Psalm 12:7

[Salamander]

I wish I'd said something like that... Oh! I did (back in post #5)!

Oh, so now you're saying that the words in the KJV are "not the words of God"?

 

[HankD]

And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. John 9:32 NKJV

I do and it has

Bless you brother.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

You misread me. I was commenting on Askjo's tactic of asking you the question.

Apologies - I was not by any means saying that his theology was unbiblical and feared I might have been taken that way.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

but then prejudice has its way of preventing one from understanding.

Boy ain't that the truth?

 

[tinytim]

OK, this is just turning into a funny thread....

I like C4K's suggestion... Words, People, Words, People....

Does it really matter.?.. God preserves both!
He has preserved his words.... (and you don't need this passage as a proof text)

He does preserve his people... How many believes they are sealed until the day of redemption?

So in practicality, it doesn't matter....
Although I believe it is People... I still believe in preservation...

 

[Salamander]

The confusion occurs when the poor and needy are generally preserved when we know they aren't.

When it comes to the word of God being generally preserved we KNOW it is!!!

 

[Rufus_1611]

Why is this even an important issue to the KJVO crowd?

I happen to think it's "people", but let's assume for the sake of argument that it's "words". Okay, so God preserved His words. Where are they preserved? In spirit and truth? In the ears of the people who first heard them? In the original manuscripts? In copies of the original manuscripts? In a translation? In several translations? Which translation(s)?

That's funny, the Psalm doesn't say. It simply says "words".

So even if the Psalm meant "words", one cannot possibly make a case for it meaning the "words" in the KJV. The Psalm doesn't say "KJV" it says "words".

Actually, it says "people".

The importance of the issue is not relative to preservation as even the "people" people believe God's word to be preserved, (all over the place, but nevertheless preserved). We haven't even touched on the real controversy as we are one level below it. Many, that believe that the AV is the preserved word of God in English not only believe Psalm 12 to be about the preservation of the word of God but believe it is a descriptor of how the word of God is preserved.

"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times."​

They then take the above and apply it to the TR line of English Bibles and conclude that the AV is the 7th of 7. They then use that as an argument for why the AV is not only the preserved word of God, but why it contains the purified words of God.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

They then take the above and apply it to the TR line of English Bibles and conclude that the AV is the 7th of 7. They then use that as an argument for why the AV is not only the preserved word of God, but why it contains the purified words of God.

Interested to see your list of TR English Bibles if you would please.

 

[npetreley]

They then take the above and apply it to the TR line of English Bibles and conclude that the AV is the 7th of 7. They then use that as an argument for why the AV is not only the preserved word of God, but why it contains the purified words of God.

Yes, but if you take every other letter in the names of the translators, convert the letters to numbers, add them up, divide by 1611, and then multiply by 12 and then divide by 7 (for Psalm 12:7), you get the name of an Elvis Presley song which, when played backward at half speed, says "I buried AV1611".

.

 

[Rufus_1611]

Interested to see your list of TR English Bibles if you would please.

1. Tyndale's
2. Matthew's
3. Coverdale's
4. Whitchurch
5. Geneva
6. Bishops
7. Authorized Version

 

[Ed Edwards]

1. Tyndale's
2. Matthew's
3. Coverdale's
4. Whitchurch
5. Geneva
6. Bishops
7. Authorized Version

:sleeping_2:

Back in Dec 2006 we were discussing the same subject at:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=36236&highlight=1535

Logos1560 saysin post #5:

David Daniell wrote: “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). David Norris noted: “between 1526 and 1611, nine English translations of Scripture of significance were made” (Big Picture, p. 333). Some examples include the following: Tyndale's New Testament, Joyce's New Testament, Coverdale's Bible, Matthew's Bible, Coverdale's Latin-English New Testament (1538), Taverner's Bible (1539), the Great Bible, 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, Bishops' Bible, Lawrence Tompson's New Testament (1576), and KJV. In addition, there was more than one edition of many of these Bibles with many changes and revisions in them. The 1539 Great Bible is different from the 1540 edition of the Great Bible. The 1568 Bishops' Bible is different from the 1569 edition and the 1572 edition.

Somewhere we had a list of dozens of King James Versions.
Anybody should be able to use that
to pick out a list of seven that
will satisfy the unnatural, un-Biblical & unholy need
for seven (and only seven) versions

 

[tinytim]

1. Tyndale's
2. Matthew's
3. Coverdale's
4. Whitchurch
5. Geneva
6. Bishops
7. Authorized Version

1) It is only authorized in England...
2) I hope you use the 1611... and not the 1769... or is the 1769 the 8th..

3) Amazing how Riplinger's mathmatics has spilt out to deceive people...

 

[npetreley]

Somewhere we had a list of dozens of King James Versions.
Anybody should be able to use that
to pick out a list of seven that
will satisfy the unnatural, un-Biblical & unholy need
for seven (and only seven) versions

LOL - that's what I was trying to depict with my numerology + Elvis + whatever. It's really easy to manipulate data and concoct a formula that gives you the results you want. Research organizations and their analysts do it all the time.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

1. Tyndale's
2. Matthew's
3. Coverdale's
4. Whitchurch
5. Geneva
6. Bishops
7. Authorized Version

Thnaks. I was curious to see how you got your 7. Lets assume for the sake of argument that you are totally correct. I pesonally think this is number manipulation, but lets leave that for now) I assume that you use the 1611? That means you accept their choice to translate 1 John 5v12 as " Hee that hath the Sonne, hath life; and hee that hath not the Sonne, hath not life." instead of the more commonly accepted "He that hath the Son hath life: and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life"?

If seven time purified is what it takes, then the the work done in 1611 was completely pure, including the spellings, punctuation, word choice, and the Apocrypha. Or was more purifying still needed to get it purely pure?

I just can't see how if the 1611 work was pure, ir needed more cleaning up.

 

[Rufus_1611]

Thnaks. I was curious to see how you got your 7. Why do you pick the Whitchurch out of many of the other minor translations mentioned by the other posters?

Those are the 6 the translators used to get to the 7th.

From the "Rules to be Observed in the Translation of the Bible"...

Rule 1 - "The ordinary Bible read in the church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the truth of the original will permit."

Rule 14 - "These translations to be used when they agree better with the text than the Bishops' Bible,viz. Tindall's. Matthews. Coverdale's. Whitchurch's. Geneva."​

I assume as well that you use the 1611?

Yes, a Henderson reprint.

That means you accept their choice to translate 1 John 5v12 as " Hee that hath the Sonne, hath life; and hee that hath not the Sonne, hath not life." instead of the more commonly accepted "He that hath the Son hath life: and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life"?


If seven time purified is what it takes, then the the work done in 1611 was completely pure, including the spellings, punctuation, word choice, and the apocrypha. Or was more purifying still needed to get it purely pure?

I do not have a position on this matter currently, which I am willing to express. However, if true, it would not be the first time a verse contained a dual or even triplicate prophesy.

I just can't see how if the 1611 work was pure, ir needed more cleaning up.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

BUt if it is pure, why did it need more purifying? Why don't we still insist on using the 1611 as printed? If more work was done than that edition was not pure. I beleives in previous posts I have seen you quoting later editions of the KJV.

My question is this. If Psalm 12v6-7 refers to the 1611 edition of the KJV was it pure or not? Was it pure of all errors? Was it pure of printer errors? Was the spelling pure? Was the grammar pure? Was the punctuation pure?

I won't even include the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the edition or the inclusion of it the the suggestion of daily readings.

 

[Rufus_1611]

BUt if it is pure, why did it need more purifying? Why don't we still insist on using the 1611 as printed? If more work was done than that edition was not pure.

It's a fair question and I believe there is an answer. However, this is about as far as I want to take this matter with this many kids in the room.

 

[Keith M]

When it comes to the word of God being generally preserved we KNOW it is!!!

No one is saying God's word isn't preserved, Salamander. God's preserved word is available to us today in the various KJVs, the NIV, the NKJV, the HCSB, the NASB, etc.

The confusion comes when people like yourself and a few others misinterpret the English translation of the Hebrew and start believing the erroneous notion that Ps. 12:7 refers to the preservation of words. You then start applying this misinterpretation to the preservation of only one particular English Bible version, and of course that notion is even more preposterous!

Ps. 12:7 refers today, just as it did when it was originally written, to the preservation of...

PEOPLE!

 

[Keith M]

Roger, I asked back in post #90 to have this thread closed. Is there a reason it's still open?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Roger, I asked back in post #90 to have this thread closed. Is there a reason it's still open?

Technically closure of a thread is up to the moderator and may be closed, but does not have to be closed at the request of the author.

In this case though it was just my negligence .