Interpretations of Psalms 12:7

[Tim71]

There are several KJV-only authors that have attempted to apply "purified seven times" to the KJV.

William Byers claimed that the KJV is the seventh translation in the English language from the pure text and is thus "purified seven times" (The History of the KJB, pp. 9, 23, 97-98). Byers wrote that the Geneva Bible was the "sixth translation" (p. 9), but later he wrote that "Geneva is five" (p. 97). .Although beginning his list with Wycliffe's Bible, Timothy Morton made a similar inaccurate claim to that of Byers when he wrote: "Each of these Bibles was (and still is) a valuable translation, but the King James of 1611 is the purest--the seventh and final purification" (Which Translation Should You Trust, p. 9). Doug Stauffer maintained that "the King James Bible became the seventh purification of the English translation in fulfillment of this prophecy" [Ps. 12:6] (One Book Stands, p. 282).

William Bradley stated: "The King James Bible was the seventh major English translation of the Scriptures" (To All Generations, p. 29). Bradley also began his list with Wycliffe's Bible and included Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, and Geneva Bibles, but he omitted the important Bishops' Bible of which the KJV was officially a revision. In his later book, Bradley actually listed a total of eight English translations in two consecutive paragraphs [Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, Geneva, Bishops', KJV], which actually made the KJV the eighth translation (Purified, p. 116). Nevertheless, Bradley claimed: "When the seventh major English translation of the Bible was published, the Word of God in English was complete; it was perfect" (Ibid., p. 131). Ed DeVries also asserted that the KJV is "the seventh major translation of the Bible in the English language" (Divinely Inspired, p. 28). In his list, DeVries listed Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, Matthew's, Great, Geneva, Bishops', and KJV, but he omitted the important 1535 Coverdale's Bible. Phil Stringer also proposed: “It took several decades and seven major translations (Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew’s, Great Bible, Bishops, Geneva, King James) in order to get the pure Word of God in English” (Carter, Elephant, p. 47). Joey Faust listed the KJV as the seventh English translation, and he asserted: “The Authorized Version (i. e. KJV) is the final purification” (The Word, p. 45). T. S. Luchon also used this argument, listing the KJV as the claimed seventh English Bible (From the Mind of God, p. 66).

Gail Riplinger also adopted a variation of this same KJV-only argument. Riplinger contended that “the English Bible was ’purified seven times’ and that “the KJV is its seventh and final purification” (In Awe, p. 131). In her book, Riplinger maintained that “the English Bible’s seven purifications are covered, including, the Gothic, the Anglo-Saxon, the pre-Wycliffe, the Wycliffe, the Tyndale/Coverdale/Great/Geneva, the Bishops, and the King James Bible (p. 33) [see also pp. 131, 843, 852]. She proposed that “the KJV was the seventh polishing of the English Bible” (p. 137). This seems to be one of the main themes of her KJV-only book. Would it be acceptable KJV-only math and reasoning for four translations to be counted as one?

In your research do the alexandrian text and the majority text have vast amounts of differences? Do you believe the manuscripts agree at least 90% with each other? Where one differs from the other what guidelines are used to determine which one should be used?

 

[TCassidy]

In your research do the alexandrian text and the majority text have vast amounts of differences?

No. Differences of significance are rare.

Do you believe the manuscripts agree at least 90% with each other?

More than that. I would estimate 95+%. [Edit: I stand corrected. Dr. Robinson says 94% and I acknowledge his superior understanding of the issue.]

Where one differs from the other what guidelines are used to determine which one should be used?

That would depend on whether you were Alexandrian preferred or Byzantine Preferred. I am Byzantine Preferred so I accept the "reasoned transmissionalism" of Robinson/Pierpont in determining which variant is more likely to represent the original. "Reasoned transmissionalsim" uses many of the same methods of textual criticism as other critics use but applied to a broader scope of historical manuscript transmission. (I recommend "A Case for Byzantine Priority" by Dr. Maurice Robinson, available here Introduction to Robinson & Pierpont )

One of the first things that got me interested in the Byzantine textform was the copyright information which states "Anyone is permitted to copy and distribute this text or any portion of this text."

For the complete Introduction to the Byzantine Text see Introduction to Robinson & Pierpont

 

[Tim71]

Tha

No. Differences of significance are rare.

More than that. I would estimate 95+%. [Edit: I stand corrected. Dr. Robinson says 94% and I acknowledge his superior understanding of the issue.]

That would depend on whether you were Alexandrian preferred or Byzantine Preferred. I am Byzantine Preferred so I accept the "reasoned transmissionalism" of Robinson/Pierpont in determining which variant is more likely to represent the original. "Reasoned transmissionalsim" uses many of the same methods of textual criticism as other critics use but applied to a broader scope of historical manuscript transmission. (I recommend "A Case for Byzantine Priority" by Dr. Maurice Robinson, available here Introduction to Robinson & Pierpont )

One of the first things that got me interested in the Byzantine textform was the copyright information which states "Anyone is permitted to copy and distribute this text or any portion of this text."

For the complete Introduction to the Byzantine Text see Introduction to Robinson & Pierpont

Thank you so much TCassidy and Logos1560 I greatly appreciate the time and patience you have taken with me. I hope you feel comfortable where I'm coming from on this subject. I don't have any motives, other than just seeking the truth. Thank you again for pointing me In the right direction.

I just pray now God give me discernment and knowledge to sift through all this information. May I have a better understanding of the truths of how we have your words in todays translations. I know it's a big task. Working with a man who has limited knowledge to begin with. However I believe you placed men in my paths to give me understanding. If it's your will Lord give me wisdom to understand these things.

 

[robycop3]

First, the KJVOs got their "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie' from Dr. Wilkinson's book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated. the "foundation book" of the KJVO myth, although he didn't originate it.

Second, I believe the AV translators added the 2nd them to V7 to indicate plural persons, instead of the singulat him. Remember the footnote in the AV 1611 for this verse: "Heb. him, I euery one of them.".

 

[TCassidy]

First, the KJVOs got their "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie' from Dr. Wilkinson's book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated. the "foundation book" of the KJVO myth, although he didn't originate it.

Second, I believe the AV translators added the 2nd them to V7 to indicate plural persons, instead of the singulat him. Remember the footnote in the AV 1611 for this verse: "Heb. him, I euery one of them.".

Well, in Hebrew pronouns often do not stand alone but are a function of the verb. In this case we have two different indicators that are important.

First the verb/pronouns are masculine so must refer to the "afflicted" and the "needy" which are in the masculine plural while "words" is feminine so Case-Number-Gender don't match, and the verse ends with the referent to "them" in the masculine plural which refers back to the first half of the verse then singular in the second half of verse, which is rather typical of Hebrew poetry where the second half of the verse modifies (compliments or contradicts) the first half of the verse.

This switching between plural and singular establishes a rhythmic pattern that is very poetic.

Verse 3 - Part A: all flattering lips (plural)
Part B: the tongue (singular)
Verse 5 - Part A: afflicted, needy (plural)
Part B: him (singular)
Verse 6 - Part A: words (plural)
Part B: silver (singular)
Verse 7 - Part A: them (plural)
Part B: him (singular)

Hmmmmm. Did that make any sense?

 

[rlvaughn]

I know people who are KJVO.
They're helping me interpret some of the dialogue with TC.

I am personally KJVO. I would measure myself as a number 2 on the Baptist Board metrics. (Which I have been accused of being ignorant and not sane) I may not even know if that assessment is true.

I do believe that Gods word can be found in other translations. I personally believe the KJV has issues with it translations of scriptures.

Like anyone who is searching for truth. I want to know what God wants us to know and not what some man told us

OK. Thanks.

 

[Logos1560]

Is the KJV the seventh English translation?

David Cloud listed the KJV as number 9 on his list of the “unmatched heritage” of the KJV (Faith, p. 433). KJV defender David Norris asserted that “between 1526 and 1611, nine English translations of Scripture of significance were made” (Big Picture, p. 333). David Daniell observed: “There were ten new English versions of the Bible or New Testament between Tyndale’s first New Testament in 1526 and the famous King James or Authorised Version of 1611, and all were influential” (Bible in English, p. 126). KJV-only author D. A. Waite listed the KJV as being number 17 on his chronological list of complete English Bibles (Defending the KJB, p. 203).

Pre-1611 English Bibles would include the following: Wycliffe’s Bible (1388), Tyndale's New Testament (1526, 1534), Joyce's New Testament, Coverdale's Bible (1535), Matthew's Bible (1537), Coverdale's Latin-English New Testament (1538), Taverner's Bible (1539), the Great Bible (1539), Coverdale’s revision of Tyndale’s (1549), Bishop Becke's Bible (1551), Richard Jugge's New Testament (1552), Whittingham's New Testament (1557), Geneva Bible (1560), Bishops' Bible (1568), Lawrence Tomson's New Testament (1576), and Rheims New Testament (1582). In addition, there was more than one edition of many of these Bibles with some changes and revisions in them. The 1526 edition of Tyndale’s New Testament differs from his 1534 edition. The 1539 edition of the Great Bible has several differences with the 1540 edition of the Great Bible or with its 1541 edition. The Geneva Bible editions with the 1560 edition’s New Testament have a good number of differences when compared to the Geneva Bible editions with the 1576 Tomson’s New Testament. The 1568 edition of the Bishops' Bible has some differences when compared to the 1569 edition or to the 1572 edition. Each new English Bible was not always an improvement at every verse over the one before it so each was not always more purified than the prior one. Even those translations that may have been overall better than the previous one usually had a few renderings that were poorer or less accurate than those in the earlier Bible. Sometimes the next Bible in the line made some changes for the worse by adding words from the Latin Vulgate as in the case of the Great Bible. The 1568 Bishops' Bible was considered by many to be overall a poorer translation than the 1560 Geneva Bible, which also demonstrate that each later Bible was not more purified than the prior one.

 

[Tim71]

Well, in Hebrew pronouns often do not stand alone but are a function of the verb. In this case we have two different indicators that are important.

First the verb/pronouns are masculine so must refer to the "afflicted" and the "needy" which are in the masculine plural while "words" is feminine so Case-Number-Gender don't match, and the verse ends with the referent to "them" in the masculine plural which refers back to the first half of the verse then singular in the second half of verse, which is rather typical of Hebrew poetry where the second half of the verse modifies (compliments or contradicts) the first half of the verse.

This switching between plural and singular establishes a rhythmic pattern that is very poetic.

Verse 3 - Part A: all flattering lips (plural)
Part B: the tongue (singular)
Verse 5 - Part A: afflicted, needy (plural)
Part B: him (singular)
Verse 6 - Part A: words (plural)
Part B: silver (singular)
Verse 7 - Part A: them (plural)
Part B: him (singular)

Hmmmmm. Did that make any sense?

Is this statement being neutral on the interpretation of of the note at verse 7 in the KJV 1611?


I came across some articles that say the note at verse 7 in the 1611 supports their point (the "word" is being preserved NOT the needy)

Would it be grammatically impossible for (without a doubt) for them to say this? Are they being deceitful?

Here is what they say:

In verse 7. The margin note reads:

Heb. him, i.e. euery one of them.


So, it appears that even the KJV translators saw that the Hebrew word that they translated "preserve them" refers to the "him" - the "poor" and the "needy" in verse 5, instead of the "words" in verse 6. It seems they saw the misleading way a word-for-word English translation would sound, and thus wanted to clarify the actual meaning. Otherwise, why would they include the footnote? " (end of comments)


What should be pointed out is the fact that "the poor and needy" would then be PLURAL as well and not the singular "him", and the marginal note does NOT say "that is, the poor and the needy" but rather "that is, every one of them", thus referring back to the immediate context of "the words of the LORD".

 

[TCassidy]

Is this statement being neutral on the interpretation of of the note at verse 7 in the KJV 1611?

I am not sure what you mean by "neutral." It is understanding the verse using the historical grammatical hermeneutic, which most bible believers use.

I came across some articles that say the note at verse 7 in the 1611 supports their point (the "word" is being preserved NOT the needy)

Those articles were written by someone who either does not understand Hebrew grammar and syntax, or they are being deceitful.

Would it be grammatically impossible for (without a doubt) for them to say this?

Yes. It is impossible for the "them" to refer to the "words." Doing so would cause a gender discordance indicating God is too stupid to understand Hebrew grammar.

Are they being deceitful?

Possibly. Either that or ignorant.

What should be pointed out is the fact that "the poor and needy" would then be PLURAL as well and not the singular "him", and the marginal note does NOT say "that is, the poor and the needy" but rather "that is, every one of them", thus referring back to the immediate context of "the words of the LORD".

I dealt with that. Hebrew poetry, instead of using words that rhyme, as English poetry does, often uses number to produce a rhythm or cadence in the poem.

Verse 3 - Part A: all flattering lips (plural)
Part B: the tongue (singular)
Verse 5 - Part A: afflicted, needy (plural)
Part B: him (singular)
Verse 6 - Part A: words (plural)
Part B: silver (singular)
Verse 7 - Part A: them (plural)
Part B: him (singular)

 

[rsr]

I came across some articles that say the note at verse 7 in the 1611 supports their point (the "word" is being preserved NOT the needy)

Would it be grammatically impossible for (without a doubt) for them to say this? Are they being deceitful?

No, it is not impossible, but unlikely. I don't know if they are being deceitful; I prefer they think they are making a point but have no knowledge of the language and think the English takes precedence over the Hebrew.

I refer you to John Gill, a Baptist 18th-century pastor who was a devoted student of Hebrew and quite possibly the best Hebraist (aside from Hugh Broughton, who was intentionally rejected as a KJV translator, probably because he couldn't seem to get along with anyone) up to the point:

Psalms 12:7 Commentary - John Gill's Exposition of the Bible

What should be pointed out is the fact that "the poor and needy" would then be PLURAL as well and not the singular "him", and the marginal note does NOT say "that is, the poor and the needy" but rather "that is, every one of them", thus referring back to the immediate context of "the words of the LORD".

This is attempting to impose English grammatical standards on Hebrew. It doesn't work. Most of those who are attempting to make the argument, alas, probably know not a whit about Hebrew.

In any case, even if the Psalms reference is referring to the words of the Lord, how do you know that the text underlying the KJV represents what is being preserved?

 

[robycop3]

The whole argument about the meaning of Psalm 12:7 is a KJVO thing. KJVOs want to use this as a "proof verse' supporting their doctrine, but they're WRONG.

For the sake of discussion, let's say Psalm 12:6-7 actually is about word preservation and nothing else. OK, WHERE DOES IT MENTION THE KJV OR ANY OTHER ENGLISH BIBLE TRANSLATION?????????? For that matter, where does Psalm 12 mention such translations?

Taking it even farther, WHERE DOES THE KJV ITSELF SUPPORT KJVO????

It's Only Make-Believe
-Conway Twitty

 

[Logos1560]

There are problems with the KJV-only purification process interpretation of Psalm 12:6 [purified seven times].

Since each new English Bible was not always an improvement at every verse over the one before it, the next one was not completely more purified and more accurate than the prior one. Was the rendering "penance" found in the 1535 Coverdale's Bible at Matthew 3:8, 12:41, Luke 10:13, 11:32, 15:7, 10, 16:30, Acts 3:19 and 26:20 more purified or more accurate than Tyndale’s? Even those translations that may have been overall better than the previous one usually had a few renderings that were poorer or less accurate than those in the earlier Bible. Sometimes the next Bible in the line made some changes by adding words from the Latin Vulgate as in the case of the Great Bible. In several additions from the Latin Vulgate including three whole verses in Psalm 14, the Great Bible has over one hundred words in the book of Psalms that are not in the KJV. Because of additions from the Latin Vulgate, the Great Bible also has over one hundred words in one New Testament book (Acts) which are not found in the KJV (check Acts 4:25, 4:27, 5:15, 13:30, 14:7, 15:34c, 15:41c, 18:4, 23:24c, 24:17). Were the significant textual additions from the Latin Vulgate in the Great Bible changes towards more purity or changes for the worse? The 1568 Bishops' Bible was considered by many to be overall a poorer translation than the 1560 Geneva Bible. The Bishops’ Bible has a number of added explanatory words and phrases (likely over 200 words) with many of them not kept in the KJV. Actual facts from the pre-1611 English Bibles would demonstrate that each later English Bible was not more purified than the prior one, which would contradict a claimed purification process.

 

[robycop3]

Some people, especially some KJVOs, forget that Psalm 12:6 **COMPARES** the purity of God's words to silver purified seven times, which, even by ancient methods, made silver so pure as to make any impurities left in it undetectable by ordinary methods.

It does NOT describe any purification of God's words at all. It states they ARE pure.

 

[SheepWhisperer]

1. 
   1. I believe the word of God is always pure - it doesn't need purification. How pure is the word of God? As pure as silver tried seven times in a furnace of fire.
   
   Ps 12:6 The words of the LORD ARE pure words...
   - not "will be" pure words after a seven fold purification process.
   
   Ps 119:140 Thy word IS very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.
   - God's word IS always pure - it is in fact incorruptible (1P 1:22-24).
   
   Pr 30:5 Every word of God IS pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
   - Whenever and where ever God speaks you can be sure that every word IS pure.
   
   Verse seven is a little bit tougher for me to interpret. Mainly because I have a hard time identifying what the pronoun is referring to, is it the godly man, the poor and needy, his words, his promises?. Seems like it could go both ways in English and Polish. The marginal note in my "THE " KJV says, Heb. him. the Spanish has "los" (masculine not "las") Coverdale has "preserve us", Bishops has "thou wylt kepe the godly, O God: thou wylt preserue euery one of them", etc. Many good godly men differ on the interpretation of this passage. I find all of their argument compelling.
   
   I can take it either way. I will say once again that Scriptural preservation is not about preserving word counts, jot and tittles, word order, etc. I came to this conclusion for several reasons:
   
   1) The exact finger of God copy of the 10 Commandments became the habitat of worms after Moses crushed them at the foot of the mountain Ex 31:18, 32:15-16,19). It is not preserved.
   
   2) God made another copy (Ex 34:1-4) like unto the first copy. That copy is no longer extant - it is not preserved - at least not anywhere that is useful to the Church of God. And if preservation isn't about practical availability to the Church of God in all matters of faith and practice then I'm not interested in it. I'll let the theologians in Seminary jump through their theological hoops and gnat strainers, I'm too busy preaching the word of God and building up the Church of Christ.
   
   3) Moses & Joshua both made copies of the law. None of those copies are extant - they are NOT preserved.
   
   - As to points 1 - 3 please try and determine the exact word count, word order, with jot and tittle precision and try and tell me: Was the finger of God copy of the 10 Commandment more like the list in Exodus 20or more like the list in Deut. 5? Note the DIFFERENCES!
   
   4) Jehudi took the words of God and burned them (Jeremiah Jr 37:23)! They were NOT preserved! Ok, I know, Baruch wrote from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the book which Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire (Jr 37:18), but did you notice that the WORD COUNT CHANGED, because we read, "there were added besides unto them many like words" (Jr 37:18). The word count was NOT PRESERVED in its original form it was added unto!
   
   5) None of the original copies of Moses, Joshua, Ezra, the prophets, etc. are preserved they are in fact no longer extant. None of Gospels, Paul's epistles, or Peter and John's original writings are preserved. They are no longer extant - not preserved.
   
   6) It sure looks like Hezekiah's men added unto the book of Proverbs (Proverbs 25:1). That produced a DIFFERENCE in word count and added a whole lot of jots and tittles.
   
   7) Entire books including the entire New Testament have been added to the words of God since David supposedly got the promise of preservation in Ps 12:6-7; this in spite of the admonition of Solomon, "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." Proverbs 30:5-6.
   
   8) Rarely do the quotes of the Old Testament as found in the New Testament match.
   
   9) Jesus (Luke 4) and the Eunuch (Acts 8) both read from the Book of Isaiah and the text that they read from doesn't match any extant book of Isaiah in any language - not Hebrew, not Greek, not Latin, and not English! They are in fact DIFFERENT! The Scriptures that Jesus and the Eunuch read from are in fact no longer extant! That goes for Timothy's Holy Scriptures as well!
   
   10) I've asked, begged, pleaded, implored, and beseeched the brethren, who insist that David was promised that God's words would be preserved in every generation, to produce any one copy of the Reformer's multiple translations in any language that they believe demonstrates this preservation; so that I could compare it to "THE" KJV in my hand and see what kind of preservation they are talking about. After all preservation "from this generation for ever" (Ps 12:7) has to include all the generations prior to 1611 and pass through the Reformers. The Reformer's Bibles are EXTANT - preserved!!! Here are the responses I've gotten:
   
   1) I do not believe there is or ever was a complete and inerrant Bible either before or after the KJB.
   - A flat out denial of preservation in every generation.
   
   2) All of the pure, perfect, true, inerrant copies of the Reformer's Bibles were burned up by Roman Catholics! All that remain are corrupted versions of Luther, Tyndale, Coverdale, Valera, Huss, Wycliffe, the Czech (Moravians), Polish, Spanish, German, French, Italian, Dutch, Russian, etc.
   - Ah, excuse me, burned up and preserved are mutually exclusive!
   
   3) I wasn't alive back then i only know what I know today. I know that the KJV in my hand is exactly pure, perfect, true and inerrant down to the jot and tittle and any version or edition that doesn't match it jot and tittle is corrupt.
   - Ah, they weren't alive in 1611 yet they believe the KJV was translated perfectly in 1611.
   - Double ah, the 1611 edition doesn't match THE KJV in their hand - certainly not jot and tittle.
   - Triple, ah, we have the EXTANT (preserved) editions of the Reformers many of them are still being read, believed, received, preached and lived today.
   
   Preservation has never been about preserving jots and tittles, word counts, word order, orthography, etc. Scriptural preservation should never be compared to grandpa's coin collection "preserved" down in the vaults at 1st National Bank & Trust Jerusalem where every "generation" can come and take a peek at the exact same mint condition coins. No, that type of preservation doesn't fit the Scriptures or history! Scriptural preservation is more like grandma's pickles where the nutritional value is preserved even though the form (jots, tittles, word counts, etc.) changes.
   
   Mark this phrase down and keep it in your little black book:
   
   In the form that God wants each generation and language to have.

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.


1325-75; Middle English preserven < Medieval Latin praeservāre to guard( Late Latin: to observe), equivalent to Latin prae- pre- + servāre to watchover, keep, preserve, observe

late 14c., "keep safe," from Anglo-French preservare, Old Frenchpreserver, from Medieval Latin preservare "keep, preserve," from LateLatin praeservare "guard beforehand," from Latin prae "before" (see pre- ) + servare "to keep safe" (see observe ). As a treatment of fruit, etc.,1570s; of organic bodies from 1610s. Related: Preserved ; preserving.

If God's word were not "preserved", how do we know that the story of Jesus is true? Right there in your King James Bible, God has given us English speakers the assurance that He is well able to "keep safe" His words from corruption so that even thousands of years after they were first written down, we all might have the opportunity know Him. He has done it for other languages as well.

 

[Logos1560]

If God's word were not "preserved", how do we know that the story of Jesus is true? Right there in your King James Bible, God has given us English speakers the assurance that He is well able to "keep safe" His words from corruption so that even thousands of years after they were first written down, we all might have the opportunity know Him.

By what consistent scriptural reasoning do you suggest that God's word has to be preserved perfectly in one of the varying editions of the KJV? The Scriptures were translated into English many years before 1611 so was God's word preserved perfectly in one of the pre-1611 English Bibles? Why would God wait until 1611 to preserve His Word in English?

Would the consistent, sound teaching concerning preservation of the Scriptures be that the preservation concerns the actual exact specific original-language words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles?
In translating, Bible translators add many words and omit providing an English word for some original-language words so a Bible translation does not have the same exact words that were given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles and a Bible translation does not have the same number of words.
The Scriptures do not suggest that words added by men in translating would be preserving the exact, specific words that proceeded out of the mouth of God.

Do the KJV-only claims of some suggest that God failed to preserve the actual specific original-language words He gave by inspiration well enough so that those preserved words remain the proper standard and authority for the trying of all Bible translations?

 

[TCassidy]

If God's word were not "preserved"

Nobody has claimed God's word has not been preserved. Why are you changing the subject? Is it because, once again, you have been proven wrong but lack the character to admit it?

 

[robycop3]

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.


1325-75; Middle English preserven < Medieval Latin praeservāre to guard( Late Latin: to observe), equivalent to Latin prae- pre- + servāre to watchover, keep, preserve, observe

late 14c., "keep safe," from Anglo-French preservare, Old Frenchpreserver, from Medieval Latin preservare "keep, preserve," from LateLatin praeservare "guard beforehand," from Latin prae "before" (see pre- ) + servare "to keep safe" (see observe ). As a treatment of fruit, etc.,1570s; of organic bodies from 1610s. Related: Preserved ; preserving.

If God's word were not "preserved", how do we know that the story of Jesus is true? Right there in your King James Bible, God has given us English speakers the assurance that He is well able to "keep safe" His words from corruption so that even thousands of years after they were first written down, we all might have the opportunity know Him. He has done it for other languages as well.

Have you not read all the posts in this thread explaining those verses are NOT about word preservation? And what about the footnote for the 2nd them in Ps. 12:7 which reads "Heb. him, I. euery one of them."

And WHERE does Psalm 12 mention the KJV by the least quark of the slightest implication????????????

No Christian, especially Baptists, deny God has preserved His word.

And this thread, nor countless ones like it in umpteen hundred other domains would exist if not for the false KJVO myth trying to add new meanings to some of God's word.

 

[SheepWhisperer]

"KJV onlyist?" I thought REAL "KJVonlyists" believe that the King James is the only true word of God in any language and even, go so far as to say that it is "double inspired"? No? If not, my bad. But I never said it was "inspired" at all: I just believe God was faithful in His providence to "preserve" an accurate copy for English speaking people. That's why I said........*.

.................... He has done it for other languages as well.

 

[TCassidy]

"KJV onlyist?" I thought REAL "KJVonlyists" believe that the King James is the only true word of God in any language and even, go so far as to say that it is "double inspired"? No? If not, my bad.

Please direct your attention to: Baptist Debate Forums (Baptist Only)> Bible Versions & Translations>Definitions of KJV Only which is a sticky giving the various definitions of KJVO for the purposes of discussion on the Baptist Board. Please familiarize yourself with them.

 

[HankD]

Hi Tim,

I am a former KJVO but now KJVP (preferred).

Even at that I need to say that I am TRP (Textus Receptus Preferred) - Scrivener 1894 who made a distillation of the several contemporary TR's of the KJV translators to stand behind the beautiful Elizabethan-Jacobean English used by the KJV translators.

A TR that is probably 99% equivalent of the Byzantine considering the volume of words.

There is nothing wrong with the KJB, the preferred bible of the English speaking world for about 250 years.

But Tim you have to live with the provable fact that the KJV translators did not have the power of prophet/apostle inspiration at any level as Peter Ruckman suggested.

As you continue to educate yourself in the history of the bible you will see that God has indeed preserved His word.
Scribal errors are not God's fault and almost everyone of them is repairable and is shown in the provided apparatus.

A few you will need to pray and study the facts : e.g. 1 john 5:7 and decide for yourself.

Just being honest Tim.

God bless you in your endeavor :

NIV 2 Timothy 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

HankD