Inspiration, preservation, double inspiration, and a partridge in a pear tree.

Please don't leave the room. All the knives are sheathed. All weapons holstered and on safety. I have never wanted any conversation on this topic to be any more than just that: a conversation. No arguments, no fights. My closest and dearest friends in the ministry are KJVO. I am not. We love each other in the Lord. We worship, work and witness together. It's not a point of contention.

If the primary function of our church was to promote and defend the KJVO, I would not have joined. Because the the primary function of our church is to promote and defend the Gospel, we enjoy a wonderful Christian fellowship.

As we do here on SI.

Is one allowed to be considered orthodox if one simply refuses to accept the critical text and the reasoning supporting it?

Ron,

if one is involved in thinking about the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts they are involved in critical textual matters. If they accept certain manuscripts and reject others they are involved in accepting a critical text. The KJVO advocate cannot prove by internal biblical evidence that the KJV or any textual manuscripts behind it is superior or divinely protected. They attempt to present some verses on preservation and apply them as God promising a perfectly preserved and inerrant version. This they then apply to the KJV though the verses do not so name the KJV. Their application becomes opinion without scripture. Since these same verses on preservation appear with the same meaning in the NKJV, NASV, ESV, RSV, NIV, and other translation, you could take your pick and apply them to just about any translation and claim it as divinely preserved. You could claim the 1960s "Dog patch" translation was the divinely preserved text for the English language (there was such a translation). Also, as you most likely are aware, good scholars have handled these scriptures and shown why they view them as being misinterpreted.

Some believe that some manuscripts are a better reflection of the originals than others. The NKJV translation favors the Byzantine text. Where there is a difference they go with the Byzantine family of manuscripts. The NASV favors the Alexandrian family of manuscripts. If one favors the so called "textus receptus" manuscripts as best that is their opinion. I think they are wrong but that is their conclusion based on their analysis. That becomes their accepted critical text.

The problem comes when one accepts certain manuscripts and rejects others and then attempts to claim divine intervention occurred in such a way as to protect their accepted manuscripts from error. Other manuscripts are then presented as not so divinly preserved and heresy. Some will go a step further and claim such divine superintendents in a translating process and then claim divine endorsement for a version such as the KJV. Since these claims are made without any scripture to specifically point to these preferred manuscripts or a resultant translation, they are made based on evidence external to the scriptures themselves. All such evidence comes from the use and application of some sort of critical method being used and applied. Such evidence is then but human opinion.

Ron, one is not unorthodox if they reject some textual critical claims and accept others. However, if they claim divine intervention for the text or manuscripts they accept then they go beyond the scriptures themselves and thus provide a false basis for Christian truth claims. They then become entangled in heresy regarding the revealed word of God. They have a truth base that transports divine endorsement beyond Apostolic endorsement and authority to others that have no scripture giving them such an endorsement. They joint the truth foundation of Ellen White and the Seventh day Adventists, the Christian Science, Mormons, and Sun Yung Moon and the Moonies. They become heretics with regard to the the doctrine of revelation and preservation.

Those who believe that divine preservation of the scriptures is providential and not by superintending intervention do so based on the phenomena of scripture, the statements of scripture, and the phenomena of the present available evidence of the manuscripts and translations. Of the over 5100 manuscripts and fragments found, no two are in complete agreement. That's right, there is some difference, though small, in them all. Yet none differs so as to place any doctrine in doubt. God has preserved the truth of His word.

We all accept a critically examined text of some sort. We must do so if we reject others and have a theory for doing so.

I was pointing out reality which goes beyond labels. The KJVO position also has a critical text though it is not so labeled.

Being one of the blazers of the rabbit-trail in the other thread, I thank you, Susan, for setting up shop for us over here.

I've been away for a few days, but I would like to restate a question I asked over there, and hear feedback.

This question has directly to do with the issue that Bob T. is raising in comment #5 above. By articulating this teaching (in a doctrinal statement) as a belief, on par with other beliefs, such as the Inspiration of Scripture or the deity of Christ, a church is elevating it's personally-held opinion to the level of doctrine, and thus falls under the condemnation of Christ in Matthew 15:9

If this is not true, then please share with us the Scripture references cited which teach divine preservation in one particular translation or manuscript.

Does anyone know the history behind any translation in a language other than English?