What is the "doctrine of providential preservation"?

The spelling was not corrected. There was nothing in error regarding the spelling prior to 1762/1769. The spelling was updated to conform to new standards which came into being after the KJV was first published.

 

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't think anyone here is trying to prove that the KJV is not the preserved word of God. I think what they object to is your saying the KJV is the only preserved word of God. And that is your claim, not theirs, so I would suggest the burden of proof is on you to prove that their bibles are not the preserved word of God, as you seem to be claiming.

 

I wouldn't even try to prove that.
For your belief is a subset of mine:
God, by His Divine Providence, has preserved
His infallible written word for this generation
in each English Translation.

 

Here is what the truth is:
God, by His Divine Providence, has preserved
His infallible written word for this generation
in each English Translation.

Wait, isn't that the same thing you said Ed?

 

Doc,

Ed Edwards said:

And again:

(emphasis mine)

I am just giving him an opportunity to back up what he believes. I would think to make a statement like that would call for some evidence.

I have stated time and again why I believe the KJV to be the preserved Word of God and why I believe it is different from the MV's. All I have been met with is statements like:

and

and

I think the burden of proof is indeed on those who claim that God has preserved His Word in the MV's because it is an accepted truth that the KJV is the Word of God. Some just believe that it is not the only Word of God. I'm giving them an opportunity to present some facts to substantiate their claims.

 

If not those
exact words, then a set of words with
the same meaning

 

ACtually Bob, it is an accepted truth that God has preserved his word in any faithful translation. This indeed was the position of the KJV translators and it is the position of the vast majority of Christians today. Your position, whether right or wrong, is generally not accepted as truth. The evidence that the MVs are the Word of God is found by comparing diligently the MVs with the original language texts (just as the KJV translators did).

However, for those who can't read the Hebrew and Greek, that becomes very difficult if not impossible. I am not suggesting that everyone has to learn the Hebrew and Greek. I am suggesting that those who cannot do not have much of a place at the table during this conversation about texts and translations. That is not meant as a slight on anyone, please understand that. There is no offense intended in anyway. But for someone without a workign knowledge of the original languages to sit down and talk about translations and texts, would be like me sitting down with Russians to talk about the translation of something into Russian. Since I don't know any Russian, I have nothing to contribute. Those who do not know HEbrew and Greek can read and study God's word with profit. They do not need to know it. But they do need to understand their limitations in this area. It is interesting to see that the most dogmatic people are very often the ones with the least knowledge about the languages under discussion. Again, as I say, the evidence about the MVs being the Word of God is found by diligently comparing the MVs with the original language texts. When we do that, there won't be much question about whether or not they are the Word of God. Then we can focus on whether particular variants are teh most likely to be accurate, whether particular English constructions are the best way to convey the original intent, etc. These questions are worthy of consideration for all English translations. In fact, in my message last evening, I used Deut 24:1-4, a passage that virtually all scholars now believe in mistranslated in the KJV. They present divorce as a command (if ... then let him divorce). The construction is fours is with a conclusion. Compare the KJV with a MV and you will see what I am talking about.

 

Again, it is you who is claiming the KJV is the ONLY word of God so, therefore, the burden of proof is on you. Now, I can understand, if you can't prove it, you would try to shift the burden of proof to them, but their bibles all say "all scripture is given by inspiration of God" or words to that effect, so, they have scriptural evidence to support their contention that their bibles are the word of God, but you have, as yet, failed to produce one scrap of scripture to prove the KJV is the ONLY word of God in English. The burden of proof is still on you and you have failed to produce it.

 

Amen, Doc Cass!!!

God can speak to us in more than one translation. I read the KJV; NKJV; and the NIV. I would read others if I had them. When one is certain of their own beliefs, they do not have to agrue which is the true word of God.

[ September 16, 2002, 09:03 PM: Message edited by: Thankful ]

 

The KJV has been regarded as the Word of God for nearly 400 years. The MV's came on the scene over 250 years later, they were based largely (sometimes solely) on different manuscripts, they were not translated with similar translation techniques, they did not have the same agenda as the KJV translators, but they too claim to be the Word of God.

Doc, I respect you even though I've never met you but I firmly disagree with you on this one. It is the advocates of the MV's that are now failing to prove their claims. They are hiding behind the "You prove your point first" charade.

I have presented why I believe the way I do but the majority of my posts have been unanswered or dismissed as "heresy."

LRL71 said:

You are wrong my friend. I have read every word you have posted. I have found very little that I agree with. It is you that have ignored my repeated offerings that substantiate the basis for my beliefs. You merely pass them off as uneducated, blind plagerism from a KJVO book somewhere. I sincerely question whether you have taken the time to read my posts.

I assure you this is not a game. I am very serious about the Bible I hold in my hands. If I'm to live by "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God," then I have to be confident that I have all of the Words that God wants me to have.

You are again wrong. I agree we do not have the originals but we do have successive generations of the originals. Even a brief study of the pain-staking effort the scribes went through to accurately pass down copies will reveal that word-perfect copies were handed down. It is from these later generations that the Bible was translated into different languages. Eventually English.

Sorry, you failed again. I read this sarcastic remark time and again and I still have a full head of hair left. Well, almost a full head of hair

Amen!

 

\o/ Glory to the Lord \o/

\o/ Praise be to Jesus \o/

ed: --------------------------------
Let me do just that after you tell me why the
KJV1611, perfect in every way,
had to have the spelling corrected
in the 18th century.
-----------------------------------
LRL71: "I am laughing so hard right now!"

Thank you, LRL71. It is my calling to
bring joy to God's workers in the field.

Pastor Bob 63: "If you want to change my
mind and belittle my beliefs, your going to have
to come up with something solid."

It is not my calling to change minds on
this matter nor to belittle beliefs
of God's workers in the field.

Brother Pastor Bob 63: Proofs in the logic
of humans must start with agreed upon
axioms and definitions. Will you accept
the following statement as axiomatic?

God, by His Divine Providence, has preserved
His infallible written word for this generation
in each edition of the King James Version.

Ed: ---------------------------
God, by His Divine Providence, has preserved
His infallible written word for this generation
in each English Translation.
----------------------------
Pastor Bob 63: "I am just giving him an opportunity to back up
what he believes. I would think to make a statement
like that would call for some evidence."

I checked a goodly number of MVs and two KJVs
back in 1996.
1) after prayer the Holy Spirit witnessed to me
that all of them were as i said above.
2) I looked at how one gets saved in each
version, namely Romans 10:9. In each MV
(including two "Catholic" Bibles) i had
at the time and both KJVs, the "method" of salvation
was the same.

Romans 10:0 (nKJV):
... if you confess with your mouth the Lord
Jesus and believe in your heart that God has
raised Him form the dead, you will be saved.

By way of personal testimony, in April 1952
i first confessed that Jesus was my Lord.
At the same time i believed in my heart that
God raised Jesus from the dead. I was saved
then and still am saved. And i confess again
this 16th of September, 2002 that Jesus
is my Lord and now He is my Savior as well.
In 1952 i was reading from a KJV (edition
deceptively witheld).

BTW, I just gave two undeniable proofs
that MVs are the plenary
infallible written word for this generation
which God, by His Divine Providence, has preserved.
Well, i proved it good enough for me.
The milage of others may vary

 

\o/ Glory to the Lord \o/

\o/ Praise be to Jesus \o/

Pastor Bob 63: "The KJV has been regarded as the Word of God for
nearly 400 years."

This is streched a tad beyond truth.
For the first 100 years of it's existance, the
KJV was NOT contstrued by the majority of it's readers
as the best source of the Word of God.
Also you need to wait nine more years for the
400th anniversery of the completition of the KJV.

Pastor Bob 63: "If I'm to
live by "every word that proceedeth out of
the mouth of God," then I have to be confident
that I have all of the Words that God wants me to have."

Amen, Brother Pastor Bob 63 -- Preach it!
I believe you can be confident because:
God, by His Divine Providence, has preserved
His plenary infallible written word for this generation
in each English Translation.

I've got two of the three most popular KJVs in
my own home collection. One is an actual reprint
of the REAL KJV1611 complete with apocrypha and
translator sidenotes. The other is a tad deceptive
as it doesn't bother to tell me which reprint
it is. I always thought it might be the 1873
reprint, but it could be the 1769 reprint, in any
case, it doesn't say.

 

I am not a scholar in any language, however, something about the discussion of Psalm 12 needs to be brought out that no one has addressed so far. The argument has been made that "them" in vs 7 cannot refer to "words" in verse six since in the Hebrew them is masculine plural and words is feminine plural. This is certainly true.

My contention is that there is precedence for accepting this gender discordance. In Psalm 119, a chapter that is dedicated to the Word of God there are four similar cases of gender discordance.
Psalm 119:111- Thy testimonies have I taken as an heritage for ever: for they are the rejoicing of my heart.
They is masculine plural, testimonies is feminine plural. If you go to the last masculine plural noun for an antecedent, you will find it in verse 10. It is the word "wicked." I don,t believe anyone would argue that the "Wicked are the rejoicing of my heart".

Psalm 119:129- Thy testimonies are wonderful: therefore doth my soul keep them.
Same thing again: testimonies is feminine plural. them is masculine plural.

Psalm 119:152- Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them forever.

Again testimonies is feminine plural and them is masculine plural.

Psal 119:167- My soul hath kept thy testimonies; and I love them exceedingly.

Same again.

If it can happen four times in one chapter, why can't it happen in Psalm 12:6,7. The argument that them in vs 7 cannot refer to words in vs 6 is not a valid argument.

Any comments?

 

Yes, since your argument is based upon the gender of the Hebrew words then the preservation applies to the Hebrew words and not necessarily the English.

HankD

[ September 18, 2002, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Yeah ... the context is about the disappearance vs. the preservation of the godly man, not the words. So Psalm 12:6-7 still refers to the preservation of the godly man and not the words.

 

The Psalm 12 passage differs from the "exception to the rule" passages you listed in at least two ways:

- the verse itself still makes sense without this being a exception to the rule
- the context of the entire chapter supports this not being an execption to the rule. In fact if this was an exception, it would make less sense contextually.

 

Garpier,

Your point is well taken, but I think BrianT is correct in arguing that the context better supports "them" in verse 7 referring back to those mentioned in verse 5. The reason these verses were the focus of attention in the first place is that they were offered in defense of the doctrine of the preservation of God's Word, but I think you might agree that this issue is probably not the focus of these verses. And even if you think "them" refers to "the words of the Lord" in verse 6, I think you would have to admit that this is less than certain.

Pastork