Another question from Psalm 12

[Jordan Kurecki]

"The words of Lord are pure."

Pure here according to Wesley means: Without the least mixture of falsehood; and therefore shall infallibly be fulfilled.

I believe pure means perfect and without error.

My question is this. If no translation is perfect, and no Greek text is perfect (which many on this site claim) Than doesn't it reason to stand that none of us have access to God's word, because imperfection is not pure?

I have a hard time when people claim to believe in the preservation of God's pure words, but cannot direct me to where I can access these pure words.

I do not want your attacks on the King James bible, just respond to the above statements and questions.

 

[Deacon]

I'm sure you've asked this question before,

In case you missed it here's the answer from the original KJV preface

Rob

Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.

As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural man could say, Verum ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, etc. [Horace.]

A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else, there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) [James 3:2] also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars.

No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Three things, brother. Three important things - the last, to me, being the most important.

"The words of Lord are pure."

Pure here according to Wesley means: Without the least mixture of falsehood; and therefore shall infallibly be fulfilled.

I believe pure means perfect and without error.

[1] The word in this context is טָהוֹר (tahowr). It means clear, as opposed to filthy, unmixed or unalloyed, Levitically clean, and morally pure.http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2889&t=KJV

To me, according to this definition, it doesn't mean that there won't be errors in translations, but that there are no lies in God's mouth.

My question is this. If no translation is perfect, and no Greek text is perfect (which many on this site claim) Than doesn't it reason to stand that none of us have access to God's word, because imperfection is not pure?

[2] Brother, you are having a hard time because you are so bent on the word "words" meaning literally dialect-specific human language/speech.

But it isn't. The word literally means God's "utterance". The Words of God are His supernatural message and holy meaning written in a variety of translations - the in denotation and connotation that peoples across the ages and world will understand.

For example, it's not the "ah-toe-n-ment" of atonement that comprises the word of God. It's the understanding of redemption, payment, reparation, and making amends through the blood of Jesus Christ to pay for our sins that makes the word atonement the word of God in Romans 5:11.

I do not want your attacks on the King James bible, just respond to the above statements and questions.

I'm not going to attack the King James Bible. I read it. I also read a host of other translations.

This next point is critical, brother. Please take note.

[3] Has it ever occurred to you to read Psalm 12 in context. If so, has it ever occurred to you that the preservation of "them" is not a preservation of God's Words, but of the oppressed people against the vile, wicked, and proud words of evil people that the entire chapter is about?

The people's words are described as vile.

God's words are described as pure and He will keep the oppressed people from the vile people.


Here it is in the King James.

Psalm 12

[1] Help, Lord; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men.


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

[3] The Lord shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things:

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

[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.

[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.

[8] The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.

David is saying God shall preserve the oppressed "from this generation" (of wicked and faithless people).

Would you prayerfully consider that?

 

[Logos1560]

"The words of Lord are pure."


I believe pure means perfect and without error.

That would conflict with your [purification process] claim that the KJV is the seventh purification that you made in another thread.

The truth that is stated in Psalm 12:6 is the fact that "the words of the LORD are pure words" meaning 100% absolutely and wholly pure. Pure used in the particular context of describing the quality of the words of the LORD given to the prophets and apostles would clearly be asserting 100% absolute, complete purity or perfection with no mixture of any impurities at all. After the assertion of fact, then an illustration, simile, or comparison is given [as] to confirm that truth, not to contradict it by suggesting that there were some impurities in the pure words given to the prophets and apostles.Thus, the phrase "purified seven times" (Ps. 12:6) actually stated clearly concerning silver on earth is used to illustrate and affirm that the words of the LORD are 100% wholly, absolutely, completely, and perfectly pure when given by God. This phrase about the refining or purification of silver obviously and clearly does not contradict the earlier assertion or statement of fact. That phrase does not indicate or assert that the words of the LORD are mostly pure or almost pure with a few impurities, defects, faults, corruptions, errors, or contaminants mixed in so that they needed to go through an improvement or refining process of seven purifications in seven English translations or in seven purifications of the various editions of the KJV.

Words of the LORD asserted to be wholly and completely pure in the positive or absolute degree could not be made more pure. Thus, the quality of being completely pure and completely free from all impurities that is asserted concerning the words of the LORD could not be increased. Nothing can be asserted to be more pure than what is already 100% absolutely pure according to the meaning of pure used in the context. Pure is clearly not used in a comparative degree concerning the 100% absolutely and completely pure and perfect words of the LORD. The word of the LORD is perfect (Ps. 19:7). Pure words of the LORD have the very same absolute, complete purity as very pure words (Ps. 119:140). The use of “very” would emphasize the fact of the absolute purity, but it could not increase the purity of words that are already 100% wholly and absolutely pure.

The original language words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles are 100% pure and perfect.

Any errors introduced by men whether in copying, editing, printing, or translating are not 100% pure and perfect.

The actual facts are that there were actual copying errors in the Greek NT manuscripts on which the varying Textus Receptus editions were based and that were some printing errors in those printed TR editions.

 

[Logos1560]

If no translation is perfect,.

That is what the makers of the KJV indicated was true concerning all translations which would include their own.

Than doesn't it reason to stand that none of us have access to God's word, because imperfection is not pure?

No, it does not stand to reason according to the makers of the KJV.

In their preface, the KJV translators asserted: "No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the sun, where apostles or apostolike men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's Spirit and priviledged with the priviledge of infallibility, had not their hand?

 

[robycop3]

"The words of Lord are pure."

Pure here according to Wesley means: Without the least mixture of falsehood; and therefore shall infallibly be fulfilled.

I believe pure means perfect and without error.

My question is this. If no translation is perfect, and no Greek text is perfect (which many on this site claim) Than doesn't it reason to stand that none of us have access to God's word, because imperfection is not pure?

I have a hard time when people claim to believe in the preservation of God's pure words, but cannot direct me to where I can access these pure words.

I do not want your attacks on the King James bible, just respond to the above statements and questions.

David considered God's words pure the instant He uttered them. And David DID sometimes receive God's words directly. While he had Nathan and Gad as his "personal" prophets, David himself was also a prophet, as JESUS said.

And we mustn't forget that the Psalms are SONGS. At times, David used 'artist's license' in writing them. Thus, in Psalm 12, he interjects the Hebrew for V.6 within his stating by song that GOD will protect the righteous from their enemies. (We know that, while many righteous people have been slain by the wicked, they're ULTIMATELY protected by GOD, as these righteous souls go to paradise, never to suffer anything again.)

I believe as David did, that God's words are pure the instant He utters any of them, by any means. And thus, His words in Scripture were pure before the English language, or most other current languages, were invented.

This is entirely-separate from TRANSLATIONS of God's words. All translations are the product of God's perfect word being handled by imperfect men.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Good answers, friends! I'm gonna have to bookmark this page. This is too funny. Jordan, you're a real piece of work my friend!

 

[Yeshua1]

That is what the makers of the KJV indicated was true concerning all translations which would include their own.





No, it does not stand to reason according to the makers of the KJV.

In their preface, the KJV translators asserted: "No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the sun, where apostles or apostolike men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's Spirit and priviledged with the priviledge of infallibility, had not their hand?

MANY here, especially those in the KJVO camp, seem to misunderstand that the perfect Word of God was in the originals, as when they werewritten and recorded down by ispiration of/by the Spirit, those were the ones without error/mistakes in them at all!

Those were the perfect revelation of God to us...

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

MANY here, especially those in the KJVO camp, seem to misunderstand that the perfect Word of God was in the originals, as when they werewritten and recorded down by ispiration of/by the Spirit, those were the ones without error/mistakes in them at all!

Those were the perfect revelation of God to us...

So we do not have the perfect word of God preserved in our vernacular?

What the point of inspiration without preservation?

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Good answers, friends! I'm gonna have to bookmark this page. This is too funny. Jordan, you're a real piece of work my friend!

Jonathan, you replies to my posts here and in other places are very harsh and unloving, This is detrimental to your relationship with God and that concerns me, whether or not I am right or wrong, you still are commanded to love the brethren, not to ridicule them, If I am wrong you will never change my mind with that sort of attitude.

I'll be praying for you.

 

[Dr. Bob]

(1) There is no King James "Bible". There is a King James version that translates the Bible into Jacobean English, slightly revising the Geneva on which it was based

(2) When God breathed and inspired "words", what language were they? Hebrew and Greek (with a short passage in Aramaic). Not English.

So if one claims "God-breathed" for man-made English words, that is giving glory of God to man . . a dangerous ground on which to stand.

(3) The premise of the excellent post earlier by Scarlett is 100% accurate. The promise of preservation in Psalm 12 is of the oppressed people and not "words". Even in the English translation (take your pick) you can diagram and find antecedents in the clauses.

Not rocket science. Basic 7th grade English.

 

[Yeshua1]

(1) There is no King James "Bible". There is a King James version that translates the Bible into Jacobean English, slightly revising the Geneva on which it was based

(2) When God breathed and inspired "words", what language were they? Hebrew and Greek (with a short passage in Aramaic). Not English.

So if one claims "God-breathed" for man-made English words, that is giving glory of God to man . . a dangerous ground on which to stand.

(3) The premise of the excellent post earlier by Scarlett is 100% accurate. The promise of preservation in Psalm 12 is of the oppressed people and not "words". Even in the English translation (take your pick) you can diagram and find antecedents in the clauses.

Not rocket science. Basic 7th grade English.

True, but many KJVO supporters act as if they have some secret 'revelation knowledge" concerning what is and is not word of God!

 

[HankD]

"The words of Lord are pure."

Pure here according to Wesley means: Without the least mixture of falsehood; and therefore shall infallibly be fulfilled.

I believe pure means perfect and without error.

My question is this. If no translation is perfect, and no Greek text is perfect (which many on this site claim) Than doesn't it reason to stand that none of us have access to God's word, because imperfection is not pure?

I have a hard time when people claim to believe in the preservation of God's pure words, but cannot direct me to where I can access these pure words.

I do not want your attacks on the King James bible, just respond to the above statements and questions.

To state the provable truth is not an attack.

The Church of England devoted decades to correcting the AD1611 First Edition. They themselves (the translators and English authors of the AV) believed there were mistakes in the AD1611 First Edition. Personally I consider this a noble task to their credit.

Sometimes they vasilated in their opinions, so to be forthright and face the truth, one must choose both publisher (Oxford, Cambridge, Nelson) and edition (AD1611, AD1769) and declare by faith that this is my choice if one wants to known as KJVO (modern watered down definition).

Apart from a faith choice we have no "perfect" English Bible translation according to the scientific method of truth finding.

So we have only faith.
Granted we may boster our faith with historical evidence (which is a subjective science).

As to the Greek I choose the Scrivener 1894 NT.

As an addendum: It is not God's fault. God inspired the prophets and apostles to write what they did.
But man (apparently) was given the scribal task of preserving the original language manuscripts.

The Hebrews did a much better job at the preservation of the Hebrew mss than the gentiles and the Greek mss.


HankD

 

[Rhys]

I believe pure means perfect and without error.

My question is this. If no translation is perfect, and no Greek text is perfect (which many on this site claim) Than doesn't it reason to stand that none of us have access to God's word, because imperfection is not pure?

My dog is a purebred. On account of this, she has some imperfections in her respiratory and immune systems.

First rule of interpretation: never remove a verse from context.