Featured Preservation of the Bible: Providential or Miraculous?

Peter addressed that very question!

 

I don;t see what is the real big issue here?

 

As for the OP:

I believe the Bible is PROVIDENTIALLY preserved and translated. It survived all attempts by the RCC to suppress its being translated into the common, in-use languages, and the RCC had its own army & navy & more than one European ruler as the pope's toadies. The KJV went on to become the most-printed & most-read book in history. (Mao Zhedong's "Little Red Book" is a distant second.) And I believe there are more Bibles, counting all copies of valid versions, in existence in the USA than any other book. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong!)

 

God preserved His bible, and not the KJV Only...

 

Many KJV defenders, including those who claim to reject Ruckman's view, have read Gail Riplinger's books and have been influenced by her faulty reasoning. It may be a small number or percentage among all believers, but it is likely a larger percentage among independent Baptists or fundamentalists.

KJV-only author William Grady referred to “’all Scripture’ (i.e. autographs, copies, and translations)” (Given by Inspiration, p. 98).
Peter Ruckman claimed: “The word ‘scripture’ in the Bible is ALWAYS used of copies or translations” (Biblical Scholarship, p. 354).
Gail Riplinger asserted: “’All scripture is given by inspiration of God…’—every word, every true copy and translation (2 Tim. 3:16)” (In Awe of Thy Word, p. 550). Riplinger suggested that the context in 2 Timothy 3:16 “includes copies and translations” (Ibid.). Riplinger claimed: “Bible inspiration, preservation, and translation are one” (p. 547). Riplinger claimed that “the verse—‘All scripture is given by inspiration of God’—is stating that the originals, the copies, and the vernacular translations are ‘given by inspiration of God’” (Hazardous Materials, p. 1162).

When it is speculated, assumed, or claimed that the term Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16 must refer to copies and especially even to translations, a consistent, just, and logical application of this speculative reasoning would in effect be asserting that it must include all that belong to those two classifications: copies and translations. Including all copies of Scripture would in effect make inspiration include any errors introduced by men in the copying of Scripture. Including all printed translations of Scripture would make inspiration include any errors made by translators or printers and include the conflicting and even contradictory renderings in varying translations in different languages. Thus, consistency in applying the word “all” to Bible translations would be a serious problem for exclusive KJV-only reasoning concerning only one English translation.

Do some KJV-only advocates attempt to read into or to draw from 2 Timothy 3:16 a specific conclusion about translating that has not legitimately been shown to be actually taught by the verse? Do KJV-only advocates attempt to go beyond what 2 Timothy 3:16 states to try to make it say something additional to which it does not refer?

 

2 Tim. 3:16 is found in ALL valid Bible translations. And KJVOs tend to attempt to stretch some Scripture to attempt to justify their false doctrine. The "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie" is such an attempt. The KJVOs draw this "thingie" from Dr. Wilkinson's book, although it was around before Dr. W wrote.

But I still believe that GOD providentially caused ALL valid Bible versions & translations, older and newer, to be made in whatever language.

 

The Scriptures have the authority of Jesus behind them!

 

The Holy Spirit ceased inspring the very words penned down to us when John died...

 

He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool, avoid him.
He who knows not and knows that he knows not is a child, teach him.
He who knows and knows not that he knows is asleep, awaken him.
He who knows and knows that he knows is a leader, follow him.

(from the desk of a very efficient manager I once worked under)

 

as a "KJVO" I have never heard of anyone using 2Tim 3:16 that way. Not that its never happened, but It has never crossed my path anyway. Matt 5:18 is the go to.

 

How do you think that Matthew 5:18 supports a KJV-only position?

 

Hey! Sorry for the late reply. So I would start by saying its not my favorite verse, however in the "circle" of King james-isms. That is one that is used often. I can see why, its not my favorite however again - I get why its used.

In the context of matthew 5:18, You need to start at (verse 1 is best) least at verse 17. Jesus says he didnt come todestroy the law or prophets but to fulfill them, and then we get 18, till heaven and earth pass, not one jot or one tittle in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Option 1: You could say Jesus is talking about the "general" law, that is every little piece of the law will not be removed, or neglected

option 2: Jesus is talking about the written law of Moses, it wont ever pass away.

[Overarching Theme being : fulfillment]

Hidden option 3: Both.

I tend to take them both. At face value yes, Jesus is speaking of His ministry - with that however at further read we see that there is a time frame and reference to the physical writings. With that people would exegete that there is a statement of precise keeping of Gods word until "all be fulfilled", "till heaven and earth pass".

Then verse 19 goes onto stating the obedience to these commandments (which were written for the Israelite people)


I hope Im doing my fellow KJV brethren justice.... anyway. For me I do read a lot of passages supporting God will keep His word preserved. Furthermore with that while not ideal by some peoples standards I think in terms of a logic equation it makes absolute no sense for God to inspire writings to then just have them be corrupted or lost and all of Christendom just shrug and go "well... I guess there's some misprints or mistakes". If the originals are perfect, which ones? if we can't perfectly explain it in english then for me it would be only logical that every Christian learn the original languages so they too can have access to scripture. However we dont have a set of manuscripts that are 100% complete on their own do we? So where is God's word? Did He drop it somewhere?

It may sound asinine to you, but personally I think being able to say we have Gods word - for sure - no questions asked in our hands and can take all of those words to the bank that they are inspired. I take that very seriously. (That is not say everybody else doesnt take it serious!). Just for me, that line of rationale has led me to where I am. Somewhere between a TR guy and Sam Gipp guy.

Anyway, Hope your doing well.
Jordan