Please provide scriptural support for KJVOism.

[Johnv]

This is not intended to be a thread of arguments, and I'm asking people to refraim from arguing, trolling, spamming, or flaming.

I'm asking for scriptural support for KJVOism. If anyone can provide scritural support, I will accept KJVOism as biblically sound.

 

[robycop3]

Good luck, Johnv! I've asked this Q umpteen hundred times since 1981 with NO legitimate replies except where some lamely quote "Psalm 12:6-7".

 

[Harold Garvey]

make a deal with you?

Show me where in the Bible it supports tearing down the very thing the LORD holds above his very name, then show me why we shouldn't hold the highest standard for having His word in our tongue which reflects the best we can come up with?

Of course the [personal attack] will not agree that Psalm 138 is the answer to this folly of a topic.

Knowing the intent of the people termed as KJVO, this Psalm justifies them.:1_grouphug::sleeping_2::smilewinkgrin::tongue3:

 

[Trotter]

I'm asking people to refraim from arguing, trolling, spamming, or flaming.

Too late, brother.

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

I'm asking for scriptural support for KJVOism. If anyone can provide scritural support, I will accept KJVOism as biblically sound.

well, over on another board, there's a KJBO who's trying to justify his admitted LACK of scriptural support by:

1. claiming a Presuppositional Approach (trying to channel Van Til?!), an approach a.k.a. proof by bombast, and

2. comparing KJBOist fideism to our faith in the NT canon.
​

nice try, i say!

 

[annsni]

make a deal with you?

Show me where in the Bible it supports tearing down the very thing the LORD holds above his very name, then show me why we shouldn't hold the highest standard for having His word in our tongue which reflects the best we can come up with?

Of course the agnostic versionist will not agree that Psalm 138 is the answer to this folly of a topic.

Knowing the intent of the people termed as KJVO, this Psalm justifies them.:1_grouphug::sleeping_2::smilewinkgrin::tongue3:

So let's see - you're saying Psalm 138 supports KJVO?

1I will praise thee with my whole heart: before the gods will I sing praise unto thee.

2I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

3In the day when I cried thou answeredst me, and strengthenedst me with strength in my soul.

4All the kings of the earth shall praise thee, O LORD, when they hear the words of thy mouth.

5Yea, they shall sing in the ways of the LORD: for great is the glory of the LORD.

6Though the LORD be high, yet hath he respect unto the lowly: but the proud he knoweth afar off.

7Though I walk in the midst of trouble, thou wilt revive me: thou shalt stretch forth thine hand against the wrath of mine enemies, and thy right hand shall save me.

8The LORD will perfect that which concerneth me: thy mercy, O LORD, endureth for ever: forsake not the works of thine own hands.

King James Version (KJV)


Nope. Don't see it there.

 

[Trotter]

I figured Psalm 12, esp. 12:6...

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.

King James Version (KJV)

Strange... as often as I have heard that claim, I still don't see anything about the KJV there either.

 

[robycop3]

Harold Garvey: make a deal with you?

if it aint a pig in a poke.

Show me where in the Bible it supports tearing down the very thing the LORD holds above his very name,

It does NOT mention the KJV by the slightest implication, and also there's another mistranslation there. It SHOULD read "along with His name".


then show me why we shouldn't hold the highest standard for having His word in our tongue which reflects the best we can come up with?

That's why God has caused His word to appear in OUR English.

Of course the [personal attack] will not agree that Psalm 138 is the answer to this folly of a topic.

Right-we Freedom Readers DON'T, cuz it's NOT the answer, simple as that. Just WHERE does it mention the KJV or support KJVO? And the topic is a folly ONLY to those who know they CANNOT provide any Scriptural support for KJVO but wanna hold on to that man-made doctrine anyway.

Note to Trotter: The ONLY reason KJVOs bring up the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie" as being supportive of KJVO is because Dr. Wilkinson's book, the foundation stone for the current KJVO doctrine, sez it is. They have blindly accepted the word of a 7TH DAY ADVENTIST official without bothering to check out the FACTS & applying a little COMMON SENSE.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... Note to Trotter: The ONLY reason KJVOs bring up the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie" as being supportive of KJVO is because Dr. Wilkinson's book, the foundation stone for the current KJVO doctrine, sez it is. They have blindly accepted the word of a 7TH DAY ADVENTIST official without bothering to check out the FACTS & applying a little COMMON SENSE.

Roby, what are some examples of pre-Wilkinson sermons or commentaries (such as Matthew Henry) that address Psalm 12:7 "them" as being people?

 

[Johnv]

Of course the [personal attack] will not agree that Psalm 138 is the answer to this folly of a topic.

I'm looking at a copy of the Textus Receptus right now, and am reading that verse in its original tongue. Where in the TR does this verse (or any verse) refer to a specific translation?

 

[rsr]

Roby, what are some examples of pre-Wilkinson sermons or commentaries (such as Matthew Henry) that address Psalm 12:7 "them" as being people?

Well, there's John Gill:

[SIZE=+1][FONT=Times New Roman,Times][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1]Ver. 7. Thou shall keep them, O Lord[SIZE=+1],.... Not the words before mentioned, as Aben Ezra explains it, for the affix is masculine and not feminine; not but God has wonderfully kept and preserved the sacred writings; and he keeps every word of promise which he has made; and the doctrines of the Gospel will always continue from one generation to another; but the sense is, that God will keep the poor and needy, and such as he sets in safety, as Kimchi rightly observes: they are not their own keepers, but God is the keeper of them; he keeps them by his power, and in his Son, in whose hands they are, and who is able to keep them from falling; they are kept by him from a total and final falling away; from the dominion and damning power of sin, and from being devoured by Satan, and from the evil of the world: and this the psalmist had good reason to believe, because of the love of God to them, his covenant with them, and the promises of safety and salvation he has made unto them;

thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]; or "thou shalt preserve him"; that is, everyone of the poor and needy, from the wicked generation of men in which they live, from being corrupted or intimidated by them; and who are described in the beginning of the psalm. Some take these words to be a prayer, "keep thou them, O Lord, and preserve them", &c.; and so the following words may be thought to be a reason or argument enforcing the request.[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]

Or Adam Clarke:

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Verse 7. Thou shalt keep them-thou shalt preserve them ] Instead of the pronoun them in these clauses, several MSS., with the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the Arabic, have us. The sense is equally good in both readings. God did bring forth the Israelites from Babylon, according to his word; he separated them from that generation. and reinstated them in their own land, according to his word; and most certainly he has preserved them from generation to generation to the present day, in a most remarkable manner. [/FONT]

Or Matthew Henry:

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva] Thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. This intimates that, as long as the world stands, there will be a generation of proud and wicked men in it, more or less, who will threaten by their wretched arts to ruin religion, by wearing out the saints of the Most High, Dan. 7:25. But let God alone to maintain his own interest and to preserve his own people. He will keep them from this generation, (1.) From being debauched by them and drawn away from God, from mingling with them and learning their works. In times of general apostasy the Lord knows those that are his, and they shall be enabled to keep their integrity. (2.) From being destroyed and rooted out by them. The church is built upon a rock, and so well fortified that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. In the worst of times God has his remnant, and in every age will reserve to himself a holy seed and preserve that to his heavenly kingdom. In singing this psalm, and praying it over, we must bewail the general corruption of manners, thank God that things are not worse than they are, but pray and hope that they will be better in God’s due time.

Maybe Spurgeon:

[/FONT]To fall into the hands of an evil generation, so as to be baited by their cruelty, or polluted by their influence, is an evil to be dreaded beyond measure; but it is an evil foreseen and provided for in the text. In life many a saint has lived a hundred years before his age, as though he had darted his soul into the brighter future, and escaped the mists of the beclouded present: he has gone to his grave unreverenced and misunderstood, and lo! as generations come and go, upon a sudden the hero is unearthed, and lives in the admiration and love of the excellent of the earth; preserved for ever from the generation which stigmatised him as a sower of sedition, or burned him as a heretic. It should be our daily prayer that we may rise above our age as the mountain-tops above the clouds, and may stand out as heaven-pointing pinnacle high above the mists of ignorance and sin which roll around us. O Eternal Spirit, fulfil in us the faithful saying of this verse! Our faith believes those two assuring words, and cries, "Thou shalt," "thou shalt."

Augustine:

“Thou, O Lord, shalt preserve us, and keep us from this generation to eternity” (ver. 7): here as needy and poor, there as wealthy and rich.

Calvin:

Some give this exposition of the passage, Thou wilt keep them, namely, thy words;javascript:toggle('fnf_xviii.iv-p6.2'); but this does not seem to me to be suitable.javascript:toggle('fnf_xviii.iv-p7.1'); David, I have no doubt, returns to speak of the poor, of whom he had spoken in the preceding part of the psalm.

 

[Johnv]

I've got two separate translations open to Psalm 138. Can someone tell me how, in either of these translations, the passage is referring to the KJV, or, for that matter, any translation?

 

[Salty]

KJO Scripture support Part II

In order not to hijack Johnv thread on "Please provide scriptural support for KJVOism" I am starting this one.

Many of the answers on Johns thread was from the Old Testament. How could writings from 400 BC and before be used to justify preserving the KJV 1611?

Another words, how can a version written int he 17th century be "preserved" in the 2nd - 16 th centuries?

This is not a facetious thread, I am honestly seeking an honest answer.

 

[Harold Garvey]

I'm looking at a copy of the Textus Receptus right now, and am reading that verse in its original tongue. Where in the TR does this verse (or any verse) refer to a specific translation?

It refers to the word of God.

Agnosticism is a behavorial pattern associated with denial.

[off topic]

Emotionalism doesn't do much concerning sound reason.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Harold Garvey]

Well, there's John Gill:



Or Adam Clarke:



Or Matthew Henry:



Maybe Spurgeon:


[/I]
Augustine:



Calvin:

And each would agree the poor and needy are kept by the word of God.:thumbsup: [off topic]

 

[Harold Garvey]

I've got two separate translations open to Psalm 138. Can someone tell me how, in either of these translations, the passage is referring to the KJV, or, for that matter, any translation?

All one has to do is consider each verse in context as it is found within the KJV and they can see for themselves.

Of course confusion steps in as one consults other versions to see what they arlready have in front of them.:smilewinkgrin:

I knew Ps 138 would stump you.

 

[Harold Garvey]

In order not to hijack Johnv thread on "Please provide scriptural support for KJVOism" I am starting this one.

Many of the answers on Johns thread was from the Old Testament. How could writings from 400 BC and before be used to justify preserving the KJV 1611?

Another words, how can a version written int he 17th century be "preserved" in the 2nd - 16 th centuries?

This is not a facetious thread, I am honestly seeking an honest answer.

Could it be the 1611 holds true to the earlier Bibles in earlier times as well? YES!

Here comes the contentious:smilewinkgrin:

 

[sag38]

You answered your own question not with Biblical proof, nor historical proof, but with your opinion. How about some proof to back up your position instad of accusing those who disagree with you of being contentious?

 

[Salty]

Thats what I'm asking, show me a Biblical reference (as John also asked) that makes the KJV the only inspired version. And my statemen was a lot more than just an opinion - it is a fact.

 

[Thermodynamics]

There is no Biblical support for a specific translation to be found anywhere in the canon of Scripture unless one is willing to twist and turn such Scripture.

The job of a Christian I believe should be to support and share the doctrine found in Scripture and to spread the good news that Christ has come and has died for our sins. It is not our job to defend a translation or set of manuscripts and Christ never charged us with preserving Scripture, He has promised to do that for us.

Having said that I do believe that a Christian should want to find a good, accurate translation that is based on sound manuscripts. For that reason I believe that the study (and debate) of translations and manuscripts is a good and healthy exercise, it is just not something that should take up the majority of our time and energy. I also believe that it is better to have a so-so translation based on less accurate manuscripts that you will read than it is to have a great translation based on the most sound manuscripts that you will not read.