Debunking the the Doctrine of Preservation

[St. SteVen]

Quoted from The Berean Patriot article titled,
Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus – Textual Criticism 101
Source link provided at the bottom of this post.

I'll have to split this into several posts to fit the maximum allowed post size.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Biblical Case for the Doctrine of Preservation​

Now that we know what Greek text the Confessional Position uses, let’s take a closer look at the various scriptural passages they use to support the doctrine of Preservation (which says God kept His Scriptures “pure in all ages”).

Psalm 12:6-7​

The root of this is an error in translation, as we’ll see in a moment.

Psalm 12:6-7 KJV
6 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.

Read simply, you can see how someone would get the Doctrine of preservation from this passage. However, the word I’ve highlighted in red isn’t plural (them); it’s singular (him). You can double check me by looking at Psalm 12:7 in an interlinear Bible. However, don’t trust the English there, look at the shorthand underneath the English words.

Notice: it’s singular:

V‑Qal‑Imperf‑2ms | 3mse

Other translations render this correctly, and we’ll add verse 5 for some context.

Psalm 12:5-7 NASB
5 “Because of the devastation of the afflicted, because of the groaning of the needy,
Now I will arise,” says the LORD; “I will set him in the safety for which he longs.”
6 The words of the LORD are pure words;
As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, refined seven times.
7 You, O LORD, will keep them;
You will preserve him from this generation forever.

God “will keep them” (His words) by setting “him” (the man) in safety like He said He would in verse 5.

Now some might object by saying the King James translators used a better source document. However, the King James Translators used the 1525-1525 Masoretic Text by Daniel Bomberg as the basis for the Old Testament. (The Masoretic text is the traditional Hebrew text, and contains far fewer textual variants than the New Testament.) Every other modern translation I’m aware of – including the NASB – uses the Masoretic text also. Further, the NASB uses a modern reprint of the exact same text underlying the KJV.

So no, this verse doesn’t teach the Doctrine of Preservation.

Psalms 100:5​

Psalms 100:5 (KJV): For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.
Psalms 100:5 (NASB): For the LORD is good, and His loving devotion endures forever; His faithfulness continues to all generations.

I think how you can see how they get the Doctrine of Preservation, but it seems quite a stretch. It seems even more like a stretch when you know the definition of the Hebrew word. The word that’s highlighted is Hebrew word “אֱמוּנָה” (emunah). And it means:

1. literally firmness, steadiness:
2. stead-fastness,
3. faithfulness, trust: a. of human conduct

So, “truth” in the KJV isn’t unwarranted, but hardly the primary meaning. Therefore, this verse doesn’t teach Preservation either.

Psalm 117:1-2​

Again, this is a stretch but we’ll deal with it.

Psalm 117:1-2 KJV
1 O praise the LORD, all ye nations: praise him, all ye people.
2 For his merciful kindness is great toward us: and the truth of the LORD endureth for ever. Praise ye the LORD.

The Hebrew word there is “אֶמֶת” (emeth), and it means:

1. reliability, sureness
2. stability, continuance
3. faithfulness, reliableness
4. truth
   1. as spoken
   2. of testimony and judgment
   3. of divine instruction
   4. truth as a body of ethical or religious knowledge
5. adverb in truth, truly

Nearly every translation (besides the KJV, NKJV, and NASB) translate it as “faithfulness” or something similar.

Psalms 119:160​

You can see where they get it, but it’s such a stretch.

Psalm 119:160 (KJV)
Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

Clearly, it’s the judgements that are enduring, not “the word”.

CONTINUED IN POST#2



Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus - Textual Criticism 101 - Berean Patriot

 

[St. SteVen]

Continued from post #1

Isaiah 40:8 & 1 Peter 1:24-25​

These two passages go together because 1 Peter 1:24-25 is quoting Isaiah 40:8. However, truly understand these verses, we need to consider the context. Let’s look at Isaiah 40:8 first.

Isaiah 40:8 KJV
The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

Now just taking this verse by itself, it’s easy to see the Doctrine of Preservation. However, proper context changes the sense radically. First, let’s look at a passage that will become important to understanding these two verses.

John 1:1 (KJV)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Remember “The Word” is one of Jesus’ main titles, especially in the writings of John. Now, let’s look at Isaiah 40 in greater context, and you’ll see it’s clearly a Messianic passage. Let’s go through it one chunk at a time.

Isaiah 40:1-5 (NKJV)
1 “Comfort, yes, comfort My people!”
Says your God.
2 “Speak comfort to Jerusalem, and cry out to her,
That her warfare is ended,
That her iniquity is pardoned;
For she has received from the Lord’s hand
Double for all her sins.”
3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness:
“Prepare the way of the Lord;
Make straight in the desert
A highway for our God.
4 Every valley shall be exalted
And every mountain and hill brought low;
The crooked places shall be made straight
And the rough places smooth;
5 The glory of the Lord shall be revealed,
And all flesh shall see it together;
For the mouth of the Lord has spoken.”

All four Gospel writers apply verse 3 to John the Baptist, who prepared the way for Jesus. (Matthew 3:3, Mark 1:3, Luke 3:4-6, John 1:23) Luke also applies verses 4-5 to the Messianic age. Please note how “The glory of the Lord” will be revealed. In so many places, Jesus is called the Glory of the Lord.

Let’s continue.

Isaiah 40:6-8 (NKJV)
6 The voice said, “Cry out!”
And he said, “What shall I cry?”
“All flesh is grass,
And all its loveliness is like the flower of the field.
7 The grass withers, the flower fades,
Because the breath of the Lord blows upon it;
Surely the people are grass.
8 The grass withers, the flower fades,
But the word of our God stands forever.”

Hmm, could “the Word” here be Jesus? It’s get clearer in a few verses, and even clearer when you read 1 Peter 1.

Isaiah 40:9-11 (NKJV)
9 O Zion,
You who bring good tidings,
Get up into the high mountain;
O Jerusalem,
You who bring good tidings,
Lift up your voice with strength,
Lift it up, be not afraid;
Say to the cities of Judah, “Behold your God!”
10 Behold, the Lord God shall come with a strong hand,
And His arm shall rule for Him;
Behold, His reward is with Him,
And His work before Him.
11 He will feed His flock like a shepherd;
He will gather the lambs with His arm,
And carry them in His bosom,
And gently lead those who are with young.

Notice, “Like a Shepherd”, appears to be an obvious reference to Jesus given the context. However, we don’t have to guess, as Peter – under the Holy Spirit’s inspiration” – explicitly applied this passage to Jesus. Let’s back up to get some context.

1 Peter 1:18-23 (NKJV)
18 knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers,
19 but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.
20 He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you
21 who through Him believe in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.
22 Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart,
23 having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever,

Please remember, the original Greek texts were all capital letters, so the translators added the capitals. Further, no Christian was ever “born again” through the Bible; we are “born again” through Jesus’ blood and His work on the cross. The whole passage so far has been talking about Jesus, who is the “Word of God” as in John 1:1.

Why would Peter suddenly be talking about the Bible?

Further, the Bible doesn’t “live” or “abide” because it’s a book. (And before you bring up Hebrews 4:12, realize that in context it’s talking about Jesus there too)

Now let’s look at the rest, starting with verse 23.

1 Peter 1:23-25 (NKJV)
23 having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the Word of God (Jesus) which lives and abides forever,
24 because
“All flesh is as grass,
And all the glory of man as the flower of the grass.
The grass withers,
And its flower falls away,
25 But the Word of the Lord (Jesus again) endures forever.”
Now this is the Word (Jesus yet again) which by the gospel was preached to you.

Certainly, the Word of God (Jesus, as in John 1:1) will live and endure forever. Amen! But Jesus isn’t the Bible, and neither Peter nor Isaiah were talking about the Bible; they were talking about Jesus.

Matthew 5:18​

Context helps a lot here too.

Matthew 5:17-19 (NKJV)
17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

In context, Jesus is simply saying that the law wouldn’t end until “all is fulfilled”. Notice, he specifically said “the law”. He didn’t say the scriptures, and not even “the word”; just the (Mosaic) law. Jesus Himself said it was fulfilled when he said “It is finished” on the cross. Christians don’t need to obey the Mosaic Law anymore. (Read Galatians if you disagree.)

Further, The Greek lends more clarity on this.

The Greek word that’s translated “pass” is “παρέρχομαι” (parerchomai). It means:

I pass by, pass away, pass out of sight; I am rendered void, become vain, neglect, disregard.

You could translate it “will by no means be voided from the law“. Same idea. Remember the verse before Jesus talked about how He wasn’t going to destroy the (Mosaic) Law. However, the New Covenant superseded the Old, and at that point, the Old “passed away” or was rendered void… Just like Jesus said.

Words That Won’t “Pass Away”​

This is also recorded in Mark 13:31 and Luke 21:33, but we’ll look at the Matthew version because it’s more commonly cited.

Matthew 24:35
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

First, please notice that it’s “words” (plural) not “word” (singular). God didn’t write multiple Bibles did He?

Second, this is Matthew 24; nearly the entire chapter is prophecy. Is it possible that Jesus is talking about His prophecies in that chapter? This actually makes a lot of sense if you look at the Greek word used. It’s “παρέρχομαι” (parerchomai), just like in Matthew 5:18 which we just looked at. It means:

I pass by, pass away, pass out of sight; I am rendered void, become vain, neglect, disregard.

Could it be that Jesus was saying “my words shall not be rendered void“? i.e. His prophecy won’t fail. That makes sense, or at least more sense than applying it to the Bible.

Source:

Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus - Textual Criticism 101 - Berean Patriot

There are three major competing Greek sources to use for translating the New Testament: the Critical Text, the Majority Text, and the Textus Receptus. The science of assembling these manuscripts is called “Textual Criticism”, and you can consider this a complete Textual Criticism 101 article...

www.bereanpatriot.com

 

[St. SteVen]

Here's a direct link to the location of the quoted portion of the article above.
The Biblical Case for the Doctrine of Preservation

 

[St. SteVen]

Furthermore...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Biggest Problem with the Confessional Position​

We’ve just seen that it doesn’t originate in the scriptures. That begs the question: “Where did it come from?” The answer is in the name: it comes from a (man-made) confession of faith. There’s no problem with confessions of faith in general. However, there’s a very big problem when someone makes a dogmatic doctrinal position without the support of scripture. While the Confessional Position does claim that support, they don’t have it.

That means the only support for the Doctrine of (perfect) Preservation is the tradition of men.

There is no other support pillar.

Now, it’s clear God did preserve His scriptures extremely well over the years. That much is obvious. But nowhere did God claim He would preserve it perfectly and without error.

He just didn’t.

That’s makes the Confessional Position interesting, but ultimately not rooted and grounded in scripture. If the basis of your faith is the Westminster Confession of Faith, I would humbly suggest you move to a firmer foundation.

I humbly suggest what was breathed-out by God and “is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness”. Just be careful that you aren’t “teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.”, which honestly is the biggest problem with the Confessional Position.

However, there’s another problem that’s far more practical.

Which Textus Receptus?​

According to Textus Receptus Bibles (.com), there are no less than 27 different versions of the Textus Receptus!

Here is their list:

Complutensian Polyglot

• 1514 (Complutensian Polyglot)

Desiderius Erasmus

• 1516 (Erasmus 1st Novum Instrumentum omne)
• 1519 (Erasmus 2nd)
• 1522 (Erasmus 3rd Novum Testamentum omne)
• 1527 (Erasmus 4th)
• 1535 (Erasmus 5th)

Colinæus

• 1534 (Simon de Colines)

Stephanus (Robert Estienne)

• 1546 (Robert Estienne (Stephanus) 1st)
• 1549 (Robert Estienne (Stephanus) 2nd)
• 1550 (Robert Estienne (Stephanus) 3rd – Editio Regia
• 1551 (Robert Estienne (Stephanus) 4th)

Theodore Beza

• 1565 (Beza 1st)
• 1565 (Beza Octavo 1st)
• 1567 (Beza Octavo 2nd)
• 1580 (Beza Octavo 3rd)
• 1582 (Beza 2nd)
• 1589 (Beza 3rd)
• 1590 (Beza Octavo 4th)
• 1598 (Beza 4th)
• 1604 (Beza Octavo 5th)

Elzevir

• 1624 (Elzevir)
• 1633 (Elzevir) edited by Jeremias Hoelzlin, Professor of Greek at Leiden.
• 1641 (Elzevir)
• 1679 (Elzevir)

Oxford Press

• 1825

Scholz

• 1841 (Scholz)

Scrivener

• 1894 (Η ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ)

Source.

So if the Confessional Position wants to say the Textus Receptus was perfectly preserved by God and inerrant, then then we must ask: “which Textus Receptus?” You need to ask which of the 27 possible versions they will pick, because none of them are identical with another.

It’s a problem.

Further, all of these manuscripts which can be called the Textus Receptus contain unique readings not found in any other manuscripts whatsoever. How can the scriptures have been “kept pure in all ages” when – if the Textus Receptus is “pure” – it has readings that never existed before?

 

[St. SteVen]

Confessional Position Conclusion​

God certainly preserved the scriptures through the ages. However, He never promised to preserve them perfectly and to assert that He did is to put words in God’s mouth. That’s a bad idea. There’s no scriptural basis for the idea whatsoever, and so asserting it dogmatically is a very bad idea.

We know God preserved the scriptures because even in the New Testament, over 99% of the Textual Variants have no effect on anything. The remainder don’t impact major doctrines, and certainly nothing concerned with salvation or the Gospel. I believe God preserved it, I’m just don’t think the preservation was word-perfect.

While the Confessional Position holds no water, the Textus Receptus itself is a very good document. Not perfect by any stretch, but very good.

Source: Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus - Textual Criticism 101 - Berean Patriot

 

[Ghada]

Quoted from The Berean Patriot article titled,
Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus – Textual Criticism 101
Source link provided at the bottom of this post.

I'll have to split this into several posts to fit the maximum allowed post size.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Biblical Case for the Doctrine of Preservation​

Now that we know what Greek text the Confessional Position uses, let’s take a closer look at the various scriptural passages they use to support the doctrine of Preservation (which says God kept His Scriptures “pure in all ages”).

Psalm 12:6-7​

The root of this is an error in translation, as we’ll see in a moment.



Read simply, you can see how someone would get the Doctrine of preservation from this passage. However, the word I’ve highlighted in red isn’t plural (them); it’s singular (him). You can double check me by looking at Psalm 12:7 in an interlinear Bible. However, don’t trust the English there, look at the shorthand underneath the English words.

Notice: it’s singular:



Other translations render this correctly, and we’ll add verse 5 for some context.



God “will keep them” (His words) by setting “him” (the man) in safety like He said He would in verse 5.

Now some might object by saying the King James translators used a better source document. However, the King James Translators used the 1525-1525 Masoretic Text by Daniel Bomberg as the basis for the Old Testament. (The Masoretic text is the traditional Hebrew text, and contains far fewer textual variants than the New Testament.) Every other modern translation I’m aware of – including the NASB – uses the Masoretic text also. Further, the NASB uses a modern reprint of the exact same text underlying the KJV.

So no, this verse doesn’t teach the Doctrine of Preservation.

Psalms 100:5​

I think how you can see how they get the Doctrine of Preservation, but it seems quite a stretch. It seems even more like a stretch when you know the definition of the Hebrew word. The word that’s highlighted is Hebrew word “אֱמוּנָה” (emunah). And it means:



So, “truth” in the KJV isn’t unwarranted, but hardly the primary meaning. Therefore, this verse doesn’t teach Preservation either.

Psalm 117:1-2​

Again, this is a stretch but we’ll deal with it.



The Hebrew word there is “אֶמֶת” (emeth), and it means:



Nearly every translation (besides the KJV, NKJV, and NASB) translate it as “faithfulness” or something similar.

Psalms 119:160​

You can see where they get it, but it’s such a stretch.



Clearly, it’s the judgements that are enduring, not “the word”.

CONTINUED IN POST#2



Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus - Textual Criticism 101 - Berean Patriot

Whoa. I thought this was about the saints being preserved holy and blameless in this life, but you appear to rejecting the preservation of God's words in one Book. And attack on Sola Scriptura?

If so, then all your stuff is more proof of how pseudo Bible scholarship is only a cover for unbelief. Paul calls it science falsely so called.

All the words God has ever given to His prophets and apostles to write down for us, have been preserved wholly in tact in one Book, called the Bible. He inspired His holy men to write them, and He guided faithful men to keep them and assemble them. He also guides useful men to translate them into all languages of the earth.

Another example of bogus scholarship with the Bible, diving into original manuscripts study and language arts, is them preaching their created christ.

I've never seen so much endlessly useless study just to say the Word was not God. Now we have more here just to say the Spirit of Christ's revealed words to His prophets and apostles, shall shall pass away.

Why kind of unbelief is it, that doesn't think God can preserve His own Book wholly and in tact, that is written in His own blood, and that of His prophets and apostles.

I mean, we already have pocket Bibles on earth now. That's not by unpurposed natural selection. His Bible will be read by them born during His thousand year reign on earth, as well as them on His new earth. No doubt God and the Lamb will have their own copies, though they know it by heart, and can always repeat it at any time and to anyone He desires.

I mean, 2 Peter says we ought to have and keep His words always in remembrance. I'm thinking certainly God Himself who spoke them and had them written, can do the same forever.

 

[St. SteVen]

All the words God has ever given to His prophets and apostles to write down for us, have been preserved wholly in tact in one Book, called the Bible.

Do you understand what Textual Criticism is?

Textual Criticism is:

The study of the copies of a written document whose original (the autograph) is unknown or non-existent, for the primary purpose of determining the exact wording of the original.
Source.

The practice of Textual Criticism is not “criticizing the Bible“, it’s trying to recover the Bible’s original text. A “textual critic” is not someone who criticizes the Bible, but someone who tries their best to reconstruct the original text.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise, but we don’t have the original documents that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and other New Testament writers wrote. They were originally written on either papyrus (essentially paper) or possibly parchment (animal skins) which have long since degraded with time and use. However, the originals were copied many, many times. Those copies were copied, which were copied, which were copied, which were…

Well, you get the idea.

So what we have are copies of copies of the original (sometimes many generations of copying deep). Before Gutenberg invented the printing press in the early-mid 1400s, everything was copied by hand. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the scribes who did the copying occasionally made some mistakes.

When two copies disagree with each other, you have a variant in the text between two documents: this is (unsurprisingly) called a “Textual Variant”.

Clever, right?

Source:

Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus – Textual Criticism 101​

https://www.bereanpatriot.com/majority-text-vs-critical-text-vs-textus-receptus-textual-criticism-101/#Corruption-of-the-Alexandrian-text-type


/

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Quoted from The Berean Patriot article titled,
Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus – Textual Criticism 101
Source link provided at the bottom of this post.

I'll have to split this into several posts to fit the maximum allowed post size.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Biblical Case for the Doctrine of Preservation​

Now that we know what Greek text the Confessional Position uses, let’s take a closer look at the various scriptural passages they use to support the doctrine of Preservation (which says God kept His Scriptures “pure in all ages”).

Psalm 12:6-7​

The root of this is an error in translation, as we’ll see in a moment.



Read simply, you can see how someone would get the Doctrine of preservation from this passage. However, the word I’ve highlighted in red isn’t plural (them); it’s singular (him). You can double check me by looking at Psalm 12:7 in an interlinear Bible. However, don’t trust the English there, look at the shorthand underneath the English words.

Notice: it’s singular:



Other translations render this correctly, and we’ll add verse 5 for some context.



God “will keep them” (His words) by setting “him” (the man) in safety like He said He would in verse 5.

Now some might object by saying the King James translators used a better source document. However, the King James Translators used the 1525-1525 Masoretic Text by Daniel Bomberg as the basis for the Old Testament. (The Masoretic text is the traditional Hebrew text, and contains far fewer textual variants than the New Testament.) Every other modern translation I’m aware of – including the NASB – uses the Masoretic text also. Further, the NASB uses a modern reprint of the exact same text underlying the KJV.

So no, this verse doesn’t teach the Doctrine of Preservation.

Psalms 100:5​

I think how you can see how they get the Doctrine of Preservation, but it seems quite a stretch. It seems even more like a stretch when you know the definition of the Hebrew word. The word that’s highlighted is Hebrew word “אֱמוּנָה” (emunah). And it means:



So, “truth” in the KJV isn’t unwarranted, but hardly the primary meaning. Therefore, this verse doesn’t teach Preservation either.

Psalm 117:1-2​

Again, this is a stretch but we’ll deal with it.



The Hebrew word there is “אֶמֶת” (emeth), and it means:



Nearly every translation (besides the KJV, NKJV, and NASB) translate it as “faithfulness” or something similar.

Psalms 119:160​

You can see where they get it, but it’s such a stretch.



Clearly, it’s the judgements that are enduring, not “the word”.

CONTINUED IN POST#2



Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus - Textual Criticism 101 - Berean Patriot

YOu make a big fuss but fail to understand.

Yes them in your first complaint is singular and is better written as "it" meaning His word as a collective

And the numerical listings are not always in order of importance but in order of usage. IOW they are all synonymous and change in English to fit the English language bettter from the Hebrew!

BTW: I took a year of Hebrew in bible college but am far from an expert. How much Hebrew have you studied.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Quoted from The Berean Patriot article titled,
Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus – Textual Criticism 101
Source link provided at the bottom of this post.

I'll have to split this into several posts to fit the maximum allowed post size.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Biblical Case for the Doctrine of Preservation​

Now that we know what Greek text the Confessional Position uses, let’s take a closer look at the various scriptural passages they use to support the doctrine of Preservation (which says God kept His Scriptures “pure in all ages”).

Psalm 12:6-7​

The root of this is an error in translation, as we’ll see in a moment.



Read simply, you can see how someone would get the Doctrine of preservation from this passage. However, the word I’ve highlighted in red isn’t plural (them); it’s singular (him). You can double check me by looking at Psalm 12:7 in an interlinear Bible. However, don’t trust the English there, look at the shorthand underneath the English words.

Notice: it’s singular:



Other translations render this correctly, and we’ll add verse 5 for some context.



God “will keep them” (His words) by setting “him” (the man) in safety like He said He would in verse 5.

Now some might object by saying the King James translators used a better source document. However, the King James Translators used the 1525-1525 Masoretic Text by Daniel Bomberg as the basis for the Old Testament. (The Masoretic text is the traditional Hebrew text, and contains far fewer textual variants than the New Testament.) Every other modern translation I’m aware of – including the NASB – uses the Masoretic text also. Further, the NASB uses a modern reprint of the exact same text underlying the KJV.

So no, this verse doesn’t teach the Doctrine of Preservation.

Psalms 100:5​

I think how you can see how they get the Doctrine of Preservation, but it seems quite a stretch. It seems even more like a stretch when you know the definition of the Hebrew word. The word that’s highlighted is Hebrew word “אֱמוּנָה” (emunah). And it means:



So, “truth” in the KJV isn’t unwarranted, but hardly the primary meaning. Therefore, this verse doesn’t teach Preservation either.

Psalm 117:1-2​

Again, this is a stretch but we’ll deal with it.



The Hebrew word there is “אֶמֶת” (emeth), and it means:



Nearly every translation (besides the KJV, NKJV, and NASB) translate it as “faithfulness” or something similar.

Psalms 119:160​

You can see where they get it, but it’s such a stretch.



Clearly, it’s the judgements that are enduring, not “the word”.

CONTINUED IN POST#2



Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus - Textual Criticism 101 - Berean Patriot

Maybe it’s me but that was way over my head. Where I can’t tell what you mean by “I think how you can see how they get the Doctrine of Preservation”. I couldn’t tell if you are for or against preservation or what is said to be preserved? You quoted like the grass of the field …going off memory that the glory thereof will wither and pass away. To me that is our false image created by and through the spirit unto bondage given not of God but of this world. It looks like “glory” but when tried by fire, it withers in the face of persecution for the sake of the word. As “continuing for a short time (relative to preservation) but when persecution comes, the glory there of falls away like the flower of the field.” So preservation is the Spirit God gives not of this world but of God. “My words” tried in the fire and found to be pure. When were they tried? To me it is when He was tempted and tried in all points as we are. Paul speaks of “that the trial of your faith, being more precious than gold although it be tried by fire, may be found unto the Glory and praise of God.” When we think of the doctrine of preservation was He tried by fire and declared “preserved” “blameless”?

The Son said the doctrine is not mine but His that sent me. Is that doctrine of God the Father given unto the Son to reveal, as in “The Revelation of Jesus Christ” “which God gave unto him to show the servants” :The True “Doctrine of preservation”? Can it be trusted, the Word that come out from God’s mouth …or do we believe in that which the dragon cast forth out of his mouth which was as a flood meant to carry men away drowning them in perdition?

 

[marks]

Psalms 119:89-90 KJV
89) LAMED. For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.
90) Thy faithfulness is unto all generations: thou hast established the earth, and it abideth.

Much love!

 

[St. SteVen]

Maybe it’s me but that was way over my head. Where I can’t tell what you mean...

Here's the definition from the article.

"... the doctrine of Preservation (which says God kept His Scriptures “pure in all ages”)."

The topic is to debunk this idea.

/

 

[marks]

Here's the definition from the article.

"... the doctrine of Preservation (which says God kept His Scriptures “pure in all ages”)."

The topic is to debunk this idea.

/

You appear to have a low opinion of the Bible and a low opinion of God. Now, don't just fall back on "there's no call for that", the fact is, you are arguing that God either wasn't able to, or didn't care to preserve His communication to humanity.

And that, to me, is a low opinion of God, and His Word. Contrast to David, who had a much different view . . .

Psalms 138:1-2 KJV
1) A Psalm of David. I will praise thee with my whole heart: before the gods will I sing praise unto thee.
2) I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

And obviously you have your reasons to attack the Scriptures, because they are what debunk your preaching.

Much love!

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Here's the definition from the article.

"... the doctrine of Preservation (which says God kept His Scriptures “pure in all ages”)."

The topic is to debunk this idea.

/

Hopefully there is something truly “pure” in the washing of their robes, and made them white in the blood of the lamb. I see “robes” as a garment to put on the New man with, for example “take off the old and put on the New man” which is Christ. The word as a garment to persevere, it being this garment of washed in the blood of the Lamb that perseveres. Oddly the washing of the robes made white in the Blood of the Lamb, comes out of great tribulation which reminds me of the verse you shared of Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

I wonder if the word became flesh and dwelt among us …shows how much men twisted, tampered with, changed, added to, the word of God. Can we see this in all those around him take on “scripture”? As in “God said…”. But still…just because mankind distorted it (the word) into something that in no way resembles the Father….God keeps His Word pure? For He saw no corruption. Because there is no darkness in Him. Even the darkness become Light. To me just because I’ve read thousands of verses and tangled them up and all the different “versions” there are and heard it thousands of ways interpreted. To me that doesn’t mean God doesn’t keep His word pure. It’s our perspective that doesn’t keep it pure. Take for example the Song of Solomon…at first glance or read it’s a very sexual book. Go ask people who think the word is perverted and they will point out all the sexual tones. That would be the impure keeping of the Song of Solomon. We do that. We add in some perversion, some erotica, some heat and burning and wham bam the word is fired up to approve our own lust and desires. But does that mean the Song of Solomon is not pure? Only if we force it to be sexual. The Spirit of God though is not talking sex through the Song of Solomon but something pure. It’s not sexual, just like our go to verse on “to burn”. See, it becomes burning to get it on in the bedroom when to me “to burn” could be what is seen every day in lusting to destroy someone, lusting to prove someone wrong or beneath you, wanting to make some drunkenness and expose their nakedness. Not literally. But high on the word of God and using it to destroy. To me that is what “burning in their own lust one to another” and had nothing to do with the bedroom. But a despising. What is the saying or warning, “they get off on hurting others”.
like how some people stalk someone in the dark, it’s not for sex but to take and torture someone because they get off on their fear and pain. “To Burn towards one another” in satisfying your own lust…why do we immediately say it’s sexual? The doctrine of perseverance would be (Imo) that claiming it’s sexual when we burn in our own lust towards one another while debating, is God clearly saying this doesn’t persevere but is “to burn” towards one another”.

Or that is my opinion. So I guess you are right in God allows us enough rope to catch ourself with in how we read the Word and turn something pure into a trap to either feed our own desires (pleasure)with, or to entrap others with (which is a pleasure too in burning). Maybe none of that makes sense. But that is just how I feel and saying I do believe His Word is pure and He keeps it pure. It’s us that doesn’t keep it pure, to our own lack of the doctrine of perseverance which is from God and not of men’s doctrines.

 

[St. SteVen]

It’s us that doesn’t keep it pure, to our own lack of the doctrine of perseverance which is from God and not of men’s doctrines.

All doctrines are man-made, as I understand it.

/

 

[VictoryinJesus]

All doctrines are man-made, as I understand it.

/

All doctrine is man-made?
Is that true though? I think of all the times those who had read scratched their heads and asked “what doctrine is this he teaches?”
John 7:16-18 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. [17] If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. [18] He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.

To say all doctrine is man-made makes Paul out to be a liar. (Imo) Galatians 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. Is that doctrine given of God, not Jesus Christs’ doctrine but Him (the Father)who sent Him, it’s His Doctrine “the Revelation of the Son”… if it’s not there —although hidden —a mystery why is The Revelation of Jesus Christ all the way throughout the Word beginning with “Let there be Light”? We can’t deny it’s there “the doctrine of God” given of unto Him of God the Father to show the servants, “the Revelation of Jesus Christ” …to suggest there is no doctrine throughout the word of God that is not man-made is to forget all the times the OT is pointed to He was spoken of there. Or why …Acts 8:29-35 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. [30] And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? [31] And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. [32] The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: [33] In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. [34] And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? [35] Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture(OT), and preached unto him Jesus.


To say all doctrine is man-made…what about the doctrine of God, the Revelation of Jesus Christ?

 

[VictoryinJesus]

All doctrine is man-made?
Is that true though? I think of all the times those who had read scratched their heads and asked “what doctrine is this he teaches?”
John 7:16-18 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. [17] If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. [18] He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.

To say all doctrine is man-made makes Paul out to be a liar. (Imo) Galatians 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. Is that doctrine given of God, not Jesus Christs’ doctrine but Him (the Father)who sent Him, it’s His Doctrine “the Revelation of the Son”… if it’s not there —although hidden —a mystery why is The Revelation of Jesus Christ all the way throughout the Word beginning with “Let there be Light”? We can’t deny it’s there “the doctrine of God” given of unto Him of God the Father to show the servants, “the Revelation of Jesus Christ” …to suggest there is no doctrine throughout the word of God that is not man-made is to forget all the times the OT is pointed to He was spoken of there. Or why …Acts 8:29-35 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. [30] And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? [31] And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. [32] The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: [33] In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. [34] And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? [35] Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture(OT), and preached unto him Jesus.


To say all doctrine is man-made…what about the doctrine of God, the Revelation of Jesus Christ?

That made without hands. (Being not man-made).
It doesn’t say all is made with hands. , And there is nothing else to seek? But tells (Imo) of that which is made without hands. (Being not man-made). Meaning …there’s hope in a sea of “what doctrine should I follow?!?! Which way do I go?”

 

[St. SteVen]

To say all doctrine is man-made…what about the doctrine of God, the Revelation of Jesus Christ?

There is no consensus on doctrine. That's why we have so many denominations.
Where do you suppose all those conflicting doctrines came from?

/

 

[marks]

There is no consensus on doctrine.

No, there are those who believe the sayings of Scripture, and those who don't. Of those who don't, you can further subdivide them into those who don't have any regard at all for the Bible, and those who mis-use it for their own purposes, such as "proving" their own false theology, or casting doubt on the veracity of Scripture.

There is a great deal of consensus on doctrine, but that's for those who are building up, not tearing down.

Much love!

 

[VictoryinJesus]

There is no consensus on doctrine. That's why we have so many denominations.
Where do you suppose all those conflicting doctrines came from?

/

Doesn’t he give us an answer to where all those conflicting doctrines come from? James 3:12-18 Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh. [13] Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom. [14] But if you have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. [15] This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. [16] For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. [17] But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. [18] And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.


Which again you may be right in saying it is void of the doctrine of perseverance. But to say there is NO doctrine of perseverance at all and all doctrine is “man made” is to totally omit that there is a doctrine of perseverance but it isn’t man made.

 

[St. SteVen]

Which again you may be right in saying it is void of the doctrine of perseverance. But to say there is NO doctrine of perseverance at all and all doctrine is “man made” is to totally omit that there is a doctrine of perseverance but it isn’t man made.

I agree that there are references to doctrine in the Bible.
Even then, are they not open to interpretation? Which makes them a man-made doctrine.
Especially when doctrinal interpretations may differ. Who can see with any certainty what the intent was?

I get the sense that we are talking about two different things.
This topic is about the Doctrine of Preservation not the doctrine of perseverance. (whatever that is)
But perhaps you typed perseverance when you meant Preservation. Not sure.

Here's the definition from the article again.

"... the doctrine of Preservation (which says God kept His Scriptures “pure in all ages”)."

/