What God Promises Concerning Preservation
Introduction: In my last post, we looked at what the Bible had to say about itself about its own inspiration. So by way of review, it’s vital that we start with the right foundation of doctrine on this point, because it will make a world of difference upon the next point that I will speak about tonight. We saw first that God gave His Word to men by breathing it out through the original writers as the Holy Ghost carried them along so that what came out on paper, was perfect inerrant autographs. (2 Pet. 1:21; 2 Timothy 3:16) We saw that there were two senses in which the Scriptures were and are inspired – in the original sense, there was a supernatural leading of the Spirit in the word choices and in the thoughts of the writers so that what they spoke and wrote were exactly the very words of God. This sense of inspiration, we saw is restricted strictly to the original autographs because Scripture itself testifies to this in 2 Peter 1:21. This moving of the Holy Spirit is not mentioned to occur or to ever occur again in the copies and translations. So, the work of translation and copying is not supernatural. However, what we will see in this post, is that copying and translating will be overseen by God’s providence, not inspiration or supernatural guidance. The second sense in which the scriptures are inspired refer not only to the originals, but all the “graphe” or extant writings of scripture which Paul, Peter, Jesus, Timothy and everyone else in the New Testament would have been using. The sense in which these are inspired is that they have their original source in the mind of God and not of man and that they contain power (dunimus) to make you wise to salvation (2 Tim. 3:15) and that they are profitable for reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness. The copies and translations that the “graphe” would have been referring to in verse 15 would have been specifically referring to the LXX which Timothy would have grown up reading. So, even in the imperfect copies and translations of scripture over the years that would have been passed down, the words on those scriptures still communicated the truths that were powerful and profitable. Inspiration automatically assumes preservation. Why would God inspire scripture and then leave it to be destroyed so that it can’t help bring people to salvation and profit them for reproof, correction and instruction? It is obvious enough that God intends for these Scriptures to have this effect for all people, not just those who received the originals. So, let’s move on and look at what the Bible says about it’s own preservation and after affirming what it does say, let’s be careful to understand what it doesn’t say.
God’s Promises of Preservation:
A. The Old Testament: Isaiah 40:7-8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the LORD bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass. 8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
It is always vital that we understand the surrounding context before we ever use a verse as a prooftext for anything. This chapter is a famous Messianic prophecy that promises the coming of Christ and His forerunner in the beginning of the chapter. These verses we have read are part of what was instructed for the forerunner (John the Baptist) to say. He is to declare the brevity of human life and it’s soon impending death, but then to compare it to the Word of the Lord which stands forever. The primary meaning of this passage is to say that God’s decrees, His promises, his declarations will stand forever and will not be subverted by anyone. Men are like grass, they could do nothing against the Word of the Lord. So, the primary interpretation is not talking about manuscripts, it’s talking about God’s decrees. Those decrees are in the mind of God. Now, where are God’s decrees, promises, and declarations contained for us to see them and know them? Scripture. So, this verse can be applied to written scripture, even though it primarily is speaking about the decrees of God. Even if all the copies of scripture could theoretically be burned up and disappear, the decrees of God would still stand and be accomplished.
Isaiah 30:7-9 For the Egyptians shall help in vain, and to no purpose: therefore have I cried concerning this, Their strength is to sit still. 8 Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever: 9 That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the LORD.
Again, this is another writing that primarily is talking about what God is going to say to the people of Israel for having trusted in the Egyptians for protection. What God is telling Isaiah to write in a book is a testimony against Israel that will witness against them forever. This verse is not primarily dealing with the subject of Bible preservation, but it is most certainly guaranteeing us that what is about to be written will not only be for the time of the writing, but forever. The perpetuity of the written Word is assumed as certain.
Psalm 119:111 Thy testimonies have I taken as an heritage for ever: for they are the rejoicing of my heart. The entire chapter 119 speaks about the Word of God in so many aspects. This verse clearly teaches us that the testimonies of the Lord are a passed down possession or an heirloom for God’s people forever!
Psalm 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.
Here we have inspiration and preservation together in one verse. From the beginning the Word of God is true and that word will endure forever.
This is one of the clearest and most simply stated promises about God’s divine protection of His Word.
B. The New Testament: 1 Peter 1:23-25 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: 25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
This passage is a direct quote from Isaiah 40. Peter tells us that we are born again by incorruptible seed. Let’s stop right there for a second. Some in recent years have said that the incorruptible seed that is being spoken of here is the Bible and it is the Bible that causes our regeneration. Some have said even further that because they believe that the KJV is the only incorruptible Bible, if you were led to Christ with another version of the Bible, you are not really saved. This is heresy because it perverts the gospel of Christ. The incorruptible seed is Christ. John 1 says that we are not born of corruptible things such as the will of man or the will of the flesh, but that we are born of God. Paul makes it clear for us who the seed is in: Galatians 3:16 NKJV 16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ.
Now, the Word of God has a function in our new birth, but it is not the seed. The seed is implanted and gives us life by the Word of God. This is accounted for in Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Then in verse 25, Peter continues to quote Isaiah 40 and applies this verse to them by saying that it is through this same Word of God is what is used to preach the gospel to them. It endured from Isaiah’s time to Peter’s time and was still profitable and powerful to bring people to the knowledge of salvation just like 2 Timothy 3:15 said!
Matthew 5:17-18 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
This is one of my favorite verses that promises God’s preservation not only on the whole Bible or it’s thoughts and doctrines, but on its very words and pen strokes. In this passage, Jesus is preaching the Sermon on the Mount, and after giving the Beatitudes; He knew that He was leaving the impression on people that He was doing away with the strictness of the law, so He clarifies to them that He is not replacing the law with new teaching, but rather He had come to fulfill it and the primary interpretation of this passage is to promise that every pen stroke of the law down to the jots and tittles would be fulfilled before heaven and earth pass away. Every prophecy and promise would be fulfilled because God is faithful. What the passage is not saying in its primary interpretation is that God will preserve a perfect line of manuscript copies or preserve all His words perfectly in any particular translation. One of the problems with the KJVO advocates when they approach these scriptures is to make giant logical leaps to conclusions that the text is in no way implying or teaching. In the case of this verse, I personally believe that every jot and tittle is preserved and will not be lost to history or time. How would we know when those jots and tittles are fulfilled if we can’t read them when they are fulfilled? Heaven and earth cannot pass away until God has consummated His eternal plans that He has prophesied through the Word of God. So, by application, not primary interpretation, I believe this verse can be used to teach the preservation of every one of God’s Words.
Verses used out of context for preservation
Now at the same time that we have plenty of promises that affirm God’s preservation, some folks overstate their case by misinterpreting other scriptures in order to make their case stronger. In doing this, they actually weaken their own credibility. We must be faithful to what the Words says, where it says it accurately.
Here is one: Psalm 105:8-10 He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations. 9 Which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac; 10 And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant:
This verse is not speaking about the written Word of God at all. It is speaking about the covenant that was made with Abraham. That covenant was made long before it was ever recorded in Scripture. Before scripture existed, the covenant was made. Remember, Moses wrote the Genesis account of the Abrahamic covenant 500+ years after God had spoken it.
Then probably the most grossly misinterpreted passage that is usually the first runner up for proving the preservation of Scripture is Psalm 12:6-7. Some really nasty things are said about other translations that translate verse 7 differently than the KJV, even though the meaning is exactly the same. The problem isn’t the translation, it’s the interpretation that accuses the translation of being in error or perversion.
Let’s look at a couple of translations: Psalm 12:6-7 KJV The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
NIV And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times. 7 O LORD, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever.
ASV Jehovah will preserve him, and keep him alive, And he shall be blessed upon the earth; And deliver not thou him unto the will of his enemies.
NJB 6 Yahweh’s promises are promises unalloyed, natural silver which comes from the earth seven times refined. 7 You, Yahweh, will watch over them, you will protect them from that brood for ever.
ESV You, O LORD, will keep them; you will guard us from this generation forever.
Some of these versions say that God’s protection is over “us” or “him” or “them” As you can see, some of these versions say that God will keep “them, him or us”. In either case, it doesn’t matter which pronoun is used, the meaning is not changed. In the manuscripts, there is a textual variant where the manuscripts disagree with the pronoun, but in either case, the meaning is not lost when interpreted correctly. “Them” is not referring to the Words of God in this verse when the entire context is taken into account. The Hebrew Chiasmic structure of the chapter will make this clear.
Psalm 12:1-8
a. Opening lament Help, LORD; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men. 2 They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak.
b. God’s Promise Against the Evil 3 The LORD shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things:
c. The Words of the Wicked 4 Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us?
d. God Speaks of Salvation (Climax) 5 For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.
c’. The Words of God 6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
b’. God’s Promise for the Good People Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
a’. Final Lament 8 The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.
If you’re not convinced, then let me give you the witness of interpretation by better scholars than all of us who all historically interpreted “them” to be the people of God. By the way, these people believed this before there was a KJV in Calvin’s case, and before there was a KJVO controversy in the case of Spurgeon, Gill and Henry:
“David, deploring the wretched and forlorn condition of his people, and the utter overthrow of good order, beseeches God to afford them speedy relief. Then, in order to comfort both himself and all the godly, after having mentioned God’s promise of assisting his people, he magnifies his faithfulness and constancy in performing his promises. From this he concludes, that at length God will deliver the godly, even when the world may be in a state of the greatest corruption.” – John Calvin “
“In life many a saint has lived a hundred years before his age, as though he had darted his soul into the brighter future, and escaped the mists of the beclouded present: he has gone to his grave unreverenced and misunderstood, and lo! as generations come and go, upon a sudden the hero is unearthed, and lives in the admiration and love of the excellent of the earth; preserved for ever from the generation which stigmatised him as a sower of sedition, or burned him as a heretic. It should be our daily prayer that we may rise above our age as the mountain tops above the clouds, and may stand out as heaven pointing pinnacle high above the mists of ignorance and sin which roll around us. O Eternal Spirit, fulfil in us the faithful saying of this verse! Our faith believes those two assuring words, and cries, Thou shalt, thou shalt.” – Charles Spurgeon
“That God will secure his chosen remnant to himself, how bad soever the times are (v. 7): Thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. This intimates that, as long as the world stands, there will be a generation of proud and wicked men in it, more or less, who will threaten by their wretched arts to ruin religion, by wearing out the saints of the Most High, Dan. 7:25. But let God alone to maintain his own interest and to preserve his own people. He will keep them from this generation, (1.) From being debauched by them and drawn away from God, from mingling with them and learning their works. In times of general apostasy the Lord knows those that are his, and they shall be enabled to keep their integrity. (2.) From being destroyed and rooted out by them.” – Matthew Henry
“Not the words before mentioned, as Aben Ezra explains it, for the affix is masculine and not feminine; not but God has wonderfully kept and preserved the sacred writings; and he keeps every word of promise which he has made; and the doctrines of the Gospel will always continue from one generation to another; but the sense is, that God will keep the poor and needy, and such as he sets in safety, as Kimchi rightly observes: they are not their own keepers, but God is the keeper of them.” -John Gill
New ‘Mis’ interpretation: “The word ‘them’ in verse 7 refers back to ‘the words of the Lord’. That is a Bible promise of Bible preservation. This promise extends from this generation for ever.” – D. A. Waite
This interpretation by DA Waite and other zealous KJVO advocates is a new interpretation that is wrong. People like him and Kent Brandenburg who also wrote a book with the title “Thou Shalt Keep Them” use this verse as a proof text to back up their theory of an inerrant stream of manuscripts that were handed down from the originals all the way to the KJV translators desks in 1611. I’ve conversed with Kent about this passage and he says that the grammatical construction of the verse demands that ‘them’ must refer to ‘words’, but how convenient it is to switch to a grammatical argument and forget the context for the sake of justifying his position.
(disclaimer: I have not yet read Brandenburg’s book, so I can’t comment on what he’s trying to teach in that book. I’m sure he’s going to read this and be all too ready to defend himself. I use his book title as an example of this understanding of Psalm 12 and nothing more)
Psalm 119:89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. This verse is usually used as a proof text for perfect preservation, but it’s easy to see where the Word of God is settled – heaven. Why? That’s God’s throne. Now, the doctrine of preservation is the real battleground when it comes to the King James Only Controversy. This is where we need to pay attention to scripture and be careful that we’re only saying what Scripture says.
So far, let’s review what the Bible has explicitly said about preservation:
A. The word of our God shall stand for ever.
B. That it may be for the time to come for ever and ever.
C. Every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.
D. My words shall not pass away
E. One jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Basically, it’s saying the same thing over and over. The Word in general will stand forever all the way down to the individual words and down to the jots and tittles of the letters will not pass away. We are being taught that every one of God’s words will endure forever and that’s all it says. It says nothing about how God will do this. It says nothing about where God will do this. It says nothing about whom God will use to do this. It says nothing about what kind of manuscripts he will use to do this. It says nothing about what manuscript family he will use to do this. It says nothing about which translation will do this. It doesn’t even say if all of the words will be perfectly preserved nice and neatly in one perfect manuscript or one translation in any given language! However, there is a whole movement today that claims that God preserved His Word in a way that God did not tell us he would do it. Let me give you some examples: In the newest book on this subject called “A More Sure Word”, Dr. R.B. Ouellette says:
“ Some would view the translation process as purely an act of man. In some cases this is true. But if you believe God preserves His Word, then you cannot separate Him completely from the rendering of His Word into other languages around the world. The promise of preservation requires that God use man to render accurate translations in other languages. This is often a strong dividing line among those with differing positions on this issue – did God preserve only the original languages and then leave His Word in the hands of men to render into languages, or has His supernatural hand been involved in the preservation work throughout the translation process? ” – RB Ouellette
He is suggesting the 2 Peter 1:21-22 “moving of the Holy Spirit” in the translation process in regards to the KJV. He is actually subtlely suggesting double inspiration by raising that question without answering it in the negative.
“What is corrupting the Word of God? Adding to and taking away from God’s Words! As we begin comparing verses from the different versions remember this: there are no errors in the 1611 Authorized King James Version. It is God’s perfectly preserved words and you can trust it completely. ” – Gary Miller
After having given almost the exact same promises of preservation in his booklet, Gary Miller makes a quantum leap of logic with this phrase. This is a totally unfounded assertion, it is an unproven premise that makes the KJV the standard without any evidence.
“I believe that God has carried forward Bible preservation in our English language through our King James Bible. This is not to refer Bible preservation to the English translation in the absolute sense, but only in the sense that our KJB accurately preserves the proper Hebrew and Greek Words in the English language and accurately translates those divinely preserved Words….There are four reasons I believe this: A. Superiority of the Original Language Texts B. Superiority of the Translators of the KJV C. Superiority of the Technique of translating the KJV D. Superiority of the Theology of the KJV.” – D. A. Waite
I would agree that the KJV accurately translates God’s Words although I don’t know what he means by “divinely preserved”. I would say “providentially preserved” since we have no Biblical evidence of the supernatural occurring in the process. The first statement is his opinion and is another unfounded assertion. God did not tell us that he would preserve His word in one exclusive English translation, no matter how good it may be.
“We believe the Bible to be the revealed Word of God, fully and verbally inspired of God. We believe the Scriptures to be the inerrant, infallible Word of God, as found within the 66 books from Genesis to Revelation. We believe God not only inspired every word, but has preserved them through the ages. We believe the King James Version is the preserved Word of God for the English-speaking people” – Lancaster Baptist Church Doctrinal Statement
I agree with everything this says until you get to the last sentence. That cannot be substantiated with Scripture. Where does the Bible say that only one translation is allowed per language? Who makes that choice? How are we supposed to know that choice is God’s choice? Why must there be a totally inerrant and perfect manuscript of the whole scriptures intact in one volume? Has anyone in antiquity ever had that? They all had copies with variations of word differences, but who can say through history that they have had one pure stream (in the technical sense) of completely perfect, inerrant copies from one generation to another? Did God say he would deliver his Words through preservation in that manner? No He didn’t, so why is this being asserted and people’s consciences being forced to accept this? This kind of language in doctrinal statements or in books is a clear indication of the underlying false premise: the written Word has to be “intact” (entire, exact) in order to be God’s Word. Anything that amounts to anything less than a 100% equivalent of the elusive original is considered counterfeit.
“One may speculate about how the Biblical text could or should have been preserved, but a better approach is to examine what has actually been preserved—the surviving Bibles of antiquity. Unless one favors selective providence, every ancient Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament that has survived has done so because of providence. Every ancient Bible was the property of some church or private individual. Each Bible was regarded as the divinely inspired word of God by its owner and was used as authority for doctrine and practice. Apart from a few scholars in antiquity, owners of those ancient Bibles were unaware of the minor variations between their Bible and that of others; just as most modern owners of King James Bibles are unaware of the hundreds of textual differences between the various editions of the KJV. This manner of preservation was true everywhere throughout history. Otherwise one must embrace selective, special providence in order to justify a theory of preservation that says only certain ancient Bibles enjoyed special providential preservation and the others survived under subversive influence outside the purview of providence. But where in God’s universe is providence not operative?” – Dr. James Price
Conclusion: The fact is, we don’t have any other promises from God as to how the Bible will be preserved, we just have the promises that it will be! That should be good enough for all of us and we should not demand that God preserve His word in a way that satisfies our prejudices and biases. Next time, we’ll look at the process of canonization. How do we know that the books that we have are the right books and that other books that were left out were not ones that should have been included? This is an extremely important point about preservation that we need to talk about before we move on to the manuscript evidence that we have to base our modern Bible’s upon.
Two things:
1. Other verses could be cited which are much more compelling: Jeremiah 31:31-34, Hebrews 8:8-12 and 10:15-17 (the Hebrews cites are bookends), 1Cor2:16, Hebrews 4:12, and all of 1Cor13, which keys off the clever Greek wordplay of 1Cor12:31, the Head Surpassing the Body. All of these are promises of WRITTEN Scripture to be completed and preserved. The original words.
2. KJV and all translations make vile anti-God errors. I tried to document some of them in my KJV-only Blasphemy playlist in my ‘brainouty’ page in Youtube. The last six ‘robot’ videos in that playlist answer the Riplinger lies about the alleged superiority of the KJV, point by point. So it is wrong to say that the KJV or any Bible translation is accurately translated. KJV in particular is so famous for its mistranslations, new translations keep on being made.
“KJV and all translations make vile anti-God errors”?
I think that anyone who is born again would disagree.
I can agree with many points given, but there are some where I disagree (since I am firmly King James Bible only).
“Where does the Bible say that only one translation is allowed per language?”
It doesn’t as such. What the Bible implies and gives grounds for is one supersuccessionary world-wide Bible in the end time. In fact, it prophesies as much in various places, such as Revelation 10, etc. That is, the King James Bible being made a common standard for all nations. This is not to prohibit the existence of other Bibles, but that one should excel them all.
“Who makes that choice?”
The Holy Ghost in His eternal plan, and the manifestation of the common faith held by the universal priesthood of believers as manifested via godly tradition.
“How are we supposed to know that choice is God’s choice?”
We would observe signal providences to this end, besides the internal factors of the said supersuccessionary Bible, and the prophecies and implications of Scripture passages.
“Why must there be a totally inerrant and perfect manuscript of the whole scriptures intact in one volume?”
This one volume being held common, i.e. one text and translation in one edition in a variety of impressions being held commonly used, answers exactly the idea of one perfect Scripture in heaven, one perfect scripture inspired piecemeal and all the factors of God’s nature (e.g. perfection), and consistency with other parts of God’s plan (e.g. one true Church in the end).
“Has anyone in antiquity ever had that?”
No, but godly traditions can be like trees growing from seeds which has long shot forth roots. In other words, the manifestation of traditions and proper doctrines at a higher level in recent times does not require the same scope of it being manifest in Biblical times, in that Christ is BUILDING the Church, etc.
“They all had copies with variations of word differences, but who can say through history that they have had one pure stream (in the technical sense) of completely perfect, inerrant copies from one generation to another?”
Clearly, no Bible (i.e. gathered form of the entire canon) was ever perfect. Not only were the Autographs never gathered into one place, but every copy, version and translation historically had problems, textual, translational and presentational. The text and translation being made perfect in English in 1611 did not require immediate revelation of this accomplishment. The King James Bible was not freed from presentation impurities (e.g. press errors) until recent times.
“Did God say he would deliver his Words through preservation in that manner?”
Not historically, but Scripture does indicate that God’s pure Word should be purely presented, etc. Therefore, even though scattering or impurity was visible, yet the Scripture itself was not lost in the earth, and was able to be fully gathered, perfectly translated and now purely presented in the King James Bible.
“No He didn’t, so why is this being asserted and people’s consciences being forced to accept this?”
If people’s consciences are having such a case being forced upon it, surely it is spiritual, not merely man. It is the Holy Ghost who speaks to the conscience. The laws and prohibitions of man are of no force if they are not of God.
“This kind of language in doctrinal statements or in books is a clear indication of the underlying false premise: the written Word has to be ‘intact’ (entire, exact) in order to be God’s Word.”
Actually, since many copies of Scriptures had copyist errors, translation errors and/or presentation errors, there is no necessity to demand that God’s Word must be “in tact” at any time as such, but that God suffered such a state of affairs, all the while looking toward the forming of the supersuccessionary form, the very Scripture in English pure and perfect which matches exactly what was first written in the original languages and in Heaven.
“Anything that amounts to anything less than a 100% equivalent of the elusive original is considered counterfeit.”
Variations cannot be considered as counterfeits, but as impurities. Counterfeit applies to the deliberate motive to falsify. Many variations, whether textual, translational or otherwise were in copies used by Christians for most of world history because that was the best they had. God was able to use that, but God was not keeping things at the level of imperfection. Just as one day the Church will be perfected, so God Himself has ensured that through history there was a manifestation of the perfect Word of God in a finite form, extant and accessible for all.
Outside of one or two churches near you, Bibleprotector, does anyone else agree with:
1) the PCE being the pure and best edition of the KJV
and
2) that Rev. 10 or anywhere else in the Bible, actually prophecies about the KJV as an end-times Bible?
This seems far-fetched, and beyond the clear teaching of God’s Word.
The whole Pure Cambridge Edition area is a recent development in KJBO thinking. There are various folks around the internet which have indicated that they agree that either they agree the PCE is the best/standard, or that they believe that the PCE is the perfect presentation.
As for the KJB being viewed as the endtime Bible, this is taken to various degrees by those who are not merely Textus Receptus-only. Some KJBOs allow for other translations as long as the KJB is supreme. Others are inclined to uphold the KJB to the point of even encouraging the teaching of English in foreign countries.
The strongest Scriptures in favour of this view include Zeph. 3:9 and Isaiah 28:11.
William,
Think about this. You criticize us before the world that we use grammar to come to our position on Psalm 12:6-7 and conveniently ignore the context, even though you’ve never read our book. And that’s fine with everyone here. This doesn’t sound like a search for truth, but an opposition to a position at all costs. Your attack on the use of grammar is tell-tale. It sounds like something that would come from the typical revivalist fundamentalist—”he used grammar?!?! That discredits what you’ve written.
First, you can’t get past grammar when you make an interpretation. For instance, proximity of the pronoun to the antecedent—does that matter to you? You don’t move into a different area code to find an antecedent.
Second, our book deals with context as a major proof of our position. And it is interesting when I read your outline. You missed the presentation in your own outline. Here is YOUR outline:
God’s Promise
The Words of the Wicked
God Speaks of Salvation
The Words of God
God’s Promise for the Good People
You yourself say that it is about God’s Word, not about the salvation of the poor and the needy. You should read your own outline to look for the context.
These following two paragraphs are so loaded with nothing but ad hominem.
This interpretation by DA Waite and other zealous KJVO advocates is a new interpretation that is wrong. People like him and Kent Brandenburg who also wrote a book with the title “Thou Shalt Keep Them” use this verse as a proof text to back up their theory of an inerrant stream of manuscripts that were handed down from the originals all the way to the KJV translators desks in 1611. I’ve conversed with Kent about this passage and he says that the grammatical construction of the verse demands that ‘them’ must refer to ‘words’, but how convenient it is to switch to a grammatical argument and forget the context for the sake of justifying his position.
(disclaimer: I have not yet read Brandenburg’s book, so I can’t comment on what he’s trying to teach in that book. I’m sure he’s going to read this and be all too ready to defend himself. I use his book title as an example of this understanding of Psalm 12 and nothing more)
New interpretation? Really? It is the historically oldest position on this text. Jewish commentator Aben Ezra in AD 1167 took this same position.
The theory of an inerrant stream of manuscripts? That is such an ignorant and false representation of our position.
And then you say that there was some conspiracy in which I could see that the context wasn’t favoring my position, so I did a switch to a grammar position. What a joke.
And then you’re afraid that I’ll come and “defend myself.” Defend myself? This is kind of tell-tale, don’t you think? I’ll need to defend myself, why? Because this is nothing but a personal attack. At least you figured that out.
I have a problem with interpreting Psalm 12:6-7 as applying to the WHOLE Bible…and here it is.
When those words were written, how much of the Bible was written? 30%? less? And, correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the Hebrew word underlying the word “keep” imply a control of some sort? Thus, there would be no addition to the canon after this statement.
Or is it open-ended? If that is the case, then how could this verse be stretched to include both later Hebrew and Greek manuscripts but exclude others?
I don’t see how this verse has any practical implication on the preservation of the WRITTEN Bible, even if the pronoun DOES connect to “words.” Clearly, it must mean the pronouncements of God – his declarations – which are much more numerous than those written down in the Scriptures (as evidenced by the cases of Daniel, of John’s unspoken book, of Paul’s unwritten experiences in 2 Cor 13, etc.)
Right on.
Why do we forget context?
Hi Erik,
When John 3:16 was written, I wasn’t born, so does promise apply to me?
And that watchman passage in Ezekiel 33 doesn’t apply to me because I’m not watching for the enemy to come and attack my walled city. I’ve never lived in a walled city, so that doesn’t apply. That would be out of context.
God will cut off only flattering lips that flattered in David’s day, Ps 12:3. It was only tongues that spoke proud things in David’s day that God will cut off, Ps 12:3. That is a very unusual way to apply the promises to God, as well as the mentions of God’s Words in Scripture, especially in light of how believers have received them through the centuries.
God says He’ll preserve His Words, but since those are not written Words and we don’t have all the Words that He never wrote but only said and weren’t recorded, then He really doesn’t preserve His Words?
So are you saying that He is promising to protect, guard, or keep all of His declarations unto all generations? And these declarations are not written. So where are they? Where are the oral unwritten Words that will be kept unto every generation?
I can’t swallow this particular view of God’s Word that you present, Erik. If you want to go with it, it really is up to you, but I reject it.
You’re using a bit of hyperbole there. Since John 3:16 is part of a greater, specific statement made very plainly by Jesus.
And, I don’t know how to tell you this, but the Ezekiel 33 passage doesn’t apply to you because you’re not a watchman for the land of Israel. The context makes it plain that this was a prophesy for Israel, explaining a specific point.
But I digress.
Erik,
In my opinion, you started digressing with your first comment. Paul alluded to the watchman passage when he said he was pure from the blood of all men in Acts 20. And Psalms do apply to us today.
“You yourself say that it is about God’s Word, not about the salvation of the poor and the needy. You should read your own outline to look for the context.”
God’s words are promises to deliver and preserve His people, not preserve them in the TR and KJV…geez, I thought I made that clear enough.
“New interpretation? Really? It is the historically oldest position on this text. Jewish commentator Aben Ezra in AD 1167 took this same position.”
So you’ll side with an unbelieving Rabbi’s unenlightened interpretation over Spurgeon, Calvin, et al.?
“And then you say that there was some conspiracy in which I could see that the context wasn’t favoring my position, so I did a switch to a grammar position. What a joke.”
Well, I’ve read many of your blog posts where you get all into the contexts surrounding scriptures that support your beliefs – like the local churches instead of the universal church – to defend your position, yet I find it odd that when it comes to this one verse – nope! The interpretation strictly depends on the grammatical structure and it has nothing to do with preserving people which the rest of the Psalm is about.
“And then you’re afraid that I’ll come and “defend myself.” Defend myself? This is kind of tell-tale, don’t you think? I’ll need to defend myself, why? Because this is nothing but a personal attack. At least you figured that out.”
How did I know you’d be so quick to defend yourself? Your response proves my point. I’m attacking your position, not you personally, but I guess you and your position are one in your mind.
What does the expression “geez” mean?
That no text says He would preserve them in the TR and KJV is a red herring. No text says we would have 66 books. If His Words are available for every generation then the CT/eclectic couldn’t be the fulfillment of the promise.
William, you said it was a new interpretation. That’s the only point I was refuting. So you are wrong.
Concerning the context, we deal with it. So your point is wrong. You’ve never read TSKT so you wouldn’t even know. It’s ridiculous for you to say we don’t deal with the context. If you keep saying it, when you’re wrong, then it isn’t a mistake any more and it’s just a lie.
You can go with the Psalm having nothing to do with God’s Word if you’d like, but, as I said, your own outline as God’s Word in every single point. God’s Word is mentioned far more in the Psalm than the poor and the needy. I’ll send my outline to you sometime. I’ve preached through it expositionally when I preached through the psalms.
No, you did attack me. You said that I saw that context didn’t support my position so I switched to grammar as my new basis. I’m quite sure that no one else here besides you, even if they disagree with me, think that I’ve ignored the context as a kind of cover-up. We’re in the second edition of a book, TSKT, that deals with the context thoroughly. What you need to do is take a step back and look at the grammar if you care at all about knowing what Psalm 12 is about. It is why we call it a grammatical-historical interpretation, you know.
I really think that the enemy has used this”KJV” only thing to divide us. We need to avoid this temptation to sin.
Jesus, The diciples, the early church, Augustine, etc. were not KJV. For 1500 years, or most of Christianity was without the KJV and were probably more spiritual than the Christians since the KJV has existed.
There are very good translations out there besides the KJV and they don’t have the book of 1st and 2nd Macabees attached like the original KJV. It might have had the Apocrypha also??? Incidently, the older versions of the KJV have a disclaimer by the translators on the first page that the newer versions omit. This is just another translation of the bible and better translations exist.
Don’t think that I wouldn’t object to a version that was not meant to be a translation, but a perversion or mockery, but I fail to see that in these other translations.
I like the ESV version, and I also read other versions, even the KJV. If the purists are really serious about this accuracy thing, they should be reading and preaching in Hebrew and Greek.
I am so thankful for translators, I have a terrible time with foreign languages. I think that we should all do a better job of following the word than debating who’s version is best. We have much more in common, lets show love and respect for our fellow believers. We are all in this battle together.
read more…
[...]just below, are some totally unrelated sites to ours, however, they are definitely worth checking out[...]…