Preservation

[RAdam]

I think there's a general misunderstanding of what the word preserve means. God promised to preserve His word. What does this mean?

The word preserve means to save from decay, to keep in a sound state, to defend from corruption. Often times one sees the preserving of fruit as an illustration of preserving something. The idea is to keep that fruit from spoiling, from seeing corruption, and to keep it in a sound state that it can be eaten safely at a later date.

Now, the way I see many people explaining God's preserving of the scriptures is that they have been allowed to see corruption, and they were allowed to fall into an unsound state, and now it is up to us to remove the errors from God's word and re-establish it in a sound state free from error and corruption. That's not preservation. Imagine me telling you that I'm going to preserve some figs in a jar and you can eat them in two months. However, before you can eat those figs, you are going to have to remove the spoilings from the jar. Your response to me would be that I didn't do a very good job of preserving those figs if they have been allowed to spoil in some fashion. Yet this is what many claim God did with the scriptures, He allowed them to spoil to a certain degree and man must remove that which is spoiled.

I'm not arguing in this thread for any translation so please don't go there. I'm saying what many people call preservation isn't preservation at all.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I posted the following statement in a another thread for another reason, but both the WCF and LBCF confession contain a statement regarding preservation. THey are identical:

8._____The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.
( Romans 3:2; Isaiah 8:20; Acts 15:15; John 5:39; 1 Corinthians 14:6, 9, 11, 12, 24, 28; Colossians 3:16 )


That is from the LBCF.

This seems to me to be a sound statement and a biblcial one. What do you think?

 

[Amy.G]

That is from the LBCF.

This seems to me to be a sound statement and a biblcial one. What do you think?

I think it's certainly sound, if it matters what a non-scholar, simple student of the bible thinks.

And the "oldest and best" manuscripts were not being used at the time of this statement. My problem with the critical text is it's omission of many words and verses along with the fact that the church didn't have these manuscripts available for 1800 years. I do not believe our God would have waited 1800 years to reveal the "best" manuscripts, but that is a matter of faith I suppose.

 

[RAdam]

I think it's certainly sound, if it matters what a non-scholar, simple student of the bible thinks.

And the "oldest and best" manuscripts were not being used at the time of this statement. My problem with the critical text is it's omission of many words and verses along with the fact that the church didn't have these manuscripts available for 1800 years. I do not believe our God would have waited 1800 years to reveal the "best" manuscripts, but that is a matter of faith I suppose.

It is a matter of faith. I'm content with that.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I think it's certainly sound, if it matters what a non-scholar, simple student of the bible thinks.

And the "oldest and best" manuscripts were not being used at the time of this statement. My problem with the critical text is it's omission of many words and verses along with the fact that the church didn't have these manuscripts available for 1800 years. I do not believe our God would have waited 1800 years to reveal the "best" manuscripts, but that is a matter of faith I suppose.

I am coming to the same conclusion. And the more I look at Textual Criticism canons and rules, the less I am interested in their Greek text.

 

[Rippon]

My problem with the critical text is it's omission of many words and verses

Did you consider the possibility that the TR was based on newer manuscripts that had added a number of passages not in the older and more reliable documents?

along with the fact that the church didn't have these manuscripts available for 1800 years. I do not believe our God would have waited 1800 years to reveal the "best" manuscripts, but that is a matter of faith I suppose.

The whole church was not without these manuscripts for 1800 years.

Why would you consider it a matter of faith if God had His reasons for delaying the discovery of ancient Bible manuscripts?

 

[Dr. Bob]

The Church was without strong emphasis on the doctrines of grace from the post-nicene era until the reformation - but that did not mean those doctrines did not exist before Luther or Zwimgli.

The Church had the preserved Hebrew/Greek texts since apostolic times, plus various good translations (Septuagint, Vulgate). Now some copies of copies of copies (esp in the Eastern Orthodox copies) errors were perpetrated. But the inspired actual God-breathed words never failed to be preserved.

Still available for us today to make vulgar translations into modern tongues around the globe.

 

[Rippon]

Still available for us today to make vulgar translations into modern tongues around the globe.

Wouldn't that be an oxymoron? If you make vulgar translations into modern tongues -- you are making that which is common and understood into something which is modern and commonly understood.

Perhaps you meant that we can translate older forms of language into a more contemporary or natural form, for these times.

 

[wfdfiremedic]

I will throw my .02 in here. First off, I am not educated regarding textual criticism, but I will place my opinion out there.

1. God did not preserve his word in English. To me, this is obvious because the manuscripts we have are obviously not in English.
2. We have various manuscript families that differ in some ways, with parties either arguing that one group is superior to the other.
3. If these various groups of scripture produce doctrinal changes, we have a major, major problem, because then we have to identify a certain group of scripture as being correct and the others false.
4. In my opinion, while there are differences among groups of scripture families there are no doctrinal differences and therefore, we can conclude that yes, God has preserved his word.
5. Most debates arise on how to translate these foreign tongues into English.

Random thoughts,
Chris

 

[wfdfiremedic]

Just to finish up. I feel that if one were to say a certain family of manuscripts is "only" the preserved word of God, we have a major problem. There is no way of scientifically proving such. Therefore, how can we argue that God preserved His word at all? Is it not just man writting down items that He feels provides an explanation of God?

 

[franklinmonroe]

I think there's a general misunderstanding of what the word preserve means. God promised to preserve His word. What does this mean?

The word preserve means to save from decay, to keep in a sound state, to defend from corruption. Often times one sees the preserving of fruit as an illustration of preserving something. The idea is to keep that fruit from spoiling, from seeing corruption, and to keep it in a sound state that it can be eaten safely at a later date.

Now, the way I see many people explaining God's preserving of the scriptures is ...

Pretty big leap there from God promising to preserve His "word" to God's preserving of "scriptures". Do you see it? Isn't God's "word" much more than just the written portion? How has His "word" (no exceptions listed) equivalent to merely scriptures? Show me where God promised to only preserve His written revelation on Earth?

 

[Winman]

Pretty big leap there from God promising to preserve His "word" to God's preserving of "scriptures". Do you see it? Show me where God promised to preserve His written revelation on Earth?

Well, what do you mean by word?

That the scriptures are preserved is shown many times.

John 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Matt 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

I don't even understand what you mean when you say God promised to preserve his word. What does that mean? Does that mean that God promised to preserve one individual word? That seems to be what you are saying.

No, when God said he would preserve his word, he meant all his words in the form of scripture, not individual words.

This is a silly and non-sensical argument I would be ashamed to argue.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Well, what do you mean by word?...

I'm sorry I didn't explain it so you could understand. No, I don't mean that God preserved just a single "word" (although that is what a 'literal' interpretation could mean).

I mean that God's words have not all been recorded for us. Yet, I believe that ALL of God's words are preserved; which is what I believe the scriptures are describing. None of the passages you quote are referring to only written words.