Tyndale

Preservation and the KJV

108 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Do the Scriptures teach word preservation or do they teach thought or meaning preservation?   Terms relating to Bible doctrine should be defined and explained.

From my reading and study of the Scriptures, I see the Scriptures teaching a preservation of the exact, specific words that proceeded out of the mouth of God by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.  According to their preface to the 1611 and according to their writings, I understand the KJV translators to maintain or teach that the preservation of the Scriptures concerned the original language words given to the prophets and apostles.

Would the scriptural teaching that no words of men were to be added and no words of God were to be omitted or changed relate to the doctrine of preservation and would they suggest that preservation directly concerned the original language words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles?  In translating the Scriptures, do translators sometimes have to add words in order for their translation to be understandable in the different language, suggesting that preservation may not directly apply to translations that add some words of men?  Would any words added by translators for which there were no original language words of Scripture be preserving actual words that proceeded out of the mouth of God to the prophets and apostles?  

What exactly or precisely is meant by the assertion that the KJV is the preserved word of God? 

Does it mean that the KJV is a translation of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages?  It is true that the KJV is a translation of the preserved Scriptures and is a revision of earlier English Bibles.

On the other hand, is it possibly intended to suggest that the KJV always has a literal, word-for-word translation of each original language word of Scripture so that it is claimed to preserve exactly the same number of words [without any addition or omission] as the number of words that God gave to the prophets and apostles along with preserving the same meaning of each word?  If preservation is directly applied to different words in a different language, would that possibly suggest that meaning or thought preservation is in effect being claimed instead of exact, specific word preservation?  Do the Scriptures themselves clearly and directly teach a preservation of different words than the exact, specific ones given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles?

How does the KJV directly preserve each and every specific word given by God to the prophets and apostles if there are at least a few times where the KJV translators themselves suggested in their marginal notes that they did not provide an English rendering for an original language word in their underlying text?

Are there different number of words in different editions of the KJV or do all editions of the KJV have the exact same number of words and have the exact same words?  Which of the varying editions of the KJV is the specific one that is claimed to have every preserved word of God?

Edited by Tyndale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Login or register for removal of this advertisement.

As for myself:

1.  I believe that the Biblical doctrine of preservation teaches a perfect, generational, precise ("jot and tittle") preservation of the words and wordings which the Lord our God originally gave through the inspiration of His Holy Spirit.

2.  I believe that the King James translation is, by our Lord God's wondrous providence, a perfectly accurate translation of that which He has preserved from generation to generation in a perfectly precise ("jot and tittle") manner.

3.  As such, I believe that the King James translation carries the absolute authority of divine inspiration for the English reading peoples of our present day.

wretched, John Young, Alan and 2 others like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You are getting into the difference between translation methods; of which, there are three main methods...

  1. Formal or Literal (word-for-word)
  2. Dynamic (though-for-thought)
  3. Free (the idea behind or paraphrase)

The methods explain themselves.

If we want to know God's actual word(s), then we would want a Formal Equivalency (or Literal translation). Probably, the two most popular Literal translations are the King James Version and the English Standard Version (ESV). However, though both are a literal translation, one must also consider the underlying texts from which they are translated. 

Dynamic Equivalency gives what the translator's believe to be a translation based upon the overall "thought" of a passage. So, instead of translating the actual words of a text, they are translating what they think are the thoughts behind the texts. They may loosely follow the actual words, but the main thrust is the thought behind the text. Hence, the New International Version (NIV). Certainly, this type of translation method is prone to error since the translator(s) will be inserting their own interpretation.

Free translating...aka...paraphrasing is basically translating the idea behind the text...and is unhindered and unrestrained by the actual words of the text. Indeed, this type of translation method is more than prone to error. The Living Bible and The Message are two popular paraphrases. I personally refer to "The Message" as "The Massacre". :)

As to adding to God's word; the King James translators were very specific in italicizing any words that they added...words to give a clearer meaning to the text. No other version (that I know of does this). At least they were honest and forthright in what they added. As such, their "additions" didn't actually add to the word of God. There will always be some type of addition needed when translating one language into another. In fact, if one has access to the Greek, and one is able to translate the Greek, one would see that the sentence structure is quite different than that of English sentence structure. So, whereas, the King James translates word for word, it also repositions words so as to make sense to an English reader. 

In my view, it comes down to this...

God told us to study his "WORD". We are to live by his "WORD". He magnifies his WORD above his name (Psalm 138:2). In light of this, I want to know...HIS WORD. With the help of the Holy Spirit and study, I can grasp the "thought" (Dynamic Equivalency) behind his actual word(s); I can grasp the "idea" (Free paraphrasing) behind his actual word(s). I don't need someone else telling me what THEY think God's thoughts were or what his ideas were. If I have his actual words, I can get that from him. ;)

Edited by No Nicolaitans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

3 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

You are getting into the difference between translation methods; of which, there are three main methods...

  1. Formal or Literal (word-for-word)
  2. Dynamic (though-for-thought)
  3. Free (the idea behind or paraphrase)

The methods explain themselves.

If we want to know God's actual word(s), then we would want a Formal Equivalency (or Literal translation). Probably, the two most popular Literal translations are the King James Version and the English Standard Version (ESV). However, though both are a literal translation, one must also consider the underlying texts from which they are translated. 

Dynamic Equivalency gives what the translator's believe to be a translation based upon the overall "thought" of a passage. So, instead of translating the actual words of a text, they are translating what they think are the thoughts behind the texts. They may loosely follow the actual words, but the main thrust is the thought behind the text. Hence, the New International Version (NIV). Certainly, this type of translation method is prone to error since the translator(s) will be inserting their own interpretation.

Free translating...aka...paraphrasing is basically translating the idea behind the text...and is unhindered and unrestrained by the actual words of the text. Indeed, this type of translation method is more than prone to error. The Living Bible and The Message are two popular paraphrases. I personally refer to "The Message" as "The Massacre". :)

As to adding to God's word; the King James translators were very specific in italicizing any words that they added...words to give a clearer meaning to the text. No other version (that I know of does this). At least they were honest and forthright in what they added. As such, their "additions" didn't actually add to the word of God. There will always be some type of addition needed when translating one language into another. In fact, if one has access to the Greek, and one is able to translate the Greek, one would see that the sentence structure is quite different than that of English sentence structure. So, whereas, the King James translates word for word, it also repositions words so as to make sense to an English reader. 

In my view, it comes down to this...

God told us to study his "WORD". We are to live by his "WORD". He magnifies his WORD above his name (Psalm 138:2). In light of this, I want to know...HIS WORD. With the help of the Holy Spirit and study, I can grasp the "thought" (Dynamic Equivalency) behind his actual word(s); I can grasp the "idea" (Free paraphrasing) behind his actual word(s). I don't need someone else telling me what THEY think God's thoughts were or what his ideas were. If I have his actual words, I can get that from him. ;)

This explanation by NN is spot on. And it becomes extremely relevant when translating the Bible into a foreign language today, or judging an old translation that you find on the foreign field. I ran into this in Papua New Guinea several years ago.

Where this whole subject becomes iffy, in my own un-asked-for opinion, is when a native English-speaking person today is looking for an academic, intellectual, scholastic proof that the KJV is worthy of their faith in it's inerrant perfection. For in the end, proof will never be fully found in such a manner. For the born-again Christian, the foundation of everything is, and will always be, faith. "For whatsoever is not of faith is sin". If I ultimately will solely trust my intellect to discern and decide what is of God and what is not, I have in the end set myself up as judge. This is actually the very foundation of humanism. You can NOT discern the perfect Word of God by human study and intellectual exercise. For who can ever know the things of God (such as the Words of God) unless they are revealed to him by the Spirit of God? The KJV has the power of God on it. That has been proven for the last 400 years. It is alive. It speaks to people and smites their hearts with a divine power that no other English translation has ever shown.

There have been English speaking illiterate dirt farmers, simple pioneers and settlers, ex-drunks and un-churched prostitutes, simple itinerant preachers and harried housewives that have for centuries known the this Bible is the living Word of God. They know nothing of manuscript evidence or dynamic equivalency, and have never heard of Tyndale, Wycliffe or the Textus Receptus. But they know full well where they got the Word that was quick and powerful and sharp, and that cut their hearts clean down to the dividing of their soul and spirit.

Sometimes, for us educated to know more, we actually have to be able and willing to "know" less. This is the beginning of the journey from human knowledge into Godly wisdom.

He that hath ears to hear...

Edited by weary warrior
Orval and No Nicolaitans like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eloah pluralized is Elohim. How is Elohim translated into English? Singular. God. In Hebrew we know more than one God is creating, Elohim. Sadly this is lost in English. Maybe the modern translations have corrected this, but I do not know. So LORD God becomes Yahweh Elohim or Yahweh Gods, talk about the Trinity. That's shouting ground for hillbillies. Want to really shout, look up Deuteronomy 6:4, the Trinity in the Law.

That's just one example how the English doesn't live up to the Hebrew. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MountainChristian said:

Eloah pluralized is Elohim. How is Elohim translated into English? Singular. God. In Hebrew we know more than one God is creating, Elohim. Sadly this is lost in English. Maybe the modern translations have corrected this, but I do not know. So LORD God becomes Yahweh Elohim or Yahweh Gods, talk about the Trinity. That's shouting ground for hillbillies. Want to really shout, look up Deuteronomy 6:4, the Trinity in the Law.

That's just one example how the English doesn't live up to the Hebrew. 

I politely disagree. In English we are told "Let us make man in our image", and that's a pretty clear plurality. The trinity in the law may have been made clearer for the Hebrews in their language, but that was because they didn't yet have anything but the law. We have I John 5:7 et al. By your logic, would our verses given to us but not to the Hebrews not then make the scripture in the Hebrew language inferior to the English? By the time English language came along centuries later and we had received the scriptures, all had been made clear. God saw to it that the dumb hillbilly got the exact same information in his language that the Hebrew scholar had received in his 4000 years earlier. The English is not behind the Hebrew, anymore than the Law is behind grace. Each had their own individual place and purpose designed by God. They are each separately perfect in their own form and function and time. There is never a problem until we try to cross-pollinate them. Remember, we were told in I Corinthians 13:8, which was not written in Hebrew, that "when that which is perfect is come (the completed Word of God) then that which is in part shall be done away with". The completed word of God has been deemed perfect by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

10 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

 

As to adding to God's word; the King James translators were very specific in italicizing any words that they added...words to give a clearer meaning to the text. No other version (that I know of does this). At least they were honest and forthright in what they added.

I think that it was the 1560 Geneva Bible that first introduced the use of italics to indicate words added by translators.  The KJV is not the only present English version that uses italics for added words. 

In the 1611 edition of the KJV, the KJV translators put some of the words that they added in a different smaller type.  It was later editions of the KJV that would use italics as was used in the 1560 Geneva.  The KJV translators may not have been as specific as you suggest.  Later editions of the KJV such as the 1629 Cambridge, the 1638 Cambridge, the 1743 Cambridge, the 1762 Cambridge, the 1769 Oxford more than doubled the actual number of words in the KJV that are in italics when compared to the number of words in a different type in the 1611 edition.

  Would it be suggested that the KJV translators were less than 50% honest and forthright since they put in a different type less than half of the added words that are actually in italics in many present KJV editions?   I don't think so.  You seem to be crediting the KJV translators for all the words in italics in many present KJV editions when it was later KJV editors who were likely responsible for more than half of them. 

For example, in his 1888 book entitled Old Bibles: An Account of the Early English Bible, J. R. Dore maintained that the 1611 edition of the KJV has 43 words in italics in the Gospel of Matthew while the 1629 Cambridge edition has 165 words in italics, the 1638 Cambridge edition has 224 words in italics, and the 1762 Cambridge edition has 352 words in italics (p. 340).      

Some editions of the KJV through the years have been printed with no words in italics.  I know of one such edition printed in London in 1795.  There are also a few present KJV editions that have no words in italics.  I have copies of at least three to five such present KJV editions with no words in italics.  The 2005 KJV edition of the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible and the 2011 KJV edition of the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible edited by David Norton do not have any words in italics.

Edited by Tyndale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Tyndale said:

I think that it was the 1560 Geneva Bible that first introduced the use of italics to indicate words added by translators.  The KJV is not the only present English version that uses italics for added words. 

Well, I did say, "that I know of." Whether other English versions incorporate italics or not is a moot point if they're translated from the wrong texts. That's my opinion though.

In the 1611 edition of the KJV, the KJV translators put some of the words that they added in a different type. 

I used the word "italics" simply so people would know what I was referring to.

It was later editions of the KJV that would use italics as was used in the 1560 Geneva.  The KJV translators may not have been as specific as you suggest.  Later editions of the KJV such as the 1629 Cambridge, the 1638 Cambridge, the 1743 Cambridge, the 1762 Cambridge, the 1769 Oxford more than doubled the actual number of words in the KJV that are in italics when compared to the 1611 edition. 

I don't know if that's true or not, so I won't comment on it.

Would it be suggested that the KJV translators were less than 50% honest and forthright since they put in a different type less than half of the added words that are actually in italics in many present KJV editions?   I don't think so. 

Nor would I.

You seem to be crediting the KJV translators for all the words in italics in many present KJV editions when it was later KJV editors who were likely responsible for more than half of them. 

No sir, this is all that I said...

Quote: As to adding to God's word; the King James translators were very specific in italicizing any words that they added...words to give a clearer meaning to the text. No other version (that I know of does this). At least they were honest and forthright in what they added. As such, their "additions" didn't actually add to the word of God. End quote.

I spoke only of the translators...nothing was said about anything else.

For example, in his 1888 book entitled Old Bibles: An Account of the Early English Bible, J. R. Dore maintained that the 1611 edition of the KJV has 43 words in italics in the Gospel of Matthew while the 1629 Cambridge edition has 165 words in italics, the 1638 Cambridge edition has 224 words in italics, and the 1762 Cambridge edition has 352 words in italics (p. 340).      

Some editions of the KJV through the years have been printed with no words in italics, and there are a few present KJV editions that have no words in italics.  I have copies of at least three to five such present KJV editions with no words in italics.  The 2005 KJV edition of the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible and the 2011 KJV edition of the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible edited by David Norton do not have any words in italics.

Okay. Italics or not...I'd still trust a non-italicized King James version over any other English version...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Tyndale said:

I think that it was the 1560 Geneva Bible that first introduced the use of italics to indicate words added by translators.  The KJV is not the only present English version that uses italics for added words. 

In the 1611 edition of the KJV, the KJV translators put some of the words that they added in a different smaller type.  It was later editions of the KJV that would use italics as was used in the 1560 Geneva.  The KJV translators may not have been as specific as you suggest.  Later editions of the KJV such as the 1629 Cambridge, the 1638 Cambridge, the 1743 Cambridge, the 1762 Cambridge, the 1769 Oxford more than doubled the actual number of words in the KJV that are in italics when compared to the number of words in a different type in the 1611 edition.

  Would it be suggested that the KJV translators were less than 50% honest and forthright since they put in a different type less than half of the added words that are actually in italics in many present KJV editions?   I don't think so.  You seem to be crediting the KJV translators for all the words in italics in many present KJV editions when it was later KJV editors who were likely responsible for more than half of them. 

For example, in his 1888 book entitled Old Bibles: An Account of the Early English Bible, J. R. Dore maintained that the 1611 edition of the KJV has 43 words in italics in the Gospel of Matthew while the 1629 Cambridge edition has 165 words in italics, the 1638 Cambridge edition has 224 words in italics, and the 1762 Cambridge edition has 352 words in italics (p. 340).      

Some editions of the KJV through the years have been printed with no words in italics, and there are a few present KJV editions that have no words in italics.  I have copies of at least three to five such present KJV editions with no words in italics.  The 2005 KJV edition of the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible and the 2011 KJV edition of the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible edited by David Norton do not have any words in italics.

Aint' that something, or is it? Imagine if you actually believed the Bible was preserved? Then imagine if you were a doer of the Word instead of a hearer only. What a wonderful eternity you could have.

Based on your posts, it appears you have nothing to add to this forum except the nonsense fed to you by someone's merchandise. Put your energy into the Word and drop the trivial, intellectual speculation you attempt to portray friend.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, wretched said:

 Imagine if you actually believed the Bible was preserved?

 

My opening post in this thread made it clear that I do believe that the Bible was and is preserved.  My belief would be based on exactly what the Scriptures themselves state.

I stated: "From my reading and study of the Scriptures, I see the Scriptures teaching a preservation of the exact, specific words that proceeded out of the mouth of God by inspiration to the prophets and apostles."

Do you clearly demonstrate that your beliefs concerning the preservation of the Scriptures are any more consistent, sound, and scriptural than mine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tyndale said:

I stated: "From my reading and study of the Scriptures, I see the Scriptures teaching a preservation of the exact, specific words that proceeded out of the mouth of God by inspiration to the prophets and apostles."

The problem is, many of us have been around for a long, long time. And we've seen this silly game played for many years. And we've seen it played by those who are better and more clever at it than you have been, at least on here. I guess what gets my goat is not that you would try this lawyer-talk shell game on here so much as the fact that you seem to actually believe we are foolish and shallow enough to not see through it. It's actually kind of insulting.

I see the Scriptures teaching a preservation of the exact, specific words that proceeded out of the mouth of God by inspiration to the prophets and apostles. Yeah, we know. It's the tired, old "original manuscripts" argument presented in a sloppy, quasi-intellectual underhanded manner. I don't even care that you believe that. Everyone has the right to be as obtuse as they choose. We are just all getting just a little weary of your childish word games. We are trying to be courteous and patient (some more than others), but you're not making it very easy.

DaveW and wretched like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎4‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 0:39 AM, Tyndale said:

Do the Scriptures teach word preservation or do they teach thought or meaning preservation?   Terms relating to Bible doctrine should be defined and explained.

From my reading and study of the Scriptures, I see the Scriptures teaching a preservation of the exact, specific words that proceeded out of the mouth of God by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.  According to their preface to the 1611 and according to their writings, I understand the KJV translators to maintain or teach that the preservation of the Scriptures concerned the original language words given to the prophets and apostles.

Brother Tyndale,

A question if I may (indeed, an honest question for information) -- What Hebrew and Greek texts or textual families, do you believe, represent God's work of preserving "the exact, specific words" that proceeded out of His mouth "by inspiration to the prophets and apostles"?

DaveW and busdrvrlinda54 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, weary warrior said:

I politely disagree. In English we are told "Let us make man in our image", and that's a pretty clear plurality. The trinity in the law may have been made clearer for the Hebrews in their language, but that was because they didn't yet have anything but the law. We have I John 5:7 et al. By your logic, would our verses given to us but not to the Hebrews not then make the scripture in the Hebrew language inferior to the English? By the time English language came along centuries later and we had received the scriptures, all had been made clear. God saw to it that the dumb hillbilly got the exact same information in his language that the Hebrew scholar had received in his 4000 years earlier. The English is not behind the Hebrew, anymore than the Law is behind grace. Each had their own individual place and purpose designed by God. They are each separately perfect in their own form and function and time. There is never a problem until we try to cross-pollinate them. Remember, we were told in I Corinthians 13:8, which was not written in Hebrew, that "when that which is perfect is come (the completed Word of God) then that which is in part shall be done away with". The completed word of God has been deemed perfect by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

The whole Bible was written by Hebrews, the biggest part in Hebrew, then Greek, finally some in Arabic. God gave us no Bible without using a Hebrew and God Himself came to earth in the Hebrew family of David. When God returns He will rule the earth from the Hebrews homeland. That puts them far above us English speaking people because God chose Abram. 

Hebrew - Elohim plural, English - God singular. That's not the same. God can never change, His word can never change. There is a change there. Plural is not singular. Man done that. We are still like Eve in the Garden of Eden. Its a safe change because the three Gods are One. Its within the doctrine of the whole book but its still a change. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

7 hours ago, weary warrior said:

 And we've seen this silly game played for many years

this lawyer-talk shell game on here

 argument presented in a sloppy, quasi-intellectual underhanded manner. I don't even care that you believe that. Everyone has the right to be as obtuse as they choose. We are just all getting just a little weary of your childish word games. We are trying to be courteous and patient (some more than others), but you're not making it very easy.

I wonder how it would be being courteous, kind, and patient for some posters to seem to attempt to attack personally my integrity, my faith in God, and my acceptance of what the Scriptures teach.  Perhaps the criticism is because it is thought that I may not blindly accept certain non-scriptural opinions of men that some may add to their doctrine of the Bible.

I do not consider learning or stating the truth a silly game or nonsense. 

Would the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth, guide believers to accept all truth or would He guide to accept only some truth while dismissing or avoiding other truth?  Why would presenting actual true facts concerning the KJV and concerning editions of the KJV seem be attacked by those who would claim to stand for the truth?  Would it be wrong to attempt to be faithful and true in what some may consider to be the least important details and facts concerning the KJV?

Luke 16:10

He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much

 

Edited by Tyndale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, MountainChristian said:

The whole Bible was written by Hebrews, the biggest part in Hebrew, then Greek, finally some in Arabic. God gave us no Bible without using a Hebrew and God Himself came to earth in the Hebrew family of David. When God returns He will rule the earth from the Hebrews homeland. That puts them far above us English speaking people because God chose Abram. 

Hebrew - Elohim plural, English - God singular. That's not the same. God can never change, His word can never change. There is a change there. Plural is not singular. Man done that. We are still like Eve in the Garden of Eden. Its a safe change because the three Gods are One. Its within the doctrine of the whole book but its still a change. 

MC,

I understand your point of view and concerns.

I was taught that each instance of the word "God" (in the Old Testament) refers to all three members of the godhead, just as each instance of the word "LORD" refers to the Father.

Now, I haven't looked up every instance to see if that's true, but I have looked at many instances, and it was true in those cases.

I can't answer for the translators, but as Christians, we know and understand that there are three members of the godhead...yet they are one. 

Therefore, it seems to me that the translators were accurate in not only referring to the three members of the godhead as one (God), but the fact that they did it consistently also secures my assurance. In that one word, they translated a simple (yet deep) spiritual truth and doctrine...one that the Hebrews rejected even though they had the obvious plural word.

Edited by No Nicolaitans
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tyndale said:

I wonder how it would be being courteous, kind, and patient for some posters to seem to attempt to attack personally my integrity, my faith in God, and my acceptance of what the Scriptures teach.  Perhaps the criticism is because it is thought that I may not blindly accept certain non-scriptural opinions of men that some may add to their doctrine of the Bible.

I do not consider learning or stating the truth a silly game or nonsense. 

Would the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth, guide believers to accept all truth or would He guide to accept only some truth while dismissing or avoiding other truth?  Why would presenting actual true facts concerning the KJV and concerning editions of the KJV seem be attacked by those who would claim to stand for the truth?  Would it be wrong to attempt to be faithful and true in what some may consider to be the least important details and facts concerning the KJV?

Luke 16:10

He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much

 

OK, Son. Carry on. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NN, thank you very much for those words. I can see how you had a better teacher growing up in the faith.

KJVO is so bad here they are men that teach a man can not get saved unless the KJV is being used. Some mock the other translations not knowing they are mocking Jesus' birth, life, doctrine, death and resurrection. Things like this hurt my soul, because I love Jesus.

I'm having a hard time after learning the translation isn't identical to the original. I was taught even down the word “a” or “the” would match up in every case. They don't. 

I was told, “The Isaiah dead sea scroll matches up word for word, even the punctuation matches perfectly with the KJV.” Seen the photos of the scroll and its not true. Learning the teachings are false has been a crisis for me. I do not want others to go through this.

Jesus will help me and I'll get it unlearned.

The KJV Church I belong to teaches doing, then do some more. This has helped me a lot and my Pastor is so very careful to not add to the word and to not subtract from the word. 

My recommendation of the KJV means nothing, but the 400+ years of the Holy Ghost blessings mean everything. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every time this breaks out. I just can not understand it. Someone comes along and questions using the KJV. So, I trot out my trusty personal statement of faith and doctrines for the section on God's Word...

The Word of God

I believe the original texts are the divinely inspired Word of God in its entirety, written by men as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, and that it is the sole authority for the Christian's faith and conduct.  I believe the King James Version of the Bible is the preserved Word of God for teaching and preaching to English speaking people. This is what I will use when I quote scripture. I believe other English translations contain the Word of God.

The 1769 KJV fits me and I believe God is honored that I have it settled. MEVs are too much like casual conversation for me. I like to remember this is God speaking to me and answering questions I have; so, casual is not an option for me. The KJV makes me pause, think, and study God’s word for understanding. It causes me to meditate on God's Word and I know that pleases Him. (2 Timothy 3:15, Psalms 119:89)

The translators of the KJV had a dedication to God which is unsurpassed even shunned by translators and editors of today’s modern English versions (MEVs). If you want to have a casual conversation with me, that’s fine. If by opportunity we speak of God, the conversation will not be in the English of the KJV, just American English (unless I quote the little scripture I’ve memorized).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎4‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 0:39 AM, Tyndale said:

Do the Scriptures teach word preservation or do they teach thought or meaning preservation?   Terms relating to Bible doctrine should be defined and explained.

From my reading and study of the Scriptures, I see the Scriptures teaching a preservation of the exact, specific words that proceeded out of the mouth of God by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.  According to their preface to the 1611 and according to their writings, I understand the KJV translators to maintain or teach that the preservation of the Scriptures concerned the original language words given to the prophets and apostles.

14 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Tyndale,

A question if I may (indeed, an honest question for information) -- What Hebrew and Greek texts or textual families, do you believe, represent God's work of preserving "the exact, specific words" that proceeded out of His mouth "by inspiration to the prophets and apostles"?

Brother Tyndale,

Would you please answer the question that I posted earlier today?

 

Jim_Alaska and DaveW like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Tyndale,

A question if I may (indeed, an honest question for information) -- What Hebrew and Greek texts or textual families, do you believe, represent God's work of preserving "the exact, specific words" that proceeded out of His mouth "by inspiration to the prophets and apostles"?

While you did not answer my questions, I will consider yours.  I believe that God was just as faithful to preserve the exact, specific words of the original language Scriptures before 1611 as in 1611 and as after 1611.  I believe that a consistent, sound view of Bible preservation would be true both before and after 1611. 

I assume that you know that there are some variations or differences in the existing manuscript copies of Scripture that God has allowed to be preserved. 

The KJV translators made use of textually-varying Old Testament Hebrew Masoretic text editions and textually-varying Greek New Testament text editions along with some other textual sources in their textual criticism decisions and translating decisions, and they did not follow any one edition 100% and did not identify or name any one as being their sole perfect standard.  If it is satisfactory and proper for the KJV translators to use more than one edition, would not the same be true for other translators? 

In their preface to the 1611, the KJV translators maintained that "it has pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation."  In their preface, the KJV translators asserted:  "For as it is a fault of incredulity to doubt those things that are evident, so to determine such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption."

I would think that the scriptural truths concerning making righteous judgments, proving all things, using just measures, and not using unjust divers measures could provide some sound guidance concerning what consistent, sound, just criteria textual authorities should use to deal with textual variations.

D. A. Waite, a leading KJV defender and author, has maintained that there are no textual families and that all manuscript copies are like orphans.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if you would mind answering a question for me - and I would prefer a simple, straightforward answer because I am a relatively simple bloke.

Have you ever been a member of this site under a different name?

Actually another question, if I may - what name would that be, if you have indeed previously been a member here under a different name.

Just wondering, because your way of answering sounds familiar but I am not sure where from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tyndale said:

I believe that God was just as faithful to preserve the exact, specific words of the original language Scriptures before 1611 as in 1611 and as after 1611.  I believe that a consistent, sound view of Bible preservation would be true both before and after 1611. 

I assume that you know that there are some variations or differences in the existing manuscript copies of Scripture that God has allowed to be preserved.

D. A. Waite, a leading KJV defender and author, has maintained that there are no textual families and that all manuscript copies are like orphans.

 

Do you therefore believe that the Great Uncial Codices are also the preserved word of God? 

A simple "yes" or "no" answer is all that is asked for...unless you believe that not all are God's preserved word. In which case, I would therefore ask, "Do you believe that any of the Great Uncial Codices are also the preserved word of God?"

A simple "yes" or "no" answer is all that is asked for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

4 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Do you therefore believe that the Great Uncial Codices are also the preserved word of God? 

A simple "yes" or "no" answer is all that is asked for.

If your question is not actually a simple question, it would not call for a simple answer.  Your question would seem to be actually complex and perhaps misleading or invalid.  Questions can be properly answered by questions.  I will properly explain why I consider your question to be complex or misleading.

I think that both a "no" answer and a "yes" answer could be misunderstood or suggest the wrong thing.   If "no" was given as an answer as your question is worded, it would in effect be saying that the majority of the New Testament text of the Uncial Codices that would be the exactly the same as that in the varying Textus Receptus editions would not be the preserved word of God.  Would you give the answer "no" to your own question and in effect assert that the majority of the New Testament text in the Textus Receptus is not the preserved word of God since both would be the same in the majority of their NT text?  If "yes" was given as an answer as your question is worded, it would be claiming that all the copying errors in the Uncial Codices are the preserved word of God.   I have not suggested that the Uncial Codices should be the standard, and I have not suggested that any textual corruptions should be accepted.

I do not believe that any copying errors introduced by imperfect men are the preserved word of God.  Would you claim that the actual copying errors in the Greek NT manuscripts used by Erasmus were the preserved word of God?

Edited by Tyndale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Tyndale said:

While you did not answer my questions . . .

Brother Tyndale,

I do apologize.  I intended my first posting above as  a form of answer to your questions --

On ‎4‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 10:54 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

As for myself:

1.  I believe that the Biblical doctrine of preservation teaches a perfect, generational, precise ("jot and tittle") preservation of the words and wordings which the Lord our God originally gave through the inspiration of His Holy Spirit.

2.  I believe that the King James translation is, by our Lord God's wondrous providence, a perfectly accurate translation of that which He has preserved from generation to generation in a perfectly precise ("jot and tittle") manner.

3.  As such, I believe that the King James translation carries the absolute authority of divine inspiration for the English reading peoples of our present day.

However, it appears that this response was not sufficient.  Therefore allow me to be more precise with your individual questions --

On ‎4‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 0:39 AM, Tyndale said:

Do the Scriptures teach word preservation or do they teach thought or meaning preservation?   Terms relating to Bible doctrine should be defined and explained.

I believe that God's Word teaches "word preservation."  Indeed, I believe that God's Word teaches "jot and tittle" preservation, that is -- preservation unto the very letters and spellings.  Furthermore, I believe that God's Word teaches generation preservation, such that God has promised to preserve His Scriptures from the time of their original giving for each and every generation of His people.

On ‎4‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 0:39 AM, Tyndale said:

Would the scriptural teaching that no words of men were to be added and no words of God were to be omitted or changed relate to the doctrine of preservation and would they suggest that preservation directly concerned the original language words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles? 

By precise definition, "jot and tittle" preservation (as I hold) cannot precisely be applied unto anything other than "the original language words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles."

On ‎4‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 0:39 AM, Tyndale said:

In translating the Scriptures, do translators sometimes have to add words in order for their translation to be understandable in the different language, suggesting that preservation may not directly apply to translations that add some words of men?  Would any words added by translators for which there were no original language words of Scripture be preserving actual words that proceeded out of the mouth of God to the prophets and apostles?  

I do not believe that the doctrine of "translation" is equivalent to the doctrine of preservation; for the very moment that you change (translate) from one language to another, you are compelled to change the "jots and tittles."  Rather, I believe that the doctrine of translation (which is more implied in God's Word, than precisely declared) should be primarily concerned with ACCURACY in a formal equivalence manner.  As such, the doctrine of translation MUST also be concerned with the authenticity of the texts from which the translation is being taken (which is the reason that I asked my question concerning the texts or textual families unto which you held as "authentic").

On ‎4‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 0:39 AM, Tyndale said:

 What exactly or precisely is meant by the assertion that the KJV is the preserved word of God? 

I myself often wonder at this as well; however, I myself do NOT make such a claim.  Rather, I hold that the King James TRANSLATION is a perfectly ACCURATE translation of that which the Lord our God preserved in the Hebrew and Greek.

On ‎4‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 0:39 AM, Tyndale said:

Does it mean that the KJV is a translation of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages? 

See my answer above.

On ‎4‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 0:39 AM, Tyndale said:

On the other hand, is it possibly intended to suggest that the KJV always has a literal, word-for-word translation of each original language word of Scripture so that it is claimed to preserve exactly the same number of words [without any addition or omission] as the number of words that God gave to the prophets and apostles along with preserving the same meaning of each word? 

If someone does intend this, then they are being foolish.  Furthermore, even if this description were a reality, it still would not fulfill the precise definition of "jot and tittle" preservation.

On ‎4‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 0:39 AM, Tyndale said:

If preservation is directly applied to different words in a different language, would that possibly suggest that meaning or thought preservation is in effect being claimed instead of exact, specific word preservation? 

Yes.

On ‎4‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 0:39 AM, Tyndale said:

Do the Scriptures themselves clearly and directly teach a preservation of different words than the exact, specific ones given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles?

No.

On ‎4‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 0:39 AM, Tyndale said:

How does the KJV directly preserve each and every specific word given by God to the prophets and apostles if there are at least a few times where the KJV translators themselves suggested in their marginal notes that they did not provide an English rendering for an original language word in their underlying text?

Are there different number of words in different editions of the KJV or do all editions of the KJV have the exact same number of words and have the exact same words?  Which of the varying editions of the KJV is the specific one that is claimed to have every preserved word of God?

These question are not really relevant to my position concerning the precise definition of "jot and tittle" preservation.

9 hours ago, Tyndale said:

While you did not answer my questions, I will consider yours.  I believe that God was just as faithful to preserve the exact, specific words of the original language Scriptures before 1611 as in 1611 and as after 1611.  I believe that a consistent, sound view of Bible preservation would be true both before and after 1611. 

Amen, and AMEN!!!!!!!

9 hours ago, Tyndale said:

I assume that you know that there are some variations or differences in the existing manuscript copies of Scripture that God has allowed to be preserved. 

The KJV translators made use of textually-varying Old Testament Hebrew Masoretic text editions and textually-varying Greek New Testament text editions along with some other textual sources in their textual criticism decisions and translating decisions, and they did not follow any one edition 100% and did not identify or name any one as being their sole perfect standard.  If it is satisfactory and proper for the KJV translators to use more than one edition, would not the same be true for other translators? 

In their preface to the 1611, the KJV translators maintained that "it has pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation."  In their preface, the KJV translators asserted:  "For as it is a fault of incredulity to doubt those things that are evident, so to determine such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption."

You assume correctly.  I am indeed aware of these facts.  However, these facts do not actually reveal your personal position in relation to the question that I asked --

On ‎4‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 7:28 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Tyndale,

A question if I may (indeed, an honest question for information) -- What Hebrew and Greek texts or textual families, do you believe, represent God's work of preserving "the exact, specific words" that proceeded out of His mouth "by inspiration to the prophets and apostles"?

I am desiring to know if you hold to the same Masoretic and "Received" textual authority as stands behind the King James translation, or if you hold to the textual authority which was lifted up by Westcott and Hort and which has continued to be lifted by present day textual criticism. 

9 hours ago, Tyndale said:

I would think that the scriptural truths concerning making righteous judgments, proving all things, using just measures, and not using unjust divers measures could provide some sound guidance concerning what consistent, sound, just criteria textual authorities should use to deal with textual variations.

Indeed.

9 hours ago, Tyndale said:

D. A. Waite, a leading KJV defender and author, has maintained that there are no textual families and that all manuscript copies are like orphans.

Well, then it would appear that Brother D. A. Waite and I do not agree on this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, 1Timothy115 said:

 

The translators of the KJV had a dedication to God which is unsurpassed even shunned by translators and editors of today’s modern English versions (MEVs).

You are entitled to your opinion.  Can you provide sound evidence for your opinion?  Have you studied the actual Church of England doctrinal views held by the KJV translators?  Are you unaware of their acceptance of the Church of England's doctrine of baptismal regeneration?  Have you read and studied their lives and their writings?

Did you know that a good number of the KJV translators were active members of the state Church of England's Court of High Commission that persecuted professed believers for their faith?  Two of them were involved in having two men burned at the stake for their beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites