While there are confessions of many different sorts, confessions from the ancient Nicene Creed to the reformation Augsburg Confession to many, many others (those two come to mind at the moment) connect positive statements of belief with many denials; Scripture itself has many statements with negative/positive combinations, etc. A statement of what one believes together with what one does not believe often makes things much clearer.
I may have missed it before, but is this a confession strictly for the English-speaking world? Some of your statements indicate that it might be; if it is for the English-speaking world, I can subscribe it, but if it was meant to be for all peoples of all languages, I might have to consider more carefully. For instance, the Bible of the underground churches of China is essentially taken from the CT, but with the portions that refer to Christology being from the TR. As the Chinese Christians have bled for this Bible, they feel about it the same way that we would feel about the KJV. Also, in some countries, the Bibles they were given were done by liberals (like in West Africa), so they do not have the pure Word in their languages and rely on the English or French translations for a reliable translation (some are working on restoring the errors put in by liberals).
I do not believe that people who do not speak English and are in countries where English is not spoken need to learn English.
Where a foreign language translation does not accurately render the perfectly preserved Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words of the OT and NT Received Texts, such translations ought to be changed. That does not mean that believers who only have these Bibles cannot get God's blessing through the portions, usually the large majority, that are not corrupt.
Mr. Ross – Interesting that God in His providence went outside of His institution of the local church to produce the translation that local NT churches would choose to use. You do not believe that the NT restricts the ministry of Bible translation to the pillar and ground of the truth? (that is, the KJV was not "under the local church," so we shouldn't necessarily expect to see only local churches doing translation work today?)
If a non-Baptist, or a group of non-Baptists, produce an accurate Bible translation, that is a wonderful thing, just like if a non-Baptist preaches the gospel and someone is born again. That does not mean that God's plan is that there should be any people who are saved who reject or are not members of true churches, or that the Biblical pattern for the work of God being done is that people are outside of NT churches.
By the way, the KJV is 90% (or so) Tyndale's Bible, and Tyndale was either a Baptist or very Baptistic, and his parents were Baptists. Note the following from chapter 14, vol. 1 of J. T. Christian's History of Baptists:
The Lollards practised believers’ baptism and denied infant baptism. Fox says
one of the articles of faith among them was “that faith ought to precede
baptism.” This at least was the contention of a large portion of those people.
The Lollard movement was later merged into the Anabaptist, and this was
hastened by the fact that their political principles were identical (Hook, Lives
of the Archbishops of Canterbury, VI. 123). The Lollards continued to the days
of the Reformation. Mosheim says: “The Wyclifites, though obliged to keep
concealed, had not been exterminated by one hundred and fifty years of
persecution” (Mosheim, Institutes of Ecclesiastical History, III. 49).
Davis (History of the Welsh Baptists, 21) claims that William Tyndale (A. D.
1484-1536) was a Baptist. He was born near the line between England and
Wales, but lived most of the time in Gloustershire. “Llewellyn Tyndale and
Hezekiah Tyndale were members of the Baptist church at Abergaverney, South
Wales.” There is much mystery around the life of Tyndale. Bale calls him “the
apostle of the English.” “He was learned, a godly, and a good-natured man”
(Fuller, Church History of Britain, II. 91). It is certain he shared many views
held by the Baptists; but that he was a member of a Baptist church is nowhere
proved. He always translated the word ecclesia by the word congregation, and
held to a local conception of a church (Tyndale, Works II. 13. London, 1831).
There were only two offices in the church, pastor and deacons (I. 400). The
elders or bishops should be married men (I. 265). Upon the subject of baptism
he is very full. He is confident that baptism does not wash away sin. “It is
impossible,” says he, “that the waters of the river should wash our hearts”
(Ibid, 30). Baptism was a plunging into the water (Ibid, 287). Baptism to avail
must include repentance, faith and confession (III. 179). The church must,
therefore, consist of believers (Ibid, 25). His book in a wonderful manner
states accurately the position of the Baptists.
Mr. Ross, thank you for your response. In your response you say it is not the Biblical pattern for the work of God to be done by people outside of NT churches. Does that mean that the KJV was done in NT churches? Or does that mean that the KJV does not fit the Biblical pattern? That's my first question.
By the way, I'm glad you brought up Tyndale, as I was going to if you did not. But my original question concerned the KJV, since your confession concerns the KJV and not the Tyndale (which incidentally is available). Also, you said, "the KJV is 90% (or so) Tyndale's Bible." Did you mean to say the KJV New Testament is 90% Tyndale's New Testament? This is my second question.
Again, my original question is: Do you believe the NT regulates the translation of the Bible? Does God give the responsibility with the Bible to local churches, or may non-local, non-immersionist, parachurch type groups share the responsibility? Whichever way you answer, can you cite Scripture? That's my third question.
I've got just a couple more questions to follow up with I think.
Thank you for your time in answering and thank you for the time you put into your confession and for making it available.
The KJV translators, whenever they committed sin, did not fit the pattern of Scripture. It is a sin to practice paedobaptism. The words of the KJV did not commit sin, because they are words. Since the words are accurate, they have the breath of God on them.
I am happy, as I have time, to answer questions, but I think we could save time if the question is meant to have a follow up, and another follow up, etc. to simply state what the argument is that we are making in a propositional form.
Certainly the KJV cannot follow Tyndale in the portions not translated by Tyndale.
I believe part one of the confession of faith answers your third question. You can also see my essay on Baptist Confessions and canonicity at http://sites.google.com/site/thross7. The NT makes no mention of any believers who refused to join Baptist churches.
"In your response you say it is not the Biblical pattern for the work of God to be done by people outside of NT churches."
Hello Bob,
Just to expand further upon this one – I would agree that the Biblical pattern is for the work of God to be done by people in NT churches.
This is the pattern that all Christians should follow. It does not follow therefore that nothing that takes place outside of the NT church is God working. He clearly uses the obedient and the disobedient to work his purposes.
Take for instance evangelism. This is supposed to be carried out by faithful local NT churches. But the Lord will still use a disobedient New Evangelical who is faithful to preach the gospel. We can rejoice in the fact that God used that man to bring a soul to repentance, all the while remaining utterly unchanged regarding his practice.
The King James Bible is another example. God used disobedient pedobaptists in a pseudochurch that was disgustingly yoked with the State who nevertheless believed rightly concerning the Scriptures to produce the best translation in English to date.
These were then accepted by faithful and non-faithful churches alike, and that is the seal we are looking for (the faithful accepting). We don't then work our way backward to "well, therefore God must view Anglicanism as faithful NT Christianity".
The Lord seems to take and bless that which is good and in accordance with him. No true Christian should be satisfied with this – we seek for obedience from a pure heart, not "I'll do what I want and God can bless the good stuff".
The classic mistake is to extrapolate either way "God used this disobedient one, therefore he must be fine with their disobedience" or "We are faithful, therefore God will only use us".
None of this changes the NT pattern. God's work is to be done by Christians in NT churches. Any work done by the disobedient outside may be good, but the confirming seal will be placed by faithful churches.
A final example and I'll leave it – Creation Science. Disobedient Neo-evangelicals in unbiblical parachurch organizations have done some great work based off their faith in the first chapter of Genesis. We take and use their stuff, and praise God for them. If they cared to ask our opinion, we would tell them that what they are doing is good, but they are outside of God's authority and should submit themselves to a faithful local church.
My proposition would be: only the NT church has the authority to produce translations. My Bible verse would be Matthew 28:20. The institution that immerses is the institution that is responsible to teach all nations to observe all things that Christ commanded. Matthew 28:20 anticipates translations.
An application of this would be: the KJV is in violation of Matthew 28:20. It does not fit the NT pattern.
Joshua, thank you for your helpful response. In it you refer to the KJV translators as being "disobedient pedobaptists in a pseudochurch that was disgustingly yoked with the State." Later on you make the statement, "No true Christian should be satisfied with this." This is the essence of my question. Are you satisfied with the KJV when it clearly was not produced according to the Biblical pattern? (Matthew 28:20, I Timothy 3:15) If you are satisfied, then what else can we use for worship in our churches that is not according to the Biblical pattern? If I excuse the KJV, what else can I excuse? What other forms of worship do you welcome into your church that are accomplished outside of the NT church by pedobaptist, state church types, etc? Do you see what I'm trying to ask?
Also, Mr. Ross, maybe if I word my proposition this way it will help you refute it more easily: the KJV is an oxcart. It is doing the right thing the wrong way. Accurately translating the correct text of Scripture is good, just like properly immersing true converts is good, it's just that Matthew 28:20 only gives the authority to one institution for both the baptizing and the teaching all nations: the pillar and ground of the truth. You don't believe the KJV translators had true authority to baptize. What verse do you believe gives them the authority to translate the Bible for NT churches? Or do you believe there's no regulation for this?
So again, if the oxcart analogy that Mr. Brandenburg uses from time to time applies to Fundamentalism, mission boards, parachurch organizations, etc., does it apply to the KJV translators and the KJV?
Again, thank you for your time, patience, and consideration.
The propositional form of your argument would then seem to be:
1.) Only the NT church has the authority to produce translations.
2.) The KJV was not translated by the NT church.
3.) Therefore, the KJV was not produced by NT church authority.
I agree that Anglicanism has no authority to produce translations or exist. This is a different question from whether or not NT churches have recognized the KJV as the translation that English speaking churches should use and as a proper translation of the underlying language texts. True churches have recognized the KJV in this latter sense.
Perhaps this will help as an illustration:
38* And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. 39* But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. 40* For he that is not against us is on our part. (Mark 9:38-40)
Should this man have followed the disciples in the pre-Pentecost NT (Baptist) church? Yes, he should have. Does that mean that absolutely nothing of benefit was done by him? No, it does not. It certainly does not mean that the people who had devils cast out of them were still possessed or that the pre-Pentecost church should not have recognized that devils were indeed cast out. So, the fact that Anglicanism should not exist does not mean that NT Baptist churches should not recognize the value of the KJV or should not use it.
When I said "no true Christian should be satisfied by this" I meant satisfied to justify their own disobediences because hey, God can use a rebel.
You can be satisfied with any good fruit of the disobedient eg KJV, or a rebellious man who wins one to Christ. That shouldn't be used to comfort to the rebellious however.
I read your confession. I'm going to be taking a close look at Bro. Brandenburg's book this week, too.
Why do you believe the words of the text were preserved in the TR? I really appreciate your emphasis that preservation was providential, not miraculous. It seems to me that you believe the preservation was sealed and delivered in the TR. Why has this preservation not continued? Is it that there was a unanimity around the TR in a way there simply isn't about the critical text?
12:43 PM
Dear Tyler,
Only the TR fits the biblical model of preservation. The CT did not exist in use among God's people for many centuries, and what is called the Majority Text, when it differs from the TR, was not even in print until 1992 and does not exist in translation in practically any language in the world. Furthermore, as demonstrated my essay here:
true churches have received the TR as canonical. Therefore, the TR, and it alone, fits the biblical model of preservation.
I'm not sure what you mean with your statement "Why has this preservation not continued?" Perfect preservation has continued, and it will continue until heaven and earth pass away.
I read your confession. I'm going to be taking a close look at Bro. Brandenburg's book this week, too.
Why do you believe the words of the text were preserved in the TR? I really appreciate your emphasis that preservation was providential, not miraculous. It seems to me that you believe the preservation was sealed and delivered in the TR. Why has this preservation not continued? Is it that there was a unanimity around the TR in a way there simply isn't about the critical text?
12:43 PM
Dear Tyler,
Only the TR fits the biblical model of preservation. The CT did not exist in use among God's people for many centuries, and what is called the Majority Text, when it differs from the TR, was not even in print until 1992 and does not exist in translation in practically any language in the world. Furthermore, as demonstrated my essay here:
true churches have received the TR as canonical. Therefore, the TR, and it alone, fits the biblical model of preservation.
I'm not sure what you mean with your statement "Why has this preservation not continued?" Perfect preservation has continued, and it will continue until heaven and earth pass away.
It seems to me to be the proper function of a confession to stake out what one affirms without all manner of accompanying denials.
Dear D4,
While there are confessions of many different sorts, confessions from the ancient Nicene Creed to the reformation Augsburg Confession to many, many others (those two come to mind at the moment) connect positive statements of belief with many denials; Scripture itself has many statements with negative/positive combinations, etc. A statement of what one believes together with what one does not believe often makes things much clearer.
I may have missed it before, but is this a confession strictly for the English-speaking world? Some of your statements indicate that it might be; if it is for the English-speaking world, I can subscribe it, but if it was meant to be for all peoples of all languages, I might have to consider more carefully. For instance, the Bible of the underground churches of China is essentially taken from the CT, but with the portions that refer to Christology being from the TR. As the Chinese Christians have bled for this Bible, they feel about it the same way that we would feel about the KJV. Also, in some countries, the Bibles they were given were done by liberals (like in West Africa), so they do not have the pure Word in their languages and rely on the English or French translations for a reliable translation (some are working on restoring the errors put in by liberals).
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I do not believe that people who do not speak English and are in countries where English is not spoken need to learn English.
Where a foreign language translation does not accurately render the perfectly preserved Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words of the OT and NT Received Texts, such translations ought to be changed. That does not mean that believers who only have these Bibles cannot get God's blessing through the portions, usually the large majority, that are not corrupt.
I deleted my previous comment because I accidentally posted exactly the same thing twice.
Mr. Ross – Interesting that God in His providence went outside of His institution of the local church to produce the translation that local NT churches would choose to use. You do not believe that the NT restricts the ministry of Bible translation to the pillar and ground of the truth? (that is, the KJV was not "under the local church," so we shouldn't necessarily expect to see only local churches doing translation work today?)
Thanks for your time,
Bob
Dear Bob,
If a non-Baptist, or a group of non-Baptists, produce an accurate Bible translation, that is a wonderful thing, just like if a non-Baptist preaches the gospel and someone is born again. That does not mean that God's plan is that there should be any people who are saved who reject or are not members of true churches, or that the Biblical pattern for the work of God being done is that people are outside of NT churches.
By the way, the KJV is 90% (or so) Tyndale's Bible, and Tyndale was either a Baptist or very Baptistic, and his parents were Baptists. Note the following from chapter 14, vol. 1 of J. T. Christian's History of Baptists:
The Lollards practised believers’ baptism and denied infant baptism. Fox says
one of the articles of faith among them was “that faith ought to precede
baptism.” This at least was the contention of a large portion of those people.
The Lollard movement was later merged into the Anabaptist, and this was
hastened by the fact that their political principles were identical (Hook, Lives
of the Archbishops of Canterbury, VI. 123). The Lollards continued to the days
of the Reformation. Mosheim says: “The Wyclifites, though obliged to keep
concealed, had not been exterminated by one hundred and fifty years of
persecution” (Mosheim, Institutes of Ecclesiastical History, III. 49).
Davis (History of the Welsh Baptists, 21) claims that William Tyndale (A. D.
1484-1536) was a Baptist. He was born near the line between England and
Wales, but lived most of the time in Gloustershire. “Llewellyn Tyndale and
Hezekiah Tyndale were members of the Baptist church at Abergaverney, South
Wales.” There is much mystery around the life of Tyndale. Bale calls him “the
apostle of the English.” “He was learned, a godly, and a good-natured man”
(Fuller, Church History of Britain, II. 91). It is certain he shared many views
held by the Baptists; but that he was a member of a Baptist church is nowhere
proved. He always translated the word ecclesia by the word congregation, and
held to a local conception of a church (Tyndale, Works II. 13. London, 1831).
There were only two offices in the church, pastor and deacons (I. 400). The
elders or bishops should be married men (I. 265). Upon the subject of baptism
he is very full. He is confident that baptism does not wash away sin. “It is
impossible,” says he, “that the waters of the river should wash our hearts”
(Ibid, 30). Baptism was a plunging into the water (Ibid, 287). Baptism to avail
must include repentance, faith and confession (III. 179). The church must,
therefore, consist of believers (Ibid, 25). His book in a wonderful manner
states accurately the position of the Baptists.
Mr. Ross, thank you for your response. In your response you say it is not the Biblical pattern for the work of God to be done by people outside of NT churches. Does that mean that the KJV was done in NT churches? Or does that mean that the KJV does not fit the Biblical pattern? That's my first question.
By the way, I'm glad you brought up Tyndale, as I was going to if you did not. But my original question concerned the KJV, since your confession concerns the KJV and not the Tyndale (which incidentally is available). Also, you said, "the KJV is 90% (or so) Tyndale's Bible." Did you mean to say the KJV New Testament is 90% Tyndale's New Testament? This is my second question.
Again, my original question is: Do you believe the NT regulates the translation of the Bible? Does God give the responsibility with the Bible to local churches, or may non-local, non-immersionist, parachurch type groups share the responsibility? Whichever way you answer, can you cite Scripture? That's my third question.
I've got just a couple more questions to follow up with I think.
Thank you for your time in answering and thank you for the time you put into your confession and for making it available.
Bob
Dear Bob,
The KJV translators, whenever they committed sin, did not fit the pattern of Scripture. It is a sin to practice paedobaptism. The words of the KJV did not commit sin, because they are words. Since the words are accurate, they have the breath of God on them.
I am happy, as I have time, to answer questions, but I think we could save time if the question is meant to have a follow up, and another follow up, etc. to simply state what the argument is that we are making in a propositional form.
Certainly the KJV cannot follow Tyndale in the portions not translated by Tyndale.
I believe part one of the confession of faith answers your third question. You can also see my essay on Baptist Confessions and canonicity at http://sites.google.com/site/thross7. The NT makes no mention of any believers who refused to join Baptist churches.
"In your response you say it is not the Biblical pattern for the work of God to be done by people outside of NT churches."
Hello Bob,
Just to expand further upon this one – I would agree that the Biblical pattern is for the work of God to be done by people in NT churches.
This is the pattern that all Christians should follow. It does not follow therefore that nothing that takes place outside of the NT church is God working. He clearly uses the obedient and the disobedient to work his purposes.
Take for instance evangelism. This is supposed to be carried out by faithful local NT churches. But the Lord will still use a disobedient New Evangelical who is faithful to preach the gospel. We can rejoice in the fact that God used that man to bring a soul to repentance, all the while remaining utterly unchanged regarding his practice.
The King James Bible is another example. God used disobedient pedobaptists in a pseudochurch that was disgustingly yoked with the State who nevertheless believed rightly concerning the Scriptures to produce the best translation in English to date.
These were then accepted by faithful and non-faithful churches alike, and that is the seal we are looking for (the faithful accepting). We don't then work our way backward to "well, therefore God must view Anglicanism as faithful NT Christianity".
The Lord seems to take and bless that which is good and in accordance with him. No true Christian should be satisfied with this – we seek for obedience from a pure heart, not "I'll do what I want and God can bless the good stuff".
The classic mistake is to extrapolate either way "God used this disobedient one, therefore he must be fine with their disobedience" or "We are faithful, therefore God will only use us".
None of this changes the NT pattern. God's work is to be done by Christians in NT churches. Any work done by the disobedient outside may be good, but the confirming seal will be placed by faithful churches.
A final example and I'll leave it – Creation Science. Disobedient Neo-evangelicals in unbiblical parachurch organizations have done some great work based off their faith in the first chapter of Genesis. We take and use their stuff, and praise God for them. If they cared to ask our opinion, we would tell them that what they are doing is good, but they are outside of God's authority and should submit themselves to a faithful local church.
Hope this helps!
Cheers,
Joshua
Mr. Ross,
My proposition would be: only the NT church has the authority to produce translations. My Bible verse would be Matthew 28:20. The institution that immerses is the institution that is responsible to teach all nations to observe all things that Christ commanded. Matthew 28:20 anticipates translations.
An application of this would be: the KJV is in violation of Matthew 28:20. It does not fit the NT pattern.
Bob
Joshua, thank you for your helpful response. In it you refer to the KJV translators as being "disobedient pedobaptists in a pseudochurch that was disgustingly yoked with the State." Later on you make the statement, "No true Christian should be satisfied with this." This is the essence of my question. Are you satisfied with the KJV when it clearly was not produced according to the Biblical pattern? (Matthew 28:20, I Timothy 3:15) If you are satisfied, then what else can we use for worship in our churches that is not according to the Biblical pattern? If I excuse the KJV, what else can I excuse? What other forms of worship do you welcome into your church that are accomplished outside of the NT church by pedobaptist, state church types, etc? Do you see what I'm trying to ask?
Again, I appreciated your comment.
Let me know what you think.
Bob
Also, Mr. Ross, maybe if I word my proposition this way it will help you refute it more easily: the KJV is an oxcart. It is doing the right thing the wrong way. Accurately translating the correct text of Scripture is good, just like properly immersing true converts is good, it's just that Matthew 28:20 only gives the authority to one institution for both the baptizing and the teaching all nations: the pillar and ground of the truth. You don't believe the KJV translators had true authority to baptize. What verse do you believe gives them the authority to translate the Bible for NT churches? Or do you believe there's no regulation for this?
So again, if the oxcart analogy that Mr. Brandenburg uses from time to time applies to Fundamentalism, mission boards, parachurch organizations, etc., does it apply to the KJV translators and the KJV?
Again, thank you for your time, patience, and consideration.
Bob
Dear Bob,
The propositional form of your argument would then seem to be:
1.) Only the NT church has the authority to produce translations.
2.) The KJV was not translated by the NT church.
3.) Therefore, the KJV was not produced by NT church authority.
I agree that Anglicanism has no authority to produce translations or exist. This is a different question from whether or not NT churches have recognized the KJV as the translation that English speaking churches should use and as a proper translation of the underlying language texts. True churches have recognized the KJV in this latter sense.
Perhaps this will help as an illustration:
38* And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. 39* But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. 40* For he that is not against us is on our part. (Mark 9:38-40)
Should this man have followed the disciples in the pre-Pentecost NT (Baptist) church? Yes, he should have. Does that mean that absolutely nothing of benefit was done by him? No, it does not. It certainly does not mean that the people who had devils cast out of them were still possessed or that the pre-Pentecost church should not have recognized that devils were indeed cast out. So, the fact that Anglicanism should not exist does not mean that NT Baptist churches should not recognize the value of the KJV or should not use it.
Hey Bob,
When I said "no true Christian should be satisfied by this" I meant satisfied to justify their own disobediences because hey, God can use a rebel.
You can be satisfied with any good fruit of the disobedient eg KJV, or a rebellious man who wins one to Christ. That shouldn't be used to comfort to the rebellious however.
Cheers,
Joshua
Tyler Robbins said…
KJB 1611:
I read your confession. I'm going to be taking a close look at Bro. Brandenburg's book this week, too.
Why do you believe the words of the text were preserved in the TR? I really appreciate your emphasis that preservation was providential, not miraculous. It seems to me that you believe the preservation was sealed and delivered in the TR. Why has this preservation not continued? Is it that there was a unanimity around the TR in a way there simply isn't about the critical text?
12:43 PM
Dear Tyler,
Only the TR fits the biblical model of preservation. The CT did not exist in use among God's people for many centuries, and what is called the Majority Text, when it differs from the TR, was not even in print until 1992 and does not exist in translation in practically any language in the world. Furthermore, as demonstrated my essay here:
http://faithsaves.net/canonicity-of-the-received-text-or-textus-receptus-established-from-reformation-and-post-reformation-baptist-confessions/
true churches have received the TR as canonical. Therefore, the TR, and it alone, fits the biblical model of preservation.
I'm not sure what you mean with your statement "Why has this preservation not continued?" Perfect preservation has continued, and it will continue until heaven and earth pass away.
Thanks for the question.
Tyler Robbins said…
KJB 1611:
I read your confession. I'm going to be taking a close look at Bro. Brandenburg's book this week, too.
Why do you believe the words of the text were preserved in the TR? I really appreciate your emphasis that preservation was providential, not miraculous. It seems to me that you believe the preservation was sealed and delivered in the TR. Why has this preservation not continued? Is it that there was a unanimity around the TR in a way there simply isn't about the critical text?
12:43 PM
Dear Tyler,
Only the TR fits the biblical model of preservation. The CT did not exist in use among God's people for many centuries, and what is called the Majority Text, when it differs from the TR, was not even in print until 1992 and does not exist in translation in practically any language in the world. Furthermore, as demonstrated my essay here:
http://faithsaves.net/canonicity-of-the-received-text-or-textus-receptus-established-from-reformation-and-post-reformation-baptist-confessions/
true churches have received the TR as canonical. Therefore, the TR, and it alone, fits the biblical model of preservation.
I'm not sure what you mean with your statement "Why has this preservation not continued?" Perfect preservation has continued, and it will continue until heaven and earth pass away.
Thanks for the question.