Psalm 12:6,7

Because the "exact Words" have not been kept intact by the KJV. God inspired what He said, not what you (or I or any translator) say He said.

Matt 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

God said that not one jot or tittle would pass, yet, the KJV decided to leave out both jots and tittles. Don't tell me a jot or a tittle is part of the KJV because it isn't. I highly value the KJV because I believe it is an excellent picture of the "rock" of God's word but it is a picture of the rock and it is not the "rock" itself.

 

I don't know if anyone else has noticed this before, but in the original 1611 KJV there is a marginal note that confirms, at least as far as the KJV translators were concerned, that verses 6 & 7 refer to the godly men rather than the words of Scripture. I don't have my copy handy, otherwise I would post the exact note. Maybe someone else could post the note (it's a bit cryptic) and then we could discuss it.

Andy

 

Pfalmes XII:6-7 (KJV1611):

The wordes of the LORD are
pure wordes: as siluer tried in a fornace
of earth purified seuen times.
Thou shalt keepe them, (O LORD,) thou shalt preserue +them,
from this generation for euer.

+ Heb. him. i. euery one of them

 

Thank you Edifier!

Notice that the note for "them" indicates that the literal Hebrew is "Him." Obviously they believe it refers to a person, or better, a group of people, hence the rest of their note, "every one of them."

Andy

 

What really gets me is, MVists quote scripture, but when asked if that particular verse is what God said, they say, "well, it's as close as anything." My question is, are you close saved!?

 

Who said this?? I have seen anyone say this.

What does it mean to be "close saved"? I have never heard that term. I am not sure what relevance it has here. If you accidently left the "h" out of "saved," and meant "close shaved," then the answer is yes. But again, I don't see the relevance here. Perhaps this is better suited for another forum.

 

sonuvagun! I thought the exact words were Hebrew all this time!

 

Even if verses 6 and 7 refered to God's Words, why would this be limited to the KJV? It could also refer to the NASB or the NIV or several other versions.

 

Because to suggest that God preserved, word-for-word, scripture in any particular version implies that God's word was *NOT* preserved prior to that versions publication.

Do you believe Psa 12:6-7 was a lie in 1605?

 

No it was not a lie in 1605 or today(blah blah blah!)It Just did not come into fruition until 1611.

 

No it was not a lie in 1605 or today(blah blah blah!)It Just did not come into fruition until 1611. </font>[/QUOTE]So what did it mean in 1605?? If it refers to the words, God said he would preserve them from that generation onward. "That generation" was a people that lived in about 1000bc. So did God lie to us?? Did he not preserve his word from "that generation" but rather from the 17th century generation only???

 

No it was not a lie in 1605 or today(blah blah blah!)It Just did not come into fruition until 1611. </font>[/QUOTE]"Did not come into fruition until 1611"? By what authority do you make such an absurd claim??? Did the verse change tenses in 1611???? Does scripture change meaning with the passing of time????

Thank you for proving my point.

 

No,there is Scripture conserning The Lord Jesus Christ,for example,that has not come to pass yet;who are we to question the way God does things?

What point? You need to have one first

 

Yes, it's called prophecy. It's in the future tense. Psalm 12:6 says the words *are* (present tense) pure words. It was in the present tense in 1605 - it wasn't future tense in 1605 and then changed to present tense in 1611 (which, BTW, would not be a "preservation" of the words, because that would require a word change). Thus, again, was the passage a lie in 1605?

 

Proverbs 30:5 "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him." and they were then and are now.

Yep,but you forgot(or maybe not) to mention the "purified seven times" part of the verse.2 Peter 3:16!

Nope.Romans 3:4!! take that up with Him.

 

No, I did not forget it. Actually, I didn't mention it because I simply didn't want to repeat my same point over and over. But since you mention it, "purified" is in past tense, and was in past tense in 1605, 1105, at the time of Christ, and 1000 B.C.

Your view requires it to be a lie before 1611 A.D., because in 1605, 1105, at the time of Christ, and when originally written, past tense would be wrong since the purification was still future.

In 1000 A.D., was scripture like silver purified (past tense!) seven times? Or was the passage a lie until 1611? Which is it?

Come on, stop with the games. Can't you see what illogical extremities you have to grasp at to retain your view?

 

There are several translations that use the TR as their base text. The KJV, the NKJV, LITV, YLT, KJV21, and several others (not to mention older Bibles, like Geneva, Bishop's, Cramners, etc.) Some of these translation are even *more* faithful to the TR (like the LITV) than the KJV is. So you see, there are really two issues here: first is which Greek base a translation should use, and second what is the most accurate translation of that Greek base. KJV-onlyism is unable to prove its position in either issue, but rather bases it all on emotion and "faith" (which comes from where, they never say).

 

John 17:8 "For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me."

Who will agrue against exact words in the Bible?