What is the "doctrine of providential preservation"?

[Pastor_Bob]

Originally posted by DocCas:
God has preserved His word. Period. Not in a version, not in a translation, not in any particular single manuscript or textform, but in the plethora of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts available to us today.

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.

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

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:

Between the two "Aleph" and "B" there subsits an amount of sinister resemblence, which proves that they must have been derived at no very remote period from the same corrupt original. Tischendorf (the man who discoverd "Aleph") insists that they were partly written by the same scribe. Yet do they stand asunder in every page; as well as differ widely from the commonly received Text, with which they have been carefully collated.

In the Gospels alone, "B" is found to omit at least 2877 words: to add 536: to substitute 935: to transpose 2098: to modify 1132. In all, 7578. The corresponding figures for "Aleph" being: 3455, 839, 1114, 2299, 1265. In all 8972.

And be it remembered that the omissions, additions, substitutions, transpositions, and modifications, are by no means the same in both. It is in fact easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two MSS differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree.

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

 

[DocCas]

Originally posted by Pastor Bob 63:
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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

Originally posted by Pastor Bob 63:
Originally posted by DocCas:
God has preserved His word. Period. Not in a version, not in a translation, not in any particular single manuscript or textform, but in the plethora of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts available to us today.

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.


Pastor Bob,

No one here is proposing such a ridiculous thing! You can learn Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic yourself, or take correspondence classes from many good Christian colleges. Learn them for yourself! Your congregation deserves better than that; a pastor should be well immersed in the biblical languages, and 'blissful' ignorance is not an excuse when at the Bema Seat of Christ!

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.

Why is it so imperative to you that we must have a 'perfectly preserved (or inspired) English version, and where does the Bible say that God preserves His Word in any language-- like English? This is where KJV-onlyists get into heresy and unbiblical doctrines of 'preservation'. DocCas and myself have been writing many posts here, and no KJV-onlyist-- like yourself-- has said anything about the subject! If you believe that *your* definition of the providential preservation of the Bible is the correct and biblical one, then make your case and defend it! Otherwise, I have to believe that you have no case for your so-called 'doctrine'!

Your quote above also says, "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." Do you honestly believe in second inspiration? Perhaps the Charismaniacs (ahem, Charismatics) are correct in their interpretation of 1 Cor. 13:8-10, where tongues, revelatory knowledge, and prophecy still exist today? You cannot have it both ways! God does not continually inspire, preserve, or whatever you call it-- today. Such revelatory gifts ended at the end of the Apostolic age, and to suggest that God is still "guiding the translators and the scribes as they perpetuated His Word into the most common langauge in the world today" is complete heresy! Inspiration only applies to the original documents *only*, and to suggest that God *perfectly preserves* His Word into *any* language *today* is equally heretical. I think it is you who is on 'shaky ground'-- both theologically and doctrinally!

[ September 12, 2002, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: LRL71 ]

 

[LRL71]

DocCas,

By reading your reply to Pastor Bob, I take it that you favor the Majority Text (and the methods adopted by Hodges/Farstad/Robison) than the Nestle/Aland/UBS 4th Edition (and its methods)?

I would suggest starting that discussion in another thread since it does not share any items of discussion in this thread, but let me know where you are in relation to the two methods of 'reconstituting' the NT Greek Text!

 

[Pastork]

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

 

[eric_b]

Originally posted by DocCas:
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.

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

Eric

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Originally posted by DocCas:
[QB]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." [QB]

John 3:16 Also hat Gott die Welt geliebt, daß er seinen eingeborenen Sohn gab, auf daß alle, die an ihn glauben, nicht verloren werden, sondern das ewige Leben haben. (LGB)

John 3:16 Car Dieu a tant aimé le monde qu'il a donné son Fils unique, afin que quiconque croit en lui ne périsse point, mais qu'il ait la vie éternelle. (LSV)

John 3:16 Porque de tal manera amó Dios al mundo, que ha dado á su Hijo unigénito, para que todo aquel que en él cree, no se pierda, mas tenga vida eterna. (SRV)

John 3:16 outwV gar hgaphsen o qeoV ton kosmon wste ton uion autou ton monogenh edwken ina paV o pisteuwn eiV auton mh apolhtai all ech zwhn aiwnion (TR)

All of these are the Word of God but they are worthless to those who cannot read them. My lack of understanding of the Greek and Hebrew does not mean they are not the Word of God, it merely demonstrates a need for an English Version.

God has promised to preserve His Word. God has preserved His Word in the abundance of MSS still extant today. God’s promise of preservation did not extend only to those who had a command of the original languages. Somewhere out there, there is a Bible that is true to the originals that I can read and understand in my native language. IMO, the sovereignty of God has caused His Word, wherever it has been translated, to be preserved to the point that we have exactly what He wants us to have.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Originally posted by DocCas:
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%.

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.

 

[DocCas]

Originally posted by Pastor Bob 63:
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]

Originally posted by LRL71:

You can learn Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic yourself, or take correspondence classes from many good Christian colleges. Learn them for yourself! Your congregation deserves better than that; a pastor should be well immersed in the biblical languages, and 'blissful' ignorance is not an excuse when at the Bema Seat of Christ!

LRL71,

Please do not imply that my standing before Christ is dependant upon my command of the ancient languages. And, please do not imply that the people that God has given me the honor of pastoring are getting short-changed because I cannot read Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. Might I remind you that the Pharisees all had a good grasp of the languages just like you do, and they didn't do too well when Christ confronted them.

I may be just a country preacher from the wheat fields of Kansas, but I am where God called me, doing what he's called me to do, and I am doing it with what He's equppied me with. I am always seeking to learn more and improve in areas that I am lacking. I have yet to knock on one door out here where the occupant spoke Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic. Everyone that I have led to the Lord has been through explaining the Gospel in English. That's why I use an English Bible.

DocCas and myself have been writing many posts here, and no KJV-onlyist-- like yourself-- has said anything about the subject! If you believe that *your* definition of the providential preservation of the Bible is the correct and biblical one, then make your case and defend it! Otherwise, I have to believe that you have no case for your so-called 'doctrine'!

If you'll allow this uneducated preacher to join in this scholarly discussion, I'd like to state my case.

God has promised to preserve His Word.
Psa. 78:1-8
Psa. 105:8
Psa. 119:111
Ecc. 3:14

The very character of God demands that I have a copy of His preserved Word. He tells me: "Therefore shall ye lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul, and bind them for a sign upon your hand, that they may be as frontlets between your eyes." How can I do that unless I have His Word in a language that I can read and understand? Even if I could read Hebrew and Greek, wouldn't I translate it into English in my mind? Sure I would; and so do you. Why then is a preserved English translation so far fetched?

The belief that God can guide the hand of the translators does not in any way imply second inspiration. The KJV is a preserved translation of the inspired Word of God. If you willingly acknowledge that God could do that, why is it so hard to beliueve that He would do just that?

 

[Pastork]

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

 

[Ed Edwards]

\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]

Originally posted by Pastork:
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.

** I will use the (**) to 'break' into the comments written here on this post.

Pastork,
Well, not only do I have a problem with regard to the 'doctrine' of providential preservation, but also that its points are not *explicit*, as you say, in Scripture. Your point about the doctrine of the Trinity is inferred, but the support for the Doctrines of the Trinity are very numerous in Scripture, but not in any one verse (with the possibility of Isaiah 48:16 being the closest). Another example of an 'inferred', but very substantiated doctrine, is the one where babies who die before knowing their sin are not condemned(see the passages related to David's sin to Bathsheba and the aftermath/consequences of David's sin). Providential preservation is not such an 'inferred' doctrine. In using DocCas' definition of providential preservation (which is one that I also believe, but I don't see it being taught explicitly or inferred), we see that through the *transmission of the Bible text* God has preserved His Word to us. This is the key of my argument-- the transmission of the text where God *preserves* the Bible text (that is, God plenarily keeps and protects without parts or the whole from disappearing. The definition does not refer to man's errors in the copying and transmission of the text, which could be where KJV-onlyists take the argument to meaning a providential-- and miraculous preservation of the text *verbally*). I am also arguing about the actual copying (transmission) of the text from scribe to scribe throughout the ages, and not regarding the commands of God to have the fathers of Israel teaching God's commandments to succeeding generations of Israelites.-->

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?

**While in seminary, I had written a 40 page paper on just this one verse in Deuteronomy 6:7! On the surface, it doesn't mean much, but I am thankful of the study and work that I had put into it. Ok, a couple of points about your analysis of this chapter. Its relationship to the Bible text's transmission is nonexistent, although verses 8 and 9 refer to the door-posts, frontlets (phylacteries), bindings on the hand, and the city gates (as an aside, I had been to Israel three times, and all of these commandments are still observed by Orthodox Jews!). I don't see a reference to the actual transmission of the text, although it could be inferred that the text of the Bible (Old Testament) would have been used in the carrying out of these specific commandments. Keep in mind DocCas' definition of providential preservation as to its relationship to what Bible verses you are quoting to support your argument. I don't think that this passage is directly implying that God has His Word preserved plenarily through the transmission of the Bible text. The emphasis of this entire chapter is for the Israelites to diligently teach them (commandments) to their children in various opportunities (verse 7).

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?

** I think that this passage is not your best argument in favor of a 'doctrinal' statement for which you can base it on. One point: the king is to write *for himself* a copy of the text (the Law) that is from the Levitical priests. Again, I don't think this involves the transmission of the text, nor of God's 'preservation' of the text in keeping with the definition of providential preservation.

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?

**Again, this is not a verse that implies the providential preservation of scripture. In verse 9, Moses hands over the *original* clay tablet to be placed with the Levitical priests. Did scribes copy from this original 'document'? Nothing here states that the scribes did anything in copying (transmission) of the text from this original. For you to infer that the scribes *must* have preserved the Bible text to succeeding generations is unsubstantiated. This is an isogetical inference, not exegetical.

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

**As I have demonstrated, the selected passages from Deuteronomy do not infer nor explicitly teach anything connected to what we refer to as 'providential preservation'. The quote of the verse from Isaiah 30:8 is not a promise of God to preserve the Bible text since it is-- again- not referring to the transmission of the text of the Bible nor of its preservation in the transmission process. Considering Isaiah's reference to "the time to come for ever and ever", this might be referring to the eternal state! God did not, by its mention in the Scriptures, explicitly or by inference say that He would providentially preserve His Word
through the transmission process. I would agree with you that God's character would not allow His word to disappear from man, but to imply that the Bible says anything about how/why/when/where/who he used to bring about providentially preserving the Bible text by its transmission (by the way we got the Scriptures today-- the scribes from ages past wrote and copied from one another, even through the invention of the printing press!)is not sound doctrine. Is it God's character and planning that He kept His Word and 'preserves' it for us today? Yes! I know He has because by knowing His character and love toward us, not necessarily by what He explicitly or inferentially said anywhere in the Bible. This is why I don't think it necessary to say that providential preservation is a doctrine to be taught from the Bible. Indeed, this is mysterious for me to comprehend, but there is nothing that God cannot do to make sure His Word is made known to us!

[ September 12, 2002, 11:57 PM: Message edited by: DocCas ]

 

[LRL71]

Originally posted by Pastor Bob 63:

Please do not imply that my standing before Christ is dependant upon my command of the ancient languages. And, please do not imply that the people that God has given me the honor of pastoring are getting short-changed because I cannot read Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. Might I remind you that the Pharisees all had a good grasp of the languages just like you do, and they didn't do too well when Christ confronted them.

I have never said or implied that your command of the English language is something that at the Bema Seat where Jesus will judge you. My meaning is this: digging a hole in the sand and coating your 'ignorance' as being something wholesome is a loathsome attitude in serving Christ and His church, which you have been given to shepherd over. You should do all that you do for Christ, and not to make excuses in life because you think that you aren't "smart" enough! Taking pride in being 'dumb' is not something that God is going to give you a reward for! The knowledge of Hebrew and Greek is a great tool to have in your arsenal against the Devil, the flesh, and it is more important for you *personally* so that you can use your knowledge of the original languages and preach the Word with greater understanding (obviously, God will always honor His Word, regardless of the personal knowledge/education of the preacher). Now, I am not a preacher, nor do I have the desire to preach (as taught in 1 Timothy 3:1 and following), but my time in college and seminary was well worth the effort even if I am not using them for the purpose of pastoring a church.

I have seen too many times where in KJV-only churches that preachers and 'preacher-boys' would be encouraged *not* to study the Word, especially in the arena of gaining knowledge about the original Biblical languages. This only stunts the growth of men who will eventually be pastoring churches! I sure don't want to stand before Christ and have Him, the Perfect Judge, say that I lost my reward because I encouraged someone to not do all his best for God!

I may be just a country preacher from the wheat fields of Kansas, but I am where God called me, doing what he's called me to do, and I am doing it with what He's equppied me with. I am always seeking to learn more and improve in areas that I am lacking. I have yet to knock on one door out here where the occupant spoke Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic. Everyone that I have led to the Lord has been through explaining the Gospel in English. That's why I use an English Bible.

Again, here is another example where you have misapplied my meaning and intentions. You don't use the knowledge of Greek and Hebrew to speak to people who use those languages (Koine' Greek is the Greek of the NT, and anyone living in Greece would not understand you if you spoke to them in NT Greek! I personally found that knowledge of Hebrew allowed me to converse with Israelis while I was in Israel-- and I could read the road signs, too!). As a matter of fact, you are not taught on how to speak these languages, but rather on how to read them-- by reading them you read God's Word in the original languages that He chose, by His perfect providence.

It is good that you are improving in your areas that you lack-- and I as well. We must do *excellent* service to Christ, not substandard. We live in an age where it is expected of us to be knowledgeable in the subjects we are using in our vocation. Again, Greek and Hebrew are tools of the trade, and it is important to know them so that you can see many more things in Scripture than you would have if you only relied on English alone! Don't bury your head in your hands if you don't think that you can handle learning the original languages-- I saw 60+ year old men in seminary who learned them better than I have!

If you'll allow this uneducated preacher to join in this scholarly discussion, I'd like to state my case.

God has promised to preserve His Word.
Psa. 78:1-8
Psa. 105:8
Psa. 119:111
Ecc. 3:14

The very character of God demands that I have a copy of His preserved Word. He tells me: "Therefore shall ye lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul, and bind them for a sign upon your hand, that they may be as frontlets between your eyes." How can I do that unless I have His Word in a language that I can read and understand? Even if I could read Hebrew and Greek, wouldn't I translate it into English in my mind? Sure I would; and so do you. Why then is a preserved English translation so far fetched?

The belief that God can guide the hand of the translators does not in any way imply second inspiration. The KJV is a preserved translation of the inspired Word of God. If you willingly acknowledge that God could do that, why is it so hard to beliueve that He would do just that?

This is where I, and others, have taken this course of action. I chose to use the topic of the so-called 'doctrine' of the providential preservation of the text to show those, like yourself, that you cannot rely on your own understanding and not on the false writings of those who are beguiling you. I believe your intentions are good, but this is where the buck stops. Your verses that you quoted do not say anything about how/when/why/who/where God 'providentially preserved' his Word. If you would like to state your case in a 'scholarly' fashion, don't just make simple statements and simple quotes-- explain yourself!

Here's some good questions for you:
** Where in Scripture does it say that God preserves his text *into* another language, whether perfectly (verbally) or providentially (plenarily)?
** If the KJV is 'preserved' by your definition, then why not the modern versions even if they use the same Hebrew and Greek text the KJV uses (like the NKJV)?
** If you have conceded that Psalm 12 is not referring to providential preservation, then what about the other verses you have quoted? Do you still want to be proven wrong about these also? Where does that leave your so-called 'doctrine' of providential preservation as you have defined it?

I am using these as an example to show you that it is impossible for you to answer these questions honestly. God is quite precise in His detail about what He says-- especially in areas that involve good doctrine. I would suggest that you re-read previous articles written by myself, DocCas, and others who generally lean against the KJV-only position on the 'providential preservation of the Bible text'.

At one time in my life, while I was in college, I was also KJV-only just like yourself. I had only just begun to take Greek, and I was only making 'C' grades! Anyway, I had friends who pointed out my error on this subject, and I am thankful of their care and understanding toward me despite the fact that I was bitter against them for proving me wrong about being KJV-only. I only hope to pursuade you that what you believe is not only wrong, but if taken further, could lead you into other heresies and errors. Now, I am not calling you a heretic by any stretch of the imagination, but this error-- in that realm of beliefs that KJV-onlyists hold to-- is something that will keep you from being fully honest and probably has kept you out of fellowship of some believers who hold to the positions that I or DocCas hold to concerning KJV-onlyism. This issue is needlessly separating people and churches when it really should not be, if those who study the Word like the Bereans and refute false doctrine and teaching.

[ September 13, 2002, 02:04 AM: Message edited by: DocCas ]

 

[Pastork]

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 ]

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Originally posted by LRL71:
I have seen too many times where in KJV-only churches that preachers and 'preacher-boys' would be encouraged *not* to study the Word, especially in the arena of gaining knowledge about the original Biblical languages. This only stunts the growth of men who will eventually be pastoring churches!

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.

Where in Scripture does it say that God preserves his text *into* another language, whether perfectly (verbally) or providentially (plenarily)?

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.

If the KJV is 'preserved' by your definition, then why not the modern versions even if they use the same Hebrew and Greek text the KJV uses (like the NKJV)?

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.

If you have conceded that Psalm 12 is not referring to providential preservation, then what about the other verses you have quoted? Do you still want to be proven wrong about these also? Where does that leave your so-called 'doctrine' of providential preservation as you have defined it?

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 am using these as an example to show you that it is impossible for you to answer these questions honestly.

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.

 

[DocCas]

Originally posted by Pastor Bob 63:
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.

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!

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.

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 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.

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!

 

[Ed Edwards]

\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 ]

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Originally posted by Pastork:
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.
Pastork

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.

 

[Pioneer]

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).