Are translations inspired?

You misread Psalm 12:6-7 saying, "The words of the LORD are pure words as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them preserve them from this generation for ever."

"Them" do not refer to the people, but refer to the God's Word because God's Words are forever, but these people died shortly. The Word of God is forever hereafter. These people kept God's Words hereafter. When they are dying, they give their next people God's Word because God's Word does not die.

You favor "people" instead of God's Word because of the interpreting method than translating method.

 

Easy ... the authority of the text. Read the Psalm and tell us what the psalmist is talking about. Let's take a look:

Psalm 12:1 For the choir director; upon an eight-stringed lyre. A Psalm of David. Help, LORD, for the godly man ceases to be, For the faithful disappear from among the sons of men. 2 They speak falsehood to one another; With flattering lips and with a double heart they speak. 3 May the LORD cut off all flattering lips, The tongue that speaks great things; 4 Who have said, "With our tongue we will prevail; Our lips are our own; who is lord over us?" 5 "Because of the devastation of the afflicted, because of the groaning of the needy, Now I will arise," says the LORD; "I will set him in the safety for which he longs." 6 The words of the LORD are pure words; As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, refined seven times. 7 You, O LORD, will keep them; You will preserve him from this generation forever. 8 The wicked strut about on every side When vileness is exalted among the sons of men. [/b]</font>[/QUOTE]Go to the Website here:
Jack Moorman answered on Psalm 12:6-7

 

Askjo, Are you related to Yogi Berra?

In other words, what in the world did you mean by this sentence? </font>[/QUOTE]God preserved His inspired Words in apographs where accurate Bible translations directly derived from.

 

You continue to struggle with some of the most basic issues of biblical interpretation. The meaning of words is determined by context. Read the Psalm and ask the question: What is in danger of perishing?? Your second paragraph shows your misunderstanding even more clearly. The psalmist is communicating the same thing as in Psalms like 73 where the wicked are prospering and the righteous seem to be suffering. This is a common theme throughout the Psalms which even a cursory reading would show. To claim that it does not refer to the godly man because they perished slightly thereafter is an affront to the meaning of the Psalm. Godly men exist even to this day.

There is only one right answer and it is communicated all through the Psalm.

Most likely, the word "them" isn't even there. The word is natzer with a third person masculine singular suffix. It means "him." There is a textual variant that I do not have before me at this time.

Again, I see you cite Jack Moorman. When you begin to study seriously and honestly you will find that Jack Moorman is teaching you falsely. Study your Bible and quit following these men.

 

Have you read any of these apographs?? If you have, you will know that no two of them match entirely. All of them are different from one another. That means that your understanding God's preservation is explicitly refuted by the facts that are in front you.

Incidentally you are right in this assertion. You simply, in teh words of John, speak more than you know. What you mean by this is not right. What the same words communicate by someone who is knowledgeable is accurate truth. God did preserve his words in the apographs that we have. And we are glad he did.

 

In the provided link, I found this admission by Moorman:

Hebrew, like other languages, has grammatical gender, and here the pronoun "them" is masculine, while "words" is feminine. The more distant yet possible antecedents of verse five or verse one are masculine.

Thanks for providing that link and another nail in the coffin of this argument.

 

Personally, I don’t see the problem. God HAS preserved His Word.

I believe that the Psalms 12 passage is about the “words”.

The KJV translators themselves said that the proliferation of translations was a good thing because it aided in finding “the sense” of the Scriptures.

They also called “the meanest” of translations the “word of God”.

Now there are certain passages in the KJV whose meaning has been lost due to the changing dynamics of language with the passage of time.

With that in mind, along with the present abundance of English Bibles, no meaning of any passage need be lost. I have a software package with about 20 English Bibles and can line them up for comparative readings. In addition I have several koine NT’s.

People speak of the 5000 mss. Actually the number is probably 4 or 5 times that.
The 5000 are those which are officially catalogued and numbered.
No one knows for sure how many mss are in the Vatican (for instance) or tucked away in Orthodox Churches in the form of Lectionaries (another for instance).

There are also a multitude of ancient translations in hundreds of languages.

Also, most (if not all) of the Word of God is encapsulated in the 20,000+ pages of Church Fathers.

Plus papyri collections.
Plus Dead Sea mss.

NTHER ANCIENT BOOK ON EARTH HAS ANYTHING REMOTELY CLOSE TO THIS KIND OF WITNESS!

Even if Psalm 12 does not mean that God has promised to preserve His Word (and I believe it does mean just that) the earthly evidence is beyond question.

God HAS preserved His Word on earth.
Stop looking at the individual trees and look at the forest

Peace to all.

HankD

 

It would be the texts which the KJV was translated from.

 

There's a problem with this verse if you imply it to refer to the entire OT and NT.

Psalms was written c460BC. Ezra, 1 & 2 Chronicles, and Nehemiah had not yet been completed. Additionally, none of the NT writings would come to fruition for another 500 years.

So, if the verse referrs to "written" words, it would refer to only what was written up to then. If it referrs, rather, to God's commands in general, then it has nothing to do with a specific writing, version, or translation.

 

You do know that the Psalms have many different authors, right? This date you give is misleading. I agree with the basic point you try to make. Here I quote Gleason Archer from his book A Survey of Old Testament Introduction:

"No convincing evidence, however, has been offered for the dating of any of the psalms later than approximately 500 B.C." (p.488)

He points out that the earliest psalm would be Psalm 90 by Moses, approx. 1405 B.C. The Davidic psalms are dated between 1020 and 975 B.C. Unless, of course, you want to deny that these people wrote these psalms.

However, if you were referring to the compiling of all the psalms into one book, I would agree with you. But you stated that they were written in 460 B.C., not distinguishing between the author and the compiler. Just wanted to point out that there is a major difference. Psalm 12 is attributed to David, thus was written approx. between 1020 and 975 B.C. That would mean that even more books of the OT had not been written yet, thus causing even more of a problem for the KJVO side.

In Christ,
Neal

P.S. Sorry, I just finished a year of OT in seminary and knew something looked funny in your post.

 

Yes, I was referring to the compilation of Psalms. Sorry 'bout that. Thanks for clarifying, though.

 

No problem! I was just happy that I got to use a little of the knowledge I gained in OT!

When I was responding, I began to realize that you are probably referring to the compilation of the book of Psalms. Either way, the point is a problem for the KJVO crowd.

God Bless,
Neal