Featured Interpretations of Psalms 12:7

First, the KJVOs got their "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie' from Dr. Wilkinson's book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated. the "foundation book" of the KJVO myth, although he didn't originate it.

Second, I believe the AV translators added the 2nd them to V7 to indicate plural persons, instead of the singulat him. Remember the footnote in the AV 1611 for this verse: "Heb. him, I euery one of them.".

 

OK. Thanks.

 

Is the KJV the seventh English translation?

David Cloud listed the KJV as number 9 on his list of the “unmatched heritage” of the KJV (Faith, p. 433). KJV defender David Norris asserted that “between 1526 and 1611, nine English translations of Scripture of significance were made” (Big Picture, p. 333). David Daniell observed: “There were ten new English versions of the Bible or New Testament between Tyndale’s first New Testament in 1526 and the famous King James or Authorised Version of 1611, and all were influential” (Bible in English, p. 126). KJV-only author D. A. Waite listed the KJV as being number 17 on his chronological list of complete English Bibles (Defending the KJB, p. 203).

Pre-1611 English Bibles would include the following: Wycliffe’s Bible (1388), Tyndale's New Testament (1526, 1534), Joyce's New Testament, Coverdale's Bible (1535), Matthew's Bible (1537), Coverdale's Latin-English New Testament (1538), Taverner's Bible (1539), the Great Bible (1539), Coverdale’s revision of Tyndale’s (1549), Bishop Becke's Bible (1551), Richard Jugge's New Testament (1552), Whittingham's New Testament (1557), Geneva Bible (1560), Bishops' Bible (1568), Lawrence Tomson's New Testament (1576), and Rheims New Testament (1582). In addition, there was more than one edition of many of these Bibles with some changes and revisions in them. The 1526 edition of Tyndale’s New Testament differs from his 1534 edition. The 1539 edition of the Great Bible has several differences with the 1540 edition of the Great Bible or with its 1541 edition. The Geneva Bible editions with the 1560 edition’s New Testament have a good number of differences when compared to the Geneva Bible editions with the 1576 Tomson’s New Testament. The 1568 edition of the Bishops' Bible has some differences when compared to the 1569 edition or to the 1572 edition. Each new English Bible was not always an improvement at every verse over the one before it so each was not always more purified than the prior one. Even those translations that may have been overall better than the previous one usually had a few renderings that were poorer or less accurate than those in the earlier Bible. Sometimes the next Bible in the line made some changes for the worse by adding words from the Latin Vulgate as in the case of the Great Bible. The 1568 Bishops' Bible was considered by many to be overall a poorer translation than the 1560 Geneva Bible, which also demonstrate that each later Bible was not more purified than the prior one.

 

The whole argument about the meaning of Psalm 12:7 is a KJVO thing. KJVOs want to use this as a "proof verse' supporting their doctrine, but they're WRONG.

For the sake of discussion, let's say Psalm 12:6-7 actually is about word preservation and nothing else. OK, WHERE DOES IT MENTION THE KJV OR ANY OTHER ENGLISH BIBLE TRANSLATION?????????? For that matter, where does Psalm 12 mention such translations?

Taking it even farther, WHERE DOES THE KJV ITSELF SUPPORT KJVO????

It's Only Make-Believe
-Conway Twitty

 

There are problems with the KJV-only purification process interpretation of Psalm 12:6 [purified seven times].

Since each new English Bible was not always an improvement at every verse over the one before it, the next one was not completely more purified and more accurate than the prior one. Was the rendering "penance" found in the 1535 Coverdale's Bible at Matthew 3:8, 12:41, Luke 10:13, 11:32, 15:7, 10, 16:30, Acts 3:19 and 26:20 more purified or more accurate than Tyndale’s? Even those translations that may have been overall better than the previous one usually had a few renderings that were poorer or less accurate than those in the earlier Bible. Sometimes the next Bible in the line made some changes by adding words from the Latin Vulgate as in the case of the Great Bible. In several additions from the Latin Vulgate including three whole verses in Psalm 14, the Great Bible has over one hundred words in the book of Psalms that are not in the KJV. Because of additions from the Latin Vulgate, the Great Bible also has over one hundred words in one New Testament book (Acts) which are not found in the KJV (check Acts 4:25, 4:27, 5:15, 13:30, 14:7, 15:34c, 15:41c, 18:4, 23:24c, 24:17). Were the significant textual additions from the Latin Vulgate in the Great Bible changes towards more purity or changes for the worse? The 1568 Bishops' Bible was considered by many to be overall a poorer translation than the 1560 Geneva Bible. The Bishops’ Bible has a number of added explanatory words and phrases (likely over 200 words) with many of them not kept in the KJV. Actual facts from the pre-1611 English Bibles would demonstrate that each later English Bible was not more purified than the prior one, which would contradict a claimed purification process.

 

Some people, especially some KJVOs, forget that Psalm 12:6 **COMPARES** the purity of God's words to silver purified seven times, which, even by ancient methods, made silver so pure as to make any impurities left in it undetectable by ordinary methods.

It does NOT describe any purification of God's words at all. It states they ARE pure.

 

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.


1325-75; Middle English preserven < Medieval Latin praeservāre to guard( Late Latin: to observe), equivalent to Latin prae- pre- + servāre to watchover, keep, preserve, observe

late 14c., "keep safe," from Anglo-French preservare, Old Frenchpreserver, from Medieval Latin preservare "keep, preserve," from LateLatin praeservare "guard beforehand," from Latin prae "before" (see pre- ) + servare "to keep safe" (see observe ). As a treatment of fruit, etc.,1570s; of organic bodies from 1610s. Related: Preserved ; preserving.

If God's word were not "preserved", how do we know that the story of Jesus is true? Right there in your King James Bible, God has given us English speakers the assurance that He is well able to "keep safe" His words from corruption so that even thousands of years after they were first written down, we all might have the opportunity know Him. He has done it for other languages as well.

 

By what consistent scriptural reasoning do you suggest that God's word has to be preserved perfectly in one of the varying editions of the KJV? The Scriptures were translated into English many years before 1611 so was God's word preserved perfectly in one of the pre-1611 English Bibles? Why would God wait until 1611 to preserve His Word in English?

Would the consistent, sound teaching concerning preservation of the Scriptures be that the preservation concerns the actual exact specific original-language words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles?
In translating, Bible translators add many words and omit providing an English word for some original-language words so a Bible translation does not have the same exact words that were given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles and a Bible translation does not have the same number of words.
The Scriptures do not suggest that words added by men in translating would be preserving the exact, specific words that proceeded out of the mouth of God.

Do the KJV-only claims of some suggest that God failed to preserve the actual specific original-language words He gave by inspiration well enough so that those preserved words remain the proper standard and authority for the trying of all Bible translations?

 

Have you not read all the posts in this thread explaining those verses are NOT about word preservation? And what about the footnote for the 2nd them in Ps. 12:7 which reads "Heb. him, I. euery one of them."

And WHERE does Psalm 12 mention the KJV by the least quark of the slightest implication????????????

No Christian, especially Baptists, deny God has preserved His word.

And this thread, nor countless ones like it in umpteen hundred other domains would exist if not for the false KJVO myth trying to add new meanings to some of God's word.

 

"KJV onlyist?" I thought REAL "KJVonlyists" believe that the King James is the only true word of God in any language and even, go so far as to say that it is "double inspired"? No? If not, my bad. But I never said it was "inspired" at all: I just believe God was faithful in His providence to "preserve" an accurate copy for English speaking people. That's why I said........*.

 

Hi Tim,

I am a former KJVO but now KJVP (preferred).

Even at that I need to say that I am TRP (Textus Receptus Preferred) - Scrivener 1894 who made a distillation of the several contemporary TR's of the KJV translators to stand behind the beautiful Elizabethan-Jacobean English used by the KJV translators.

A TR that is probably 99% equivalent of the Byzantine considering the volume of words.

There is nothing wrong with the KJB, the preferred bible of the English speaking world for about 250 years.

But Tim you have to live with the provable fact that the KJV translators did not have the power of prophet/apostle inspiration at any level as Peter Ruckman suggested.

As you continue to educate yourself in the history of the bible you will see that God has indeed preserved His word.
Scribal errors are not God's fault and almost everyone of them is repairable and is shown in the provided apparatus.

A few you will need to pray and study the facts : e.g. 1 john 5:7 and decide for yourself.

Just being honest Tim.

God bless you in your endeavor :

NIV 2 Timothy 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

HankD