What is the "doctrine of providential preservation"?

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by LRL71, Sep 11, 2002.

  1. LRL71

    LRL71
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have a question for those who support the notion that the KJV is the "providentially preserved text in the English language", or that the Majority Text/Textus Receptus is the "providentially preserved text in Greek"? Specifically, why do you call it a doctrine and could you explain the points of this doctrine? What Bible verses/texts support this doctrine?

    I wish to engender debate & discussion about what this doctrine is, and what it means.

    I am certainly not one who believes that the 'doctrine of preservation' is biblical, let alone that I think that even the KJV is the best version out there. How would this apply to the King James and not to any other versions? Lots of questions, and hopefully a lot of 'friendly' dialogue.

    :rolleyes:

    Any takers??
     
  2. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    You mean that Psalms 12:6-7 is not true??? How so?????? :eek:

    [ September 11, 2002, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: KJVONLY ]
     
  3. Bible-belted

    Bible-belted
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2002
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    0
    " I have a question for those who support the notion that the KJV is the "providentially preserved text in the English language", or that the Majority Text/Textus Receptus is the "providentially preserved text in Greek"?"

    The MT and TR are not the same thing.

    "You mean that Psalms 12:6-7 is not true??? How so?????? [[Eek!]]"

    Yes they are true. But they are nt as the KJV renders them. The KJV sees the words of God in v. 6 being preserved. However MVs render it as the people who are preserved. IOW, the question is whether v.7 is tied to v. 6 or v. 8.
     
  4. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Preservation is one of the most attested to doctrines of the bible. Psalm 33:1; 100:5; 111:7-8; 117:2; 119:89, 152, 160; 146:6; Isaiah 40:8b; Isaiah 59:21; Matthew 24:35; 28:19-20; Luke 16:17; 21:33; John 10:35; 12:47-48; 2Tim 3:15, 16; 1Peter 1:23, 25.

    Not only is Preservation biblical, it is logical. Why would God give us the bible, taking meticulous care with the very words of Scripture (verbal inspiration), then allow them to be lost? Would not God, who gave us His word by the miracle of inspiration not also keep them through the miracle of preservation? Ecclesiastes 3;14.

    No one can seriously argue against the biblical doctrine of Preservation due to easily observable facts such as the perpetuity of the bible. We still have the Hebrew OT in the Masoretic text dating to about 1000AD, and when we compare those texts to the Dead Sea Scrolls, which date from 150 BC to 250 AD, we find that God, indeed, did preserve His word. When we look at the Greek New Testament, and compare it to the ancient manuscript evidence and the ancient vernaculars we see that God has, indeed, perserved His word. Q.E.D.
     
  5. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are mistaken. The KJV renders the Hebrew correctly. It is the interpretation of some who attempt to make the antecedent of "them" in verse 7 be the "words" of verse 6 rather than the "poor" and "needy" of verse 5 which is mistaken.

    To properly understand this verse you have to realize that verses 5 and 6 are a strophe, and verses 7 and 8 are a strophe. The first line of the first strope (verse 5) goes with the first line of the second strope (verse 7) and the second line of the first strophe (verse 6) goes with the second line of the second strophe (verse 8). Verses 5 and 7 complement each other, and verses 6 and 8 contrast with each other.

    So, when we read verses 6 and 7 we should understand it thus: "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. (And, because God's words are pure, never a lie, God will keep His word and not abandon the godly, but will preserve and protect them.) Thou shalt keep them (the poor and needy of verse 5), O LORD, thous shalt preserve them (the poor and needy of verse 5) from this (wicked) generation (him that puffeth at him of verse 5) for ever."
     
  6. Bugman

    Bugman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2002
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    0
    DocCas how long did it take you to ubtain your extensive knowledge of Biblical translations and such?

    I've been wondering of late :D
     
  7. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,349
    Likes Received:
    0
    Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
    7 Thou shalt keep them , O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. (KJV)

    Psa 12:6 And the words of the Lord are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay. purified seven times.
    7 O Lord, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever . (NIV)

    The NIV was released less than one generation after six million of David's descendants (the "us" of verse 7) were exterminated by Adolph Hitler.

    When the mob cried out to Pilate, "His blood be on us, and on our children," a new period of heartache was ushered in where Jewish people would be anything but "safe" and "protected." David's people have known only holocaust and genocide for two thousand of the three thousand years since the 12th Psalm was written.

    Who is lying, God or the NIV translators?
     
  8. qwerty

    qwerty
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Doctrine of preservation should be rightly called:
    The doctrine of preservation of God’s Word in a written form.

    Is it preservation if God’s Word is written or printed by a human, in any language, including the original transmission or any translation?

    Questions that need to be looked into:

    Is it only preservation if a human wrote it down or printed it?
    Is there anything the God said that is important that is not written down?
    Is the Bible the totality of what God has said?

    Where is the “much more”?

    JN 16:12 "I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. [13] But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

    Where is this “much more” that Jesus spoke of? Can you say with total assurance that it is in the Bible? Where is it located in the Bible?

    Jesus had more to say. Would this be called "God's Word"? If the "much more" that Jesus had to say is God's Word, do we know where it is? If it isn't God's Word because Jesus never spoke it, and it didn't get written down, how does that work?
     
  9. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Over 50 years. Keep studying. [​IMG]
     
  10. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,349
    Likes Received:
    0
    qwerty asked:
    "The infallible preservation of the inspired autographs produces the preserved, infallible, inspired Word of God." copied

    It is my opinion that preservation and inspiration can rest upon a translation of Scripture. For example, Moses had several conversations with Pharoah in the Egyptian langauge and then records them in the Hebrew original of Exodus and the result is an inspired translation.

    Matthew translates into Greek what Isaiah wrote in Hebrew and even though there were words "lost in the translation" the result is an inspired translation. (Isa 7:14b and Mat. 1:23a) This same situation occurs six more times in Matthew.

    Providential preservation can be and has been realized in a translation of Scripture.
     
  11. Bible-belted

    Bible-belted
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2002
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    0
    DocCas,

    I agree with the interpretation you give. I was referring to the way KJVOs interpret the verses. They think that what is preseved are the words of the Lord, not the godly people. Thank you for the clarification.

    I believe inpreservation, just not hte means of preservation advocated by KJVOs. I hold that preservation took place throght he manuscript evidence we have. Certainly none ofthe texts used to prove preservation necessarily imply a particular method of interpretation.

    PastorBob,

    You cannot determine the truth of a textual or translational matter based on how well it fits your interpretation. That is pure eisegesis.
     
  12. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then why are there long periods of the OT where the Law was not available? I agree with you on the basic idea of preservation, but I am not sure this "logic" approach is a good approach to the discussion.
     
  13. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    \o/ Glory to the Lord \o/

    \o/ Praise be to Jesus \o/

    God, by His Divine Providence, has preserved
    His infallible written word for this generation
    in all English Translations.


    LRL71 speaking of providential preservation:
    "How would this apply to the
    King James and not to any other versions? Lots
    of questions, and hopefully a lot of 'friendly' dialogue."

    Well, i'm sure there will be lots of dialogue [​IMG]
    perhaps even some friendly. Personally i believe
    as denoted above. And i really don't know why the
    Doctrine of providential preservation of the Bible
    applies only to one flavor of the KJV, namely
    the 1873 edition. But i'm willing to learn.

    To inhibit my learning, it seems that most KJVO
    persons i ever contact copy thier material from
    some KJVO source. That means that i an amature
    am suddenly debating with a professional.
    Here i am a live person disputing a recording [​IMG]

    KJVONLY: "You mean that Psalms 12:6-7 is not true??? How so?????? "

    Oh, a scripture. You obviously don't think enough
    of the scripture to bother typeing it up or even
    sniching an electronic copy of it for posting here.
    I'll discuss it when it appears in this topic.
    Please cite the source for my convience, i look up
    thousands of scriptures each day in dozens of versions,
    and your complete citation of source would be
    appreciated. Thank you.

    Isn't that the verse that has the phrase
    "preserve them (words) FROM this generation forever"?
    KJVOs invariably read as "preserve
    them FOR this generation forever". But what is
    a zapped preposition or two among debaters ;)

    DocCas: "Not only is Preservation biblical, it is logical.
    ... Would not God,
    who gave us His word by the miracle of inspiration
    not also keep them through the miracle of
    preservation?"

    Amen, Brother DocCas -- Preach it.
    And is the same Mighty God who Inspired the
    written word and who devinely Preserved it
    unto this generation then limited to ONE AND ONLY ONE
    book, the KJV1873?

    I don't think so, therefor I believe:

    God, by His Divine Providence, has preserved
    His infallible written word for this generation
    in each English Translation.


    DocCas: "No one can seriously argue against the biblical
    doctrine of Preservation due to easily observable
    facts such as the perpetuity of the bible."

    Amen, Brother DocCas -- Preach it!
    And why do some insist on then preaching that
    God's divine perservational providence is
    LIMITED to ONE AND ONLY ONE KJV1873?

    Pastor Bob 63: //Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words:
    as silver tried in a furnace of earth,
    purified seven times.
    7 Thou shalt keep them , O LORD, thou shalt
    preserve them from this generation for ever. (KJV)//

    Would you please include in your scripture citation
    the edition of the KJV you are using? I look up thousands
    of scriptures each week. I have three different KJVs
    in which to look to check and see if you even
    copied this scripture correctly. Thank you.
    BTW, your KJV quotation did NOT match the first
    KJV i looked in.

    ALso the beam in the eye of the KJVO in this
    verse is "from". If it read "for" i would be convinced,
    but it keeps reading "from".

    God, by His Divine Providence, has preserved
    His infallible written word for this generation
    in each English Translation.


    my discussion to this point does not deny that
    the Holy Scripture teaches the providential
    preservation of the Holy Scripture.

    Pastor Bob 63: "Who is lying, God or the NIV translators?"

    Neither is lying. The KJV-user is lying.

    Pastor Bob 63: "Providential preservation can be and has
    been realized in a translation of Scripture."

    Amen, Brother Postor Bob 63 -- Preach it!
    God, by His Divine Providence, has preserved
    His infallible written word for this generation
    in each English Translation.
     
  14. LRL71

    LRL71
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow! I have got quite a reponse to my question! Thank you all for answering.

    Now, understand that I am *NOT* KJV-only, and I believe that the so-called 'doctrine of providential preservation' is...... heresy!

    No one here (as of yet) has defined what the doctrine means, and where the Bible defines this doctrine *specifically* as meaning the providential preservation of the transmission of the text. Also, no KJV-onlyist has proven how this 'doctrine' applies to *only* the KJV, and not other translation, whether contemporary to the time of the early English versions or to modern versions.

    Someone has implied that Psalm 12:5-8 is proof of the doctrine of providential preservation. I shall now prove why this is wrong, and I would venture to say that there is no other passage in the Bible that says *anything* about providential preservation of the text of the Bible.
    I have been through seminary, and have about five years of Hebrew (including one year in college), as well as nine years of Greek. Why is it important to know the original languages?? Well, let me apply it to the deceit of the KJV-onlyists on Psalm 12:
    I would urge anyone to read an article by Doug Kutilek, "Why Psalm 12:6,7 is not a promise of the infallible preservation of Scripture", which I will briefly outline from his pamphlet. Grammatical proof of my assertion is as follows:
    Pronouns indicate the presence, whether expressed or implied, of an antecedent (previous) noun. Verse 7 declared that God will keep *them* and preserve *them*, but what is the antecedent to these pronouns? Based on the English text (and I will only use the King James), there appears to be two possibilities: words, in verse six-- and this one is the closest relative, or in verse five, which are the 'poor' and 'needy'. The pronoun in verse 7 ('them') is plural, and solely based on the English tense, it could be ambiguous as to its antecedent. Now, here's the kicker.....
    We have a Hebrew text underlying the translation of the English KJV. When we look at the Hebrew, the ambiguity is perfectly clear! Hebrew, like many other languages, has a feature inherent that English lacks: grammatical gender. In English, we don't have gender; an example to demonstrate its foreign concept to those who only know English is like this: in German, the word 'spoon' is of the masculine gender, for 'knife' it is neuter, and for 'fork' it is feminine. The use of gender in other languages than English is a common practice. Hebrew works the same way, that is, different words have different genders, and the pronouns *must* match the gender, case, and number *exactly*! This is how we know what 'them' in verse 7 refers to.

    In the Hebrew of Psalm 12, the pronouns translated 'them' in verse 7 are both masculine gender. The first 'them' in verse 7 is plural in number, while the second is singular (literally, 'him'). This means that the antecedent noun can be expected to be masculine in gender and plural in number. Now, the KJV-onlyist has a problem with using this verse to prove that it teaches a 'providential preservation' doctrine: in verse six, the Hebrew word for 'words' is a *feminine* plural noun in both cases, while the words 'poor' and 'needy' in verse 5 are both masculine and plural! Gender and number antecedents of 'them' is not 'words' (of verse six), but the 'poor' and 'needy' of verse 5!

    Based on the clear evidence from grammar and its proper explanation of the context from the Hebrew text, it can be concluded that Psalm 12:6-7 says nothing about the doctrine of providential preservation.

    Kiss your doctrine of preservation goodbye! :cool:
     
  15. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would have given you a definition of it but I didn't qualify since I didn't fit the second half. Simply put, providential preservation means that God preserved his word providentially (as opposed to miraculously) in the multitude of the manuscripts copied throughout church history. I do believe in providential preservation. The KJVOnlyist believes in miraculous preservation, not providential preservation.
     
  16. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    You obviously did not read my earlier post. I did an exegesis of Psalm 12:6-7 which you seem to have overlooked, not to mention all the scriptural proof I gave that God does, indeed, preserve His word. So, by your saying we can "kiss our doctrine of preservation goodbye" I guess we can kiss the bible goodbye. Kiss biblical exegesis goodbye. In fact, kiss our very faith goodbye, for how do we learn of our faith, from the word of God! How very, very, very sad. :(

    [ September 11, 2002, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: DocCas ]
     
  17. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mr. Edwards, is it just me or did you smoke your socks for lunch? :D

    You bring up the 1873 edition of the KJV, which, of course, we all know as Scrivener's KJV, and, as I am sure all of us know, it has been out of print for decades. The KJV most of us use, who use the KJV, is either the 1762 Cambridge or the 1769 Oxford edition, so, all of your concerns about God only preserving Scrivener's 1873 KJV seem to have been misplaced. God has preserved His word. Period. Not in a version, not in a translation, not in any particular single manuscript or textform, but in the plethora of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts available to us today. [​IMG]
     
  18. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,349
    Likes Received:
    0
    If God didn't mean what He said...why didn't God say what He meant?

    1John 2:27 "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." (KJV)
     
  19. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pastor Bob, see my exegesis of Psalm 12:5-8 on the first page of this thread, the 5th post down. [​IMG]
     
  20. LRL71

    LRL71
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pastor Larry,

    You and I share the same first name!

    Anyway, your definition is short, sweet, and to the point. Yes, you are correct as to the definition of preservation: providential versus miraculous. We can agree to providential preservation as you have stated it, although I don't believe that it is a *doctrine* proven from a verse (or verses) in Scripture. I tend to believe that the KJV-onlyist twists this to make it into a doctrine based on Psalm 12. I have proven that this is not so, and would venture to say that the definition of preservation from the KJV-onlyist [believers], whether Ruckmanite or the more moderate elements, is completely untenable. We can see from church history and Jewish OT history that God has providentially preserved His Word, although the copying and transmission of the text has allowed errors of various kinds. Only the original documents are 'inspired', and to say that God has perfectly preserved the 'inspired' text is...... heresy!!! If God has providentially preserved the transmission of the Biblical text from error, then why do no two manuscripts, whether Hebrew/Aramaic OT or Greek NT have perfect agreement? Their doctrine is inherently false and their definition of preservation (as a Biblical doctrine) is also *false doctrine*! To go even beyond this, in saying that their definition of the providential preservation of the Biblical text *only* applies to the KJV English Bible or the Greek Majority Text/Textus Receptus is even a further stretch of falsehood! Even if we accepted their definition of the 'doctrine' of providential preservation, how and why would it apply to *only* the KJV/Majority Text/TR? Nothing in Scripture defines any kinds of methods of textual criticism, let alone does it say anywhere in Scripture that the majority readings of the transmitted text have precedence over the current methods of modern textual criticism.

    The KJV-only [believers], regardless of how ridiculous or moderate their belief that their beloved KJV is superior (if not the *only* true Bible) to any modern version of the Bible in not only repugnant, but belies their blissful ignorance in discussing this issue with any integrity. Dealing with the KJV-onlyists is like dealing with [ad hominem attack deleted; editor]. I once was KJV-only, but when I came to know the truth of the deceit of KJV-onlyism (again, regardless of rabid Ruckmanites or the moderate KJV-onlyist), the truth set me free. Let us who know the truth about this heresy be always on the offense, not the defense. Of special note, I have no problem with the believer who loves his/her KJV Bible, and would recommend it to anyone who desires to use it, nor do I have any desire to see scores of KJV Bibles being burned in huge bon-fires! My angst is with the disgusting divisiveness of this *silly* and immature issue that has needlessly seen many believers separate themselves. I believe that the average KJV-onlyist is sincerely concerned about liberalism, but they *must* consider all sides to the issue before making a stand on the Bible. [​IMG]

    [Editor, let's try to keep this from descending into a name-calling contest.]

    [ September 11, 2002, 07:13 PM: Message edited by: DocCas ]
     

Share This Page

Loading...