I think it is a mistake to equate inspiration and preservation. They are two different doctrines. Inspiration is revelation from God. Preservation is the keeping safe by God and man of that revelation.
It is amazing to see how the doctrine of preservation interacts with so many other doctrines and disciplines: creation, revelation, doctrine of scripture (inspiration, transmission, authority, human understanding, textual criticism), inerrancy and infallibility, will of God, foreknowledge, history, ...just a few I can think of.
My problem here is reading more into the verse than what is actually said.
God knows His law, and He will fulfill His law, and not one itty bitty part of the Law will not be fully enforced by God.
Note this does not necessarily require that we have access to the Law, and so to take this verse and claim a copy of the law will be preserved is to take these verses out of context.
Similarly, God is our sustainer, that is solidly supported in scripture.
But to claim this general attribute means no body or no writing is degraded or lost
is without merit.
This issue is not that God is our sustainer, the issue is the doctrine of scriptural preservation.
And this broad brush provides no actual support, in my opinion.
There is no support in "BDB" definition for Psalm 12:7 referring to scripture rather than people.
And Psalm 12:6 simply says the Lord's words are pure, "without any admixture whatever of untruthfulness."
Nothing is actually said about preserving those words in this passage.
Now lets consider a very good verse to supposedly support the doctrine of Divine Preservation of Special Revelation, the Inspired Scriptures of the Old and New Testament.
Matthew 24:35 says, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away."
Here we have something that cannot be sidestepped,
Christ's words refers to Special Revelation to us, and therefore will be "preserved" over time so that we may hear the gospel and believe and be saved.
This was so important a teaching that we can find the very same "words" at Mark 13:31 and Luke 21:33.
Inspiration applied ONLY to the Originals, which were inerrent, while Perservation applies to the greek.hebrew texts have in use for translations and studies today!
being our source documents for today, that is why we have infallible, but not inerrant versions of the Bible!
Direct inspiration by God in originals, providence watching over those copies of the originals, that were essential them to us, close enough to be seen as being the Word of God!
NO versions/transaltions were either inspired or made by providence!
Go back and see how you expressed it. You said God preserves His Word in three ways, then you listed inspiration as one of those ways. But hey,
this is a complicated subject as Deacon pointed out, so I don't want to blame you for a little misstep.
Strong gave a unsound theological and linguistic definition, found no where in scripture.
It attempts to rename God's sovereignty and sustaining care over all creation, as Providence.
If we look at Acts 24:2, we see the idea, here the agent is man, is affirmative care based on foresight.
In Romans 13:14 we see the idea presented in the negative, i.e. make no provision, for ungodliness.
And so to repeat, Divine Providence means to provide by Divine Foresight.
See also Romans 12:17, 2 Corinthians 8:21 and 1 Timothy 5:8.
While all the scriptural usages of the Greek term for provision are applied to the actions of men, the concept of purposeful action to meet foreseen needs is clear.
I don't insist on Strong's definition; it was merely a starting point. In fact, here is a more recent definition from a systematic theology which I actually like better: "The providence of God means the continuing action of God in preserving his creation and guiding it toward his intended purposes" (Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed., 1998, p. 412). So since it is God's purpose and will that all languages should have the Bible, then obviously the providence of God is at work in both the preservation of the mss. and the work of Bible translation.
Simply because the Greek word pronoia was translated once in the NT as "providence" doesn't mean that it should be thought of as showing the meaning of the providence of God in theology. Acts 24:2 translates pronoia as "providence," but there it is a heathen lawyer flattering a heathen king. Then in Rom. 13:14 it is about how a believer should avoid sin. Neither of these usages can be taken in the same meaning as God's providence in theology, and in particular they have nothing to do with the subject of the OP, which is the doctrine of the preservation of Scripture.
Now you're trying to use the verb proneo to mean God's providence, but it's just not the same. None of these verses refer to the theological concept of the providence of God, but all three are as you say, "applied to the actions of men." You seem to be relating this to the English word "providence" and its etymology of "provide," but words change over the centuries, and "providence" does not now mean "to provide." Furthermore, nowhere in the Bible are pronoia or proneo used to refer to God's providence, so this is a rabbit trail.
I disagree. I believe that God is very active providentially in translation. This is not the same as saying He inspires translations, but He certainly works to help the translator providentially. I could give many examples from my own experience: how I got started, how I found my Japanese partner, how others were led to join the effort, how we were proteocted from a potential bad influence, etc.
In fact, God is very active providentially in all areas of the life of the Christian: protecting him from danger (taking a different road for a reason unknown to one's self, etc.), leading him to sinners who will believe, guiding his work for Christ by "circumstance", etc.
I am defining providence as described in scripture, not in various theology handbooks.
If we use your man-made concept, then miracles become a subset of God's sustaining provision, and the distinction of your poll question is lost.
For example the Red sea parting is a provision of God for the purpose of escape.
I am using a far more narrow definition as required by your poll question.
But, by all means lets return to the discussion of the Biblical Doctrine of Preservation of Scripture.
I have provided 5 verses that teach God intends for His words, i.e. the full message of the gospel, as presented in both the old and new Testaments, to be a source of instruction, and encouragement for every generation till Christ returns.
Our first question is this, did God providently preserve copies of His words in the original languages only, or does this doctrine require the inclusion of translation under His provision of preservation?
How does scripture read to you?
Hint, scripture written in one language refers to what scripture initially said in another language.
think the main point in this is that those holding to say KJVO position, seem to be equating perserving and inspiration as being eactly same process, for the originals
and english translation!
i can see how you apply that term, so would agree with you about translation being in His providence, as He would make sure those he sent to translate would have the right tools/supplies available, and have the right circumstances available to ahve their work accomplished and sent forth!
that is what you meant by providence correct?
I meant it more like He directly intervened to have the transaltion be made exactly as the originals were ! that is why I say translation are not inspired by God in exact same sense the origials were!
Another verse, and the last I will offer is Psalm 119:152.
Here the text refers to "testimonies" that endure forever.
Just as with Christ's words enduring, they (words and testimonies) must endure in written form.
These verses in God's word specifically and clearly teach God's promise to preserve His word to the extent His purpose is fulfilled.
But, to return to the question, does this promise include preserving His words in other than the original uttered language?
You cannot preserve "words" in one language (with all its nuances, grammar, detail) in another language.
Obviously they are not the same "words"; they are different!! Different letters, sounds, and different meaning even though superficially they may seem identical.
I can translate "words" that God breathed into other receptor languages. Are they identical, the same? Of course not!
If I wanted that, I would Xerox the "words" God breathed.
We have to be careful in translating God's inspired "words" into any language, to be faithful to the meaning (as much as possible) so that these will "derive" authority of those original "words".