is the Doctrine of Preservation Of text A Biblical one?

The Bible CLEARLY teaches that the WORDS will be preserved. Nothing is mentioned about some text that would be made during the 1500's and 1600 as being a perfect compilation of the words.
Matt 24:35 Isaiah 40:8

 

Did God say He would preserve the words, or the concepts in the words?

Cheers,

Jim

 

The words. All the words were originally perfect penned down in the original documents, but it's the words that will be preserved.

 

The doctrine of the preservation of the Scriptures first and foremost concerns the Scriptures in the original languages given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles.

Can it be claimed that the exact same words are preserved if they are not preserved as the exact same word in the same original language?

 

His words. We recognize that we have textual variations, but it's the words not a piece of paper that is promised to be preserved.

 

You are confused. The doctrine of inspiration concerns the Scriptures in the original languages as given to the prophets and apostles.

God has promised to preserve His word. He has preserved it. How he has preserved it remains a mystery. If one says it is preserved in the KJV or even in the TR, then he must deal with the question of the dozens (if not hundreds) of nations which do not have a translation from the TR. The only translation they may have comes from the Critical Text. Are you willing to say that they do not have the Word of God? What would you do, or say to them if God called you as a missionary to such a nation? Would you tell these people that they don't have the "preserved" Word of God, and immediately shake their confidence in Christianity?

 

God inspired the original words that were penned on the original documents. God did not promise to preserve the original documents. God did not promise to keep copyist from errors. God did not promise to keep translators from errors. What he did promise is to preserver his words. These words will be found, yes, in copies. While there are variants, we know that the words are still here.

 

I believe in the plenary, verbal inspiration of the original scriptures..period.

The problem is when were the various letters of the old and new testaments compiled and who compiled them?

The various letters were distributed throughout the new testament churches and copies sent out from them. So, where do we have the originals?

There was a lot of heretical teachings in various groups even back in the first and second century. Why should we trust the Romanists who compiled the 66 documents into a book?

We get back to the arguments used by some against the KJV because the compilers were Anglican. What a vicious circle we weave with our arguments.

Now, is the word preserved, or is the concept of those words preserved? Words change their meaning in time and cultural, concepts do not.

Just thoughts for consideration........Neither idea either corrupts or denies the preservation of the word.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I think we need to back up and consider two topics. First the level of accurancy by which the inspired authors recorded, or had recorded by scribes, God's Word. There would seem to be plenty of scriptural support for the doctrine that these original documents were reliable and trustworth. Whether they might have had spelling or grammatical errors is unknown. To argue either side is simply to insert man's speculation into the text.

Next, we have the premise that God promised to preserve His Word over time, resulting in God "superintending the transmission of God's word." This premise too has some support in scripture, but again when people assert that this copy was preserved by God and this variant was not, it is pure speculation.

The people that put together our bibles did their best to "find" God's word in the texts passed down. Some texts purported to be God's Word were tossed, and others kept. Since different books appeared on different lists, it is hard to argue that "all" the efforts to "find" God's Word were superintended by God. This has led to different groups claiming their list is from God, but that other list is not.

It appears to me we need a dose of spiritual maturity before we can make progress on this front.

 

I don't think it as a clear as many people may think. Actually, the concept of the Scriptures being 'preserved' is rather ambiguous in Scripture itself.

First, it should be recognized that most referrences to "words" in the Scripture are NOT referring to the written word (as modern people often conclude) but are referring to the spoken word. Second, "words" and "word" can be interpreted as something other than literal verbal (or written) language: I think Matthew 24:25 broadly refers to the unfailing prophecies of Christ (similarly, we might say that a person that makes good on promises has kept their 'word'); and the singular form in Isaiah 40:8 could mean something like 'authority' (also see Isaiah 40:5; today, we might say that the boss always has the final 'word'). There must be meanings other than literal because there are examples in Scripture of His literal words being 'lost' (the broken tablets originally given to Moses is but one example).

Third, the 'preservation of the Scriptures' is a relatively recent teaching and not something that church fathers or previous Christian theologians wrote or spoke about much. The modern idea of the 'preservation' of Scripture corresponds closely with the establishment of KJV-onlyism (although not known by that name 130 years ago or so). Fourth, there are other ways to preserve words besides writing them down: they can be preserved in memory; today they can be preserved in audio recordings; God may have unknowable ways to preserve His revelation in Heaven.

So I agree with DHK when he states that how God has preserved it remains a mystery. I DO believe that God has providentially protected His scriptures, but it is difficult to support with unambiguous proof texts.

I agree with jbh28 that all the words were originally perfectly written in the original documents; after all, if the authorship is God's then it must be perfect. But there is no Scripture that directly supports God's working in the copying process. I also agree with you that all the ancient original language words are preserved in the mass of extant manuscripts.

 

Where do you get the idea that "Romanists" compiled the canon? The 66 canonical books were long recognized among Christians before any organized governing church body --R.C.or not became involved.

 

Holy Cow!

 

As late as 160AD the leaders were still collecting new testament teachings from isolated manuscripts and writings. There was NO complete book per se....please check out church history around Tertullian (about 160AD). Then it was just the gospels and apostles (some manuscripts); then the Muratorian canon around 160AD...2 Peter was in dispute, as well as other teachings; then the canon of Marcion (140)which rejected all the gospels except Luke and all the epistles except ten of Paul's.

It is the apostolic Fathers who quoted from these manuscripts as written by the apostles and accepted as God's word. We then come to Irenaus (170); and Justin Martyr (about 125) who referred to these manuscripts as memoirs.

So what date do we have the accepted Canon of scripture, and under the leadership of which church????

I haven't got the memory to detail all these things, but I believe you will find my dates reasonably accurate. The Roman Church did play a major role in establishing the NT as a book.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Both the doctrines of inspiration and preservation concern the Scriptures in the original languages as given to the prophets and apostles.

There are scriptural indications that preservation of the Scriptures concerned the original language texts.

God never promised to preserve His Word in any language other than the original languages used in the original autographs (Matt. 5:17-18). The phrase “the law or the prophets” (Matt. 5:17) was used to denote the entire Old Testament Scriptures. The “jot“ and “tittle“ at Matthew 5:18 and the “tittle” at Luke 16:17 would indicate the original language texts of the Scriptures. Since the Scriptures indicated the positive that preservation would be in the original languages, it did not need to state the negative that preservation did not relate directly to translations. When the positive principle for the preservation of the Scriptures in the original languages given to the O. T. prophets was indicated, there was no need to state again the same principle for the preservation of the additional Scriptures given to the N. T. prophets and apostles. If preservation cannot be limited to the original languages, it could also not be scripturally limited to translation into any other languages. Christ’s comment about the writings of Moses (John 5:46-47) would also seem to refer to Moses’ writings in the original language that had been preserved and could still be read and believed. The Scriptures or oracles of God committed to the Jews or Hebrews were in the original language (Rom. 3:1-2). “The scriptures of the prophets” were in the original language (Rom. 16:26). The prophecy that came in old time would have been in the original language (2 Peter 1:21). The Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles were in the original languages (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, Eph. 3:5, Rom. 16:26). Homer Massey affirmed: “God has preserved His Word in the languages in which it was originally written” (Fundamental Baptist Crusader, Jan., 1981, p. 2). In his commentary on Matthew, John Broadus wrote: “Jot, in the Greek iota, signifies the Hebrew letter iod (pronounced yod), corresponding to the English i” (p. 100). Broadus noted: “No part of the law, not the most insignificant letter was to be set aside. And this statement is further strengthened by adding tittle, --in the Greek ‘horn,‘ --denoting a very slight projection at the corner of certain Hebrew letters, which distinguishes them from others that are rounded. Compare Luke 16:17. The word ’horn’ in this sense would not be understood among us, and so ’tittle’ (a very small object) was wisely used by Wycliffe, and retained by all subsequent translators” (p. 100). Marvin Vincent affirmed that “jot is for jod, the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet” (Word Studies, I, p. 40). It would only be in the original languages that a Hebrew letter and the part of a Hebrew letter could be preserved.

Other verses also demonstrate that preservation would have to concern the Scriptures in the original languages. Those verses (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) that warn against adding to and taking away from the Scriptures would clearly relate to the doctrine of preservation. KJV defender Thomas Strouse asserted: “The severe warnings in Scripture about tampering with the written word demand the view that the Lord did not want any of His inspired words changed. John’s colophon predicted a terrible destiny for anyone tampering with the text” (Brandenburg, Thou Shalt Keep Them, p. 241). Thomas Strouse also wrote: “Joshua and Israel had the responsibility to guard the very Words of the Torah, to not allow any deviations (cf. Dt. 4:2; 12:32)“ (p. 110). In this same book, Kent Brandenburg wrote: “Further instruction in the Old Testament to Israel regards carefulness with the stewardship of His Word. Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 both admonish the nation to neither add to nor take away from God’s Word” (pp. 105-106). Concerning Revelation 22:18-19 in his commentary on that book, John Walvoord wrote: “Though frequently in the Bible there are other warnings against tampering with the Word of God, this is among the most solemn (Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Prov. 30:6; Rev. 1:3)“ (p. 338). Concerning these same verses in Revelation in his commentary, Lehman Strauss noted that “there are similar warnings in other parts of the Bible,“ and then he cited them. Strauss wrote: “In the days of Moses, Solomon, Paul, and John, such warnings from God were quite apropos inasmuch as all books were hand-copied by scribes“ (p. 362). In his commentary on Revelation, Theodore Epp wrote: “In the last Book of the Bible there is a warning against tampering with the Word of God” (p. 444). These commands must embrace the Scriptures in the original languages since the very nature of translation requires that words may have to be added or omitted to make it understandable in another language. Thus, these verses were important instructions and warnings given particularly concerning the Scriptures in the original languages. Again it should be obvious that these commands had to be directed concerning the Scriptures in the original languages since it is well-known that in translating words have to be added or omitted for the translation in the other language to make sense. These verses could also be understood to suggest that God gave to men an important role or responsibility in preservation. These commands or instructions would indicate the need and responsibility for the making of exact, accurate copies of the Scriptures in the original languages. For a king or whoever copied them to be able to “keep all the words,“ they would have needed to make an exact and complete copy of them (Deut. 17:18-19). In addition, a logical deduction from these verses (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) would affirm that copies would need to be carefully examined or evaluated to make sure that no additions were made, that nothing was omitted, and that no words were changed. These verses could be understood to indicate that whatever adds to, takes away, or diminishes (whether intentional or unintentional) would not be the word of God. Any error introduced by a copier, printer, or whomever in copies should be corrected.

That the preserved and accurate copies of the Scriptures in the original languages should be the standard and authority for evaluating translations of the Scriptures would seem to be a valid implication or deduction drawn from those verses. The doctrine of preservation would thus apply to translations only is a secondary or derived sense. If and when these verses are applied in a secondary sense to translations, they would indicate that a translation could and should be corrected by comparison to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages whenever that translation adds to, takes away, or diminishes by a poor, misleading, or inaccurate rendering.

 

No, it is not.

Any notion of verbal preservation is not supportable exegetically. Nor is the promise that God would preserve His Word. That does not mean He did NOT preserve it in some way - it only means He gave no explicit promise He would do so.