Fallacy of KJVOnlyism: providential preservation

Refreshed (Jason) had a post here above regarding 'derived inspiration', for which I will begin another thread discussing this topic. Although it does not necessarily affect the current topic (providential/supernatural preservation), it generally falls within that realm. A good discussion of this should be made when I am able to create this new thread.

A good point that Jason had mentioned above is the reference from Psalm 12:6-7. Doug Kutilek had written an extensive article regarding this verse and its alledged support by KJV-onlyists to be a proof text of the doctrine of providential preservation. His article can be found at:

http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/why_psalm.htm

In this article, Psalm 12:6-7 has a Hebrew grammatical structure that clearly does not support the idea that God preserved His Word(s), but rather that God will preserve the poor and needy from their inflictions.

Another point regarding providential/supernatural preservation, a distinction should be made. There are some who advocate a providential and/or supernatural preservation by God upon the TR/Received text and its counterpart English translation, the KJV. They are in one camp. The second camp is one that holds to providential/supernatural preservation to the text of the Bible in toto, thus we have the text of the Bible perfectly preserved throughout the manuscript copying process, but with the variances of copying errors being held to a minimum (this is, as I believe, to be Jason's position). The third camp, and which I would place myself, is one that holds to a generalized preservation of the text of the Bible, but not a providential or supernatural one.
The Reformed and Baptist theologians of old have spoken on this issue, and the 'second camp' position can be found in the Westminster and Philadelphia confessions. The third camp can be represented by Baptist theologian T.L. Dagg. Doug Kutilek has written another article regarding this subject, and it can be found at:

http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/preservation.htm

Basically put, providential/supernatural preservation is not a doctrine that can be supported from Scripture. I hope that all may read these articles, as they are not very long!

 

I believe that I understand what you are saying in regard to what/how God had 'chosen' to do regarding preserving the text of the Bible. Here's something that may simplify what I am trying to describe. I will use your example of the writing of the Ten Commandments upon the stone tablets that you had used. If anyone in the camp of Israel had copied what was on the Ten Commandments, does that act of copying the Ten Commandments, on let's say.... another stone, then come under the providence and protection of God? I think it's a good question, since it can be applied to the copyists of the Hebrew OT & Greek NT manuscripts. Did God somehow envoke an act of providence (or, even supernaturality) upon the copyists or the copies themselves? See, I think that the problem with providential or supernatural preservation is that if God somehow providentially 'preserved' or protected the copyist (or, even the copy itself), why not do it in a manner that perfectly preserved the text of the copy to be exactly, word-for-word, as its template? Would God allow that to happen under His provenance?? If this is true, then why are there errors in the copies? This is why I see no evidence of providential preservation. Human copyists can competently make a copy, but human copyists are definitely error prone (let's be simple: we are sinful by nature!). I hope that this example explains my position.... let me know if you have further questions!

 

Regarding the analysis of the text of Psalm 12:6-7 in Hebrew, you should read this post:

http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/why_psalm.htm

Perhaps this will answer your question, and quell your opposition! I DARE YOU!

 

Note: this portion pasted below is from another BB post!
______________________________________________

We've been down this road far too many times already. I'll just post a few references that I believe speaks of preservation and then you can give us your take on the meaning if you wish. I will not continue to argue this point that has been made time and again. </font>[/QUOTE]

If you will not 'continue to argue' this point regarding preservation, then perhaps the KJVO (or, TR/Received Text 'only') position regarding preservation is a farce! Considering that you have not postulated any reasons why the Scriptures are silent regarding the preservation of the text of the Bible. In my previous post, Pastor Bob had not refuted-- or even attempted to refute-- the nature of the text of the Hebrew/Aramaic OT and the Greek NT. If God providentially/supernaturally preserved the text of the Bible, then why all the copying errors in the manuscript evidence? Secondly, how does one make the 'quantum leap' of faith to say that God preserved His Word only in the Textus Receptus (Received Text) of the Greek NT? Would not this argument be effectively putting words in God's mouth? Thirdly, if the text of the OT/NT was either providentially or supernaturally preserved, why would God allow errors to enter into the copying of the manuscripts? One could argue that if God is able to produce an inspired, inerrant original autograph, then why would He allow copying errors to enter into the manuscripts? These questions are a few examples of why 'providential preservation' cannot be either biblical or practical; the silence from Scripture regarding whether God would preserve the text of the OT/NT is quite deafening indeed!

Now, regarding Pastor Bob's 'quoting' of verses from the Bible: all such quotations say nothing regarding the actual or perceived actions taken by God to 'preserve' the text of the Bible providentially or supernaturally. I will take each example that Pastor Bob made in quoting the Bible and demonstrate that "the fact of the matter is, the basic premise that there is a Divine promise to infallibly preserve Scripture from any alterations of whatever sort in the copying and translating process is defective. No such promise is given in Scripture (and alleged "proof-texts" for this doctrine, such as Psalm 12:6-7; Matthew 5:17, 18; and Matthew 24:35; are without exception misinterpreted and misapplied)."( copied from Doug Kutilek's statements, found at http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/preservation.htm ).

These section(s) of Scripture are quoted out of context; nothing here is stated to imply that God is preserving the text of the Bible. To quote Daniel Wallace in regard to these verses, "Occasionally Matt. 24:35 (“Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away”) is used in support of preservation. But once again, even though this text has the advantage of now referring to Jesus’ words (as opposed to the OT), the context is clearly eschatological; thus the words of Jesus have certainty of fulfillment. That the text does not here mean that his words will all be preserved in written form is absolutely certain because (1) this is not only foreign to the context, but implies that the written gospels were conceived at this stage in Heilsgeschichte—decades before a need for them was apparently felt; (2) we certainly do not have all of Jesus’ words recorded—either in scripture or elsewhere (cf. John 20:30 and 21:25)." Secondly, the use of the Greek verb 'parelthei'
with 'ou me' reinforces the point Jesus is stating regarding specifically the prophecies He is stating in the parable, and not to the written OT. Nothing in Matt. 24 (or the other cited quotes in the other Gospels) will pass away from the prophecies that Jesus is speaking about. These verses do not imply the quality of the written Word, but rather to the infallibility of Jesus' teachings stated here in Matt. 24.

Again, I will quote from Daniel Wallace regarding the above mentioned citation from Scripture, which again is being forced out of context: "Not one jot or tittle from the law will pass away until all is fulfilled” (Matt. 5:18) plainly refers either to the ethical principles of the law or the fulfillment of prophecy, or both. (The validity of each of these options turns, to some degree, on how pleiroo is used elsewhere in Matthew and the weight given to those texts—e.g., are Matthew’s OT quotation introductory formulae (ina pleiroo/ in 1:22; 2:15; 4:14, etc., connecting the term to eschatological fulfillment) more significant or is Jesus’ own use of plhrovw (in 3:15, connecting it to ethical fulfillment) more significant?) Either way, the idea of preservation of the written text is quite foreign to the context. Another point regarding this text is the genre it is using; Jesus is using a figure of speech similar to hyperbole. The context is contained within a parable, again where Jesus is using figures of speech to make His point(s). In the context, Jesus is assuring His hearers on the Mount (of Beatitudes-- a beautiful setting on the Sea of Galilee; I had been to Israel three times and had seen the spot where Jesus gave this sermon!) that He did not come to abolish the Law, but rather to fulfill it!

The problem with this citation is that 1 Pet. 1:23–25, in quoting Isa. 40:8, uses rhema (not "logos"), a term which typically refers to the spoken word! Perhaps Pastor Bob has forgotten his Greek! Again, the context of this verse is in quotation of an OT passage referring to the infallibility of God's words. Nothing here regarding a promise of God providentially or supernaturally preserving the text (written) word.

Uh, in heaven? Where on Earth is this referring to a promise of God 'preserving' the text of the Bible on Earth? Another 'simple' exaggeration of KJVO's to insinuate providential preservation could be gleaned from this 'proof text'.

Again, both verses here are referring to the quality of God's judgments and covenants, not a promise of preservation. Also, the genre of the Psalms is not narrative or history, but of songs!

This one takes the cake! Perhaps a little lesson in elementary Hebrew would indicate that God is not making any promises of preservation of His words, but rather the promise to preserve the poor and needy man from destruction (see Doug Kutilek's article, "Why Psalm 12:6-7 Is Not A Promise of the Infallible Preservation of Scripture" at http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/why_psalm.htm). It is patently disingenuous to assert that this passage is referring to the preservation of 'words', and could be considered to be deceptive by KJVO's to say otherwise. There cannot be 'two meanings' in this passage, and to glean from this passage that God is preserving His words is completely wrong. The context is clear, and made clearer by the Hebrew grammar, about God's protection of the needy and poor man from them that 'puffeth at him', and that this is a promise from God. Nothing here is being stated about God 'preserving' His words! To say that this could be made from this passage is disingenous and is divorcing the meaning of the passage and inserting one's a priori views upon the text.

In another substantial argument against preservation, examples from Scripture and history can be made to the contrary! God has never promised to give every believer in every time and place a perfect Bible. The only Bible available in many circumstances throughout history has been very imperfect. For a time before Josiah ascended to the throne of Judah, the Book of the Law (likely referring to the Books of Moses) was lost. This portion of Scripture had completely vanished from the kingdom. In the early Middle Ages, few believers had whole Bibles in good versions. In the late Middle Ages, the only Bible available was the Vulgate, a mediocre translation in a dead language.

My final words regarding this subject is one of seemingly open rebuke upon those who hold to the erroneous view of 'providential/supernatural' preservation. It is erroneous to suggest that in gaining the upper hand theologically, the KJVO (or, TR/Received text 'only') view is supported by so-called 'proof texts' from the Bible. Such examples do not exist. Scripture, ironically, supports the idea that providential preservation does not exist, and historically, church history has no clear examples of God providentially preserving the text of the Bible to the wide masses of believers through the ages. Only willful and deliberate ignorance of this issue will the continuity of KJVO/TROnlyism be perpetuated. The burden of proof is theirs in regard to providential preservation, and to make the 'quantum leap' of faith in believing that God made the KJV (or, the TR) to be 'perfect', 'inspired', 'preserved', 'inerrant', or otherwise the 'perfectly preserved Word of God in the English language'.
Theirs is the unorthodox and unbiblical one, and such error can only lead to the furthering heresies of KJVOnlyism.