Psalm 12:6

robycop3 · Feb 9, 2005

The thread about both Psalms, 12:6 and 7, was closed because it had wandered off topic. It closed with the KJVOs having NO reply to the fact that the KJV translators believed Ps.12:7 to be about PEOPLE, and that the view that it's about God's WORDS was first widely publicized by the dishonest KJVO authors named many times previously. Therefore, we must conclude that the KJVO view is wrong. (Any KJVO believing otherwise, please feel free to start another thread advocating your views.)

Now, may we discuss Psalm 12:6? There's also an incorrect KJVO view of this verse, claiming the KJV is the culmination of the purifying process, a process in which God needed 7 tries to get His word right.

Let's look at the verse, as written in the KJV:

"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." (The NKJV reads, "LIKE silver...")

Notice that David said, "*ARE* pure words". He THEN compared God's words with highly-refined silver. He says NOTHING about any purification process for God's words.

Unbelievably, a highly-educated man, Dr. Lawrence Vance, is among those who hold this absolutely-incorrect view of V6. The words in the KJV couldn't be plainer in any other translation, showing David was COMPARING God's words with the purest physical precious thing he knew of. To me, if anyone states this verse shows God's words were refined 7 times, this person either has problems comprehending written English...or is deliberately telling a lie. Given Dr. Vance's education, which do you believe HE did? (I mention Dr. Vance because another member cited him as an authority and advocate of the KJVO myth. Dr. Vance's article is pasted into the now-closed "psalms 12:6-7" thread.)

In summary, the KJVO view that God's word had to be purified seven times is a 3rd-degree humbug.

May we keep the posts in this thread limited to the subject of Psalm 12:6 and the various views of what it's telling us?

David J · Feb 9, 2005

Even if KJVO distortions are right about Psalm 12:6 the whole 7 times process is seriously flawed. If the Lord’s words required seven times to get them right when did this process start? How do we know if the KJV(1611-1873,1982NKJV, MKJV, KJ21, and TMB) is the finished product? Since it is impossible for KJVOist to logically answer us we must assume that God meant what He said when He said His words ARE PURE WORDS therefore not needing to be refined. Evidence in Psalm 12 proves this KJVO claim to be a lie.

Psa 12:6,” The wordes of the Lord are pure wordes, as the siluer, tried in a fornace of earth, fined seuen folde.” 1599 Geneva Bible

Seems as though there is a problem with the KJVO 7 times process. KJVOist are telling God that He did not mean what He said in this verse.

KJVO interpretation would read like this:

Psalm 12:6,” The wordes of the Lord are pure words waiting to be refined seuen times ultimately ending up as the 1769 KJV, as the siluer, tried in a furnace of earth, fined seuen folde.” KJVO Geneva Bible circa 1930

It’s amazing how some KJVOist will even try to change the structure of the English language in order to defend the KJVO myths.

robycop3 · Feb 9, 2005

I believe MOST of those who say this verse refers to the REFINING of God's word understand the English perfectly well and are trying to pass on a FRAUD perpetrated by the originators of the current KJVO myth. Why? Because they need some EXCUSE for the fact of the existence of several English versions, which they don't wanna deny as being God's word in the face of His preservation of His word. The fact that God HAS preserved His word in English in several versions BEFORE the AV is a kick in the teeth of the KJVO myth, so they attempt to justify it by saying it took God seven attempts to FINALLY get His word right, His purification process culminating in the AV 1611.

If that were so, then ANY alteration whatsoever in the AV 1611 would be LESS than pure, right? Therefore, all subsequent editions would be impure.

I cannot think of any other basis for giving an incorrect meaning for a plain-as-day verse except to attempt to pass on a fraud and sell more books.

av1611jim · Feb 9, 2005

I cannot think of any other basis for giving an incorrect meaning for a plain-as-day verse except to attempt to pass on a fraud and sell more books.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roby;
That is unless of course that "plain as day" interpretation is not as you and yours see it. To us it is plain as day that the passage is talking about the WORDS of God. Not the PEOPLE of God. I also question the need to "seven times" purify God's words. I would agree that they are pure to begin with. With that thought in mind,I would submit that it took English translators seven trie to get it right.
Question:
How MANY times are the modern translators going to try before they are satisfied?
WE are satisfied with the KJV. For us, that settles it. Though I admit, some of the folks in my camp DO stretch some verses to explain what is plain to us to the satisfaction of our doubters.
Nevertheless, the explainations ARE satisfactory to many who are looking for a FINAL AUTHORITY they can point to and say "Thus saith the Lord." And strangely, that is IN SPITE of the apparent problems with the position.
Weird huh? It is almost like explaining one's faith in the Bible (any Bible) to an unbeliever.

In HIS service;
Jim

natters · Feb 9, 2005

Originally posted by av1611jim:
With that thought in mind,I would submit that it took English translators seven trie to get it right.
Click to expand...

KJV-only author lists all the English translations prior to 1991. The KJV is 17th on the list, or 29th if you including Bibles that were just the NT.

How MANY times are the modern translators going to try before they are satisfied?
Click to expand...

That's not how, or why, it works. But supposing it was, what if someone asked that in 1605, and the KJV translators said "Ya, you're right, let's forget this project."

Nevertheless, the explainations ARE satisfactory to many who are looking for a FINAL AUTHORITY they can point to and say "Thus saith the Lord."
Click to expand...

But I question the need to make any single exclusive translation the "final authority" in the first place - for that implies that there must be a singular "final authority", which in turn implies that a "final authority" must have existed in 1605, from which the KJV deviated. Get it? How is that "preservation"? How was that "final"?

Pastor_Bob · Feb 9, 2005

I've posted this information in the past; I apologize that I could not find a link to offer. Here are a few excerpts to consider regarding this issue taken from Way of Life's website.

THE GENIUS OF AMBIGUITY--The Translational and Exegetical Rendering of Psalm 12:7 Primarily Considered in the Churchly Tradition of the 16th And 17th Centuries and Its Expression in the Reformation English Bibles, By Peter Van Kleeck

"The appropriate interpretation of Psalm 12:7 is not without question in the churchly tradition. Problems arise from the textual base chosen for the translation, Greek-Latin or Hebrew ... Contemporary Bible versions and the reciprocating confirmation of each other's validity give the dogmatic impression that as a result of new and better methodologies, the modern rendering is best and that past problems have been resolved. A casual perusal of the popular literature on the subject of Bible texts and versions will show, however, that the Reformational Churches' expression of their common faith in Scripture's providential preservation of the texts in their possession is evaluated in an unsympathetic and pejorative manner. Scholars such as Bruce M. Metzger and Kurt Aland discredit the value of the Reformation Greek texts and subsequently the English Bibles on textual grounds. Metzger, giving a standard reply, writes,

"Partly because of this catchword [Textus Receptus] the form of the Greek text incorporated in the editions that Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzevirs had published succeeded in establishing itself as 'the only true text' of the New Testament, and was slavishly reprinted in hundreds of subsequent editions. It lies at the basis of the King James Version and of all the principal Protestant translations in the languages of Europe prior to 1881. So superstitious has been the reverence accorded the Textus Receptus that in some cases attempts to criticize or emend it have been regarded as akin to sacrilege" (Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, Oxford University Press, 1968, p. 106).

"What these writers fail to say is that the Authorized Version is not an ad hoc English translation, but stands at the end of the 16th century English Bible tradition. ... To deny the Authorized Version on textual grounds is to do the same for the Bishops, Geneva, Great, Coverdale, Matthews and Tyndale Bibles going back to 1524. It also questions the scholarship of the Protestant exiles of Mary's romanish persecution who had escaped to the safe haven of Geneva as well as the value of every 16th and 17th century commentator who based his work on Erasmus' Greek New Testament.

"The bifurcation of the Reformation Bible tradition and the post-19th century English Bibles is seen in the New Revised Standard Version render[ing of] Psalm 12:7, "You O Lord, will protect us; you will guard us from this generation forever." In a similar manner, the New International Version translates verse 7, "O Lord, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever." In spite of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia reading "keep them" and "preserve him," both the NRSV and NIV have elected not to translate the Hebrew and have, in its place, substituted a translation from the Greek and Latin rendering of these two pronouns. By so doing, the editors of these translations have endorsed one exegetical tradition, the Greek- Latin, to the exclusion of the other, the Hebraic, and by doing so have censured any further debate within the Hebrew exegetical tradition itself. ...

"This essay will show the diversity of the textual and exegetical tradition of Psalm 12:6-7 ... By so doing, the inadequacy of modern renditions of Psalm 12:7 will be exposed...

"Michael Ayguan (1340-1416) ... On Psalm 12:7 Ayguan comments, Keep them: that is, not as the passage is generally taken, Keep or guard Thy people, but Thou shalt keep, or make good, Thy words: and by doing so, shalt preserve him--him, the needy, him, the poor--from this generation...

"Martin Luther's German Bible ... Following the arrangement of this Psalm, Luther penned a hymn, two stanzas of which reflect his understanding of verse 6 and 7: ... "Thy truth thou wilt preserve, O Lord, from this vile generation..." In poetic form, Luther grasps the significance of this verse both for the preservation of those who are oppressed and for the Word of God. The two-pronged significance of this interpretation to both people and God's words in Luther's Psalter was to have wide-ranging significance in the English Bible tradition.

"Calvin's Commentary on the Psalms ... in the body of the commentary he writes, 'Some give this exposition of the passage, Thou wilt keep them, namely, thy words; but this does not seem to me to be suitable." [Thus while Calvin did not believe Psalm 12:7 referred to the Word of God, he admits that others did hold this view in his day.]

"Coverdale Bible, 1535 ... reads for [verse 7] of Psalm 12: "Keep them therefore (O Lord) and preserve us from this generation for ever." With the absence of "Thou shalt" to begin verse 7, there is a direct connection between 'words' and 'keep them.' In the first clause, Coverdale intended the words to be kept; in the second clause people are in view..."

"The Matthew Bible 1537. ... In Psalm 12:67 Rogers translated, "The words of the Lord are pure words as the silver, which from the earth is tried and purified vii times in the fire. Keep them therefore (O Lord) and preserve us from this generation for ever." Following Coverdale, Rogers makes a clear connection in his translation between the words being the antecedent to "them." ... The significance of Roger's marginal note is that two of the greatest Hebrew scholars referred to by the Reformation writers differed on the interpretation of "them" in Psalms 12:7. [Thus we see that the interpretation of this verse was also divided among Jewish scholars.]

"The Third Part of the Bible, 1550. Taken from Becke's text of 1549 this edition of the scriptures contains the Psalter, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs. ... In verse 7 there is a note at them which states, 'some understand here certain men, some others word." Again, the translators and exegetes allowed breadth of interpretation of "them" to include people and words.

"The Geneva Bible, 1560. ... The preface reads, "Then comforting himself and others with the assurance of God's help, he commendeth the constant vigil that God observeth in keeping his promises." The text reads, "The words of the Lord are pure words, as the silver, tried in a furnace of earth, fined seven fold. Thou wilt keep them, O Lord: Thou wilt preserve him from this generation forever." [The margin reads, "Because the Lords word and promise is true and unchangeable, he will perform it and preserve the poor from this wicked generation." Thus the Geneva took a position that verse 7 applies both to the preservation of the Bible and of God's people.]

"Annotations by Henry Ainsworth, 1626. Briggs commends Ainsworth as the "prince of Puritan commentators" and that his commentary on the Psalms is a "monument of learning." ... Ainsworth states that "the sayings" [of Psalm 12:7] are "words" or "promises" that are "tried" or "examined" "as in a fire." He cross references the reader to Psalm 18:31; 119:140; and Proverbs 30:5, each reference having to do with the purity of the word.

"Matthew Poole's 1685 Commentary of the Psalms ... writes at verse seven, "Thou shalt keep them; either, 1. The poor and needy, ver. 5 ... Or, 2. Thy words or promises last mentioned, ver. 6. ...

"In summary ... [t]he only sure conclusion is that there is no consensus within the English Bible tradition for the interpretation of "them" in Psalm 12:7 and it was precisely this lack of agreement within the tradition which was the genius of the ambiguity of the King James Version's rendering. ... by choosing a Greek-Latin basis the modern versions elect to overlook the Reformation's Hebrew basis for translation in Psalm 12:6-7; and the churchly tradition in the new versions is censored by not including a translation that is broad enough to include both interpretations--oppressed people and God's words" (Peter Van Kleeck, The Translational and Exegetical Rendering of Psalm 12:7 Primarily Considered in the Churchly Tradition of the 16th and 17th Centuries and Its Expression in the Reformation English Bibles: The Genius of Ambiguity, March 1993).
Click to expand...

Phillip · Feb 9, 2005

Pastor_Bob, no wonder the KJVo's don't like the Geneva Bible.

HankD · Feb 9, 2005

I would agree that they are pure to begin with. With that thought in mind,I would submit that it took English translators seven trie to get it right.
Click to expand...

The purifying is in a furnace of earth.

God's Word is purified in the hearts and minds of these earthen vessels and that takes time and that often through afflictions.

Isaiah 28
9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

HankD

av1611jim · Feb 9, 2005

HankD;
OK. thanks.
In HIS service;
Jim

Slambo · Feb 9, 2005

You mean to say it took God 7 times to get His promise right to the poor people too????

David J · Feb 9, 2005

Gte back on track Slambo LOL!

Ed Edwards · Feb 9, 2005

Av1611jim: "How MANY times are the modern translators
going to try before they are satisfied?"

As many times as the English Language changes.

Joke time for you old HOL programmers:
I learned Fortran so long ago that it was called
Three-tran back then

Actually i learned Fortran (FORmula TRANslation)
IV, 5, and 6 before i got into assembler language
programming. But the computer language changed
three major times from 1968 to 1979.

robycop3 · Feb 10, 2005

AV1611Jim:Roby;
That is unless of course that "plain as day" interpretation is not as you and yours see it.

But there's simply no valid excuse to see it any other than how it's plainly written, in light of what the translators themselves wrote.

To us it is plain as day that the passage is talking about the WORDS of God. Not the PEOPLE of God.

But to us, it's plain as day that view is WRONG, and WE have quite a bit of evidence to PROVE our view...previous translations, the knowledge of several Hebrew scholars, and, most telling, the words of the AV men themselves. What EVIDENCE do YOU have to support the "words" view? All we've seen is guesswork and opinions shaped by bias.

I also question the need to "seven times" purify God's words. I would agree that they are pure to begin with.

Excellent. Seems you have a much-better insight of that silliness than does the highly-educated Dr. Vance.

With that thought in mind,I would submit that it took English translators seven trie to get it right.

Uh-oh!

Just as you were making progress, you blew it again.

Question:
How MANY times are the modern translators going to try before they are satisfied?

As many times as they disagree among themselves, and as often as the language changes.

WE are satisfied with the KJV. For us, that settles it.

That's all right, but I wonder if you'd be satisfied to drive a cheap replica of the Model-T while modern cars are readily available?

Though I admit, some of the folks in my camp DO stretch some verses to explain what is plain to us to the satisfaction of our doubters.

What an understatement! They don't STRETCH...they BUTCHER! And in the process, they toss in a heapin' helpin' of imagination, wishful thinging, guesswork, and sometimes outright DISHONESTY.

Nevertheless, the explainations ARE satisfactory to many who are looking for a FINAL AUTHORITY they can point to and say "Thus saith the Lord."

A balm for itching ears, which in effect is spraying water on the fire alarm while the building burns.

And strangely, that is IN SPITE of the apparent problems with the position.

Yes, it IS strange, seeing as how the REAL prob with the KJVO myth isn't just apparent...it's REAL And that problem is...it's WRONG.

Weird huh? It is almost like explaining one's faith in the Bible (any Bible) to an unbeliever.

Weird is still an understatement. It kinda reminds me of a Flat-Earther inventing reasons why he still believes the earth is flat, after being given a spaceship ride in which he can see the roundness of the earth as the ship rises.

"It's only make-believe"-Conway Twitty

HankD · Feb 10, 2005

You mean to say it took God 7 times to get His promise right to the poor people too????
Click to expand...

No but it might take us seven times to trust His Word.

HankD

av1611jim · Feb 10, 2005

"It's only make-believe"-Conway Twitty

So... a "twit" is your final authority? LOL
In HIS service;
Jim

just funnin' ya' !

HankD · Feb 10, 2005

http://www.conwaytwitty.com/

HankD

av1611jim · Feb 10, 2005

Sad he was only sixty when he passed. Truly WAS a living legend. And much EASIER to listen to than Elvis or the Beatles.
Thanks for the link brother!
Enjoyed it.

In HIS service;
Jim

Phillip · Feb 10, 2005

Originally posted by av1611jim:
Sad he was only sixty when he passed. Truly WAS a living legend. And much EASIER to listen to than Elvis or the Beatles.
Thanks for the link brother!
Enjoyed it.

In HIS service;
Jim
Click to expand...

Interestingly, Conway was originally a truck-driver (as you probably know). He came through our neck of the woods often and would stop and sing with local singers and strummers. He would then fly in to our small airport and put on a show for new businesses that would open and obviously didn't charge them much. Then he got famous and we never saw him. Same with Reba, she used to eat with her band almost every day at a local restaurant and after she went to Tennessee you never see her.

Okay, how does this fit with Psalms 12:6? Uh, Conway's words weren't purified at all. How's that for a fit?

TC · Feb 10, 2005

God's words didn't need and haven't been purified. They are pure today just as they were pure when He first spoke them through the apostles, prophets, and holy men of old. Psalm 12:6 uses a simile so that we might understand a little better just how pure His words are. God, in no wise, was saying that His words needed purifying or would go through seven steps of purification like some KJVO's claim.

Phillip · Feb 10, 2005

Originally posted by TC:
God's words didn't need and haven't been purified. They are pure today just as they were pure when He first spoke them through the apostles, prophets, and holy men of old. Psalm 12:6 uses a simile so that we might understand a little better just how pure His words are. God, in no wise, was saying that His words needed purifying or would go through seven steps of purification like some KJVO's claim.
Click to expand...

Amen, TC. It is amazing that people cannot understand plain Elizabethean English.
Seriously, the verse is only COMPARING the Words of God to silver that has been purified seven times. It is not saying ANYTHING about the Words needing purification, only that they are already "pure" like purified silver.

The other theory of seven purifications is really quite silly.

Psalm 12:6

robycop3 Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

David J New Member

robycop3 Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

av1611jim New Member

natters New Member

Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member

Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

HankD Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

av1611jim New Member

Slambo New Member

David J New Member

Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

robycop3 Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

HankD Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

av1611jim New Member

HankD Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

av1611jim New Member

Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

TC Active Member
Site Supporter

Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

Useful Searches

Psalm 12:6

robycop3 Well-Known Member Site Supporter

David J New Member

robycop3 Well-Known Member Site Supporter

av1611jim New Member

natters New Member

Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member

Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

HankD Well-Known Member Site Supporter

av1611jim New Member

Slambo New Member

David J New Member

Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

robycop3 Well-Known Member Site Supporter

HankD Well-Known Member Site Supporter

av1611jim New Member

HankD Well-Known Member Site Supporter

av1611jim New Member

Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

TC Active Member Site Supporter

Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

robycop3 Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

robycop3 Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

HankD Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

robycop3 Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

HankD Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

HankD Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

TC Active Member
Site Supporter