What is the "doctrine of providential preservation"?

Doc,
I can agree with you regarding the preservation of God's Word in the "plethora of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts." The problem is, what good are those mss to me? I cannot read Hebrew or Greek. I don't think I have one member in my church that can.

Do you propose that we go back to the RCC tradition of only the clergy reading the Bible in the ancient languages and the laity simply taking our word for it? I don't think for a minute that you would endorse this approach.

Why, then, is it so hard to believe that God would preserve His Word in an English translation? Our God is certainly capable of guiding the translators and the scribes as they perpetuated His Word into the most common langauge in the world today.

Unless I totally misunderstand your context here, I have to disagree with this statement. Aleph and B do not even agree with each other let alone the Majority text. Dean Burgon writes:

And these two manuscripts are the basis for every Modern Version available today. Appears to be a very fragile foundation at best.

 

But, even though you can't read the Hebrew and Greek texts, you would not deny those texts to those of us who can read them, would you? A Spanish speaker who does not speak any English could say the same about the KJV, "I don't speak English so the KJV is not the word of God."

I have never even suggested any such thing! The English bible is sufficient for any Christian to read, study, memorize, and live by. I stand completely opposed to any "Authoritative Magistarium" being the sole arbiter of the teachings of the bible. And I stand opposed to pastors who tell their people they don't really have the word of God but need the pastor to explain it to them because he reads Hebrew and Greek. My language studies give me a better understanding of God's word, and make me a better pastor/teacher, but they certainly don't negate the liberty of every member of our congregation to read, study, and understand his English bible.

I agree. God certainly could do so. But, the question is, how do we know He did so? Is there a verse in the bible which says "God has preserved His word in the KJV?" Of course not. I have said over and over again this issue is not about doctrine but about scholarship. A doctrine is something I can point to in the bible and say, "see, it says so right there." But I believe the KJV is superior to the other English versions due to its superior underlying texts, superior translators, and superior translation philosophy, and that is a matter of scholarship, not doctrine. And scholarship is not a dirty word, as some Baptists would have us believe. I consider myself a scholar in some areas, and I am as saved, as conservative, and as right with God as it is possible to be.

I am familiar with John Burgon's writings, and am a member of the Dean Burgon Society's Executive Committe. But, what of the rest of the words in the NT? There are approximately 180,000 words in the NT. If 10,000 of the words in Aleph and B disagree with the Byzantine textform, that means 170,000 words agree between the textforms! So, again, my statement, "both Aleph and B agree with all other textforms in at least 95% of their readings" is correct. 10,000/180,000 = <5.5%.

[ September 12, 2002, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: DocCas ]

 

LRL71,

Unless I have misundertood your arguments thus far, it would seem to me that your main problem with referring to a "doctrine" of providential preservation is that you do not see an explicit statement of such a doctrine in Scripture. I would point out, however, that the Church has always held that we must hold as true doctrine not only that which is explicitly taught in Scripture, but also that which may be derived therefrom by way of good and necessary inference. For example, nowhere does the Bible explicitly state the doctrine of the trinity (one essence, three persons) as it has been held by the church for centuries to be an essential doctrine, but no orthodox Christian would deny that it is an altogether necessary inference without which the Scriptural teaching about God would not make sense. I would submit to you that the providential preservation (as so carefully set forth here by DocCas) is just such a doctrine. And so as not to repeat Doc's arguments, I will give some additional Scriptural support from the book of Deuteronomy.

The book of Deuteronomy consistently assumes that God is not interested only in giving the Israelites of Moses' generation a written word, but that He is concerned also with the preservation of this word for all succeeding generations. For example:

Deut.6:1-9 Moses teaches the people that they must teach succeeding generations to keep all of God's commandments(vs.2) and even to write them on the doorposts of their homes. This obviously demands the preservation of these written words. Would it be your position that God will providentially and graciously enable these succeeding generations to obey His written word as they trust in Him, but that He is not so concerned about providentially preserving that written word via this same gracious enabling?

Deut.17:14-20 gives intructions to the kings that were to come in the future, one of which is that each king must "write for himself a copy of this law in a book, from the one before the priests, the Levites". Does this also not require that the law be preserved for the succeeding generations of kings? Again, are you going to argue that God, who is so interested in ensuring the preservation of this law, would not be actively involved in preserving it through His own providential care of His people?

Deut.31:9-13 speaks of Moses' finishing the writing of the Law and delivering it to the priests and to the elders of Israel to be read before all the people in future generations, even referring to the time "when Israel comes to appear before the LORD your God in the place which He chooses", at which time they are to read the Law before all Israel in their hearing (vs.11). This again demands that the priests and elders preserve the word for these succeeding generations, but surley God will enable them to to so, just as He has always enabled believers to follow His will. I again ask, Do you think He wouldn't? Don't such passages demand the inference that the same God who promises to preserve and bless His people through the Word will also be active in ensuring that that Word will also be preserved?

I have chosen to focus a bit only on Deuteronomy, but such reasoning can be extended to all Scripture and the same emphases on the necessity of its preservation can also be found throughout Scripture. To give only one other example of what I mean, Isaiah is told with regard to his prophesying, "Now go, write it before them on a tablet, and note it on a scroll, that it may be for time to come, forever and ever" (30:8). Surely God Himself is interested, then, in preserving it! Are we then to surmise that He will not take an active part in the preserving of it? Or are we to become diests with regard to the preservation of God's word, believing that He gave it but then left things to sort of run on there own with respect to it's preservation for future generations? I don't think you would try to argue any such thing, but I am trying to point out that the idea of providential preservation is a necessary inference drawn from Scripture about Scripture, and that as such it is a teaching (doctrine) of Scripture the denial of which makes no sense and gives a distorted picture of God.

Pastork

 

I really like how you phrased that, DocCas, I couldn't agree more

Eric

 

Doc,

Aleph and B disagree 8,972 times in the Gospels alone. There are 83,898 words in the Gospels. Matthew - John respectively: 23,684; 15,171; 25,944; and 19,099.

That means that in just the first four books of the NT, Aleph and B have only a 89.3% agreement with the TR. You know the percentage goes down the further you get into the Bible. One word in ten is just too many to overlook.

 

Actually, the percentage goes up after the Gospels, then goes down again in the book of the Revelation. And nobody is ignoring the differences. You seem to have missed the point. If the Alexandrian textform agrees with the Byzantine textform, then, if you believe the Byzantine textform is the preserved word of God, 95% agreement means that 95% of the Alexandrian textform is the preserved word of God.

 

Pastor Bob,

If you are simply asserting that you believe the KJV translators put their trust in God and were enabled by Him to make an excellent translation, then I would definitely agree with you. However, I see no reason to assume that He would not do the same for other English translations with translators who similarly sought His guidance.

As far as the necessity of learning Greek and Hebrew, I would agree that God can and does mightily use many pastors such as yourself to minister for His glory. But I would also point out that this doesn't mean it wouldn't be better to learn the languages if one is able to do so. I would even observe that you have appealed to the meaning of the Greek in at least one other thread that I know of, so you must agree to some extent at least that it is best to consult the Greek and Hebrew when one is able to do so. And , if so, wouldn't it be especially important for pastors? Especially since so many without proper training are out there leading sheep astray through a misuse of Greek or Hebrew information?

Pastork

 

\o/ Glory to the Lord \o/

\o/ Praise be to Jesus \o/

Pastor Bob 63: "Why, then, is it so hard to believe that God
would preserve His Word in an English translation?
Our God is certainly capable of guiding the
translators and the scribes as they perpetuated
His Word into the most common langauge in
the world today."

Amen, Pastor Bob 63 -- Preach it!

That is why i believe:
God, by His Divine Providence, has preserved
His infallible written word for this generation
in each English Translation.

Engish is the third most widely spoken languages
in the world (322 million speakers).
It is exceeded only by Mandarian Chinese
(885 million speakers) and Spanish (332 million speakers).

 

LRL71,

I don't think any of my points were a stretch. And I certainly don't think any of the points I made can be fairly characterized as "eisegesis", especially since I made it clear that I was talking about what may be inferred from the text [How can I be accused of 'reading into' the text what I have already agreed is not explicit in the text?]. If God gives commands regarding the writing of Scripture and the need to pass the knowledge of this Scripture on to succeeding generations, along with His promises to bless and keep them in their obedience, I see no reason not to infer that, in wedding such blessing as He does to His Word, He would also be interested in actually ensuring they would always have this Word preserved. And one of the ways it had to be preserved was through copying. I don't understand why you can't see that God's commands to teach the Word to succeeding generations would also require that it be preserved for them, and that God would be iterested in ensuring such preservation, by whatever means (including the copying of mss). This is a logical inference I made from these texts (and from the Bible as a whole), and at no time did I claim that it was explicit in the text.

At any rate, I don't think we are that far apart, for you also clearly think that the idea that God will preserve His Word for us can be inferred from the teachings of the Bible itself. Isn't this exactly what you are doing when you assert that His character and love for us (no doubt as taught from Scripture) are what enable you to "know" He has preserved His Word? Isn't this, then, building an inferrential case from Scripture? I think it is. And I think it is an unavoidable inference.

As far as my agreement with DocCas is concerned, perhaps I should make clear the nature of my agreement. I think the Bible demands a doctrine of providential preservation, but I am not arguing (and I don't think DocCas would argue) that the Bible teaches a lot of specifics about how He will do this, except that logic would at the very least demand the idea of maintaining current copies and making new ones as needed. And both of these activities are referred to in Scripture. For example, when the king ordered the scroll containing the prophecy of Jeremiah to be burned, the Lord immediately instructed them to make another copy (Jer.36:27f.). I also agree with DocCas (if I understood him correctly) that no single translation can claim it is the preserved Word of God over against all others (as KJVonly people seem to do). This would be an abuse of the doctrine of providential preservation, which has always been stated (and should be stated) in more general terms. One such statement would be that of the Baptist Confession of 1689 which says that "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 authentical" (ch.1.6).

Pastork

[ September 14, 2002, 07:04 PM: Message edited by: Pastork ]

 

I have been a member of 3 KJVO Churches, Assistant Pastor at two, Pastor of one, for a total of six churches, and went to a KJVO College. I have never heard encouragement to stay away from Biblical langauges. In fact, in each church there was a strong encouragement to study our Bible and use other aids such as a Strong's Concordance. In fact, we gave a Strong's to each of our HS graduates this year at this church.

I think referring back to the Hebrew and Greek is a valuable study tool. I do this very often as PastorK alluded to. I encourage my people to do so in their private study.

But in doing so, it is not an admission that God has not properly preserved His Word in English. It is to gain additional information on a text on which my own understanding is limited.

Deut. 8:3 "And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live."

Mat. 4:4 "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

In order for me to be able to fulfill these promises, I must have the Word of God to hold in my hands and read and understand. If God mandated that I should live by every Word of His then He has the responsibility to preserve that Word for me.

Ps 119:105 "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path."

Eph 6:17 "And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:"

If I am to be guided by His Word and to be able to use His Word as an offensive weapon to combat Satan, then again, I must have His Word in a language that I can understand and use. It is God's responsibility to preserve His Word for me.

Because things that are different are not the same. If you follow the perpetuity of the English Bible, you'll find that the AV 1611 and it's later revisions in English form are the last English Bible to be translated exclusively from the TR with no influence from the W/H Text.

I have not conceded that any verse is not referring to providential preservation. If Psalm 12 is not, by literal interpretation, speaking of preservation, it certainly is by application.

The Bible tells us that "The just shall live by faith." I have chosen to believe that my God has preserved His Word for me in the form of the KJV Bible. I believe this by faith in His character, and I trust the good men who have studied the issue and given their learned opinion.

I assure you that I answered these questions honestly. I am full aware that the answers will not be to your liking but they are honest answers nonetheless.

 

Amen! We study the languages of scripture to increase our own understanding of what God has said which will make us better expositors of the word. Not to correct the bible, but to better understand the bible!

Here I must, again, disagree. The NKJV, KJII, KJ21, and the Bible For The Third Millennium are all based on the same TR as the KJV. Admittedly the Hebrew test is BHS vice Bomberg, but Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia differs from the Ben Chayyim text, (Bomberg) in only eight places which would affect translation: Proverbs 8:16; Isaiah 10:16; Isaiah 27:2; Isaiah 38:14; Jeremiah 34:1; Ezekiel 30:18; Zephaniah 3:15; and Malachi 1:12, and in each case the NKJV follows the Bomberg text.

I agree! How do we know God will preserve the godly, the poor and needly, from this wicked generation forever? Because He said so in His word! So, I agree, preservation is not explicit in this passage but certainly seems to be implicit! Amen!

See! If we are willing to cut the other guy a little slack, we can find a whole lot more to agree on than to disagree on!

 

\o/ Glory to the Lord \o/

\o/ Praise be to Jesus \o/

God, by His Divine Providence, has preserved
His infallible written word for this generation
in each English Translation.

The Bible tells us that "The just shall live by faith."
I have chosen to believe that my God has preserved
His Word for me in the form of each English Translation.
I believe this by faith in His character.

Pastor Bob 63: "If I am to be guided by His Word and to be able
to use His Word as an offensive weapon to combat
Satan, then again, I must have His Word in a language
that I can understand and use. It is God's responsibility
to preserve His Word for me."

Amen, Brother Pastor Bob 63 -- Preach it!
God, by His Divine Providence, has preserved
His infallible written word for this generation
in the nKJV English Translation!
Yes, nKJV English is very close to the English
i use in my technical writing.

Pastor Bob 63: "Because things that are different are not the same."

And you learned this matra from which mystical Eastern guru?
While the KJV1611 is different from my
modern KJV1873, do they not both contain
the infallible written word of God? I believe so.
You see, languages are so flexible that one
can denote an idea in multiple totally different terms.
I believe: God, by His Divine Providence, has preserved
His infallible written word for this generation
in each English Translation.

[ September 14, 2002, 09:37 AM: Message edited by: Ed Edwards ]

 

PastorK,

I do assert what you've stated above but my problem with the MV's are simply this, I do not feel that the translators who were given the W/H Text as their basis received a text in which the translators (Westcott and Hort) sought God's guidance.

These men found a couple of old MSS and they were determined to place value on their discovery solely on the basis of their antiquity, disregarding the lack of witness and the obvious corruption they contained.

Every MV today is, at the least, influenced by this text as indicated in the marginal notes. The AV 1611 was translated exclusively from the TR even though they had the writings of "Aleph" and "B" in the form of the Latin Vulgate. They chose to reject them.

Brother, I have nothing against the translators who were deceived by W/H. I honestly believe they thought they were producing a product true to the originals, but their very source text was corrupt. That is my objection in a nutshell.

 

The doctrine of "providential preservation" is absolutely worthless if it doesn't apply to both the original language manuscripts and also to translations in other languages. I believe that since God has inspired His word so that it is without error in the "original autographs" he is also capable of preserving His word without error in the English language and has done so in the King James Bible (AV 1611).