What is the "doctrine of providential preservation"?

You obviously did not read my earlier post. I did an exegesis of Psalm 12:6-7 which you seem to have overlooked, not to mention all the scriptural proof I gave that God does, indeed, preserve His word. So, by your saying we can "kiss our doctrine of preservation goodbye" I guess we can kiss the bible goodbye. Kiss biblical exegesis goodbye. In fact, kiss our very faith goodbye, for how do we learn of our faith, from the word of God! How very, very, very sad. </font>[/QUOTE]DocCas,

Perhaps *YOU* have overlooked my exegetical analysis of Psalm 12:5-7. You obviously have no knowledge of Hebrew, nor should you base your assumptions from the grammar of the English King James Version. The proof in the Hebrew text is beyond question: the antecedent of 'them' in verse 7 is not 'words' of verse six, but of the 'poor' and 'needy' of verse five! You *must* have an antecedent/pronoun relationship that agrees *exactly* in number & gender in Hebrew! The noun 'words' in verse six is *FEMININE*, and the pronouns 'them' are *MASCULINE*. Both 'poor' and 'needy' in verse five are *MASCULINE*, and therefore the pronoun 'them' refers to the poor and needy mentioned in verse five. Your assertion that the antecedent nouns of 'them' is completely false, and therefore your analysis that these verses teach a providential preservation of 'words' is also false!

Secondly, you have 'quoted' a number of passages that you *think* also prove/teach the doctrine of providential preservation, but you have not broken down any of these verses to explain your position. I will assert that *none* of them -- NONE-- bear any relation to God's preservation of the transmission of the text of the Bible. I would like you to take one, some, many, or all of them and *try* to make (that is, twist) them to fit a square peg in a round hole!

A heart convinced against its will is a heart unconvinced still! The KJV-onlyist 'doctrine' of the providential preservation of the Bible is nothing better than...... heresy!

 

DocCas,

Again, it has been a pleasure to 'discuss' with you our differences, but I am only interested in pursuading my KJV-only brethren that their position of making preservation a Biblical doctrine is wrong. I have never 'denied' that God has preserved His Word throughout the ages, and I don't want you to read into what I say into something I didn't say. Perhaps I should be more precise as to what I am arguing for or against. I am saying that to make 'providential preservation' a *Bible doctrine* cannot be supported by Scripture. Yes, I believe God has preserved His word in that we have a completed canon today, but God has *never* kept error from entering the Bible text through its transmission over the years. This statement is *not* a Bible doctrine, nor is providential preservation (as defined by KJV-onlyists) a Bible doctrine; this 'doctrine' cannot be supported by *any* verse (or verses) in Scripture. Be careful not to twist my words; many KJV-onlyists are more eager to lie and deceive rather than to accept this statement as it is. The methods of weeding through the errors in the OT/NT text is accomplished through thorough, eclectic textual criticism (not to be confused with 'higher criticism'). I don't believe that the Majority Text nor the TR represents the originals better than the Nestle/Aland or UBS 4th Edition Greek texts do. Now, there is another interesting topic to discuss, but probably in another topic thread.

Again, please take my statements as face value, but if you think that I will 'cop out' and follow your 'logic' about what you believe to be a Bible doctrine (the providential preservation of the text of the Bible), then we will not be able to understand each other further. Providential preservation is *not* a Bible doctrine!

 

God said exactly what He meant! The problem is that translating from one language to another is never an exact word for word endevour, especially when the rules of grammar and syntax for the two languages are different. Hebrew (and Greek) relies on different genders of pronouns to allow the reader to know the antecedent of the pronoun. English does not. So, when we are in doubt, we refer to the Hebrew to give us a better understanding of the English. That does not "correct" the English, it just helps us to understand the English better, and to understand the intent of the passage in question. That is one reason I believe every Pastor, if at all possible, should be seminary trained. All too often Baptists have looked down their noses at men who were seminary trained as if they had departed from the faith. That is the error of anti-intellectualism. God wants us to be the very best pastors and teachers we can possibly be. Spending a few years in solid preparation for our monumental task it not, in my opinion, too much to ask of us. </font>[/QUOTE]DocCas,

This is an excellent reply! AMEN! Ignorance is not bliss, nor should we be 'stupid Christians'. The Bereans searched out the Scriptures to see that the things Paul preached were 'right'. God gave us His Word, but they were written in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek languages, *not* English, and especially He did not give it to us in the KJV (providentially, miraculously, or otherwise inspired).

Perhaps Pastor Bob should read the books written by James White and D.A. Carson regarding the KJV issue. I have read all of the [stuff] written by Ruckman, Waite, William Grady, Riplinger, and the like, so I *know* what I am talking about! KJV-onlyists don't read what the opposing view says, and so they are 'stunted' in their understanding of the issue. The kind of people I have written of above are nothing but [name-calling deleted]. It is disturbing to me that even those who are moderately KJV-only, and don't subscribe to their false views, nevertheless accept some premises of the charlatains. They make others two-fold the children of hell themselves, all in the name of 'defending' the Bible from liberals. I am certainly no liberal, but rather an Independent, Fundamental, Sovereign Grace Baptist! The KJV is a great translation, but not the best one that is available today--- and that's only my *opinion*! I am not shoving my beliefs upon anyone about that, nor am I "NASB-only" (my favorite English translation).

Please, Pastor Bob, don't bury your head and think that all of this is 'too hard to understand'. Baloney! Your congregation is better than that!

[ September 11, 2002, 09:56 PM: Message edited by: DocCas ]

 

You are mistaken. The KJV renders the Hebrew correctly. It is the interpretation of some who attempt to make the antecedent of "them" in verse 7 be the "words" of verse 6 rather than the "poor" and "needy" of verse 5 which is mistaken.

DocCas,



OK, OK, OKAY!
I read it *again*
To properly understand this verse you have to realize that verses 5 and 6 are a strophe, and verses 7 and 8 are a strophe. The first line of the first strope (verse 5) goes with the first line of the second strope (verse 7) and the second line of the first strophe (verse 6) goes with the second line of the second strophe (verse 8). Verses 5 and 7 complement each other, and verses 6 and 8 contrast with each other.

So, when we read verses 6 and 7 we should understand it thus: "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. (And, because God's words are pure, never a lie, God will keep His word and not abandon the godly, but will preserve and protect them.) Thou shalt keep them (the poor and needy of verse 5), O LORD, thous shalt preserve them (the poor and needy of verse 5) from this (wicked) generation (him that puffeth at him of verse 5) for ever."</font>[/QUOTE]

DocCas,

OK, OK, OK! I read it, and......
EMBARRASED I AM!

I am reading this stuff so fast that I totally mistook what you said in the first two sentences that I blew you off as one of "them"!

I offer my sincerest apologies, but together, we showed them

LRL71 , a.k.a. "Larry"

 

Well, just Praise the Lord. I have a friend in Jesus!

At any rate, I am curious to know what you think about preservation as a 'Bible doctrine'.

At this point in time, I think that the KJV-onlyists have been scared away. There's lots of good posts here (mine being especially funny, considering your exhortations for me to straighten up!).

 

DocCas,

I know it was late last night with your reply, but perhaps you can elaborate further on this with a later post. I am not convinced that Scripture says anything about God 'preserving His Word' through the transmission of the text throughout the ages. I believe that God has preserved his text-- as you said it was plenary, not verbal-- but I have no way to prove that from the Bible as a 'doctrine'. It is only my personal observation that God has not allowed the believers to lose anything that was written down by the prophets, priests, and apostles. Yes, we would both agree that God has not verbally preserved the text 'perfectly' as KJV-onlyists have said, and their position is both unbiblical and unsupported by the textual evidence. I would like to know if you can support the 'doctrine' of preservation from the Bible as its relation to the transmission of the text. I don't even think that this is possible, as many verses that seem to support 'preservation' are not dealing with the subject at all. Perhaps this discussion will allow some of the KJV-onlyists to read this and become enlightened to the truth!

 

what i don't understand is why Plenary n NOT Verbal--isn't God capable of both, n not only that, if He is capable of Literal Preservation (not one Jot or Tittle will perish--these being Aramaic Letters of the alphabet), the preservation of words n whole copora shdn't be a big problem for Him either.

what we need to focus on is the ONLYISM aspect--yes, God preserves even the jots n tittles, but He never promised to preserve them in a single, particular monolithic FORM called the TR, KJB, Vulgate, or whatever.[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]to "Forever Settled in Heaven"--

I am not sure which verse this comes from, so please provide the Bible verse reference.

Yes, we are in agreement that God didn't preserve His Word in a particular text-type nor does it apply to a single version. But what did God mean when the Bible text says that not one jot or tittle "shall not pass away" mean? I am certain that this does not speak about the providential preservation of the Bible text throughout the ages. I believe that this is a reference to the infallibility of God's word, not about preservation of the text!

 

DocCas,

Hey, we're online at the same time! I just sent a reply to another post, but I would like to spend a little time in response to yours.

In reference to Psalm 78, I would say that to expunge 'providential preservation' (our definition as described in previous posts, not the KJV-only definition) from Psalm 78 is not inherent to this text. I believe that Psalm 78 is a reminder to the generations of Israel of God's commandments in Deuteronomy 6:4-9. To infer that if "Jacob's testimony" refers to the Bible text
being preserved for generations is isogetical and not exegetical; in plain words, I believe that you are reading your interpretation into this verse and not out of it. The Hebrew verb for 'telling' is one of verbal speaking rather than the copying of the Bible text. The Israelites are being reminded of God's commandments from Deuteronomy that they should communicate His Law to succeeding generations. I can see what might be considered a 'proof' of the *doctrine* of providential preservation in this Psalm, but like Psalm 12, I don't think that this has any reference to providential preservation of the Bible text in its transmission, although it could loosely be considered a promise of God in preserving His Word in which *He commanded "our fathers" in fulfilling His teaching the commandments to succeeding generations*. I should grant you that point!

I have to go out for lunch right now and take care of errands, so I will tackle Matthew 4 tonight!

Great to continue dialogue, and I hope that others may be reading all of our discussions!