Where the word of God was before 1611!

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 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

 

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.

 

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...

 

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.

 

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 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..."

 

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.)