The Doctrine of Preservation?

[franklinmonroe]

From another thread--

Preservation, as a doctrine, does not exist in any scriptures.

Has there always been a Doctrine of Preservation? How is it defined? How has it been articulated in orthodox creeds or traditional statements of faith? What did the Church Fathers say on this subject? When do we find it first appearing in systematic theology?

I think this subject should be discussed as it has bearing upon our translations.

 

[Harold Garvey]

Thy word, O Lord, is forever settled in Heaven. Let it be done on earth as it is in Heaven.

Satan attacks Heaven daily in some way. I find the claims the KJV has errors to be limited to scribal errors or printers faults.

The claims made against the KJV are perceived as attacks from satan. This concept alone makes my mind up for me.

God says His word is preserved through the inspired pen of David. Some even dare to deny the existence of an Isareli king named David. This also is perceived as an attack against Heaven and God's word.

When I consider God and his power I cannot come to any other conclusion that His word is forever preserved. I find that preservation in the KJV. I do find very close similarities in some other versions, but not as efficacious as I find in the KJV.

I don't know what the church creeds or the church fathers say on this subject. I find them to be the inventors of systematic theology. I find the Lord to have authority over systematic theology beyond natural comprehension. I also find the previous factions to be somewhat guilty of private interpretations.

I'll stick with the Preserved word of God.

 

[TC]

Thy word, O Lord, is forever settled in Heaven. Let it be done on earth as it is in Heaven.

Satan attacks Heaven daily in some way. I find the claims the NIV has errors to be limited to scribal errors or printers faults.

The claims made against the NIV are perceived as attacks from satan. This concept alone makes my mind up for me.

God says His word is preserved through the inspired pen of David. Some even dare to deny the existence of an Isareli king named David. This also is perceived as an attack against Heaven and God's word.

When I consider God and his power I cannot come to any other conclusion that His word is forever preserved. I find that preservation in the NIV. I do find very close similarities in some other versions, but not as efficacious as I find in the NIV

I don't know what the church creeds or the church fathers say on this subject. I find them to be the inventors of systematic theology. I find the Lord to have authority over systematic theology beyond natural comprehension. I also find the previous factions to be somewhat guilty of private interpretations.

I'll stick with the Preserved word of God. :wavey:

 

[Mexdeaf]

Quote=Harold Garvey

Thy word, O Lord, is forever settled in Heaven. Let it be done on earth as it is in Heaven.

We are not in Heaven yet. And whatever does this have to do with preservation?

Satan attacks Heaven daily in some way. I find the claims the KJV has errors to be limited to scribal errors or printers faults.

And Satan uses well-meaning but sadly misguided people to do his work sometimes also. His demons also may appear as angels of light, so we are commanded to "test the spirits" to see if they are of God. I find KJVO lacking in this respect.

The claims made against the KJV are perceived as attacks from satan. This concept alone makes my mind up for me.

False claims against ANY version of God's word make up my mind that KJVO is not of God.

God says His word is preserved through the inspired pen of David. Some even dare to deny the existence of an Isareli king named David. This also is perceived as an attack against Heaven and God's word.

No one here on the BVT thread has denied the existence of David to my knowledge- enlighten me if they have.

When I consider God and his power I cannot come to any other conclusion that His word is forever preserved. I find that preservation in the KJV. I do find very close similarities in some other versions, but not as efficacious as I find in the KJV.

His word is preserved in the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic texts that we are extant today. He never promised to do so in English, Spanish, or any of the other 6,000 or so languages there are in the world today. If He did mean to imply that, then He broke His promise because there are thousands of those languages that have NO copies of God's Word.

I don't know what the church creeds or the church fathers say on this subject. I find them to be the inventors of systematic theology. I find the Lord to have authority over systematic theology beyond natural comprehension. I also find the previous factions to be somewhat guilty of private interpretations.

KJVO is the king of private interpretations, IMHO.

I'll stick with the Preserved word of God.

So will I- in the ESV, HCSB, NIRV, and any of the other faithful copies of God's Word. Jesus didn't use the KJV, by the way.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[TCGreek]

From another thread--Has there always been a Doctrine of Preservation? How is it defined? How has it been articulated in orthodox creeds or traditional statements of faith? What did the Church Fathers say on this subject? When do we find it first appearing in systematic theology?

I think this subject should be discussed as it has bearing upon our translations.

Why do you think this subject needs to be discussed? The matter has already been settled.

Only a few are fighting the issue.

 

[robycop3]

God is GOD, and He preserves/presents HIS word as HE jolly well chooses, whether WE agree with His methods and modes of preservation/presentation or not. I just thank Him every day for making His "Owner's Manual" available to me in the language He gave me.

 

[Dale-c]

I just thank Him every day for making His "Owner's Manual" available to me in the language He gave me.

And further more, he has given us so many good translations we actually have the problem of struggling to decide which one we believe to be best.

There are people in countries with languages that have no Bible translation at all and we argue and complain about having too many translations in English.

Pity really.

 

[Harold Garvey]

Thy word, O Lord, is forever settled in Heaven. Let it be done on earth as it is in Heaven.

Satan attacks Heaven daily in some way. I find the claims the NIV has errors to be limited to scribal errors or printers faults.

The claims made against the NIV are perceived as attacks from satan. This concept alone makes my mind up for me.

God says His word is preserved through the inspired pen of David. Some even dare to deny the existence of an Isareli king named David. This also is perceived as an attack against Heaven and God's word.

When I consider God and his power I cannot come to any other conclusion that His word is forever preserved. I find that preservation in the NIV. I do find very close similarities in some other versions, but not as efficacious as I find in the NIV

I don't know what the church creeds or the church fathers say on this subject. I find them to be the inventors of systematic theology. I find the Lord to have authority over systematic theology beyond natural comprehension. I also find the previous factions to be somewhat guilty of private interpretations.

I'll stick with the Preserved word of God. :wavey:

Obviously you haven't searched very far.:wavey:

 

[Harold Garvey]

Quote=Harold Garvey

Thy word, O Lord, is forever settled in Heaven. Let it be done on earth as it is in Heaven.

We are not in Heaven yet. And whatever does this have to do with preservation?

I'm getting closer everyday. It's your choice to not get closer.

"Forever Settled" doesn't mean preserved to you. It does to rational thinking individuals.

Satan attacks Heaven daily in some way. I find the claims the KJV has errors to be limited to scribal errors or printers faults.

And Satan uses well-meaning but sadly misguided people to do his work sometimes also. His demons also may appear as angels of light, so we are commanded to "test the spirits" to see if they are of God. I find KJVO lacking in this respect.

Maybe you're looking through rose-colored glasses?

The claims made against the KJV are perceived as attacks from satan. This concept alone makes my mind up for me.

False claims against ANY version of God's word make up my mind that KJVO is not of God.

Merited claims against any version show why I'll stick with the KJV.

God says His word is preserved through the inspired pen of David. Some even dare to deny the existence of an Isareli king named David. This also is perceived as an attack against Heaven and God's word.

No one here on the BVT thread has denied the existence of David to my knowledge- enlighten me if they have.

Not limited to BB.

God said his word is forever settled in Heaven. Only men's lack of submission is the detriment to earth not being more like Heaven.

When I consider God and his power I cannot come to any other conclusion that His word is forever preserved. I find that preservation in the KJV. I do find very close similarities in some other versions, but not as efficacious as I find in the KJV.

His word is preserved in the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic texts that we are extant today. He never promised to do so in English, Spanish, or any of the other 6,000 or so languages there are in the world today. If He did mean to imply that, then He broke His promise because there are thousands of those languages that have NO copies of God's Word.

Provide said copies of those originals please? Heck, why not just provide the originals!

Last I heard the Great Commission is still in effect, well, except for those who deny the Great Commission.

I don't know what the church creeds or the church fathers say on this subject. I find them to be the inventors of systematic theology. I find the Lord to have authority over systematic theology beyond natural comprehension. I also find the previous factions to be somewhat guilty of private interpretations.

KJVO is the king of private interpretations, IMHO.

Those who you call KJVO seem to stand where you do not. I cannot fault them as you do for what they know to be true.

I'll stick with the Preserved word of God.

So will I- in the ESV, HCSB, NIRV, and any of the other faithful copies of God's Word. Jesus didn't use the KJV, by the way.:smilewinkgrin:

But you had just said God didn't promise to preserve His word in English, then you say he did. Yo-yo logic at work:tonofbricks:

 

[Harold Garvey]

Why do you think this subject needs to be discussed? The matter has already been settled.

Only a few are fighting the issue.

I like your use of the word!

 

[Harold Garvey]

God is GOD, and He preserves/presents HIS word as HE jolly well chooses, whether WE agree with His methods and modes of preservation/presentation or not. I just thank Him every day for making His "Owner's Manual" available to me in the language He gave me.

Where do you get God is "jolly"?

I'm glad He gave me the KJV and the many other versions so I can compare and come to the conclusion I'll stick with the KJV!:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Harold Garvey]

And further more, he has given us so many good translations we actually have the problem of struggling to decide which one we believe to be best.

Why struggle? If you have a problem of this struggling note the source from which it comes: it is NOT of God!

There are people in countries with languages that have no Bible translation at all and we argue and complain about having too many translations in English.

Pity really.

I support a mission project that was introdiced to our church not long ago: First Bible and the 10/40 window effort to get the Bible into their native tongues.:godisgood:


I pity those who have to keep struggling.

 

[Johnv]

"Forever Settled" doesn't mean preserved to you. It does to rational thinking individuals.

The "forever settled" live from Ps 119 doesn't refer to written texts, or any translation thereof. To use Ps119 as a prooftext for KJVOism is a misapplication of the text. Further, it does not follow that this verse support the concept of a single English translation, because it presupposes that bible translations in other languages are inferior to English.

Merited claims against any version show why I'll stick with the KJV.

Yet you completely ignore merited claims against the KJV.

I'll stick with the KJV

You sticking with the KJV is not a problem. You requiring the KJV to be doctrinally superior to any other translation is the problem. You have yet to explain why the KJV is superior to the Nederlandse Statenvertaling.

Those who you call KJVO seem to stand where you do not. I cannot fault them as you do for what they know to be true.

Any person who doctrinally claims single-translation-onlyism is guilty of false doctrine (since such a doctrine cannot be found in scripture) and liberalism (since such a doctrine requires a person to add to scripture).

 

[Mexdeaf]

But you had just said God didn't promise to preserve His word in English, then you say he did. Yo-yo logic at work

Your reading comprehension skills need work. You keep twisting my words- a typical Onlyism tactic. His Word is preserved in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. Those preserved words are TRANSLATED into English in the KJV, ESV, etc., etc.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Hey Harold, please take a day off and let's see if anyone can contribute something related to the OP. Thanks!

 

[franklinmonroe]

Hodge's Systematic Theology VOL.1 Chapter XI PROVIDENCE. 1. Preservation on page 428 states --

God's works of providence are his most holy, wise, and powerful preserving and governing all his creatures and all their actions. Providence, therefore, includes preservation and government. By preservation is meant that all things out of God owe the continuance of their existence, with all their properties and power, to the will of God. This is clearly the doctrine of the Scriptures. The passages relating to this subject are numerous. They are of different kinds. ...​

This introduction goes on to list four descriptions of preservation in the Scriptures: in general terms (for example, "By Him all things consist"); regular operations or powers of nature (Psalms 104 & 148, etc.); relating to irrational animals; and finally the rational creatures. But nothing about the preservation of written revelation, inspired words, or the Bible.

Is Hodge's view the traditional understanding of the 'Doctrine of Preservation'?

 

[TC]

Obviously you haven't searched very far.:wavey:

Prove it. I have been studying the issue for years and what I said about the NIV has just as much merit as what you said about the KJV.

I believe that when the scriptures talk of God's words being preserved, that includes the written word - which we have in various translations in English any other language they are translated into.

 

[John of Japan]

Hodge's Systematic Theology VOL.1 Chapter XI PROVIDENCE. 1. Preservation on page 428 states --

God's works of providence are his most holy, wise, and powerful preserving and governing all his creatures and all their actions. Providence, therefore, includes preservation and government. By preservation is meant that all things out of God owe the continuance of their existence, with all their properties and power, to the will of God. This is clearly the doctrine of the Scriptures. The passages relating to this subject are numerous. They are of different kinds. ...
​

This introduction goes on to list four descriptions of preservation in the Scriptures: in general terms (for example, "By Him all things consist"); regular operations or powers of nature (Psalms 104 & 148, etc.); relating to irrational animals; and finally the rational creatures. But nothing about the preservation of written revelation, inspired words, or the Bible.

Is Hodge's view the traditional understanding of the 'Doctrine of Preservation'?

Yes, I think it is. Here is my own version of the general doctrine:

THE GENERAL DOCTRINE OF PRESERVATION​

INTRODUCTION: There is a general doctrine of preservation in the Bible. That is, the Bible does teach that God preserves many things, among them His Word, the Bible. (NOTE: This will only be a statement of the general doctrine of preservation, not an exhaustive treatment, since these outlines are on the specific preservation of Scripture.) Let's present the doctrine Scripturally.

I. The Doctrine of Preservation Stated
A. The sovereign God, who created all things, also preserves all things; the entire universe and everything in it are held together only by His power.
1. "Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshipeth thee." (Neh. 9:6)
2. "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or power: all things were created by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist." (Col. 1:16-17)
B. One of God's names is "Preserver" (2 Sam 22:3, Job 7:20).

II. The Objects of His Preservation
A. The saints--"For the LORD loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints; they are preserved for ever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off" (Ps. 37:28). "He that keepeth thee will not slumber" (Ps. 121:3b). He will preserve:
1. their lives (Gen. 45:5, Deut. 6:24, Ps. 30:3, 33:19-20)
2. them from trouble and evil (1 Chron. 4:10, Ps. 32:7, 121:7, John 17:15, 2 Thess. 3:3)
3. them from evil men (Ps. 31:20, 41:2, 97:10, 140:1, 141:9)
4. their path (Gen. 28:15-22, Ex. 23:20, Josh. 24:17, 2 Sam. 8:6, Ps. 91:10, 121:8, Prov. 2:8)
5. the fatherless and widows and foreigners (Jer. 49:11, Ps. 146:9)
6. their spirit, soul and body for Heaven--eternal security (John 17:11-12, 1 Thess. 5:23, 2 Tim. 1:12, 1 Peter 1:5, Jude 1)
7. them from sin, according to their prayers (1 Sam. 25:39, Ps. 19:13, 141:3, Jude 24)
8. them from Satan (John 17:15)
9. them from temptation (1 Cor. 10:13, Rev. 3:10)
B. Israel (Josh. 24:17, Jer. 31:10)
C. Jerusalem (Is. 31:5)
D. The animal kingdom (Ps. 36:6, Matt. 10:29)
E. His ordained governments (2 Chron. 6:16, Col. 1:16-17, Rom. 13:1)
F. His own secrets (Matt. 13:35, Rom. 16:25)
G. The heavens and the earth (2 Peter 3:7)
H. His own Word, the Bible (Ps. 12:6-7, etc.)

CONCLUSION: God created everything, and thus has the power to preserve everything. This doctrine should be a great comfort to the Christian. If not even a sparrow can fall to the earth without His knowledge, how much more must He watch over us!
However, there is a responsibility resting on the shoulders of the believer also: he must trust in the Lord. If by his own foolishness the child of God gets into trouble, the Lord may answer his prayer for deliverance. However, how much better it is for the Christian to pray ahead of time to be kept from sin and trouble and evil men! That is a prayer that the Father will gladly answer for the modern saint just as He did for Jabez (1 Chron. 4:10), David and a host of others (Heb. 11).

 

[HankD]

From another thread--Has there always been a Doctrine of Preservation? How is it defined? How has it been articulated in orthodox creeds or traditional statements of faith? What did the Church Fathers say on this subject? When do we find it first appearing in systematic theology?

I think this subject should be discussed as it has bearing upon our translations.

The Church of Rome (the largest single organized body within Christendom - and they say the oldest) has for many centuries proclaimed the Latin Vulgate as the "perfect" Word of God because Latin is the "language of heaven" and it supercedes the original languages of Greek and Hebrew because it has been perfectly preserved by the church in the Latin whereas (they say or have said) this is not so regarding the Greek and Hebrew.

So if this be true we all need to learn Latin and then purchase a Latin Vulgate Bible to "perfectly" know the will of God.

HankD

 

[Harold Garvey]

The "forever settled" live from Ps 119 doesn't refer to written texts, or any translation thereof. To use Ps119 as a prooftext for KJVOism is a misapplication of the text. Further, it does not follow that this verse support the concept of a single English translation, because it presupposes that bible translations in other languages are inferior to English.

Better go read the premise behind this topic from the OP.

Yet you completely ignore merited claims against the KJV.

None have gained any merit against the word of God as you claim. I thought yall were actually FOR the KJV just wanting other versions?:laugh:

You sticking with the KJV is not a problem.

It has been for YOU since you came out of the woodworks.

You requiring the KJV to be doctrinally superior to any other translation is the problem. You have yet to explain why the KJV is superior to the Nederlandse Statenvertaling.

your point is mure considering I do NOT speak Nederlandse.

Any person who doctrinally claims single-translation-onlyism is guilty of false doctrine (since such a doctrine cannot be found in scripture) and liberalism (since such a doctrine requires a person to add to scripture).

Then I am found guilty in a kangaroo court system.:laugh: