What is the "doctrine of providential preservation"?

[Pastor_Bob]

Doc,
I have read your post and I respect your views. I just can't seem to believe why God would give us something that would necessitate digging into the gender and tense and other gramatical areas to find the meaning.

Why did not God just say what He meant if He did not mean what He said?

 

[DocCas]

Originally posted by Pastor Bob 63:
Doc,
I have read your post and I respect your views. I just can't seem to believe why God would give us something that would necessitate digging into the gender and tense and other gramatical areas to find the meaning.

Why did not God just say what He meant if He did not mean what He said?

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.

 

[DocCas]

LRL71, I am very happy to see you have moderated your view and no longer deny that God has preserved His word. Who says this forum can't be profitable!

 

[LRL71]

Originally posted by DocCas:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LRL71:
Kiss your doctrine of preservation goodbye!

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!

 

[AVL1984]

Originally posted by KJVONLY:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LRL71:
I am certainly not one who believes that the 'doctrine of preservation' is biblical

You mean that Psalms 12:6-7 is not true??? How so?????? </font>[/QUOTE]Here again, these verses are taken out of context. Vs 7 is saying that God will preserve the Godly and faithful. Why? Because vs. 6 says that God's Promise is true...don't you people understand the Kings English? It is not about preservation of His Word at all.

B.T.

 

[LRL71]

Originally posted by DocCas:
LRL71, I am very happy to see you have moderated your view and no longer deny that God has preserved His word. Who says this forum can't be profitable!

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!

 

[AVL1984]

Originally posted by DocCas:
LRL71, I am very happy to see you have moderated your view and no longer deny that God has preserved His word. Who says this forum can't be profitable!

Doc...so in YOUR opinion, are the texts for the NIV, NASB, TEV, etc., just as "providentially preserved" as the ones for the KJV, NKJV? What about the one found in the garbage in a monastary? Was it "providentially preserved" from destruction? Just questions that I've been asked and am wondering what your take is on them?

Thanks

B.T.

 

[DocCas]

Originally posted by LRL71:
Perhaps *YOU* have overlooked my exegetical analysis of Psalm 12:5-7.

No, you failed to read the thread. Go back to the first page and read the 5th post from the top. In it you will find my exegesis of Psalm 12:6-7. I suggest you read it before responding, it will save you a lot of embarrassment!

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!

If your statement were not so sad I would laugh. Again, go to page one of this thread and read the 5th post for my exegesis of Psalm 12:6-7.

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!

Once again, please, read the first page of this thread, it will help you avoid further embarrassment. God has preserved His word just as I outlined it in the second post on this page of the thread. Please! Read both before answering. Your creditability is at stake!

 

[LRL71]

Originally posted by DocCas:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pastor Bob 63:
Doc,
I have read your post and I respect your views. I just can't seem to believe why God would give us something that would necessitate digging into the gender and tense and other gramatical areas to find the meaning.

Why did not God just say what He meant if He did not mean what He said?

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 ]

 

[DocCas]

Originally posted by Brother Tony:
Doc...so in YOUR opinion, are the texts for the NIV, NASB, TEV, etc., just as "providentially preserved" as the ones for the KJV, NKJV?

Of course. We have them! They still exist. So, ipso facto they have been preserved. And, remember, 95% of the MSS evidence is uncontested regardless of which textform your are reading. So, yes, God has preserved His word in all the MSS evidence.

What about the one found in the garbage in a monastary?

Unfortunately the story of Sinaiticus being found in a garbage can is a myth. What the good Count found was some parchment leaves. He noted they seemed to be old MSS of biblical text so he asked the monks if there were any other old MSS in the monestary, and, after some negotiation, he was shown Sinaiticus, kept in a vault and wrapped in red leather. The "found in a garbage can" story is a myth. An oft repeated myth, but a myth nevertheless.

Was it "providentially preserved" from destruction?

Of course. Again, both Aleph and B agree with all other textforms in at least 95% of their readings.

 

[LRL71]

Originally posted by DocCas:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Latreia:
Yes they are true. But they are nt as the KJV renders them. The KJV sees the words of God in v. 6 being preserved. However MVs render it as the people who are preserved. IOW, the question is whether v.7 is tied to v. 6 or v. 8.

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"

 

[DocCas]

Much better!

 

[LRL71]

Originally posted by DocCas:
Much better!

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 believe preservation is taught in the bible. But it is not the "perfect" preservation demanded by most KJVOs. It is plenary preservation as opposed to verbal preservation.

 

[LRL71]

Originally posted by DocCas:
I believe preservation is taught in the bible. But it is not the "perfect" preservation demanded by most KJVOs. It is plenary preservation as opposed to verbal preservation.

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!

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

Originally posted by LRL71:
[QBI 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'[/QB]

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.

 

[DocCas]

LRL71, I believe in what some call "generic preservation." No text or MS in particular, but in all texts and MSS in general. This seems to be what is being taught in the bible with such verses as Psalm 78:5-7 in which God states that he has established His testimony and appointed His law for the purpose of teaching each succeeding generation. Every generation has the promise of a preserved Bible, that they "not forget the works of God, but keep His commandments."

In Matthew 4:4, when Jesus was tempted by the Devil, He replied, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every Word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." How can a man live by the Word of God, if he doesn't have it? In order for men and women to live by the Word of God, it must be available to them, God must have preserved it! By the way, the word "written" is in the perfect tense, meaning that it was written in the past, and has continued right down to the time of Christ, and of course down to this present time also. In other words, God has preserved it!

So, although these verses don't speak of any specific textual or MS preservation, they do speak of a general, over all preservation of God's word. We can have confidence that God's word has not been lost, but is still available for us to learn of Him.

 

[LRL71]

Originally posted by Forever settled in heaven:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LRL71:
[QBI 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'

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]

Originally posted by LRL71:
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!

Amen! We agree again! The history of the bible is infallible history, the prophecy of the bible is infallible prophecy, and the promises of the bible are infallible promises. This verse is not teaching verbal preservation, but plenary infallibility!

 

[LRL71]

Originally posted by DocCas:
LRL71, I believe in what some call "generic preservation." No text or MS in particular, but in all texts and MSS in general. This seems to be what is being taught in the bible with such verses as Psalm 78:5-7 in which God states that he has established His testimony and appointed His law for the purpose of teaching each succeeding generation. Every generation has the promise of a preserved Bible, that they "not forget the works of God, but keep His commandments."

In Matthew 4:4, when Jesus was tempted by the Devil, He replied, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every Word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." How can a man live by the Word of God, if he doesn't have it? In order for men and women to live by the Word of God, it must be available to them, God must have preserved it! By the way, the word "written" is in the perfect tense, meaning that it was written in the past, and has continued right down to the time of Christ, and of course down to this present time also. In other words, God has preserved it!

So, although these verses don't speak of any specific textual or MS preservation, they do speak of a general, over all preservation of God's word. We can have confidence that God's word has not been lost, but is still available for us to learn of Him.

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!