Where the word of God was before 1611!

KJV-only supporter and website owner Timothy Morton has answered the question "Where was "the word of God"prior to 1611?" His answer (from his page at this link):

"Before 1611 the "word of God" was a little here; a little more there; etc. It was spread all around in various languages and various manuscripts. One would have to live at the time to make a proper decision as to which to use and believe. Looking back any English translation before the AV would have been acceptable (except the Catholic Rheims version)."

Whoa nelly! Isn't that *exactly* the position the rest of us non-KJV-only supporters hold today (except maybe for the Rheims part)? If that's how "preservation" took place in 1605, and that was the valid (only) meaning/fulfillment of God's promise of preservation, then why can't it still be true today? The position KJV-onlyism holds for 1605 is the exact same position we hold for 2003! Yet they *condemn* our position! Did the scriptures that talk of preservation change meaning in 1611????

Well, now that it's settled, we can finally close down the forum.

I reckon Mr. Morton doesn't believe the Geneva Bible or any of the pre-1611 English Bibles are the word of God. And he evidently believes God retired in 1611 and no longer supervises the presentation of His word.

I wonder if the KJVOs will ever come up with any evidence NOT based upon a double standard or pure invention? If I were to hold my breath waiting, I'd become quite cyanotic, I believe.

Where was the Word of God prior to 1611?

Click to expand...

Where it always has been, is and ever will be:

Psalms 119:89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

And published on earth in manuscripts (copies and translations).

Psalms 68:11 The Lord gave the word: great was the company of those that published it.


HankD

Originally posted by robycop3:
I reckon Mr. Morton doesn't believe the Geneva Bible or any of the pre-1611 English Bibles are the word of God.

Click to expand...

He says "As for the Geneva Bible, it contained the "word of God" but it was not the complete and pure word of God. A little more refining had to be done." Yet it was still "acceptable".

I wonder if the KJVOs will ever come up with any evidence NOT based upon a double standard or pure invention? If I were to hold my breath waiting, I'd become quite cyanotic, I believe.

Click to expand...

Ya.

So, Christian history led up to the KJV, and since then flows out from it. Sounds like the KJV has become the fourth person of the Deity.

Regarding the first post in this thread: on the KJV-only discussion board where that came up, I pointed out that if that's how Psa 12:6-7 was fulfilled in 1605, that's how it must be fulfulled in 1620 and now since scripture doesn't change meaning. I was promptly banned.

Nothing like a reasonable discussion!

He says "As for the Geneva Bible, it contained the "word of God" but it was not the complete and pure word of God. A little more refining had to be done." Yet it was still "acceptable".

Then, Mr.Morton must subscribe to the "provisional Bible" theory that says that in English, the Bible had to undergo six revisions(Wycliffe, Tyndale, Matthews, Coverdale, Bishop's, Geneva) before God finally "got it right" in the AV 1611.

Brian, did you notice that, when we asked for EVIDENCEfrom the KJVOs to support their claims, that they promptly backed off?

Here's one for'em-In Psalm 12:7, the Geneva Bible reads, "...thou shalt preserve *HIM*..." while the KJV reads, "...thou shalt preserve*THEM*...". Which is correct, and why?

Well duh!!! It said His words....Him is singular,them is plural!! Thusly proving that Psalm 12:6-7 is correct;the seventh purification...The KJB is correct...

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
Well duh!!! It said His words....Him is singular,them is plural!! Thusly proving that Psalm 12:6-7 is correct;the seventh purification...The KJB is correct...

Click to expand...

And also proving that Psa 12:6-7, and thus God, was lying in 1605 because God's word wasn't really pure yet! Way to go! Please continue to make such posts.

Originally posted by robycop3:

Brian, did you notice that, when we asked for EVIDENCEfrom the KJVOs to support their claims, that they promptly backed off?

Here's one for'em-In Psalm 12:7, the Geneva Bible reads, "...thou shalt preserve *HIM*..." while the KJV reads, "...thou shalt preserve*THEM*...". Which is correct, and why?

Click to expand...

The Geneva Bible is more accurate, as is the marginal note in the KJV at Psa. 12:7 which reads "Heb. him, i., every one of them."

How do we know that "them" in Psa. 12:7 KJV refers to the people of v. 5 and not the words of v. 6?

(1) Hebrew Grammar -- The gender agreements of the Hebrew pronouns tell us what the antecedents are. "The poor" and "the needy" in v. 5 are both masculine plurals; "words" in v. 6 is a feminine plural; "them" in v. 7 is a masculine plural. According to the normal rules of gender agreement in Hebrew, the masculine plural pronoun "them" in v. 7 refers back to a masculine plural antecedent, which would be "the poor" and "the needy" in v. 5.

KJV Psalm 12:5 For the oppression of THE POOR [masc. pl. noun], for the sighing of THE NEEDY [masc. pl. noun], now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set HIM in safety [masc. sing. noun, masc. sing. pronoun implied] from him that puffeth at him. 6 THE WORDS [fem. pl. noun] of the LORD are pure WORDS [fem. pl. noun]: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep THEM [masc. pl. pronoun referring back to "afflicted" and "needy" of v. 5], O LORD, thou shalt preserve THEM [literally, "Thou shalt preserve HIM," masc. sing. pronoun referring back to the masc. sing. noun and "him" in v. 5] from this generation for ever.

(2) Biblical Usage -- On *every* other occasion in Psalms where the word "preserve" appears in the KJV, it *always* refers to people and *never* to words (cf. Psa. 6:1, Psa. 25:21, Psa. 31:23, Psa. 32:7, Psa. 36:6, Psa. 37:28, Psa. 40:11, Psa. 41:2, Psa. 61:7, Psa. 64:1, Psa. 79:11, Psa. 86:2, Psa. 97:10, Psa. 116:6, Psa. 121:7, Psa. 121:8, Psa. 140:1, Psa. 140:4, Psa. 145:20, Psa. 146:9).

Conclusion: Psa. 12 is about *people* preservation, not "words" preservation.

Originally posted by Archangel7:
Conclusion: Psa. 12 is about *people* preservation, not "words" preservation.

Click to expand...

Incorrect!! You prefer Psalm 12:6-7 to be interpreting rather than translating.

Click link here: FUNDAMENTALISTS FOLLOWING TEXTUAL CRITICS IN DENYING/QUESTIONING BIBLICAL PRESERVATION

Click link here: PSALM 12:7 AND BIBLE PRESERVATION

Click link here: Psalm 12:6-7 and Bible Preservation

You defend modern versions, right? Ok, let's look at them here:

New KJV on Psalm 12:7 "You shall keep them, O LORD, You shall preserve them from this generation forever."

ASV (1901) on Psalm 12:7 "Thou wilt keep them, O Jehovah, Thou wilt preserve them from this generation for ever."

Originally posted by Askjo:
You defend modern versions, right? Ok, let's look at them here:

New KJV on Psalm 12:7 "You shall keep them, O LORD, You shall preserve them from this generation forever."

ASV (1901) on Psalm 12:7 "Thou wilt keep them, O Jehovah, Thou wilt preserve them from this generation for ever."

Click to expand...

Yes, "them". People are "them". Archangel posted some excellent information as to why the pronoun "them" refers to the people. Instead of just saying "wrong!", how about explaining why, and addressing Archangel's evidence?

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
Well duh!!! It said His words....Him is singular,them is plural!! Thusly proving that Psalm 12:6-7 is correct;the seventh purification...The KJB is correct...

1. Can you PROVE which is correct by the HEBREW?

2. This "seventh purification stuff is PURE GARBAGE! God doesn't need seven attempts to do something right...He needs no "attempts" at all. When GOD does it, it's right, the first time, EVERY time. I believe He has preserved and presented His word in English for hundreds of years, presenting it AS HE CHOOSES, and that each and every BV He's caused to be made has come out exactly as He had decided. His word has never needed any "purification".

Sir, this "seven times purified" garbage is among the more absurd KJVO "arguments". You seem, by your posts, to be more intelligent than to actually BELIEVE such stupid stuff. Are you THAT desperate to find something...ANYTHING... to attempt to give any validity to the KJVO myth that you stoop to such a level, posting something you don't really believe? I cannot thing of too many Baptists who would believe such an absurd tale.

Careful, Brian, this same question got you banned from a KJV Onlyist run board recently
=================
Visit Bible Versions Discussion Board

Your screen name is "Anti-Alexandrian"

Why are you against people from that city in Egypt?

Anyway.... thought you should take a look-see at this article:
Why Pslam 12: 6, 7 Is Not a Promise of the Infallible Preservation of Scripture

James R. White on Pslams 12:6

The part on Psalm 12 on the White page begins near the bottom, with a paragraph that starts out with these comments by White:

"Psalm 12 is, I would assert, the central passage for Dr. Holland’s position, as defined in his written materials on the Internet. If this passage doesn’t teach what Dr. Holland says it does, his position becomes untenable. Dr. Holland has written..."

It is "willful ignorance" for the "only sect" to continue to misuse Psalm 12 for their "defense".

There are other verses that actually DO talk about preservation. Why oh why would they hold themselves up for continual ridicule by using Psalm 12 (which, of course, has nothing to do with preservation of the Word of God).

Willingly ignorant is a term used by Peter of men in these last days. I've always thought that only applied to rank liberals and modernists. Now the "only sect" lives down to that description!

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
It is "willful ignorance" for the "only sect" to continue to misuse Psalm 12 for their "defense".

Click to expand...

I've tried letting them keep that interpretation, but then asking them if that scripture was true or false in 1605. You should see the variety of long-winded responses I get to such a simple question.

Brian,

I don't use Ps. 12 in defending the notion of inerrancy as it relates to the KJV. It is not that I have concluded that the verse is *not* a proper text for preservation of the Scriptures, but rather because (a) I am *unsure* if "them" refers to God's words or to God's people - and being unsure I do not want to pretend to be sure; (b) because it cannot be flatly proven that it refers to God's words I could not possibly win the argument; and (c) the verse is not necessary in proving this point.

However, you are not as clever as you suppose - your question is easily answered:

>>>>>
I've tried letting them keep that interpretation, but then asking them if that scripture was true or false in 1605. You should see the variety of long-winded responses I get to such a simple question.
>>>>>

Again, though I am not persuaded that Ps. 12 teaches the preservation of Scripture, I will reply in defense of other verses that do:

It was true in 1605 -- it just did not apply to the English language, as there was not yet an English version that was without error.

Short and simple.

Cope

(I realize some of the objections you might raise: In what language was God's word preserved prior to the KJV? Which edition of the KJV is inerrant? These are separate questions. I will address them if and when they are raised. For now I want to illustrate your misunderstanding of the inerrantist argument - he doesn't need to have an inerrant *English* translation prior to the KJV, in fact he needn't ever have an inerrant English translation...it just happens that there is one. The inerrantist believes that God has promised to preserve his word without error, not that he has promised to preserve it in English, or any other particular language. Faulting a "KJVO" for not having an inerrant English translation prior to the KJV is a straw man argument - no matter that most KJVOs take the bait.)

Originally posted by Cope:
I don't use Ps. 12 in defending the notion of inerrancy as it relates to the KJV. It is not that I have concluded that the verse is *not* a proper text for preservation of the Scriptures, but rather because (a) I am *unsure* if "them" refers to God's words or to God's people - and being unsure I do not want to pretend to be sure; (b) because it cannot be flatly proven that it refers to God's words I could not possibly win the argument; and (c) the verse is not necessary in proving this point.

Click to expand...

Wow, good comments!

It was true in 1605 -- it just did not apply to the English language, as there was not yet an English version that was without error.

Short and simple.

Click to expand...

See my comments below. Not so simple.

Faulting a "KJVO" for not having an inerrant English translation prior to the KJV is a straw man argument - no matter that most KJVOs take the bait.)

Click to expand...

I know it's a strawman argument. That's why I don't make it. Where did I mention anything about "English"? No Bible in 1605, *in any language*, is the same as the KJV. It doesn't perfectly match any edition of the TR, it doesn't perfectly match Luther's German Bible, it doesn't perfectly match the Spanish RV, no Latin, Aramaic, Coptic, nothing. It's slightly different from the very documents it was translated from, and not just the Greek, but the Hebrew as well - it does not perfectly match any edition of the Masoretic. How is that "perfect preservation"?

God bless,
Brian