Preservation of the Bible: Providential or Miraculous?

[rlvaughn]

Not sure if this is the best/correct place for this discussion, because it is not strictly about Bible versions and translations, but about Bible preservation. (If it should go elsewhere, would one of the moderators please relocate it?)

Two days ago I read from The Master's Seminary Journal an article titled Preservation of the Bible: Providential or Miraculous? The Biblical View by Jon Rehurek (not a new journal). Rehurek is a graduate of the Master’s Seminary and an instructor at Samara Theological Seminary in Samara, Russia.

His main point seems to be that there is no doctrine of preservation of written Scripture taught specifically in the Bible. "Although the Scriptures themselves strongly assert that truths contained in it are firmly established and will endure forever, the case for providential preservation must rest upon theological grounds through the historical (i.e., canonicity) and manuscript evidence (i.e., textual criticism) rather than upon exegetical grounds."

Rehurek says, "Many evangelicals and KJV-only advocates assert that the Bible provides explicit evidence for a doctrine of miraculous preservation." (Though he seems to blame the doctrine mostly on KJV-only advocates" rather than "many evangelicals.")

My question to you, BB member, is:

Do you believe there is a doctrine of the preservation of scripture taught in the Bible? If so, where is it taught? If not, why do you not believe it?

Can also be read HERE if you prefer.

Thanks.

 

[kyredneck]

where is it taught?

Short on time right now but first place I would peruse would be Ps 119.

 

[Deacon]

The author hits all the common KJV-only supporting verses and a few more.

I cringe when I read a title ending in "...the biblical view" but the author makes an argument I agree with.

"...the case for providential preservation rests on theological grounds through historical and manuscript evidence rather than on purely exegetical grounds."
​

Rob

 

[TCassidy]

Preservation is one of those things that has been badly misunderstood of late, largely through the error of "Verbal Plenary Preservation."

In Psalm 78:5-7 God states that he has established His testimony and appointed His law for the purpose of teaching each succeeding generation. Every generation has the promise of a preserved Bible, that they "not forget the works of God, but keep His commandments."

"Forever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven," says the psalmist in Psalm 119:89. God's word has been settled, preserved, according to this verse. Some have argued that it is settled in heaven, but not on earth! I disagree. God's word is a revelation from God to man. It is man that needs God's word, mankind right here on earth, not God, or the already redeemed in heaven.

God has promised to preserve His word from generation to generation. Those generations are generated right here on earth, not in heaven! In Matthew 4:4, when Jesus was tempted by the Devil, He replied, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every Word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." How can a man live by the Word of God, if he doesn't have it? In order for men and women to live by the Word of God, it must be available to them, God must have preserved it!

By the way, I don't want to get too technical with you, but the word "written" is in the perfect tense, meaning that it was written in the past, and has continued right down to the time of Christ, and of course down to this present time also. In other words, God has preserved it!

The question is not "has God preserved His word" but rather how and where has God preserved His word.

So, I agree that preservation is more of a scholarly/theological pursuit than it is an exegetical pursuit.

There are three facets we must understand in order to properly discern God's preservation of His word.

1. Inspiration - God giving His word in absolute perfection. Applies only to the original manuscripts.

2. Preservation - God providentially insuring that His word did not get lost, but was available to mankind to accomplish its divine purpose. This applies only to the copies and copies of copies in the languages originally given. The Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

3. Translation - Godly men who have worked hard in a diligent pursuit of knowledge have used that hard won scholarship to know and understand the language, grammar, and syntax of those original languages and have used that scholarship to bring those preserved words into the receptor language via translation.

Translations can only be thought of as "inspired" or "preserved" in the derivative sense.

A translation's prophecy is "inspired" and "preserved" prophecy because the translation is based on the preserved copies which were made from (often removed by several generations) the inspired originals.

A translation's promises are "inspired" and "preserved" promises because the translation is based on the preserved copies which were made from (often removed by several generations) the inspired originals.

A translation's history is "inspired" and "preserved" history because the translation is based on the preserved copies which were made from (often removed by several generations) the inspired originals.

And it must also be understood that the "preservation" of those copies and copies of copies is not verbal (ever word of every manuscript or a single manuscript) but rather "plenary" - the entirety of the textucopia has, in the totality of the manuscript evidence, preserved the very words of God.

That is why the excellent work done by Hodges and Farstad, and more recently Robinson and Pierpont, is so vital to the continuation of reliable bibles in the various vernaculars into which those scholarly works are now being translated.

 

[rlvaughn]

The author hits all the common KJV-only supporting verses and a few more

I think the author does a disservice in taking on a view that is held more broadly among evangelicals than KJVOs, but then plays to "anti-KJVO-bias" to gain sympathy for his proposition. For example gotquestions.org answers in the affirmative the question "Is the doctrine of preservation biblical?" They use the same texts KJV proponents use. The clearly are not KJVO, since "Scripture references: Unless otherwise noted" are taken from the NIV.

What Rehurek (and Dan Wallace, Ed Glenny and others) are saying is that we can acknowledge "the preservation of Scripture because it is a historical reality, but it is not a theological necessity." Or, in other words, the Bible does not promise that the words of the Bible will be preserved in written form.

I think there is good reason to examine the texts that we commonly say teach preservation of the written words of the Bible to see if they say what we say they say. I believe there is a "doctrine" of preservation of the written words -- not something I believe because "it just so happened" -- but in most cases the doctrine is more implicit than explicit.

 

[rlvaughn]

Preservation is one of those things that has been badly misunderstood of late, largely through the error of "Verbal Plenary Preservation."

A new one on me, or else I've been minding my own business so long I forgot about it. Either way, I had to look it up.

The question is not "has God preserved His word" but rather how and where has God preserved His word.

So, I agree that preservation is more of a scholarly/theological pursuit than it is an exegetical pursuit.

I don't think I really diverge from Rehurek, Wallace and Glenny so much on the how, but in that we only know that God is preserving his word because it has happened, and not because he made any promise to do so.

Translations can only be thought of as "inspired" or "preserved" in the derivative sense.

A good point that seems to be lost on both extremes of the KJVO debate.

 

[TCassidy]

What Rehurek (and Dan Wallace, Ed Glenny and others) are saying is that we can acknowledge "the preservation of Scripture because it is a historical reality, but it is not a theological necessity."

That is pretty much where I stand.

However, in the interests of full disclosure, Ed Glenny is a friend who comes from the same home church in Rockford, Illinois as my wife and I. His dad (a long time deacon in that church) loaned me a truck to move our household from Rockford to Minneapolis where I attended Seminary. The same seminary Ed attended a few years before me. He also graduated and taught at Pillsbury Baptist Bible College, my wife's alma mater.

I had the opportunity to renew our old acquaintance this past November at the Evangelical Theological Society annual meeting in San Antonio where he presented a paper and chaired a discussion group.

But I agree with him because I think he is right, not because we know each other.

 

[tyndale1946]

That is pretty much where I stand.

However, in the interests of full disclosure, Ed Glenny is a friend who comes from the same home church in Rockford, Illinois as my wife and I. His dad (a long time deacon in that church) loaned me a truck to move our household from Rockford to Minneapolis where I attended Seminary. The same seminary Ed attended a few years before me. He also graduated and taught at Pillsbury Baptist Bible College, my wife's alma mater.

I had the opportunity to renew our old acquaintance this past November at the Evangelical Theological Society annual meeting in San Antonio where he presented a paper and chaired a discussion group.

But I agree with him because I think he is right, not because we know each other.

The providential and miraculous work of God bringing his Holy Word in written form to his blood bought children... Brother Glen

 

[Deacon]

There are three facets we must understand in order to properly discern God's preservation of His word.

1. Inspiration - God giving His word in absolute perfection. Applies only to the original manuscripts.

2. Preservation - God providentially insuring that His word did not get lost, but was available to mankind to accomplish its divine purpose. This applies only to the copies and copies of copies in the languages originally given. The Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

3. Translation - Godly men who have worked hard in a diligent pursuit of knowledge have used that hard won scholarship to know and understand the language, grammar, and syntax of those original languages and have used that scholarship to bring those preserved words into the receptor language via translation.

Nice concise explanation you gave - a keeper!

This might be better discussed in a seperate thread but I'll interject a question here.
At times you've commented on the superiority of the Ben Chiam Hebrew text (with its major difference being varing vowel points)...
Since early Hebrew didn't use the vowel points and there are obvious pluses interspersed in the Torah et al, at what point in their evolution would you consider the Hebrew Scriptures original?

Rob

 

[rlvaughn]

However, in the interests of full disclosure, Ed Glenny is a friend who comes from the same home church in Rockford, Illinois as my wife and I...But I agree with him because I think he is right, not because we know each other.

I have a few friends who agree with me, but most of them won't admit it.

Also in the interest of full disclosure, I referred to Glenny because I felt he is an important author presenting this position. But my familiarity with him (on this subject, at present) is through other authors who quote him and not directly reading his material. Don't know if he has anything easily accessible online, as do Rehurek and Dan Wallace.

 

[rlvaughn]

Do you believe there is a doctrine of the preservation of scripture taught in the Bible? If so, where is it taught?

In the interest of discussion of where in the scripture preservation is taught, I thought I'd list some of the verses that are under discussion by various authors (Rehurek, Wallace, Hills, Cloud) pro and con. This is not an exhaustive list, but I think it catches the main ones.

• Psalm 12:6-7
• Psalm 78:5-7
• Psalm 105:8
• Psalm 119:89
• Psalm 119:150-152
• Psalm 119:160
• Isaiah 30:8
• Isaiah 34:16
• Isaiah 40:8
• Matthew 5:17–18
• Matthew 24:35
• Luke 24:27
• John 10:35
• 1 Peter 1:23–25
• Jude 3
• Revelation 22:18-19

Does the Bible, in these or some other places -- directly or by implication -- teach that God will preserve the Scriptures?

 

[Yeshua1]

Preservation is one of those things that has been badly misunderstood of late, largely through the error of "Verbal Plenary Preservation."

In Psalm 78:5-7 God states that he has established His testimony and appointed His law for the purpose of teaching each succeeding generation. Every generation has the promise of a preserved Bible, that they "not forget the works of God, but keep His commandments."

"Forever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven," says the psalmist in Psalm 119:89. God's word has been settled, preserved, according to this verse. Some have argued that it is settled in heaven, but not on earth! I disagree. God's word is a revelation from God to man. It is man that needs God's word, mankind right here on earth, not God, or the already redeemed in heaven.

God has promised to preserve His word from generation to generation. Those generations are generated right here on earth, not in heaven! In Matthew 4:4, when Jesus was tempted by the Devil, He replied, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every Word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." How can a man live by the Word of God, if he doesn't have it? In order for men and women to live by the Word of God, it must be available to them, God must have preserved it!

By the way, I don't want to get too technical with you, but the word "written" is in the perfect tense, meaning that it was written in the past, and has continued right down to the time of Christ, and of course down to this present time also. In other words, God has preserved it!

The question is not "has God preserved His word" but rather how and where has God preserved His word.

So, I agree that preservation is more of a scholarly/theological pursuit than it is an exegetical pursuit.

There are three facets we must understand in order to properly discern God's preservation of His word.

1. Inspiration - God giving His word in absolute perfection. Applies only to the original manuscripts.

2. Preservation - God providentially insuring that His word did not get lost, but was available to mankind to accomplish its divine purpose. This applies only to the copies and copies of copies in the languages originally given. The Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

3. Translation - Godly men who have worked hard in a diligent pursuit of knowledge have used that hard won scholarship to know and understand the language, grammar, and syntax of those original languages and have used that scholarship to bring those preserved words into the receptor language via translation.

Translations can only be thought of as "inspired" or "preserved" in the derivative sense.

A translation's prophecy is "inspired" and "preserved" prophecy because the translation is based on the preserved copies which were made from (often removed by several generations) the inspired originals.

A translation's promises are "inspired" and "preserved" promises because the translation is based on the preserved copies which were made from (often removed by several generations) the inspired originals.

A translation's history is "inspired" and "preserved" history because the translation is based on the preserved copies which were made from (often removed by several generations) the inspired originals.

And it must also be understood that the "preservation" of those copies and copies of copies is not verbal (ever word of every manuscript or a single manuscript) but rather "plenary" - the entirety of the textucopia has, in the totality of the manuscript evidence, preserved the very words of God.

That is why the excellent work done by Hodges and Farstad, and more recently Robinson and Pierpont, is so vital to the continuation of reliable bibles in the various vernaculars into which those scholarly works are now being translated.

Is that not though what the scriptures themselves would advocate for? Verbal Plenary Preservation."

 

[Yeshua1]

I think the author does a disservice in taking on a view that is held more broadly among evangelicals than KJVOs, but then plays to "anti-KJVO-bias" to gain sympathy for his proposition. For example gotquestions.org answers in the affirmative the question "Is the doctrine of preservation biblical?" They use the same texts KJV proponents use. The clearly are not KJVO, since "Scripture references: Unless otherwise noted" are taken from the NIV.

What Rehurek (and Dan Wallace, Ed Glenny and others) are saying is that we can acknowledge "the preservation of Scripture because it is a historical reality, but it is not a theological necessity." Or, in other words, the Bible does not promise that the words of the Bible will be preserved in written form.

I think there is good reason to examine the texts that we commonly say teach preservation of the written words of the Bible to see if they say what we say they say. I believe there is a "doctrine" of preservation of the written words -- not something I believe because "it just so happened" -- but in most cases the doctrine is more implicit than explicit.

Don't they though refuse to allow for the scriptures to have been inspired to even the very word, as they tend tend to shy away the bible being inerrant in all details? More of a limited view on inspiration?

 

[TCassidy]

Don't know if he has anything easily accessible online, as do Rehurek and Dan Wallace.

I don't know either, but a partial list of his published works can be found here: W. Edward Glenny - Faculty - University of Northwestern including how to contact him.

 

[TCassidy]

Since early Hebrew didn't use the vowel points and there are obvious pluses interspersed in the Torah et al, at what point in their evolution would you consider the Hebrew Scriptures original?

That's a good question. And the honest answer is "I don't know." I look at the vowel points much as I look at marginal references. Not part of the actual text but placed there as a help in understanding.

I know that is not a very enlightening answer, but I am of the opinion that theologians ought to say "I don't know" a lot more often than they do.

 

[Yeshua1]

That's a good question. And the honest answer is "I don't know." I look at the vowel points much as I look at marginal references. Not part of the actual text but placed there as a help in understanding.

I know that is not a very enlightening answer, but I am of the opinion that theologians ought to say "I don't know" a lot more often than they do.

Well peter was an inspired Apostle, and even he had problems fully getting paul it seems!

 

[rlvaughn]

...I am of the opinion that theologians ought to say "I don't know" a lot more often than they do.

Pastors, too. I've been using that a good bit in our study of the prophet Isaiah. Down side is that they are really starting to believe I don't know!

 

[TCassidy]

Well peter was an inspired Apostle, and even he had problems fully getting paul it seems!

How do you know that?

 

[Deacon]

I know that is not a very enlightening answer, but I am of the opinion that theologians ought to say "I don't know" a lot more often than they do.

One of the important early lessons a young medical intern should learn is when to know they don't know.
Some learn it, others become pompous egotists and learn to hide their true ignorance... they are the dangerous ones.

Rob

 

[Yeshua1]

How do you know that?

He stated that Paul wrote thing very hard to understanding, and the unsaved distort his intended meaning!