Featured The Doctrine of Preservation

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.

Rob

 

I disagree, Strong's definition reads far more into the word than its actual meaning, i.e. to provide by Divine foresight.

But at least your definition of miracle matches mine, so we at least come close to agreeing on this point.

 

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.

 

I thought that was what I had expressed!

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!

 

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.

 

Hi JOJ,

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?

 

inspiration and preservation were to the original languages texts themselves, correct?

originals inspired
current Greek/hebrew texts preserved for us to translate off from

 

Can it be said that God's providence itself is not a miracle? Or would it be accurate to say His providence is itself miraculous?