Has God preserved the original language of the Bible?

That is NOT the 'modern view'. That is the TRADITIONAL view. The 'modern view' is that brought forth by the KJVO proponents.

Only in your mind and the mind of those who demand that God perform according to their Biblilogy.

 

Did I write this verse: "The words of the Lord are pure words." Did I write that? How about this: "Every word of God is pure." Did I write that? How about this: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God." Did I write that one?

 

Brother... When you start violating the very Scriptures that you hold so dearly by bringing harsh attacks against another brother in the Lord, you are letting a good debate become personal and starting to do the work of the enemy.

I (and we) grasp what it is that you are debating -- if God's Word is not "perfect" in the version that we hold in our hands, how can we trust that it is God's Word at all -- but you are missing the point. No human work is perfect, including the translation and "scribal efforts" to copy God's Word. We make mistakes and those mistakes are passed along.

The REALLY good news is that in the examination of a multitude of texts, ancient and not so ancient, we have reconstructed the original texts to a point were we have indeed recovered 100% of the originals, but with a 99% surety as far as accuracy.

Have you ever thought about what we might do if we actually had the original texts of Scripture (or almost any other "original item" from the history of God's people)? Think back to the days before the Reformation, when the RCC was selling pieces of the cross, etc., to unsuspecting people. Think of how many cathedrals are built over some relic or bones of a purported saint? What if we had the actual penned writings of Paul? How many people would bow down and worship that piece of paper instead of God? Should we find definitive proof that the stuff on Ararat is Noah's Ark, how many will kiss the ground and worship that? Same for the Ark of the Covenant. Wow, if we could but hold the God-penned tables of stone... We would... yup.

I think, rather than harm us or pollute the Word of God, our Lord has protected us from our own nature and given us something that we may not utterly understand, but that we can use IN FAITH that our God, who SAID He would preserve, DID.

 

You haven't answered one question: how do you know what the original texts said?

 

"The words of the Lord are pure words."
"Every word of God is pure."
"every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God."

Notice the similarity? The key word is "words."
The words are pure. the words are preserved. Copies are not perfectly copied. to say otherwise is to speak out if ignorance and it contrary to what the Scriptures teach. The Bible never says that copyist would be kept from error.

 

No, but the additional "preserved only in the KJB" qualifier was not part of the original authorship, nor does it belong in the commentary on the aforementioned scriptures.

 

We know what the original texts said for any number of reasons:

1. The words were carefully guarded and preserved by the churches. They, like we, were very careful to handle God's Word according to the dictates in that Word. They, like we, did not have an ulterior motive to change those words and they did not.

2. We know that the texts were preserved from the multitude of texts that we have extant from which to compare what was said.

3. We also know that the texts were preserved from the writings of the Anti-Nicene Church Fathers, who cited those texts almost in entirety in their writings.

4. We know, additionally, that the text was preserved from the translations of that Word, which are already existing in the very early 2nd century.

5. And finally (and perhaps most important) we know the texts were preserved from faith in God who is big enough to do what He says -- and He said that He would preserve His Word.

Now, perhaps it is time for a couple of questions to head in your direction...

Let's suppose that your supposition is correct and the Bibles we now hold in our hands, no matter which translation, are not the pure preserved word of God. What do we do about that? Which Bible can we use? Are we going to hell because we are holding and trusting in a translation that is not the PURE WORD OF GOD? Where can we turn?

Or, conversely, are you arguing that just ONE translation is THE perfect preserved Word of God. In that case, you will have to make some logical argument as to how that text was arrived at (if you are arguing for the KJV, which seems the most common argument in this direction) about 1500 years after the fact, from other texts that are not the original autographs (autograph being the term used in biblical critical studies for the original writings of the original author -- manuscripts, on the other hand, are the writings of a scribe -- a copy written by hand). How did a bunch of scholars hired by a king (who, by the way, previously burned at the stake other attempted translators) in far away England arrive at THE perfect text? Why was THAT text changed and updated if it was perfect? Why does it not match up to other preserved texts?



I'm NOT trying to be hard on you, really I'm not...

I am trying to find out why you are having a hard time with what we are saying here concerning the transmission of the text of Scripture.

One concluding thought... Have the various translations been used of God to accomplish His purposes? Have people come to a saving know edge of Jesus Christ through the reading and exposition of these texts -- in ALL of the various translations we now have available? If the answer is yes, then you have a rather difficult argument on your hands, and you may be required to re-think your position. If, on the other hand, you can prove that no person has been used of God or touched/saved by God through any of the versions, then you may be vindicated in your skeptical position. As nicely as I can... Good luck proving the latter. I've seen God move with the NIV, KJV, NKJV, ESV, HCSB, and yes, even the Living Bible and the Message, not to mention all the others out there.

 

Did I say anything about the KJB?

 

So we can know what the originals said to a degree of certainty of 99%, but we've never seen the originals. My question still holds true: how can we know what the originals said, much less to a degree of 99%, if we've never seen them? You say, well the texts were preserved here, here, and here. But then you said errors have been introduced. How many and where? How much has been changed? You say 1%. How do you know? Against what can you compare to come up with such a percentage? Not the originals, for you haven't seen them.

On top of this, you have the absurd notion that something has been preserved yet allowed to partially spoil. Imagine, if you will, a person telling you they had preserved jelly in a jar, but then informing you that part of it had spoiled or decayed. You'd respond by informing this person that he/she didn't really preserve the jelly. Yet we see time and again the argument that God has preserved the scriptures, and yet has allowed scribes to introduce errors into the scriptures. That argument simply cannot hold.

 

Thank God we don't have the very originals. It's bad enough having to deal with the [snipped] teachings of KJVOnlyism. Judging by the statements and beliefs of some on the Baptist Board one would think that the King James Bible came out to the Ark of the Covenant to be worshiped like Moses' bronze snake. Imagine dealing with the kooks who would worship the original manuscripts. Good Grief!!!

 

Exactly. No one on earth has seen the original autographs, so there is no way to say if what we have is accurate. It will always come down to believeing what God promised in the scriptures. Either he preserved his pure word or he did not, it is that simple.

I also agree that it is impossible to say the scriptures are preserved and have error at the same time. That is an illogical impossibility.

 

But you allow for spelling, typesetting, and typographical errors.

So God only mostly preserved His word? The typists, copiers, and typesetting can foil His preservation?

In 1 John 5v12 did God perfectly preserve His word in the 1611 KJT editon or 1769 edition? Only one can be perfect. One is wrong, errs, has a mistake. One one is it?

 

Yes I do. Man's mistakes are not God's mistakes. And that these mistakes were caught and corrected was because an infallible standard existed.

Printing was still very primitive in 1611. When the first editions went out to the public it was a monumental work for that time. Some lose sight of that.

The Bible is a massive book. It took a long time for people to spot errors and report them back. Reports came in of errors and they were corrected and new copies sent out. Then reports of further errors came in, and corrections had to be made again. But if there had not been an infallible standard these errors could not have been identified.

With the KJB, within 27 years the vast majority of errors were corrected. But occasionally a new error was introduced. We have famous Bibles like the "Murderer's Bible". But again, in time these errors were spotted and corrected.

It is not like today where an error can be spotted and corrected immediately by a computer.

Spelling is not an error and you know it. Whether you spell "color" or "colour" it is the same exact word with the same exact meaning.

And type style means nothing.

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

I don't usually use this font, doesn't change the Word of God at all. God promised to preserve his pure word forever regardless of which font style I use.

 

So God does allow some mistakes in His perfect word. Thanks for clarifying.

 

Where did you get that idea, God has required us to represent his word perfectly to the word (Rev 22:18-19). When an error is spotted, it should be corrected. Even modern editions come out with errors now and then.

God has always entrusted the scriptures to men, and men are fallible. There have always been mistakes and always will be, but they should be corrected as soon as they are found.

It is almost comical when some here strain at a single word in the KJB, or a known typo, but swallow the camel of nearly 3000 words missing in the Greek text of the CT.

Let me ask you a question:

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

God says here if we add to his word he will add to us the plagues written in this book. That's pretty scary. God says if we take away from the words of the book of this prophesy that he will take our part out of the book of life. That is pretty scary too.

Now, how in the world can God expect us to faithfully keep his words if we cannot know and identify his exact words?

Tell me, how do you do that?

 

Uh

Good point C4K. I also notice something strange. In verse 7 I don't see the words "preserved in a particular English Translation".

How do you explain that all of a sudden 12 years or so after 1611 the mistakes were corrected (doesn't agree with "forever" in V.7) and the English speaking people did not have a 100%, no error translation?

If I were living in London in 1610 where I should go to find a 100% perfect, letter, punctuation and grammar---- ENGLISH translation to read?

I think you don't really understand what the good Doc is trying to say. Without education on manuscript translation and confirmation, then how can we submit a reasonable argument to what we hear from many pastors who have Ripplinger and others as their sole source of education?

Please answer my question concerning an perfect English translation I could read before 1611 (or 12 years thereafter when it was obviously corrected. :BangHead.