Pastor_Bob
Well-Known Member
A recent issue of the Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary Journal contained an article on "The Preservation of Scripture" by Academic Dean
William Combs. While gently rejecting the view of some fundamental Baptists, such as Edward Glenny* (former professor at Central Baptist
Seminary), who say the Bible nowhere promises the preservation of Scripture, Combs himself doesn't go much farther, claiming that the Bible
does not tell us in what manner or how purely the Scriptures will be preserved. It is apparent that the man has spent far too much time reading
the unbelieving works of modern textual critics, such as Bruce Metzger.
If a child of God follows Combs' advice about the Bible, he would be forced to master many ancient languages as well as the "science" of textual criticism in order to sift through the entire documentary evidence in an attempt to somehow reconstruct the "original autographs." This is a task that 99.9% of born against Christians are not equipped to do, even assuming that modern
textual criticism is a true and exact and believing science (which it is not). As Combs examines various Bible passages that have traditionally been used to support the doctrine of preservation, he sees only a vague,
ill-defined promise that is almost meaningless in practice.
When he comes to Psalm 12:6,7, Combs takes the position which has become popular in recent years that this Psalm does not promise pure reservation of God's canonical words.
Dr. Thomas Stouse, Emmanuel Baptist Theological Seminary, has produced an excellent critique of Combs' article. Following is the section of Dr. Strouse's critique that refutes Combs' position on Psalm 12:6,7 --
"Combs assures the reader that the original words are pure and inerrant words, but does not know how purely they are preserved (p. 15). Of course
the retort is that if the pure originals are not preserved purely, then how can they be preserved at all. Is one to understand that God has promised to preserve His pure originals impurely? Combs does concede that these verses
'might be a general promise of preservation.' Next, Combs argues that the grammar of vv. 6-7 is against the word preservation interpretation.
Instead, the gender differences between the masculine plural pronominal suffix 'them' and its antecedent feminine plural 'words' forces one to look for another antecedent which is masculine plural (i.e., 'poor' and 'needy' in v. 5).
"However two important grammatical points overturn his argument. First, the rule of proximity requires 'words' to be the natural, contextual antecedent for 'them.' Second, it is not uncommon, especially in the Psalter, for
feminine plural noun synonyms for the 'words' of the Lord to be the antecedent for masculine plural pronouns/pronominal suffixes, which seem to 'masculinize' the verbal extension of the patriarchal God of the Old Testament. Several examples of this supposed gender difficulty occur in Psm. 119. In verse 111, the feminine plural 'testimonies' is the antecedent for the masculine plural pronoun 'they.' Again, in three
passages the feminine plural synonyms for 'words' have masculine plural pronominal suffixes (vv. 129, 152, 167). These examples include Psm.
119:152 ('Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou has founded them for ever'), which Combs affirms to be 'a fairly direct promise of preservation' of the written form of the Torah (p. 18).
As the KJV/TR bibliologists have argued all along, both the context and the grammar
(proximity rule and accepted gender discordance) of Psm. 12:6-7 demand the teaching of the preservation of the Lord's pure words for every generation.
"Next, Combs quotes the NIV rendering 'you will keep us safe and protect us.' to argue for the preservation of saints interpretation. However, the NIV's translation of 'us' for 'them' is based on inferior Hebrew texts influenced by Greek. Furthermore, the context of the whole Psalm argues forcefully for the preservation of the words of God which are the antidote for the words of men in every generation.
"Combs and his ilk do not have a convincing grammatical, biblical or theological argument for the 'preservation of saints' interpretation in
Psm. 12:6-7. The proper, contextual exegesis of this passage teaches that the Lord has preserved the pure originals intact for every generation" (Dr. Thomas Strouse, "Article Review," April 2001).
William Combs. While gently rejecting the view of some fundamental Baptists, such as Edward Glenny* (former professor at Central Baptist
Seminary), who say the Bible nowhere promises the preservation of Scripture, Combs himself doesn't go much farther, claiming that the Bible
does not tell us in what manner or how purely the Scriptures will be preserved. It is apparent that the man has spent far too much time reading
the unbelieving works of modern textual critics, such as Bruce Metzger.
If a child of God follows Combs' advice about the Bible, he would be forced to master many ancient languages as well as the "science" of textual criticism in order to sift through the entire documentary evidence in an attempt to somehow reconstruct the "original autographs." This is a task that 99.9% of born against Christians are not equipped to do, even assuming that modern
textual criticism is a true and exact and believing science (which it is not). As Combs examines various Bible passages that have traditionally been used to support the doctrine of preservation, he sees only a vague,
ill-defined promise that is almost meaningless in practice.
When he comes to Psalm 12:6,7, Combs takes the position which has become popular in recent years that this Psalm does not promise pure reservation of God's canonical words.
Dr. Thomas Stouse, Emmanuel Baptist Theological Seminary, has produced an excellent critique of Combs' article. Following is the section of Dr. Strouse's critique that refutes Combs' position on Psalm 12:6,7 --
"Combs assures the reader that the original words are pure and inerrant words, but does not know how purely they are preserved (p. 15). Of course
the retort is that if the pure originals are not preserved purely, then how can they be preserved at all. Is one to understand that God has promised to preserve His pure originals impurely? Combs does concede that these verses
'might be a general promise of preservation.' Next, Combs argues that the grammar of vv. 6-7 is against the word preservation interpretation.
Instead, the gender differences between the masculine plural pronominal suffix 'them' and its antecedent feminine plural 'words' forces one to look for another antecedent which is masculine plural (i.e., 'poor' and 'needy' in v. 5).
"However two important grammatical points overturn his argument. First, the rule of proximity requires 'words' to be the natural, contextual antecedent for 'them.' Second, it is not uncommon, especially in the Psalter, for
feminine plural noun synonyms for the 'words' of the Lord to be the antecedent for masculine plural pronouns/pronominal suffixes, which seem to 'masculinize' the verbal extension of the patriarchal God of the Old Testament. Several examples of this supposed gender difficulty occur in Psm. 119. In verse 111, the feminine plural 'testimonies' is the antecedent for the masculine plural pronoun 'they.' Again, in three
passages the feminine plural synonyms for 'words' have masculine plural pronominal suffixes (vv. 129, 152, 167). These examples include Psm.
119:152 ('Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou has founded them for ever'), which Combs affirms to be 'a fairly direct promise of preservation' of the written form of the Torah (p. 18).
As the KJV/TR bibliologists have argued all along, both the context and the grammar
(proximity rule and accepted gender discordance) of Psm. 12:6-7 demand the teaching of the preservation of the Lord's pure words for every generation.
"Next, Combs quotes the NIV rendering 'you will keep us safe and protect us.' to argue for the preservation of saints interpretation. However, the NIV's translation of 'us' for 'them' is based on inferior Hebrew texts influenced by Greek. Furthermore, the context of the whole Psalm argues forcefully for the preservation of the words of God which are the antidote for the words of men in every generation.
"Combs and his ilk do not have a convincing grammatical, biblical or theological argument for the 'preservation of saints' interpretation in
Psm. 12:6-7. The proper, contextual exegesis of this passage teaches that the Lord has preserved the pure originals intact for every generation" (Dr. Thomas Strouse, "Article Review," April 2001).
What perfect Bible did he preserve in 1605?