The Doctrine of Preservation?

Care to list this group you describe as "our leading theologians"?

 

It is you, not I, who consistently tries to turn this from thread about the doctrine of preservation into a thread about single-translation-onlyism.

I'll address just one:In post# 82 of "Do You Admire Any Preachers", you claimed the KJV is superior.

So what you're saying is that the KJV has no errors; therefore, if anyone finds an error in the KJV, it is not an error, because the KJV has no errors.

To be clear, the majority of people on earth speak Mandarin Chinese, three times more often than they speak English. The second most common language is Hindi, the third is Spanish. English trails Spanish slightly.

In regards to English speakers, the majority of people on earth speak International Business English. Elizabethan English is not a common language anywhere on the globe today. Only 20% of the world speaks English. Of those, none speak Elizabethan English.

Untrue. In fact, the KJV's use of Elizabethan English was already considered archaic when it was published, since the common language of the day was Early Modern English. For this reason, the KJV was not widely accepted when it was published. BTW, you might want to rethink your position there. "Prose" is the common ordinary form of a spoken or written language. Elizabethan English was not the prose of the day.

Just to make sure I wasn't in error, I went back and looked at every one of your posts to day. Not once in any of your nearly 400 posts have you posted any biblical support for your KJV-as-superior position.

 

Not even hinted towards that as you'd like to insist upon.

I can understand the mind of the Spirit from these versions, but to be sure i always revert back to the KJV to see if the impression I have is right. Boy, that oughtta really burn you up!:type:

The case being is what I read in other versions hasn't always impressed my heart the way it does in the KJV.

I said that just in case the previous statement didn't burn you up.:type:

You must have your head planted in the sand somewhere close to the Bay of Pigs.

Per capita in population alone you'd be correct, but in per capita by land mass you come up short.

So? And most present day false doctrines come from a populous of people who speak English as a second language. Don't blame that on the KJV!:type:

 

:applause: yeah! i merely mention the KJV is a very good example of God's preservation of his word and you go off into a tirade!:applause:

I believe you're disobeying BB rules about bleeding other discussions into another thread.

People who speak IBE can rest in the facts that the English in its best form is comprehensibly adjacent to anything they already know in IBE

Oh, so now I suppose you'll accredit Shakespeare and Chacer with more credence than God?

The only people I see who demand as you do that the language of the KJV is archaic is people who promote 200+ versions of the Bible in English.

I find the wording to be rather glorious and pure of deceit, perfectly readable and posessing a comprehensible factor the 200+ versions other than it do not!:tongue3:

Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21, but that isn't enough for you.

I find it almost strange if not altogether unbelievable you've actually been through over 400 posts in one day.:sleep:

 

What metal is used in Deuteronomy 8:9?
In Genesis 42:1-3 and 5, what type of food crop is being referred to?
In Solomon 2:12, what kind of animal was heard?
What was in the offerings described in Leviticus chapter 2 and 14?

 

You don't "merely" mention that the KJV is a good example of God's preservation. You state that the KJV is superior in language to all other versions.

Chaucer and Shakespeare didn't even live in the same era. Chaucer wrote some 300 years prior to the KJV, and his works are written in Middle English. OTOH, Shakespeare died shortly after the KJV was published, and wrote in a late form of Early Modern English, which was the common language of the day. Contrast that with the KJV English, which came out after Early Modern English, but used the Elizabathen form of English which held on to many archaisms which predated even Shakespeare.

History says you're quite wrong. The majority of England's population opposed the KJV due to it use of archaisms. That's a fact. As a result, the crown made it illegal to use anything other than a KJV.

 

Well, not until I retire from the mission field for sure!! :smilewinkgrin: (If that ever happens.)

 

You are entirely welcome.

Forgive me, but I don't comment on this issue on a public forum. Furthermore, as a missionary my main focus is the Japanese Bible, not the English Bible issues.

 

There have been very, very few. Francis Turretin (1623-1687) disucussed the matter of the Catholic belief in Vulgate inerrancy. I'm sure there were other Reformation theoligians that addressed this issue.

To go back even further, in Jerome's day there were some who believed in LXX inerrancy, and I believe Jerome addressed this, but I don't have time to look it up.

 

The works of Milton have been preserved down through the years in written form. It remains unchanged and true to the original.

The scriptures we have remain true in the same sense, in written form, passed down through the years. Some changes must be made, even to scriptures. Areas where the bible is just plain incorrect, whether printing errors, cultural errors or plain errors of understanding, or lack of understanding.

The Bibles we have are essentially reliable, but only the original manuscripts can maintain inerrancy and inspration by God.

Nothing in scripture teaches preservation into this or any other era.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Not quite what you were looking for but it addresses his view of the Vulgate.

Jerome's Letter to Pope Damasus ~366 to 384 recovered from the British Lindisfarne Gospels, (late 7th century) [LINK]

Rob

 

Aha! Thanks.

 

No, no doubt there were Hebrew priests who were not believers in the coming Messiah.

Not spiritually, but they can to the extent that a human act of preserving the Scripture may be a physical act (printing Bibles, etc.). This doesn't mean God will reward them for it, just as a lost person who passes out tracts has no reward waiting in Heaven.

Much more information on that is given in the rest of my longer outline, which I don't plan to share here. However, to state it simply, why would not God the Holy Spirit oversee any act of service for Christ? He is the Lord of the Harvest (Matt. 9:38), He brings to our remembrance Christ's words (John 14:26), He leads and guides the servants of God (the whole book of Acts), etc., etc.

The area of Scripture is the exact area that Baptists believe the priesthood of the believer is involved with! As priests we need no other priest than Christ for direct access to God, and we do not need to go through a priest to understand and interpret Scripture (1 Tim. 2:15, etc., etc.). It certainly follows that if we are to interpret Scripture ourselves we are to preserve it also. And the New Testament believers certainly did that, as I believe my outline proves.

 

Oh well, now i suppose you'll blame God that the KJV is still used more than any other version and He isn't able to supercede anything man does.:laugh:

 

OK, but if you'd comment via pm I will keep it there and never discuss it in the public forum. I do respect your not wanting to express it publicly and see exactly why.

 

Iron and an alloy of copper/ brass due to its high luster appearing as gold and brilliance maintained with less of an oxidation and doesn't tarnish as easily as copper alone.

grain

a turtle dove is not an amphibian

A whole burnt offering is never without the meat offering. this passage deasl specifically in reference to the body of Christ as the whole burnt offering and without the Blood shed for our redemption.

Newer versions deny this and you say no doctrines are effected by them.:tongue3:

If you wish to discuss in further detail, don't derail this thread, start a new one.