What is the "doctrine of providential preservation"?

The MV's came on the scene over 250 years later,... they did not have the same agenda as the KJV translators

Very true. Their "agenda" was not to assist in securing the dictatorial power of a church-state.

 

If we want to argue rules of grammar, then one important rule in any language is that the antecedent of pronoun is the noun closest to it that agrees in number and usually gender. There are of course exceptions to both parts of this in any language. However the exceptions to violating that rule must be compeling. The exception to the gender part of that rule has been demonstrated by the examples in Psalm 119. To claim we can skip back to poor and needy in verse 5 has no compeling reason. Soome would argue context dictates this reason. Very well, lets look at the context.1 ¶ <<To the chief Musician upon Sheminith, A Psalm of David.>> Help, LORD; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men.
2 They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak.
3 The LORD shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things:
4 Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us?
5 For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.
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.
8 The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.

Notice in verses 2,3,and 4 David is talking about the words of men. Verse six offers the contrast of the pure words of the Lord. Verse seven promises the preservation of "them". Using the rule that the antecedent of the pronoun is that noun nearest to it that agrees in number brings us to "words" in verse six. This cleary is in keeping with the context of the entire Psalm.

 

I do not disagree with the possibilty of that interpretation Garpier, but neither am
I convinced that it is a certain enough interpretation upon which to base a doctrine of providential preservation.

 

But this very rule you are using in English, you are breaking in the Hebrew - that's the whole point of the previous posts. If you let the rule be true in the Hebrew, the English still makes sense, ie. the passage is correct and valid in both languages, while applying the rule to the English breaks the Hebrew.

 

Those of you who have a strong affinity to the KJV just look in the margin of the AV1611, first edition, first printing, and you will see a marginal note explaining what the KJV translators meant in their translation. They make it clear that "preserved" refers to the "poor and needy." That is the AV1611. I fail to see who somebody could be KJVO and reject the original KJV.

 

Touche!

 

Or say the King James translators didn't know what they were talking about

I have a 1611 Nelson reprint. Here is what it has in the margin (referring to the 2nd "them" of vs. 7):

"Heb. him. i.euery one of them."

-kman

 

There are many out there who do, Doc. I know many right now who refuse to believe this, and use these verses in their doctrinal statements as pastors of churches to "prove" the preservation of the scriptures, though it has been pointed out to them time and time again. I feel so sorry for them.

AJL