Preservation of the Bible: Providential or Miraculous?

[TCassidy]

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

How do you know he wrote that?

 

[Yeshua1]

How do you know he wrote that?

How do you?

 

[TCassidy]

How do you?

I didn't claim he did. You made the claim, it is up to you to support it with empirical evidence.

 

[John of Japan]

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.

There is a general doctrine of preservation that virtually all of the systematic theologies talk about, and it is based on the providence of God.

Here is just one quote: “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. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), 412.

Now, if God preserves His creation, than He must preserve the Word of God, since that is part of His creation. That preservation must be providential, since inspiration was miraculous. The difference in the two methods God uses is simple. To use the term one of my Greek students used recently, a miracle is an event that can be seen. On the other hand, providence is a gradual process, and can often not be seen in action, certainly not like a miracle can be seen.

As for the specific preservation of Scripture, there is plenty in the Bible on it: how Jeremiah's prophecy was rewritten after the king destroyed it, how the Decalogue was rewritten after Moses broke it, etc. But foremost in my doctrine of preservation is that, much as the OT priests preserved the Law in the Ark, we in the NT are to participate in the human preservation of Scripture.

I'd post more, but I have to go. Maybe more on Monday. See everyone then.

 

[rlvaughn]

There are several lines of thought presenting themselves in this thread. Therefore I thought it expedient to create a separate thread on the "preservation passages" in which we might focus on the texts themselves.

 

[rlvaughn]

There is a general doctrine of preservation that virtually all of the systematic theologies talk about, and it is based on the providence of God.

I think one thing that can be misleading -- particularly in the title of Rehurek's piece -- is that providence has a different connotation than the average reader might place on it (of course, one could argue this isn't directed to the "average reader". In "non-technical terms" the average Christian views providence as (often) a special act of God in favor or for the good of his people. If I understand Rehurek correctly, he and some others like him believe God's providence in regard to his word is no more special than God's providence in preserving the works of Shakespeare or Plato (but I could have misunderstood him).

Daniel Wallace seems to take a similar tack. And he starts out with a hard line trying to pin the doctrine of preservation on the MT/TR and KJVO folks. That's kind of poisoning the well.

I'd post more, but I have to go. Maybe more on Monday. See everyone then.

Thanks. I'll look forward to it.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

II Peter 3:15-16
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

I believe Y1 is referring to verse 6.

I didn't claim he did. You made the claim, it is up to you to support it with empirical evidence.

 

[TCassidy]

II Peter 3:15-16
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

I believe Y1 is referring to verse 6.

I think so too, but he won't say and won't post the verse.

 

[Reformed]

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.

No. I do not believe the doctrine of preservation, however I do believe that God's word is eternal (Isa. 40:8). Let me explain the subtle, but stark difference between the two.

God's word is eternal because of the very nature of whose word it is. God is eternal. Because God is eternal, His decrees are eternal. Because God's decrees are eternal, His expressed will (as recorded in Scripture) is eternal. There is noting to preserve because there is no plausible risk to God's word. If there was something that could actually threaten God's word, then God would have to be active in preserving His word from that risk. However, God's word is secure because of who God is.

 

[Logos1560]

Do the Scriptures clearly teach that the process of the copying of the original language Scriptures on earth was by a miracle such as inspiration?

 

[rlvaughn]

No. I do not believe the doctrine of preservation, however I do believe that God's word is eternal (Isa. 40:8). Let me explain the subtle, but stark difference between the two.

God's word is eternal because of the very nature of whose word it is. God is eternal. Because God is eternal, His decrees are eternal. Because God's decrees are eternal, His expressed will (as recorded in Scripture) is eternal. There is noting to preserve because there is no plausible risk to God's word. If there was something that could actually threaten God's word, then God would have to be active in preserving His word from that risk. However, God's word is secure because of who God is.

Reformed, I agree with all you write here, with the possible exception of "not believing in the doctrine of preservation." I say that because I think these are two different things. Talking about preservation is about whether we have reliable written texts passed down to us. On the other hand, the lack of written words does not effect God's eternal truth. In the other thread I mentioned what I think a lot of the so-called preservation texts are saying; basically God says, "I AM. What I say is truth. It does not matter what you think or what you say. Whatever I say will stand. Depend on it!!"

Jehoiakim cutting up Jeremiah's prophecy with a pen knife and throwing it in the fire is a good example that God's Word is always truth, regardless of what happens to the "print version." But we do have "print versions" of both the Old and New Testaments that have been preserved down to the present.

Do the Scriptures clearly teach that the process of the copying of the original language Scriptures on earth was by a miracle such as inspiration?

No, I don't think many people equate copying and translating as the same as the inspiration of the original authors of Bible -- except Peter Ruckman and those who follow his views.

 

[rlvaughn]

Daniel Wallace seems to take a similar tack. And he starts out with a hard line trying to pin the doctrine of preservation on the MT/TR and KJVO folks. That's kind of poisoning the well.

I finished reading Wallace last night. Can't say for sure since I didn't number the pages when I printed it, but at least half way into the piece -- but probably more like 2/3 -- he finally admitted that preservation wasn't just a view of those who promote the MT/TR and KJV. About one or two lines, with a footnote. Must have been hard for him to admit, but he did.

 

[Reformed]

Reformed, I agree with all you write here, with the possible exception of "not believing in the doctrine of preservation." I say that because I think these are two different things. Talking about preservation is about whether we have reliable written texts passed down to us. On the other hand, the lack of written words does not effect God's eternal truth. In the other thread I mentioned what I think a lot of the so-called preservation texts are saying; basically God says, "I AM. What I say is truth. It does not matter what you think or what you say. Whatever I say will stand. Depend on it!!"

Jehoiakim cutting up Jeremiah's prophecy with a pen knife and throwing it in the fire is a good example that God's Word is always truth, regardless of what happens to the "print version." But we do have "print versions" of both the Old and New Testaments that have been preserved down to the present.

No, I don't think many people equate copying and translating as the same as the inspiration of the original authors of Bible -- except Peter Ruckman and those who follow his views.

My comment that there is no doctrine of preservation is more a reaction against KJVO adherents, some who believe God took an active role in preserving His word, specifically through the KJV. I won't derail your thread, but I take a visceral reaction against that belief.

 

[Yeshua1]

I think so too, but he won't say and won't post the verse.

That is indeed the passage, and even peter seemed to see paul theology as being "complicated"

 

[Yeshua1]

II Peter 3:15-16
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

I believe Y1 is referring to verse 6.

You would be correct!

 

[TCassidy]

That is indeed the passage, and even peter seemed to see paul theology as being "complicated"

How do you know that?

 

[Yeshua1]

Do the Scriptures clearly teach that the process of the copying of the original language Scriptures on earth was by a miracle such as inspiration?

No, as inspiration was promised ONLY for those who penned down the originals, and believe God has preserved His bile to us by keeping all of those textual witnesses to them still intact!

 

[TCassidy]

You would be correct!

Then why didn't you post it?

 

[Yeshua1]

I finished reading Wallace last night. Can't say for sure since I didn't number the pages when I printed it, but at least half way into the piece -- but probably more like 2/3 -- he finally admitted that preservation wasn't just a view of those who promote the MT/TR and KJV. About one or two lines, with a footnote. Must have been hard for him to admit, but he did.

Dr wallace seems to also have a problem with fully accepting full inerrancy at times! As he has written that it sometimes gets turned into what defines one being orthodox and genuine Christian...

 

[Yeshua1]

Then why didn't you post it?

I don't know