1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Fallacy of KJVOnlyism: providential preservation

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by LRL71, Jan 25, 2004.

  1. LRL71

    LRL71 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ok, Jason, here goes.....

    Is there a 'verse' or verses in Scripture that teach a 'supernatural' or 'providential' preservation of the Scriptures? If so, why did God preserve the errors through the extant manuscripts? See, if you are certain that God has providentially and supernaturally preserved the Bible text, then why are there errors in the manuscripts?? Sounds like your KJV-only view of Scripture is the one that is heterodox.

    Also, I don't think that the Bible was NOT preserved! I do believe it was preserved, but not supernaturally or providentially, but in all practicality we can observe that the text of the Bible is there. Look at all the extant manuscripts out there in support of the Bible! I am saying that one cannot say for certainty that any one manuscript, group of manuscripts, compiled text (like the UBS, Aland, or TR) can make a claim to be the true and preserved text that matches exactly what the original autographs read word for word. This is the error of KJV-onlyism: to make the case that God somehow had supernaturally and providentially preserved the text of the NT in the TR/Received text, and that the KJV and the TR are in complete harmony with the original autographs. This position is complete heresy, akin to putting words in God's mouth!

    So long as a translation, like the KJV or the ESV is faithful to the text it was translated from, it is most definitely infallible. To claim that a translation is inspired or inerrant is definitely heterodox. Do you personally know the precise definitions of each-- inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility? You can be sure that Josh McDowell would never support KJV-onlyism or its definition of 'preservation', and I am familiar with this book.

    KJV-onlyism is a reaction to supposed and made-up arguments of 'modernists' and liberals. They make certainty of a translation's inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility to be the model to argue for, and this in untenable at best. We can argue for the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible in its original autographs, and infallibility for the text of the Bible because of the mountain of manuscript evidence in support of the Scriptures. We can be certain of the preservation of the text because of the manuscript evidence (and the fact that so little differs, despite errors in the copying of the text, between the early manuscripts and the late ones, in addition to the geographical range of the manuscript evidence). To say that God preserved the text of the Bible providentially or supernaturally is not supported from the Scriptures, and we know that God would not preserve the errors, too! To ascribe to God that He supernaturally or providentially preserved the Bible text, and allowed the errors to enter, is beyond what He is truly capable of!
     
  2. Refreshed

    Refreshed Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    7
    Faith:
    Baptist


    I am not KJVO.

    Question 1: All scripture is given by inspiration of God. The scripture to which Paul was referring was probably the LXX, not the original.

    Question 2: I do not know why God allowed errors to creep into some of the manuscripts.



    The bible is the best-preserved document ever. Citing the Shakespeare example, among other ancient documents like Josephus' writings and Homer's epic poems, how can you not see the hand of God in preservation of his word? As for the errors, I really don't have an answer for that.



    Okay.



    Okay.



    Why didn't you just quote me. That is exactly what I said.

    Are you prepared to show us where the bible has errors? Go ahead, and I will show everyone a person who has put their opinion, their intellect above the scriptures. Nowhere in scripture are we told to doubt any part of scripture. The position you hold is just as messed up as the KJVO position, because you have put the words of men (biblical scholars) above the words of God. Remember, all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and this does not refer to the original. This is why I and many others believe in derived inspiration, and yes I have a working knowlege of the words inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy.

    Just wanted to comment on this statement before I go. Regarding the infallibility of the text, which you readily admit to in light of the manuscript evidence, have you looked up infallibility?

    It means "incapable of error."

    Just as a note, inerrancy means "not liable to err."

    There seems an incongruency in your post. First you say that inerrancy can only be attained by the original manuscripts. Then you say that infallibility can be attained by the text we have now. Which is it?

    Let me sum up by asking one simple, easy to answer question.

    Is your bible completely reliable?

    Jason
     
  3. Refreshed

    Refreshed Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    7
    Faith:
    Baptist
    true, a serious charge racism is; but i don't think it was directed at Balaam's Ass but more as an example of where faulty thinking cld lead.

    but serious as racism is as a charge, it doesn't compare to attributing God's Words to the devil, which is a hallmark of KJBOism.
    </font>[/QUOTE]Okay. But I still have seen no evidence of the admittedly serious charge. Nice deflect for Charles, though. SHOW ME THE MONEY!

    Jason
     
  4. Refreshed

    Refreshed Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    7
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Awww, Charles, Jesus loved the pharisees too! Look at the conversation between Nicodemus and Jesus in John 3. Look at the dramatic conversion of one of the top pharisees! Look at Dr. Bob! He's a recovering pharisee. Are you willing to shine Christ forth? Even to the pharisees of our time?

    I submit we should have "love a pharisee week."

    Remember Charles, while WE were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

    Jason
     
  5. LRL71

    LRL71 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    0
    Probably?? The LXX?? To suggest that only the LXX, the Greek translation of the OT, is what Paul was referring to is very limited in scope, and it is conjecture on your part to suggest this. Perhaps you forgot that 2 Tim. 3:16 says "all" (Greek: pasa) Scripture, and it is in the plural in the Greek.

    By the way, as to 'accusing' you of being KJV-only was conjecture (falsely) on my part. I did not know where you stood on the issue, and assumed that you were KJV-only.

    Isn't this the question at hand? Nor did you cite any verses from Scripture that support 'providential' or 'supernatural' preservation. It can be observed, as supported by many, that God providentially preserved the Bible, and I will concede this since it is in many doctrinal statements made by Reformed and Baptist scholars (the Westminster and Philadelphia confessions are ones I am thinking about). But without any Bible reference to a direct statement of supernatural or providential preservation, we cannot say that God has done exactly that. Perhaps you (and I) could rephrase this to mean that it can be observed that God has providentially preserved the text of the Bible, but also God has also allowed the errors to enter into the manuscripts. Consequently, God has also not allowed, for some reason or another, the original autographs to survive to this day. I would not make any further doctrinal statement regarding this since it can't be supported from Scripture.

    Ok, then what is the difference between inerrancy and infallibility?? Charles Ryrie made the correct statement regarding inspiration and its relationship to infallibility with regard to 2 Tim. 3:16 in this statement:

    God's superintendence of the human authors so that, using their own individual personalities, they composed and recorded without error His revelation to man in the words of the original autographs. (Charles Ryrie, A Survey of Bible Doctrine (Chicago: Moody Press, 1972), p. 38)

    Infallibility, contra to your statement above, does not relate to errors in the copied manuscripts (or even mechanically printed copies) in the Bible's text, but rather to the infalliblity of the Bible to its authority and integrity, as well as to its accuracy in science, history, and doctrine. If you say that inerrancy applies to the text of the manuscripts, then we have a serious problem: errors are in the manuscripts. Only the original autographs are without error in their text, and also without error because it is God's written revelation to man, and without error reveals the mind of God.

    I think that the problem we both share is how we define inerrancy and infalliblity. I think it's wise to be careful to ascribe the copies of manuscripts out there to be 'inerrant' in the technical sense, since they do have copying errors.

    Another problem I have is with what you refer to as "derived inspiration". I have only recently heard about this teaching on this BB post, and haven't had a lot of time to understand it. My reaction to just the phrase is problematic, since inspiration only occurred once, only in the original autographs. The act of supernatural inspiration (theopneustos) is a singular event, and the Bible cannot support a view of Scripture that suggests that the quality of inspiration can be applied to the copied manuscripts of the Bible. We can both agree, with certainty, that the only event of supernatural activity by God is the salvation of sinners, in our day. This could also be classified as a miracle, too.

    OK, Jason, I am at the end of this, but I hope that I am not seeming to be nitpicking, but rather an understanding of my objections and the reasoning behind them. [​IMG]
     
  6. GrannyGumbo

    GrannyGumbo <img src ="/Granny.gif">

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't live in the 1600's or the 1700's, etc...but I do live today. I've always trusted the Bible I was given as a child---never had any reason to doubt it. What I see on the BB is there's too many to decide "which one" to use. I love simplicity. [​IMG]
     
  7. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    1
    Remember Charles, while WE were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

    OK Jason, I'll agree with that part!! ;)

    But WE are to ACT like Jesus and NOT like the Pharisees.

    It does not bother me one bit to hear someone like GrannyGumbo say that she feels that the KJV is God's true word. She is entitled to feel that way. What bothers me is to hear someone say that the modern versions are satanic and that someone is going to hell if he/she reads them.

    Regarding the web site I mentioned...

    Do you see much Christ-like there. All I see are articles slamming this or that group of people.

    I hate sin as much as anyone! But I try to remember to love the sinner and not make fun of him/her! [​IMG]
     
  8. Forever settled in heaven

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    sometimes it doesn't pay to be simple:

    Proverbs 22:3
    A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished.

    Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself; but the simple pass on, and are punished.


    the KJB if ok, even good. but its modern onlyist advocacy ain't. it pays to be prudent when it hisseth "Yea hath God said" concerning God's Words in other versions.
     
  9. Forever settled in heaven

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    be my guest:

    'nuff said?


    key differences in translations
     
  10. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    In the previous post a URL was given:
    ( http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kjvcomp.htm )
    as an example of the “proof” the KJVO use to convince others (and themselves) that the MVs are “satanic counterfeits”.

    The site contains a chart showing a list of passages comparing MVs (NASB, NIV) with the 1769 KJB for missing and/or incorrect words.

    This is the basis of their accusation that the MVs are “satanic counterfeits”.

    Using this same criteria of missing or incorrect words here is a partial list of differences between the 1611 and 1769 Editions of the King James Bible:

    http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/revision.htm

    In the NASB/NIV vs 1769KJB list we are shown that NIV/NASB Acts 5:42 is “satanic” because it has “the Christ” instead of the KJV “Jesus Christ”.

    In the 1611 vs 1769KJB List we have “thou art Christ” for Matthew 16:16 in the 1611 First Edition and “thou art THE Christ” is the 1769 Edition.

    So using the NASB/NIV vs 1769KJB criteria, is the 1769KJB a “satanic counterfeit” when compared to the 1611KJB?

    Is there one KJVO standard of measure for the MV differences and another or no such standard of measure for the different KJB editions?

    Deuteronomy 25
    14 Thou shalt not have in thine house divers measures, a great and a small.
    15 But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
    16 For all that do such things, and all that do unrighteously, are an abomination unto the LORD thy God.


    HankD
     
  11. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The very term "African American" is a misnomer. First, if one is born in the USA, he/she is automatically a US citizen. Second, not all Africans are black, nor do all black people have African ancestry. Third, the only famous African American I've seen is the basketball player Hakeem Olajuwon, who was a citizen of Nigeria. He became a US citizen while still holding Nigerian citizenship, which made him an African American for a short while. Realizing his mistake, he relinquished his Nigerian citizenship, which made him simply an American.
     
  12. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    That site is an example of where KJVO can lead. Years ago, it was full of sensible info, showing respect for all. Then, they began to waffle from month to month on their opinion of Dr. Ruckman, blasting him one month & almost canonizing him the next. Apparently, he's now their poster boy, as their invective reflects much of his tripe.

    I believe this degeneration has come about from an overdose of KJVO.
     
  13. Refreshed

    Refreshed Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    7
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I was talking about the racism charge, of which there has been no evidence yet. I think it is clear that racism is not supported by the site. Agreed?

    Jason
     
  14. Refreshed

    Refreshed Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    7
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Absolutely, I agree with you 100 percent here, brother.

    Jason
     
  15. Refreshed

    Refreshed Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    7
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I agree with this 100 percent, but the fact remains that it is a commonly accepted, non-offensive way to refer to a person who happens to have a little more melanin in their skin.

    I think an American should be an American!

    Jason
     
  16. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    A fave KJV chant is,"If it's in the KJV & not in some other version, that other version has OMITTED some of God's word." They've never considered whether or not the KJV has ADDED some material. Plainly, it has, with the words "the image of" in Romans 11:4. If it's added words in one place, can the KJVO truthfully say it hasn't added words at another? Or, more convincing, does its source mss have material added?

    Now I'm not saying they HAVE added material, but it's just as possible for material to have been added as it is for some versions or mss to have omitted some.
     
  17. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Jason, I'm old enuff to remember that calling a melanin-enhanced person "black" was an insult. Even the term "colored" was a mild insult, the translation of the acronym "NAACP" notwithstanding. "Negro"(capital "N") was the commonly-accepted term. Then, in the '70s, they asked the non-blacks to call them black, & began referring to us pastel people as "honkies". Now, just as we(everyone) settled on referring to dark-skinned people as "black", some New-Age-Liberal comes up with "African American".

    I also refuse to use the term "Native American", as the people commonly called American Indians each have their own ancestry(Lakota, Apache, etc.)and some New-Age-Liberal invented that term. In the Bible, we see people called by their known national or tribal origin, so as much as possible I try to do the same.

    ALL PEOPLE, TRIBES, RACES, & NATIONS WERE MADE BY THE ONE GOD!
     
  18. Refreshed

    Refreshed Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    7
    Faith:
    Baptist


    My point exactly, all scripture is called inspired according to this verse - my first biblical proof that the bible we hold contains at least a derived inspiration.



    Do you believe God's words are preserved for us? I think you already admitted that. In light of the EVIDENCE I don't know how anyone can deny God's hand in preserving the bible for us today to an extremely high degree of accuracy.



    Concession accepted.



    That is good common ground, and I agree with that precisely. One note I should make, though is that in light if Psalm 12:6,7, if taken from the perspective of the "men" instead of the "words," it shows that God will preserve the poor man, etc. In doing so, he does not make us perfect, without the spot of sin in this life, but the promise of preservation of the saints is still there.

    Perhaps this verse is being taken out of context in this instance, but if God can preserve a man and that man still be liable to persecution, sin, etc., then it is no stretch that God can preserve his word and allow a few inconsistencies between the manuscripts. And I mean few.



    I stand corrected in this area, and your post makes great sense, and I have shifted my opinion appropriately. It IS wise to be careful to what we ascribe inerrancy.



    When referring to derived inspiration, this is what I mean. The originals were inspired by God, literally God-breathed. That is common-ground on which any bible-believer can stand. We have evidence that the bible we now have is SO close to the original that it, in effect and for all practical purposes, is inspired. This has nothing to do with the inconsistencies between the texts, etc.

    I believe that the evidence is in, and the versions we have now are so close to the original as to make it a functional equivalent to the original, and since the original was inspired, this closeness to the original text renders a version inspired. We can be very sure we have the very words of God. There is so little disagreement in the text between the witnesses, and no doctrinal changes, etc.

    Actually, I have quite enjoyed our conversation, and wouldn't be hurt much if it continued. We have already found some common ground and besides that I really LOVE to discuss this issue. There are some things we will have to agree to disagree on, but I think far more light is being shed than heat (to use an overly used statement on this forum).

    Jason
     
  19. Refreshed

    Refreshed Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    7
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Wow, I'm not that old, O' ancient one. "Pastel people" is about the funniest thing I've heard in awhile. To me, a black person has always been a black person, and only used as a descriptive term, such as:

    "Which one is the smart one? (Pointing to a group consisting of 9 pastel people and one black person). Oh, it's the black one."

    You could also insert pasty, white, oriental, yellow-bellied, etc. I have no aversion to being called white although I'm a pastel person. [​IMG]

    Jason
     
  20. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Originally posted by Refreshed:
    I absolutely agree with you. Are you surprised? You shouldn't be because I am not KJV-only.

    What I was pointing out by my post is that LR71 does not believe we can be sure of the text behind the bibles we have. He says that there was no supernatural preservation. He says that there is no infallibility, he says there is no inerrancy. These beliefs are heterodox, as I stated above. Just because he is attacking the KJVO position does not mean he should get away with disseminating patently false and unbelieving information regarding the preservation of the word of God.

    Jason


    I agree that God DID preserve His word, AS HE CHOSE. What He did NOT do is preserve it word-for-word. Some men have decided that just because He didn't do it the way they thought He should, that He either didn't preserve His word, or that men have corrupted it.

    Something generally ignored by KJVOs and doubters alike-the same God who has preserved ancient Sumerian, Egyptian, & Chinese writings far older than the first written Scriptures could have easily preserved the Autographs if He had so chosen. The fact that He apparently chose NOT to preserve them often isn't considered, nor are the possible reasons He so chose. Can not God make His own word appear as He chooses? Can He not make it understandable in any language as He chooses? Does He not oversee both His word and all languages?

    Sure, there have been corruptions of God's word made, but are they not easily recognized by Christians?

    I believe we can pick up any valid BV and be assured we're reading God's word as he intends for us to have it. And the "mistakes" in a given ms were most likely allowed by God for purposes of His own, just as He chose not to preserve the originals.
     
Loading...