Providential Preservation

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by aefting, Jul 3, 2003.

  1. aefting

    aefting
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    874
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Bible teaches that one reason for Biblical inspiration (or the God-breathed recording of truth) is for the providential preservation of that truth. Consider the following passages:

    Obviously, God intended these prophecies to endure for the future edification of His people (see also Deut. 31:24-27; Jer. 30:1-3; and Eze. 43:11).

    Providential preservation, however, is different from verbal preservation or jot-and-tittle preservation. Verbal preservation is a man-made doctrine used to support KJV-onlyism. Not only do the standard verbal preservation proof texts not apply, if they did, then the Bible would be in error because there is no one perfectly preserved manuscript. Every extant manuscript differs from another in jots, tittles, and words. The smallest error invalidates the entire doctrine and would prove God a liar.

    Here is my definition of providential preservation:

    God who gave the Scriptures, who works all things after the counsel of His own will, has exercised a remarkable care over His Word, has preserved it in all ages in a state of essential purity, and has enabled it to accomplish the purpose for which He gave it**. Furthermore, we acknowledge that God has seen fit to preserve His Word within a great number of extant manuscripts; although none of these manuscripts are exactly the same, it is possible to determine with near certainty, using a proper method of textual criticism, the exact words of the original autographs.


    This statement is strong enough to reflect the clear Biblical teaching on the subject, while at the same time flexible enough to accommodate differences of opinion on the reliability of various textual families and on the method of textual criticism. I believe this flexibility is proper since it reflects the silence, or at least the ambiguity, of Scripture concerning these subjects.


    **John H. Skilton, "The Transmission of the Scriptures", The Infallible Word: a Symposium by the Members of the Faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary, third revised printing, (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1967), p. 143. My first sentence is nearly identical to the one suggested by John Skilton. The rest of the definition is mine.


    Andy
     
  2. AV Defender

    AV Defender
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think you and many others should re-evaluate this so called "KJV-onlyism." First of all,KJV-onlyism is in fact man made;it was made up by men who are trying to cover up for their own disbelief of God preserving his word in certain manuscripts(or Papyri) and the Bibles derived thereof.I would imagine that most "onlies" on this board would agree that Bibles that come from the manuscripts of the Protestant Reformation-the same ones the KJB hail from-are in fact trustworthy,but the KJB has replaced them according to Psalms 12:6-7.I have come to the conclusion that God will not bear witness,or bless those Popish manuscripts or bibles derived thereof;how do I know He wont? because He has not yet.Its simple,there are two lines of Bibles:protestant Or Popish.It is time to choose sides,Joshua 24:15; there is no middle ground with God,Revelation 3:16.
     
  3. aefting

    aefting
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    874
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm sorry but that's silly. :eek:
     
  4. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    JYD said:

    I would imagine that most "onlies" on this board would agree that Bibles that come from the manuscripts of the Protestant Reformation-the same ones the KJB hail from-are in fact trustworthy,but the KJB has replaced them according to Psalms 12:6-7.

    Then the "onlies" believe something with no basis in fact, since Psa. 12:6-7 says nothing of the sort.
     
  5. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Certainly is and it is not supported by scripture whatsoever including Psalms 12:6-7. If that passage was referring to words, which it isn't, there is absolutely no indication that those words were the words of the KJV.

    Your use of this scripture to support the false doctrine of KJVOnlyism is a blatant abuse of God's Word.
    Remarkable admission on your part. They disbelieve what God has providentially preserved while believing a man-made doctrine with no scriptural nor historical facts to support it.
    Tell that to the literal millions that have been saved using Bibles derived from the texts you so baselessly condemn.
    Can you please explain why you think Bibles derived from texts that include as part of their evidence texts that were not copied under a pope's authority are "popish" while Bibles translated from a text created by a RCC cleric using a late Latin Vulgate for a source are "protestant"?

    I personally favor more of a majority text view. However, your presumptions are just plain false. Erasmus was a great scholar that we can give thanks for but he was Catholic and he did change his text due to political pressure from within the church (to include the trinitarian formula in I John 5:7-8).
     
  6. AV Defender

    AV Defender
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    0
    a)Because the KJB translators has sense egnough to reject them.

    b)Because bibles that come from "texts that were not copied under a pope's authority" are in fact recognized by the RCC.i.e.NRSV,WEB,etc,..as Catholic.In summary:Matthew 7:20.



    It has already been proven that:

    a)Erasmus left the Catholic church and died on the side of the Protestant Reformation.

    b)The "late Latin Vulgate" you acuse him of "borrowing" from had to "borrow" from the Old Latin(of the Reformation) to complete it's text;the Popish Vaticanus did not contain the disputed readings that you and many others claim he borrowed;the Protestant texts and the Bibles thereof,in fact did.

    c)Nothing Erasmus ever wrote,or ANYTHING translated from his works are recognized by the RCC;in fact they have been banned by the counsel of Trent and are not allowed for members of the RCC to read(wonder why?) Translation: bibles from 1881 to present are not Protestant.
     
  7. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    JYD, what do you think of Wycliffe's NT. Wycliffe was 'Morning Star of the Reformation".
     
  8. AV Defender

    AV Defender
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think he did a fine job of translating the Old Latin Vulgate.But dont confuse Jerome's Vulgate with the Old Latin,as the Old Latin pre-dates Jerome's by around 200 years;not to mention the Old Latin comes from the Syrian/Byzantine manuscripts of the Reformation,Jerome's did not.
    The reasons I can make that claim is:

    1)Wycliffe was declaired a heretic by the RCC in 1415 by the Council of Rome(Council of Constance).

    2)His writings,including the English translation of the Old Latin Vulgate,were ordered BURNED by said council as per John XXIII.So hated was he for making Scripture available to the common man that some 44 years after his death his bones were dug up and burned, and his ashes cast into the river Swift.

    3)The RCC has not,and will not approve nothing that is based upon the Syrian/Byzantine manuscripts;Wycliffe's Bible is one of those.


    I would agree with that.
     
  9. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think he did a fine job of translating the Old Latin Vulgate.But dont confuse Jerome's Vulgate with the Old Latin,as the Old Latin pre-dates Jerome's by around 200 years
    </font>[/QUOTE]Don't worry, I'm not confusing the Vulgate with the Old Latin. The reason I asked, is because Wycliffe translated from the Vulgate (not the "Old Latin Vulgate", but the Vulgate at the time), which would certainly be "popish" as the Vulgate was the standard Scriptures used by the RCC.

    Yes, for translating the Vulgate into English, among other things. Not for which text he translated from, but for translating in the first place.

    Yes, I know all this. But again, this has nothing to do with the textual base he used.

    No, it isn't. It was translated directly from the RCC's Vulgate.

    The way it appears to me, is that you like "popish" translations when it suits your purpose, and dislike them when it doesn't. [​IMG]
     
  10. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    I,m sorry,but you are very misinformed;Wycliffe used the Old Latin,formerly known as the Latin Vulgate;that is until Jerome got his hands on it.
    It appears to me that you want to drag down as many as you can by falsifying info.I can't help that you wilfuly ignore that you are on a sinking ship.


    JYD,keep Proverbs 27:22 in mind at all times.
     
  11. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    hey, to quit this myword-vs-yours i said/u said never-ending fingerpointing, perhaps MV-neverist cld provide his sources n JYD his too. then let the reader decide.


    like i said, let's play nice n post ur evidences n then we'll let us decide, ok?
     
  12. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, it appears you have some faulty information. The Old Latin was not the known as the Vulgate, the Vulgate was produced by Jerome (and went through some editions throughout the centuries). Any good documentary on Bible history will tell you this. When Wycliffe translated from the "Vulgate", he translated from the standard Latin scriptures of his day (1300s), which was the Vulgate of Jerome plus the edits made to it since Jerome's time. I think your confusion is not primarily with Wycliffe, but with the term "Vulgate".

    Yes, I'm familiar with the theory that Wycliffe used the "Old Latin" and that Purvey revised it to match Jerome's text in 1388, but proving this theory is next to impossible, and I suspect the theory was invented simply because of the very discussion we are having - someone didn't like the idea of Wycliffe's Bible being "popish". ;) Instead, Purvey's revision was to smooth the translation, because Wycliffe stuck to the Latin grammar in his English translation, making the reading somewhat awkward.

    Here's a snippet from a site that will tell you all you ever wanted to know and more about the Vulgate ( http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Def.show/RTD/ISBE/Topic/Vulgate ):

    "4. Historical Importance of the Vulgate:

    The interest of the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) will be apparent when we reflect that this translation proved to be to the West what the Septuagint had been to the East, that it was prepared with great care by the greatest scholar whom Latin Christianity produced, that it was for hundreds of years the only Bible in universal use in Europe, that it has given to us much of our modern theological terminology as well as being the sponsor for many Greek words which have enriched our conceptions. It has also proved of primary importance as an early and excellent witness to the sacred text. Add to this that "directly or indirectly it is the real parent of all the vernacular versions of Western Europe" except the Gothic of Ulfilas. For English-speaking students it possesses peculiar interest as the source of the earlier translations made by the Venerable Bede, and portions of the Old Testament were translated in the 10th century from the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) by AElfric. Its greatest influence was exerted in the English version of Wycliffe--a literal translation from the Vulgate (1383). And Coverdale's Bible (1535) was "faithfully and truly translated out of Dutch (i.e. German of Luther) and Latin." The Rheims and Douay version was based on the Vulgate, though "diligently conferred with the Hebrew and Greek." The Vulgate exercised considerable influence upon Luther's version and through it upon our the King James Version."

    If you're still not convinced, do some googling for "Wycliffe translation Vulgate". Also do some searching for "Jerome Vulgate" and you'll see you're misunderstanding the term.

    Really? I have a plethora of historians (secular and Christian) I can refer you too. Do you have any evidence for what YOU claim?
     
  13. Archangel7

    Archangel7
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Wycliffe Bible was translated from the Latin Vulgate, i.e., the official Latin translation of the Roman Catholic Church:

    "The first edition [of the Wycliffe Bible] was a word-for-word translation of the New Testament from the Latin Vulgate, in places following the Latin so closely that the meaning was obscured." (Paul D. Wegner, The Journey from Texts to Translations, p. 282.)

    This is why the Wycliffe Bible contains so many readings in common with the Latin Vulgate (e.g., no doxology following the Lord's Prayer, Mt. 6:13; "Why asks thou me of good thing?," Mt. 19:17; "Isaiah the prophet," Mk. 1:2; no "through his blood" at Col. 1:14).
     
  14. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    a)Because the KJB translators has sense egnough to reject them.</font>[/QUOTE] What??? Manuscripts that were copied before the Bishop of Rome became the sovereign Pope are popish because the KJV translators did not use them. Your answer makes absolutely no sense whatsoever! OTOH, it does fit the KJVO trait of employing circular reasoning... you have just employed it in a much more transparent way than others.

    BTW, there is no evidence that they actively rejected them or would not have used them had they been available.

    Erasmus got the Pope's approval for his Greek text. Is the TR now popish?



    When and where was it proven? Erasmus disagreed with some of the abuses of the RCC but not the core doctrines. Can you show me a quote from the man that indicates he accepted salvation by grace alone or declared his separation from the RCC?

    Who buried him really isn't all that relevant nor which "side" he died on. I hope he was saved but I have never seen a quoted testimony from him that led to such a confidence. The protestants owed him and he was a political outcast from the RCC so they buried him. It matters little who we die with but a great deal who we live for.

    No it wasn't. The first edition of the TR was created as an interlinear for the late Latin Vulgate. It was from the lat LV that the back translating was done.

    If you have proof to the contrary, I would like to see it but I suspect it is simply an assumption on your part necessitated by your presuppositions. It would indeed by remarkable that a man that could not put his hands on a Greek mss dating from earlier than about 1200 AD would somehow be in possession of an extremely rare, complete "old Latin version."

    Less than 10 mss have I John 5:7-8 as given in the TR. The evidence indicates that Erasmus didn't think it was genuine either but was manipulated into putting it into his 3rd, 4th, and final editions.

    No Greek mss has the last 7 verses of Revelation like the TR does... primarily because Erasmus back translated from the LV to Greek.

    These are two clear cases where the TR/KJV are "popish" whereas MV's are not.

    Probably for the same reason the modern day RCC tried to cover-up the cover-up of its homosexual priest problem. Erasmus lost politically. He condemned abuses and made himself an enemy of powerful men in the RCC. The RCC was then at war with protestantism. Erasmus was giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy. The "church" and its clergy were considered the authority of God on earth... therefore when anyone criticized the clergy publicly they weren't considered a reformer (which Erasmus was) but rather an enemy of God.
    That is probably true... translation: So what???

    I am not "protestant" either. I am a born again, fundamental, baptistic believer in Jesus Christ.

    We can thank God that the protestant reformation occurred. It provided the opportunity for the baptistic ideals on freedom of religion to gain a foothold. However, protestants weren't always nice guys. All protestant churches were at some point "state churches" with the power to persecute anyone they considered to be a heretic.
     

Share This Page

Loading...