect God gave us to understand the implications of the manuscript and textual evidence.

If you are an example of what that college turns out, you may want to keep its name a secret.

Hyles type "if I just win enough souls God will forgive me of my willful ignorance adultery and other sins" nonsense.

Well, you know yourself, your education, and your ability better than I do, but I would not be that hard on you.

I did.

I did not "want" to preach. God called me. (Perhaps that is the difference between us.)

I don't go "soul winning" (uh, by the way, that is two words, not one) - that is a nonsensical term. I do as the bible commands me, I am a witness to the saving grace of God through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior.

I have served the Lord through His local New Testament church since the day I was saved. As a Pastor, Assistant Pastor, Youth Pastor, Teacher, and Seminary Professor.

And, of course, I start and end every day with prayer, and stop often between those times to commune with my Lord. But, don't get discouraged, keep talking, you will think of something to say sooner or later.

 

If you mean a scripture that says, "Thou shalt only read the KJV", then of course not. But I wrote a whole article on my "Biblical precedent". Feel free to disagree with that precedent. (Correct me by all means.) But don't ask if I have a Biblical basis.

I don't reject any KJV. Please name the American editions that don't use the Oxford or Cambridge text. (I honestly don't know.) I am a little picky about Bibles that leave out the paragraph symbols, the complete title to Hebrews and the Revelation, etc. But why reject a chunk of silver just because it needs one or two more trips to the finer.

Lacy

 

Smoke screens indeed.

Lacy