Can someone tell me why God left preservation to a heretical catholic priest?

Hi Skanwmatos
Most of the time I admire your post as consistent, researched, etc. I don't believe that this effects the KJV at all, but I believe from the articles I've read, even Winston Churchill and according to another poster called James character into question...It is true that he had children (some married off to Catholics), but from what I've read, even secular historians (unbiased?) he had a tragic perversion.
Interesting articles about Erasmus...I think however he was still a RC at heart, although his denounciations, he still died a RC.

 

....except in 1605, when it was "scattered" and no single Bible was perfect! Whee! Logic is fun! </font>[/QUOTE]Brian - so, in order for something to exist you personally must have knowledge of it?

 

Timothy,

No, of course not. However, a few days ago, *Precepts* said that there was no perfect Bible in 1605, but preservation was accomplished by God's word being "scattered" among the available Bibles.

Besides, we've already been over this: the KJV wasn't a "perfect preservation" of anything prior to it, it was a *revision* of existing Bibles. It even says so right on the 1611 title page. Nothing prior in English was a perfect match to the KJV (for obvious reasons), and nothing in other languages was a perfect match to the KJV because the KJV contains many uniques characteristics, including *English* idioms and clichés.

Brian

 

There is no such thing as an "unbiased" historian, or anything else for that matter. All of the accusations against James have the same, single, source. A disgruntled office seeker. Every historian has resorted to the same source for their information regarding James' supposed perversion.

However, all that is irrelevant, as was my (perhaps obscured) point. I agree with you. Neither Erasmus, nor James, nor anyone else's life, religion, etc., has any bearing on the accuracy of the work they did, any more than the KJVO attacks on the NIV because of the limited involvement of Virginia Mollenkott in that effort. What I was trying to do in my own inimitable manner, was to point out the folly of such illogical arguments which are nothing more than mud slinging and smear tactics attempting to damn a persons position via "guilt by association." It seems to me that both sides are equally quilty in doing that.

He was refused last rights by the RCC and is buried in the Protestant Cemetery in Holland.

 

Brian,

I see, I had forgotten he had said that.

The KJV is both a revision and a perfect preservation of the word of God. God has promised to preserve his word, and I've embraced with faith the most obvious place where He appears to have done so - the KJV/TR/MT.

Our approach is different - I start with what God promises and proceed from there, nothing wavering. Many seem to start with what God [i appears[/i] to have done (largely according to modern scholars) and interpret God's word and promises in that light. I think this is the same method that has led to "theistic evolution" and similar errors.

Like I said, if I have to be guily of something, I want to be guilty of putting too much faith in God's promises and his Bible and too little in our scholars and worldly wisdom.

 

I agree 100%

I agree 100%

I agree, but don't limit it to that - for besides the date issues, KJV does't equal TR doesn't equal MT. Which is the "preserved" word of God if they are different? They all are, despite their differences.

But you just said "I've embraced with faith the most obvious place where He appears to have done so - the KJV/TR/MT."

Like I said, which takes more faith - faith in a single translation, or faith in multiple translations despite their differences?

 

Brian,

I started by fully believing God's promises of preservation and then fully embraced the version that He had most obviously providentially blessed. MV supporters seem to start in a different place - they see all the manuscripts, and all the relatively OK evangelical translations, and THEN interpret (I'd say weaken) what God's promises must have really meant by what they've already accepted in the world.

I prefer the option that doesn't weaken God's promises. I know it's embarrasing, but God has promised perfect preservation, just like He described a 6 day creation. It doesn't look that way to scholars? I don't care.

Rom 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

PS -
I will have a point by point resposne to your last post a little later, but now lunch calls...

 

"tim: and I've embraced with faith the most obvious place where He appears to have done so - the KJV/TR/MT.

brian: I agree, but don't limit it to that - for besides the date issues, KJV does't equal TR doesn't equal MT. Which is the "preserved" word of God if they are different? They all are, despite their differences."

tim: Either they are close enough for God, or God has preserved it in a non-obvious way here. Without a clear statement from God himself, the latter position is more God honoring.

"But you just said "I've embraced with faith the most obvious place where He appears to have done so - the KJV/TR/MT.""

tim: Please see my previous post.

"tim:Like I said, if I have to be guily of something, I want to be guilty of putting too much faith in God's promises and his Bible, and too little in our scholars and worldly wisdom.

brian: Like I said, which takes more faith - faith in a single translation, or faith in multiple translations despite their differences?"

tim: In general, faith in a single translation, since that position is most compatible with God's promises of perfect preservation. "Things that are different are not the same." Do we have enough faith in those promises, or not? Or will we believe it only if the scholars tell us it's OK?

 

Spurious and misleading!

 

Timothy 1769: In general, faith in a single translation, since that position is most compatible with God's promises of perfect preservation. "Things that are different are not the same." Do we have enough faith in those promises, or not? Or will we believe it only if the scholars tell us it's OK?

But have YOU not picked and chosen? Where's the PROOF that GOD chose only the AV? Just because it's been around for 400 years doesn't make it the "official" version of the Baptist world.

There were multiple versions in use throughout the British Isles before, during, & after 1611. And God had supplied his word in the English of the day up till that time, and He has continued to do so. There's simply no evidence to support the myth that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation. Indeed, all the evidence, both Scriptural & historical, is against that idea.

 

Groan...

"How is it exactly that God left preservation up to a lost catholic priest?"
To be honest he seems to have been the best man available at the time.

"Erasmus was no friend of the reformation."
Absolutely true.

"What makes Erasmus so special? "
let's see, he was the greatest scholar of the whole Renaissance period, both enemy of basically all branches of christianity and respected by most of them anyway and he wrote a play, taking place at the 'pearly gates' about the confrontation between saint Pete; former fisherman and now doorman of Heaven and pope Julius II; great Renaissance king and abominably bad religious leader. What's not to love about this guy?