What is Providential Preservation and where is it found in the Scriptures?

[Steven Avery]

I find it interesting that you even include some references when they do not agree with you.

Of course.
The thread is what is called scholarship on the question.

You will find that I generally include contra argumentation (the most recent was as a study on lectio brevior, also a study on the Vulgate Prologue from Jerome that references the heavenly witnesses. The next may be the Theophilus proposal, the high priest, as that is a focus of some interesting current discussion.)

And I am not doctrinaire on the Psalm 12 verse, as I think those who came up with dual interpretations might be the soundest.

Steven Avery

 

[FSSL]

Scholarship? A study that ignores the Hebrew meanings and usages. A study that does not have a bibliography. A study that pretends that an author agrees with his viewpoint, but does not. A study that claims "many" when the count is actually "very few." If you think that thread is scholarship... you have a long way to go...

Certainly, to make a statement that "many agree" with the KJVO on Psalm 12, you would have compiled such a list and not Include the circularity of some KJVO articles.

There is only one correct interpretation of a passage. The KJVO is wrong. The KJVO has not done due diligence. In fact, the KJVO and TRO who writes on the subject makes up Hebrew grammar rules and ignores the translators, themselves.

 

[bibleprotector]

So, What is Providential Preservation, where is it found in the Scriptures and how does it operate?

Providential Preservation is the name for the idea describing how God keeps His promises in practice, that is, how He is able to provide to all periods of Church history, and that the promise of God is able to be maintained by God, even to its coming to pass in time. Thus, Scripture is properly provided by God, not only for the original audience, but to all ages.

Providential Preservation does not mean that God's Word is in a perfect form, i.e. there is no requirement for a perfect Greek New Testament through time. What it does allow, however, is a process of resisting corruption, and also a means of being textually resolved.

In practice, the resolution and outworking of Providential Preservation has been with a perfect Bible in English.

Providential Preservation operates by the Spirit of God as based on promises in the Word of God.

Providential Preservation is found in Scripture in regards to the supply of God's words to succeeding generations within the Scripture, e.g. God's ability to have gotten Messianic prophecies to the time of Christ under the Roman Empire.

There are many points which, when taken together, and by PROPERLY INTERPRETING SCRIPTURE, may be found to make the case in favour of the King James Bible specifically.

1. It is consistent with the nature of God that He should have His Church with exact knowledge of His words (e.g. Deuteronomy 32:4, Psalm 25:8, Matthew 16:18, John 8:32, 2 Corinthians 4:6).

2. It follows that if God inspired infallible and inerrant words, that is, got them in the Earth, that He would also preserve them, and not allow them to be lost in time, but faithfully transmitted into the future (e.g. Psalm 12, Proverbs 30:1–6, Isaiah 55:9–11, Matthew 7:24–27).

3. The Holy Ghost has the ministry of leading people to the truth, since His Word is truth (see John 17:17), it is a role for the Holy Ghost to bring people to have, acknowledge and possess His true Word (e.g. John 8:32; 14:17; 16:13, 1 John 2:20).

4. The same words that are in the Bible are supposed to be accessible and present, or else the commandments and statements of Scripture would be lies, i.e. Christians cannot obey a merely 98% reliable commandment (e.g. Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4, John 12:48, Ephesians 2:17, 1 Peter 1:23).

5. God has given the exact Word to be sought, and to give knowledge, and is powerful (e.g. Psalm 68:11, Proverbs 22:20, 21, Isaiah 34:16, 2 Timothy 3:16, 17).

6. The Church has the Word, and it is supposed to go forth by the great commission for the evangelisation to the nations (e.g. Matthew 28:19, 20, Acts 28:28, Romans 16:26, 1 Timothy 3:15).

7. The Word by the Gospel is reaching all nations properly (e.g. Mark 13:10, Acts 1:8, Romans 10:18, Colossians 1:5, 6).

8. The Word by the Gospel is supposed to bring fruit because of the law of sowing and reaping, and by its outworking (e.g. Mark 4:13–20, John 4:34–38; 15:7, 8, 1 Corinthians 3:7).

9. The Word of God is supposed to be a sword and powerful, therefore, it must be of an exact, refined nature, sharp and ready (e.g. Ephesians 6:18, Hebrews 4:12, Revelation 1:16; 19:15).

10. The Word of God is specifically resisted (Isaiah 6:10, Amos 8:11, 12, Matthew 13:15, John 12:40, Acts 28:27).

11. The idea of varying or differing modern versions is confusion and double minded (e.g. Isaiah 8:20, 1 Corinthians 14:33, 2 Corinthians 1:18, James 1:8 ).

12. Adding and taking away from Word, like what is done by the rational exercise of modern textual criticism, is forbidden (e.g. Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32, 2 Corinthians 2:17, Revelation 22:18, 19).

13. The Word of God is to be lifted up and praised (e.g. Psalm 56:4, 10, Psalm 119:72, 127, 140, Acts 13:46–48).

14. The Word of God is to fill the Earth (e.g. Jeremiah 31:34, Habakkuk 2:14, Matthew 24:14, Colossians 1:23).

15. The King James Bible by the English language is to the Jews and the world (e.g. Isaiah 18:7, Isaiah 28:11, Zephaniah 3:9, 10, Revelation 10).

 

[rsc2a]

Of course all of this is very convenient for the KJVo nuts advocates in today's time. Not so much for Christians for the 1600 years or so prior to the King Jimmy....what with all their translations and imperfect Bibles.

 

[bibleprotector]

The Scripture, God's Word, was perfect since it was first inspired.

The KJB is just an exact text and accurate translation.

 

[rsc2a]

The Scripture, God's Word, was perfect since it was first inspired.

The KJB is just an exact text and accurate translation.

"exact text...accurate translation"

These are intrinsically different things.

 

[subllibrm]

The Scripture, God's Word, was perfect since it was first inspired.

This may be the thing about KJVO that gets me the most. The KJVO proponent will ask where is the perfect word today and sit back smugly as if they have made the definitive debate point. But when asked where was it before 1611 the answer is exactly the same answer they refuse to accept from those who do not see the KJV as the final/best translation. In other words, it was in the Geneva or the Bishops or the whatever. So it was possible to be scattered among many texts prior to 1611 but not after. That makes no sense to me. After all those other version still exist so the word of God must still reside there as it did before the 1611 effort.

FWIW I am NKJV preferred. I am not a fan of the NIV but I will not stoop to the level of blaspheme. The above admissions that the word was in the Geneva et al. must also concede that the word of God is in the NIV as well.

 

[Prin.Ciples]

The Scripture, God's Word, was perfect since it was first inspired.

This may be the thing about KJVO that gets me the most. The KJVO proponent will ask where is the perfect word today and sit back smugly as if they have made the definitive debate point. But when asked where was it before 1611 the answer is exactly the same answer they refuse to accept from those who do not see the KJV as the final/best translation. In other words, it was in the Geneva or the Bishops or the whatever. So it was possible to be scattered among many texts prior to 1611 but not after. That makes no sense to me. After all those other version still exist so the word of God must still reside there as it did before the 1611 effort.

FWIW I am NKJV preferred. I am not a fan of the NIV but I will not stoop to the level of blaspheme. The above admissions that the word was in the Geneva et al. must also concede that the word of God is in the NIV as well.

Not to mention the fact that the KJV will one day pass into oblivion. They love to quote Jesus when He said "Heaven and Earth will pass away" as proof and ignore the very fact such a passing includes all texts in existance..... including the KJV.

If you're going to talk of preservation, then you have to talk of things Eternal. It has nothing to do with some perfect, collected text of anything. The Word of God is alive and Eternally exists apart from any written form. Pen, paper, tradition, nor any of the like, have anything to do with the Eternal nature of the Word of God.

 

[bgwilkinson]

The Scripture, God's Word, was perfect since it was first inspired.

This may be the thing about KJVO that gets me the most. The KJVO proponent will ask where is the perfect word today and sit back smugly as if they have made the definitive debate point. But when asked where was it before 1611 the answer is exactly the same answer they refuse to accept from those who do not see the KJV as the final/best translation. In other words, it was in the Geneva or the Bishops or the whatever. So it was possible to be scattered among many texts prior to 1611 but not after. That makes no sense to me. After all those other version still exist so the word of God must still reside there as it did before the 1611 effort.

FWIW I am NKJV preferred. I am not a fan of the NIV but I will not stoop to the level of blaspheme. The above admissions that the word was in the Geneva et al. must also concede that the word of God is in the NIV as well.

Miles Smith would agree as he thought the very meanest of translations contained the Word of God, even was the Word of God.

 

[Citadel of Truth]

Of course all of this is very convenient for the KJVo nuts advocates in today's time. Not so much for Christians for the 1600 years or so prior to the King Jimmy....what with all their translations and imperfect Bibles.

As much as it pains me to agree with you, this is one point that I always had trouble with. God promised that His Word would be available in all generations. If the KJV is the culmination of centuries of trying to get it right, where was the Word of God prior to 1611?

This one point has made me aware that the issue is really a textual issue and not a translation issue.

God's Word has always been available in the multitudes of witnesses; it didn't just magically appear in 1611.

 

[Citadel of Truth]

Miles Smith would agree as he thought the very meanest of translations contained the Word of God, even was the Word of God.

What did the word "meanest" mean in 1611? Was he saying that even those translations that were in error was the Word of God?

 

[bgwilkinson]

Miles Smith would agree as he thought the very meanest of translations contained the Word of God, even was the Word of God.

What did the word "meanest" mean in 1611? Was he saying that even those translations that were in error was the Word of God?

Miles was referring to the Rheims NT.

Much of Translators to the Reader is devoted to a defense of their work against the calumnations of the English Catholic translators of the Rheims NT.

One of their criticisms of the Rheims was the way that the Catholics muddied the meaning by using obscure words not familiar to English readers, however they were accurate in using those words but they were not understandable much like some translations in use today.

 

[Ransom]

Miles was referring to the Rheims NT.

Much of Translators to the Reader is devoted to a defense of their work against the calumnations of the English Catholic translators of the Rheims NT.

What he wrote:

Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.

He was referring to Bibles translated by men of the Protestant profession, whereas by contrast the Rheims NT was an as-yet-incomplete Bible of "theirs."

I would imagine, rather, that Smith had in mind mediocre Protestant translations such as the Taverner Bible or the Bishops' Bible, which were of little influence due to their low quality.

Citadel asked:

What did the word "meanest" mean in 1611? Was he saying that even those translations that were in error was the Word of God?

In 1611, "mean" meant inferior or unimportant. That is exactly what they are saying: as they explain, when the King's speech to Parliament is translated, it remains the King's speech, whether the translation is good or bad.

 

[Citadel of Truth]

"that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior" II Peter 3:2

Could this verse be used to support providential preservation of the Word of God, at least as far as the writings of the prophets are concerned? Or, is Peter talking about oral tradition being passed down?

 

[rsc2a]

"that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior" II Peter 3:2

Could this verse be used to support providential preservation of the Word of God, at least as far as the writings of the prophets are concerned? Or, is Peter talking about oral tradition being passed down?

Yes.

 

[Citadel of Truth]

"that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior" II Peter 3:2

Could this verse be used to support providential preservation of the Word of God, at least as far as the writings of the prophets are concerned? Or, is Peter talking about oral tradition being passed down?

Yes.

The epitome of helpfulness...thank you.

 

[rsc2a]

"that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior" II Peter 3:2

Could this verse be used to support providential preservation of the Word of God, at least as far as the writings of the prophets are concerned? Or, is Peter talking about oral tradition being passed down?

Yes.

The epitome of helpfulness...thank you.

I do what I can.  Another question would be why you think it's an either/or situation?

 

[Citadel of Truth]

"that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior" II Peter 3:2

Could this verse be used to support providential preservation of the Word of God, at least as far as the writings of the prophets are concerned? Or, is Peter talking about oral tradition being passed down?

Yes.

The epitome of helpfulness...thank you.

I do what I can.  Another question would be why you think it's an either/or situation?

It is either a passage in support of the providential preservation of God's Word or it isn't. I guess written or spoken is really irrelevant, as long as it is preserved.

So, I guess this answers the question of the OP....Next!  8)

 

[FSSL]

By the time Peter wrote this, written scriptures were prominent.

 

[Steven Avery]

If you think that thread is scholarship...

Of course it is. It is a fair and solid review of tons of references and history that are not available anywhere else, with lots of value-added commentary and some errors pointed out and corrected (see the Doug Kutilek references, especially.)

Many ideas are demonstrated in that thread for the reader's consideration, starting on the first page, on my behalf starting on post 5 & 8.

Certainly, to make a statement that "many agree" with the KJVO on Psalm 12, you would have compiled such a list

 
Certainly not.  The statement stands very simply by the thread.  And I have no reason to spend extra time on a nothing diversion. Maybe if I write a summary article in the future, I'll do an overview of the various defenders of different positions.

and not Include the circularity of some KJVO articles.

If there is a post on the thread that you think is not sensible, feel free to point it out.  I didn't include too much from modern defenders or contras, especially if they did not offer much of anything original. 

And, if I remember, the Kent Brandenburg edited book, which would have provided more material, came into my possession after that series of posts.

Steven