Featured The"Psalm 12:6-7 thingie"

Context:

Psa 12:1 To the chief Musician upon Sheminith, A Psalm of David. Help, LORD; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men.

Psa 12:2 They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak.

Psa 12:3 The LORD shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things:

Psa 12:4 Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us?

Psa 12:5 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.

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Psa 12:8 The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.

A contrast between wicked men and their words, and that of God's pure words. God's words are eternal promises, and in those promises, is God's promises to deliver the godly man from the ungodly. How does God deliver the godly? By placing His word in their heart, thus preserving them (both) forever. The true epistle of God, is not paper (which will all burn in the fire to come), but are the fleshy tables of the heart, which God makes everlasting by writing His word (Law) there.

What on earth is a KJVO's? Can you specifically define this with meticulous care, for I have yet to see those who use such an phrase ever define it the same as another, or define it in any way accurately to what is believed by someone who believes God preserved His words?

What I presently see is a straw-man epithet, merely abusing a fellow Christian, even who who believes in the divine inspiration, but also the divine preservation of God's word.

What I also see, is someone with a childish hangup, that feels the need to do that.

Would you please define "KJVO myth", again meticulously and with care? I would like to see if your personal definition among others, stands up to any sort of reality, or if it is some sort of personal agenda masquerading as the Saviour.

p.s., I would never need 'proof', for that is not of 'faith'. I read God's word, and believe what God said therein, for God promised and God cannot lie. It is doubly sealed by God.

Are you asking if the doctrine of God's preservation of His own words is scriptural, and taught within the pages of Genesis to Revelation? if so, that answer is a resounding, "Yes."

Mat_24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
Mar_13:31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
Luk_21:33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

Deu_8:3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.
Mat_4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Luk_4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

Will God's words, which were given, pass away? If not, then this means God is the one preserving that which God inspired, yes or no? How can man live by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God, if man does not now, today, this very moment, have God's every word?

I await your answer.

I don't know of any place in scripture which states God would preserve the Mss, papyrii, codice, velum, etc. I also know of no place ion scripture in which God was concerned with 'the originals'. In point of fact, there are no 'originals', as the material on which the words were first penned, etc are all long decayed to dust.

Of course your imaginary scenario and definition (which I will be waiting for) is not true. I know of no one who believes the foisted definitions, since they are all character assassinations, and nothing to do with truth to begin with. It is simply the game of a childish mind, a self-puffing up to appear to be someone with superior knowledge, and borders on Gnosticism, and is at the very least Alexandrian.

 

I have a copy of it in full right here. Ask for any page, and I will snapshot it for you:

View attachment 2829

Indeed, a foot (side) note, which may be taken or left as the reader pleases (that's why it is a footnote). Also, thank you for pointing out the obvious, that it is not dealing with the first "them", but only the second "them". Now, what do you do with the first "them", as it reads:

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Psa 12:6 imárôt y'hwäh ámärôt †'horôt Kešef tzärûf Baáliyl lääretz m'zuQäq shiv'ätäyim

Psa 12:7 aTäh-y'hwäh Tish'm'rëm TiTZ'reNû min-haDôr zû l'ôläm

God shall keep "them" (first). "them" is a pronoun, referring back to a noun. The closest antecedent is "words" (plural, vs 6), and doesn't refer back to 'him' (singular) of vs 5.

Now as to the second 'them', what is wrong with it as a translation? Do you believe that God is preserving a single individual (singular), or many persons (plural)?

Even the verse itself is parallel:

Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

1a. Thou
2a. shalt
3a. keep
4a. them

1b. thou
2b. shalt
3b. preserve
4b. them

The words "preserve" and "keep" are parallel, thus equal in definition, as God's ways are equal (Eze 18:25,29). So, even if you do not believe that the second "them" refers back to "words", and rather to a person, which still works (see my previous comment about living epistle), what do you do with the first "them" that has no notation? Do you refer it also back to vs 5, when it is singular and not plural?

Yes, and? it is also given in the TSK (Treasury of Scripture Knowledge):

"them: etc. Heb. him, i.e. every one of them"

The capital "I." in the footnote (AV1611), means 'id est', or 'in other words'.

So, even the footnote, is indicating, 'every one of them' (using the singular as the greater whole, plural, ie, 'the man of God', or 'the godly man' as pattern, not merely one person only).

So there is nothing wrong with the translation in AV1611 in the second "them", is there, even if viewed from your position?

By the way, do we accept all the footnotes in the AV1611, or just this one?

No. There were final editors on the final product. The other translators, had nothing to do with it (that footnote), unless you have evidence to the contrary?

Actually, only the second half, or second "them" would apply to your view, not the first "them", and as already stated, even if referring to 'the godly man' (him, singular as pattern of the whole, plural, ie 'the man of God') it is truly a reference to Jesus Christ (the true man of God, and the only true godly man), whom the Father preserved, and shoe body did not see corruption, and all of the scripture, including Psalms 12:6-7 is bout Jesus Christ;

Joh_5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

What testified of Jesus Christ? The 'words' in the 'scriptures', which God preserved. For if God did not preserve them all, how then are we to believe God can preserve a person?

All the rest of the 'godly men' then are preserved in Christ Jesus - The (eternally preserved) Word.

Actually I think they knew more than you give them credit for, since I truly believe they were not only more godly than you or I, but more intelligent, wise, and so on than you or I. I am sure they knew who the 'him' was - Jesus Christ, and thus all preserved in Him, and how were they preserved in Him? through God' preserved words, the first "them".

For if you truly believe that the second "them" refer back to vs 5, 'him', then you have exactly proved what I stated, since 5,6,7 would then be chiastic or parallel in structure

5. him
6. words
7a. them
7b. him

That would prove my entire point.

It's actually very "known" and no mystery to those who read the word prayerfully, study it, and are guided by the Holy Spirit who inspired it. God came up with it, then preserved it, and I can even right now read it.

I will again ask for your specific and meticulous definition of "KJVO myth".

A most excellent, and scholarly work. Have you read it? I have, and its sequel, which has never been answered, along with other books written in the same manner.

That is your mis-characterization, your faulty straw-man definition showing. I do not know of anyone who believes that the passage of Psalms 12 refers only to the English of the AV1611. Every one that I know, and read, watched or listened to, talked to, etc who believes in the preservation of God's words, teaches that God was preserving the words long before 1611. It is just that the AV1611 is the continuation of that preservation into the English language.

I would agree that almost everything you said was simply false or a put on to look intelligent.

Advice, please cease from this attitude, and be humble.

 

Now I understand your real motive and heart out of the abundance of which you have made statements. It never had anything to do with truth, only bigotry.

To the issue that (the late) Dr. Benjamin G Wilkinson is a Seventh-day Adventist, my reply is succinctly thus - uh-huh, and?

To the comment made about his being a Christian, well, I will let Jesus decide that (Heb 9:27).

As to the final area of your deep-rooted concern, I have seen nothing proven here by yourself, or anywhere else for that matter in regards your accusatory claim, but hey, persons thinking themselves close to God, thought the same of Paul, and it is your prerogative to continue on their tradition if you so desire it. I think such attitude matches your avatar perfectly - disgusting & repulsive arrogance (which, presently, makes me want nothing of what you have to offer in regards to what you think Christianity is).

I trust everything which is truthful, and that includes everything which is truth in the material that Dr. Benjamin G Wilkinson documented, and that goes for anyone else who shares the same evidence as he did, but please notice, I never made any argument about Psalms 12 based on anything he stated. I used the scripture itself, and your own arguments against you.

So, if you desire to keep on kickin' a dead man, who presently cannot say anything in their own defense, well, it shows what kind of character you really have. Shameless.

 

Just so I can understand the viewpoint you take, are you complicit with the view that the only pure word of God is the King James translation.

That even manuscripts from the ancients who may shed a different light on how a passage is translated would be held in error, because the KJV is the only Word?

That translations that derive from as close to original source materials into another language even English, are not the Word of God, because they are not exclusively from the KJV.

That one saved cannot be saved at all unless lead to the Lord through use of the KJV?

These are a few holdings of the KJVO (King James Version Only) group. They actually argue whether the Oxford or Cambridge is the actual “authorized” Word of God.

To make clear my own thinking and opinion.

I enjoy the KJV and the NKJV. They are splendid to read.

However, I also enjoy the ESV, and NASB.

I don’t do well with the NIV or the original RSV. I tend to search for better.

 

I have never heard of anyone who believes in the preservation of God's word, state that only the King James Bible is the pure word. The King James is the preserved 'pure word' of God in English.

Again, I no of no one who holds to preservation of God's word, hold to such a view. Mss, codices, papyrii, velum, etc are to be tested by God's preserved word in the present (in my case, it is the King James Bible, in the English, since that is the word of God preserved unto this day in English), as the other archeological material may be fragments of a purposely erroneous text (antichrist has multiplied bread as a counterfeit), a personal translation, a community translation, be damaged, contain apocrypha, pseudopigrapha, be missing chapters, texts, etc, as none of the pieces and fragments, that are known, are whole and entire, and none original. None of this present era have ever seen the 'originals', let alone the 'originals' all bound together in one place. God has never worked like that, and never said He had to. What God did say, was, that He would preserve His word.

Mss, etc would not automatically 'be held in error' simply because they are old fragments, etc. All must be tested by the preserved word of God, in the here and now, in my case, the English of the King James Bible in my hand.

Therefore, if they (Mss, etc) are in discrepancy with that, then they are in error, having fallen from use, tossed aside, buried in history, long forgotten, no longer in use, etc, thus not preserved as a living text. The Bible is living, not dead and buried in long forgotten places that we someday dig up and say, this, this is the word of God we have been missing all these years. That ideology is as bad as evolution.

Such as? What "as close to original source materials" do you have for Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, ... Malachi"?

I presently have a thread going on the age of mankind, and Moses was in the years:

AM 2649 - Moses (120) (died; Deut 345-7; AM 2769)

How old is mankind, let's see if we can get a rough date.

Please be realistic, as there is nothing that is currently held, down even to the fragment, that is even close to "original source material"; dating; definitely not in the OT texts, and even in the NT texts, and nowhere even close to a whole preserved 'book'. I would also have anyone that might attempt to cite 'aleph', or 'B' think again on their many emendations, their forgeries, and the very heart of the system that touts them, or other such oddities as "D", etc. They aren't even close to 1Cent AD.

As for papyrii and other such Egyptian, Alexandrian pieces, these too aren't even close.

What most do is refer to so-called ECF materials.

The King James Bible is the preserved word of God in English (that's how preservation works, it is preserved even unto the current moment, and not relegated to dusty tomes, fragments gone to pieces, lost and buried mss, and other such sources as you hinted at, which 'contain' some of the word of God, as may be seen by comparison with what is currently preserved, in my case, the English of the King James Bible.

It is not a matter of translation. It is a matter of correctness, based upon the standard of the preserved word of God, in my case the English of the King James Bible. So, for instance, Luther, Diodati, Olivetan and others have translations into their respective languages, even as Reina Valera, etc. So, the translation of one language into another is not, and never was, the issue (otherwise we would have issue in the OT and NT texts where translation takes place extempore). The issue has been, and continues to be, correctness of what is being translated.

For instance, there are some marvelous translations into English of perfectly corrupted, altered texts. I have no fault with their translation. I have fault with their material, which doesn't jive internally (with itelf/themselves) or externally (with the standard of the preserved word of God, in my case, the English of the King James Bible).

I know of no one that believes in preservation, and I have read a lot on this, believe that people can only be saved through the King James Bible. The matter is not in salvation per se, though there are some modern English translations (and in other languages also, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, etc) that absolutely butcher , distort and corrupt what God instructed in regards salvation, so I cannot say it doesn't come into play at some point, depending, but on the whole, I could read the Luther German Bible and be saved just fine. I could read the Bishops Bible even. I could read the Italian Diodati and be saved. I could read Wycliffe Bible and be saved. I could read the Waldensian Bibles, or Erasmus' translation of Latin or Greek and be saved. I could read fragments of the Vetus Latina. I could even, dare I say it, read the Douay Rheims Jesuit Bible and be saved (though I would feel real guilty about it later. ) I could read the Newspaper, and a piece of text quoted therein, could, by the Holy Ghost, bring me to confess Jesus Christ as Lord and God, accepting His blood sacrifice, etc.

The matter comes down to doctrine, and correct teaching, how to live rightly, which may deal with 'salvation' depending, as stated, and so why would I after knowing the truth of these things, want to stay with a stream, or pool, that is filthy, corrupt, tampered with, etc, when I can have the pure stream, the pure pool, there untampered preserved word of God in English?

I actually started out with a Roman Catholic NAB St. Joseph's edition Bible, which my mother now has.

 

No, it isn't, and not of any group, or individual I have ever heard that was sane, and clearly understood the issue. You will never find, Sam Gipp, Gail Riplinger, Benjamin G Wilkinson, Peter S Ruckman, David W Daniels, and a thousand other prominent names, Dean Burgon, etc ever make the claims you have said they do. Never read them say anything like that once.

A foolish argument brought about by the devil.

Really? The so-called NKJV (no such thing, but is a serpent in sheeps clothing), for just turn to Hebrews 9:12,in the so-called NKJV. It adds a word not found in any mss on earth, not in any language, "most". A sheer fabrication, and not even placed into italics. Doing so, serious undermines where and when Christ Jesus was, and was doing.

I know the deceptions of the so-called NKJV, and it is even more gender-exclusive than the NIV (New Insurrectionist version). If you need examples, they can be cited.

It (NKJV) directly attacks righteousness by faith.

It (NKJV) is also copy-righted, which is a whole 'nother discussion.

I hear words like 'splendid to read', 'enjoy', but I never saw written, 'I believe them to be the preserved word of God'. 'I believe they are the perfectly preserved word of God.', simply because you presently (for whatever reason) do not believe in any such thing that you can hold in your hand now, but must always refer back to some dusty fragment held, or even yet to be found, always looking, never having the fullness of all of what God inspired, always guessing at what it might be somewhere, someplace, but never in the hand, in a single volume.

Your personal preference is your standard. Your opinion becomes your standard. That is dangerous.

"... The English Standard Version (ESV) is an English translation of the Bible published in 2001 by Crossway. It is a revision of the Revised Standard Version[3] ..." - Wikipedia

So you 'enjoy' the ESV, but 'don't do well with ... the original RSV'. Its the same corrupt and butchered text, repackaged. The NASB is, basically, a repackaged ASV, which is the other corrupted text.

You base it on what you like and prefer. When you dislike one, your prefer another. And when that one gives you a sour taste in another place, you pass over to the other, and so on. You are the standard of criteria. The 'word of God' then, to you, is what suits you. That is dangerous.

And though you have as many as four (like the so-called reformed 'Baptist' 'James White' (uses Jesuit 'criticism' methods)) 'bibles' which one is the preserved word of God? All of them? Would you mind then if I show the total contradiction in that, and in them? Why then do they need to keep updating them, based upon N/A 2Xth edition this, and the UBS xth edition that, scrabble?

Which NASB do you use, which year? same for the others? the NKJV has multiple versions, and don't say the same things when compared.

 

I don't have the time, nor even the inclination to go further into how some of what you hold is very weak.

Others may contend on those matters.

I will state that Peter Ruckman (a fellow classmate of my father in law) fell of the rails early in his ministry and although educated, he journeyed into making excuses for his own early immorality, and that lead to him drifting from the truth in other areas. He stands before God to address his failings, and though there is much more I could post, will allow the matter to rest. Just know that you need to be careful with his and Gail Riplinger's work as it relates to your post.

I will provide this link that contains various quotes of the late Peter Ruckman. From his own words you may see some of the extreme I mentioned: Peter Ruckman

However, if you are not wanting to know, then you will not read the link.

Might I suggest that you also do a "search" for the lies of Gail Riplinger. She has no credibility, her scholarship is myth, and there has been damage done by folks unaware of her. Do your own research.

I could go on about the others, but you should really do some serious research about the person before you consider the value of their teaching.

That you have not heard the excess some frothed in their KJVO views is not a problem. Perhaps in your journey you haven't come across the rabidly caustic beliefs, but I have. Your experience is no warrant to discredit mine.

As far as manuscripts (which I will leave much for others in their ongoing debates) it is now known through close analysis of both the background, politics, manuscripts, word meaning changes,... that although the KJV was good, that as good as it was, even the translators acknowledged the translation was to be one of many as further discovery of documents and language usage would oblige. KJV only folks conveniently forget that the view of the translators who knew that both language use, and documents would be discovered to oblige altering their work. They could only work with what they had available.

It is now known and generally accepted by the best scholarship that the KVJ documents used in the translation were not the most authoritative. That much earlier work has been uncovered, and some go to the point of contending that the alexandrian based documents are actually less corrupt than the byzantine. I don't. Frankly, for me such discussion is of little value.

When it comes to doctrines - any doctrine - the KJV is no better or worse than the NKJV, ESV, or NASB. I cannot sense the same about other translations, I do not read from them very often, nor do I care to unless pressed.

Amazing it is the 100's of sermons I have heard from the KJV camp that the speaker says something like, "In the original, the Greek states...." and then ends up with a translation that sounds like the ESV or the NASB.

I want to leave one quote from Ruckman you can find online. In the quote, he states the KJV has more authority than the manuscripts (irrespective of the statement of the translators), that the ONLY Christians in the world are "Bible-believing" (which as others have taken it means one must be saved and hold to the KJV because it is the final authority), and that apparently it IS NOT the 1611 but the 1900 and 2000 editions that are from God. If that isn't just silly enough, look at the final bold were he excuses other "editions" (such as NKJV, Cambridge, Oxford ...) by moving the goal posts from agreement to contradiction.

If the King James reading is with Beza (where he disagrees with Erasmus) we take Beza. If the King James reading agrees with Erasmus but doesn’t agree with Stephanus, we take Erasmus.
We have a standard of final authority by which we judge Greek manuscripts. It’s a King James 1611 Authorized Version. That is our final authority. That is final. Not even our opinion about it is final. It itself is final. This makes Bible-believing Christians the only Christians in the world, as far as we know, that have a final authority that isn’t just somebody’s opinion. When the King James wasn’t around, then certainly God gave those Christians, in their language, a Book for their final authority; but when you consider the majority of human beings instead of a minority, you can see why He finally gave them a Bible in the universal language of the Twenty and Twenty-first Centuries—English. That’s our final authority. You say, “Which edition?” That is very simple: any edition. You say, “Well, what do you do when the two don’t agree?” They wouldn’t have to agree as long as they didn’t contradict. (Bible Believers’ Bulletin March 2008, p. 12)​

 

You have presented no scriptures that claim or assert or state that the KJV is the preserved word of God in English. Perhaps you merely assume your opinion by fallacies such as the fallacy of begging the question. Perhaps you show that you in effect make your personal preference for the KJV your authority since the word of God was translated into English many years before 1611. Do you close your eyes to the fact that the 1611 KJV was made from textually-varying original-languages texts and was a revision of textually-varying translations? Do you ignore the fact that the Church of England makers of the KJV borrowed a number of renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament? Do you close your eyes to the fact that the 1611 edition of the KJV had errors in it that were corrected by the greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages? Perhaps you fail to demonstrate that your opinions concerning preservation are consistent, sound, and scriptural.

Jim Taylor asserted: “In a strict biblical sense, preservation only applies to what God has given by inspiration, and not what has been accomplished by translation” (In Defense of the TR, p. 57).

Bible translation into English before 1611 and in 1611 did not prevent the original-language words of Scripture from changing during translating since the process of translation actually changes most of them into different English words, provides no English words for some original-language words of Scripture, and adds many words for which there was no original-language word of Scripture. Every exact original-language word of Scripture and every jot and tittle of every original-language word is not actually preserved exactly or identically in the 1611 KJV.

The exact, specific words spoken by Paul and other apostles by means of the Holy Spirit and later written referred to those words that were written in the original languages (1 Cor. 2:13, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:16, 2 Pet. 3:2, John 17:8, Luke 18:31, Heb. 1:1-2). The Lord Jesus Christ directly referred to “the things that are written by the prophets” (Luke 18:31), and the actual words directly written by the prophets themselves would have been in the original language in which God gave them by inspiration to the prophets. The oracles of God [the Old Testament Scriptures] given to the prophets were committed unto the Jews in the Jews‘ language (Rom. 3:2, Matt. 5:17-18, Luke 16:17). The specific features “jot“ and “tittle“ at Matthew 5:18 and the “tittle” at Luke 16:17 would indicate the particular original language words of the Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets. The actual, specific, exact words which the LORD of hosts sent in His Spirit by the prophets would be in the original language in which God gave them (Zech. 7:12). Would not the actual words written by the prophet be in the same language in which he originally wrote them (Matt. 2:5, Luke 18:31)? Would not the words spoken by the LORD by the prophets be in the language in which God gave them (2 Kings 21:10, 2 Kings 24:2)? It would be sound to conclude that the actual words of the prophets themselves would be in the original language in which they were given (Acts 15:15). The scriptures of the prophets (Rom. 15:26) would be in the language in which they were given to them. A writing from Elijah would be written in the language in which Elijah wrote it (2 Chron. 21:12). The actual words of Haggai the prophet would be in the language in which he spoke or wrote them (Haggai 1:12). The apostle John referred to his own actual words he himself was writing in the language in which he wrote them (1 John 2:12-14). “Moses wrote all the words of the LORD” (Exod. 24:4). The Lord Jesus Christ stated: “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5:46-47). In another apparent reference to the writings of Moses, Jesus asked the Pharisees concerning whether they had not read them (Matt. 19:4, 7-8). The actual writings of Moses referred to by Jesus would have to be in the original language in which Moses directly wrote them. When later Jewish scribes made a copy of the writings of Moses, they copied his same words in the same language in which Moses had originally wrote them. Do the Scriptures teach or at least clearly infer that the doctrine of preservation would concern the actual specific original-language words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles?

A sound understanding of some additional Bible truths would affirm or demonstrate that Bible preservation would have to concern the Scriptures in the original languages. The scriptural truths (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) that warn against adding to and taking away from the Scriptures would clearly and directly relate to the doctrine of preservation and to the making of copies of the original-language Scriptures. Concerning which specific words did God directly state these warnings and instructions? These commands and instructions must embrace the Scriptures in the original languages since the very nature of translation requires that words may have to be added or omitted to make it understandable in another language. Thus, these verses were important instructions and warnings given particularly and directly concerning the Scriptures in the original languages. These verses could also be understood to suggest that God gave to men an important role or responsibility in preservation of the Scriptures on earth. These commands or instructions would indicate the need and responsibility for the making of exact, accurate copies of the Scriptures in the original languages. These commands or instructions also demonstrate that the source being copied was the standard and authority for evaluating the copy made from it. These commands would also suggest that the copies of Scripture were not given or made by the means or process of a miracle of inspiration. These commands or instructions would also suggest that Bible translations can not actually fulfill the scriptural promises concerning preservation of the exact, specific words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles.

God was just as faithful and true to preserve the actual words He gave by inspiration before 1611 as after 1611. A consistent, sound, scriptural view of preservation would be true both before 1611 and after 1611 while you do not demonstrate that your modern suggested claim concerning preservation only in the KJV was true before 1611.

 

I looked at the views of 3 older commentators on this text. They lived before the version debate wars existed (at least our kind of version wars). John Calvin (1536), Matthew Henry (1706) and John Gill (1763) thought the words “them” in verse 7 applied to the people that God would preserve rather than the Bible. John Calvin wrote, “Some give this exposition of the passage, Thou wilt keep them, namely, thy words; but this does not seem to me to be suitable. David, I have no doubt, returns to speak of the poor, of whom he had spoken in the preceding part of the psalm.”

It is worth noticing, though, that the comment of Calvin suggests some in his day thought it referred to words. I do not think that should be surprising.

 

I have no idea what you are referring to.

The one in my hands, the preserved word of God is English, the King James Bible.

Question in return. Where, on this present earth, is the preserved word of God, in any language? Or is there such a thing?

 

He sure did, but you just misapplied what was said. We no longer have any of the original anything, not in the OT, nor the NT. So the whole 'original language' in the 'original mss' just flew out the window.

If you consider that Jesus, Peter, James, John & Paul in the NT cite the OT your argument just flew out the window, since the NT wasn't written in Hebrew, and what they cited is just as inspired as when it was written in Hebrew, and none of them had the 'originals' either (Gen - Mal). Translation happens, not only in OT instances (Joseph and brethren in Egypt, kings of Assyria, etc), but also on the NT, as cited and elsewhere, such as when Paul was spoken to by Jesus in Hebrew (Acts), but written in koine Greek.

Also, some of the material in the OT is in 'Syriac'.

 

Mere unfounded assertion of exaggeration. What we do have in the AV1611 is a footnote, given by an unknown person/s (unless you can produce the evidence of person/s?) Again, there were final editors to the AV 1611, and they dealt with the footnotes, or possibly (I have no evidence for or against) were asked to include a footnote by particular person/s that did work on the translation, and no way of knowing if the person that gave that footnote worked on the particular section of translation specifically (unless you would like to produce that evdence?). That's what we have, and that footnote was already addressed by the previous responses. It doesn't help you in your agenda to save the world from believers in inspired final preserved authority of God's word, in all matters of faith and practice, in English, the King James Bible

 

I like Ruckman (RiP), inspite of some of his theological or personality errors. However, tell me, if you will please, what does what Ruckman said, have anything to do with what you said people like Ruckman said:

Where did Ruckman say that a person can only and/or ever be saved by the AV1611 or KJB?

Where did Ruckman say that just because there are differing translations, in any language (English included), that they aren't the word of God, for that reason?

Where did Ruckman ever say that just because there are translations from older mss that they are in error automatically for being translations?

Where did Ruckman ever say that the only pure word of God was the KJB? (He continually says, that the KJB is the preserved word of God 'in the English')

One of us is baiting and switching. (psssst. hint. It isn't me ..., but if you'd like, I'll help you find the person who is doing it ... do you have a mirror available?)

 

You try to misrepresent and distort what I said. I did not claim that the original-language manuscripts still exist. There are many manuscript copies with the preserved original-language words of Scriptures along with the multiple varying printed editions of them used in the making of the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV. There is more original-language manuscript evidence known today than was known in the 1500's in the few imperfectly-copied ones used by Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza. The KJV translators asserted the same point that I demonstrated from the Scriptures: that the preserved Scriptures in the original languages are the standard and authority for the making and trying of all Bible translations.

You have been the one who tries to misapply what the Scriptures said about preservation and about the words God gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles. You misapply Matthew 4:4 and other verses as you incorrectly try to suggest that the textual criticism decisions, Bible-revision decisions, and translation decisions of a biased group of Church of England critics in 1611 proceed directly from the mouth of God. You try to throw out the actual underlying original-language sources used in the making of the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV.

Do you try to pull a bait and switch as you try to substitute different words in English for the actual words that proceeded from the mouth of God by inspiration to the prophets and apostles?

 

Did Ruckman in effect endorse this claim by his approval of the article by Herb Evans and by his own words that suggest that he claims that the KJV is incorruptible seed?

Herb Evans, a KJV-only advocate associated with Peter Ruckman, in an article "Did Our Inspired Bible Expire?" wrote: "Almost without exception (and we are not sure about the exceptions) any births, resulting from the above perverted bibles [English Bibles other than the KJV], are perverted also--spiritual cripples" (The Flaming Torch, January-March, 1992, p. 10). This unscriptural claim would make the Holy Spirit responsible for the new birth of spiritual cripples and perverts (John 3:5-8, 1 John 3:9, 5:4, Eph. 1:13, Titus 3:5). In Ruckman's Bible Believers' Bulletin, Herb Evans declared: "We have been born of incorruptible seed," and he claimed that this incorruptible seed is the 1611 KJV (October, 1978, p. 3). Peter Ruckman himself had claimed that “the AV was incorruptible in 1611, and it is incorruptible now” (Alexandrian Cult, Part Seven, p. 26). Michael O’Neal also stated: “I believe that this (the King James Bible) is incorruptible seed” (Do We Have, p. 13). Perhaps, some KJV-only advocates might excuse this claim that modern translations produce spiritual cripples by saying that only the extreme followers of Ruckman would make such statements. However, fundamental pastors and advocates who do not claim to follow Ruckman's view have already gone to this extreme and even further. Almost no one admits that they follow Ruckman's KJV-only ideas.


KJV-only advocate Al Hughes acknowledged: "There is a movement afoot that claims 'no one can get saved by hearing one of the devil's perversions'" (Flaming Torch, Oct./Nov./Dec., 1999, p. 16). William Byers claimed: "I've said that I've never heard of a sound conversion coming from a modern translation" (The History of the KJB, p. 5). J. J. Ray wrote: "Only an unaltered Bible can produce a perfect, soul-saving faith" (God Wrote Only One Bible, p. 10). In his fundamentalist publication Church Bus News (July-Dec., 1993), Wally Beebe stated: "My constant reference to the King James Version, being in fact the inspired Word of God and our authority, is very important as a prerequisite to salvation" (p. 11). Jack Hyles, well-known fundamentalist pastor, wrote: "Then, if corruptible seed is used, one cannot be born again. I have a conviction as deep as my soul that every English-speaking person who has ever been born again was born of incorruptible seed; that is, the King James Bible" (Enemies of Soul Winning, p. 47). Hyles also claimed: "This means that the New King James Bible is not precious seed because it is not incorruptible" (Ibid., p. 46). Hyles noted: "If all a person has ever read is the Revised Standard Version, he cannot be born again, because corruptible seed is used" (Ibid., p. 47). In a recorded sermon, Hyles stated: "The King James Bible is necessary for anybody to be saved in the English language."

Gail Riplinger claimed: "The new birth occurs from the KJV seed" (Which Bible is God's Word, p. 12). Riplinger even seemed to imply that people may "receive a false salvation or a false spirit from reading them" [other translations instead of the KJV] (Ibid., p. 80). In his booklet entitled Another Bible Another Gospel, which is published by The Bible for Today, Robert Baker implied that other translations teach another gospel when he wrote: "Removing or adding to Jesus' words results in preaching 'another gospel'" (p. 5). Chick Salliby asked: "Will not a defective Bible produce a defective faith?" (If the Foundations Be Destroyed, p. 93). Pastor Raymond Blanton declared: "Faith is not produced in the heart of the sinner by a powerless perversion of God's Word" (The Perilous Times, June, 1995, p. 7). In another issue of his publication, Blanton also claimed: "No one is saved through counterfeit Bibles. The New American Standard Version, The Revised Standard Version, Good News for Modern Man, Amplied New Testament, NIV, etc., etc., are dead imitations and corruptions, and no one is saved through them" (Feb., 1997, p. 4). Douglas Stauffer wrote: "Our relationship with Jesus Christ is based upon a particular Bible translation" (One Book Stands, p. 97).