Psalms 12:6-7

Um, you think that preservation of people is a strange, erroneous concept in the Psalms???

 

If having all the words of God was not important, our Lord would not have said that we are to live by EVERY WORD that proceeds out of the mouth of God. If God didn't expect all His words to be available and accessable, He wouldn't have said that, and all the other things he has said about His Word, words, preservation, etc.

This is a problem for all Christians to explain, not King James people.

 

Well, I read through all these posts here after a WONDERFUL night at church tonight, and it seems as though Askjo has things pretty much covered. I'd chime in too, but I'm so happy in the Lord tonight I guess I'll just hijack the thread for a sec.. long enough to let ya'll know that I spoke with my pastor tonight at the church I've been attending for a while, and I am FINALLY becoming a member on Sunday.....of my very first IFB KJO church!!!!! YIPEEEEEEE..........

"HI JACK"

Okay, back to your regularly scheduled debate.

Love in Christ.
Amity

 

"It all goes back to being able to understand Psalm 12 in context. KJVOist just hack away and pull verse 6-7 out in order to prove the myth of O'ism."

Well these verses, of many others along this line lend themselves to the idea that God certainly isn't responsible for the chaos of all the contradictory versions out there. The lunacy that has developed since 1881 is something the Lord never intended, that is for sure. God's preserved Word has to be SOMEHWHERE, and after reading on these forums for MONTHS before finally registering, and listening to all this bravado agains the KJV and its adherents, I will say NONE OF YOU Very-Errant-Copies-and-Translations-of-the-Scriptures-Only people have answered your own questions either.

Where was the Word of God before 1611--well, you tell me! Did we lose the infallable Word of God after the originals were destroyed, and have we never had them since?

And if so(I can't imagine a Christian believing that!), then how can we, with a clear conscience, claim to have "the Word of God"? To clam that is to claim a perfect Book by the very nature of the claim, just like prophecying in the Name of the Lord meant 100% accuracy or you were a false prophet. It oral words required this level of accuracy, how is it the the written Word, a higher authority, has a lower standard? And why do Christians today buy into this? And how can we judge what a person says if our final authority is fallable, and in a constant state of flux? That does not sound like the Word of God to me. The very idea strikes at, and undermines the very sensibilites of anyone profesing faith in an Omnipotent God who desires us to live by His every Word.

 

Perhaps you have not read very closely all those months. Let me try to make it perfectly clear to you: the Geneva Bible was the word of God before 1611. The Bishop's Bible was the word of God before 1611. As was Wycliffe's and Tyndale's translations. As were numerous others. As was Luther's and the Dietenberger in German. As were the French Olivetan and Le Fèvre translations. As was the Spanish Enzinas and Reina-Valera translations. As was the Italian Malermi. As wer the Latin Vulgate, Gutenberg, A. du Ry, Gravius, Stephanus and other translations. As was the Aramaic Peshitta and the Greek Septuagint. And countless others. All these Bibles were the word of God before 1611, and still are. Psalm 12 was true in all these Bibles, and still is.

Where was the word of God before 1611??? Practically EVERYWHERE. Praise God!

 

Amen, Brother Natters -- Preach it!

Where is the word of God in 2004?

Psalm 12:6-7 (HCSB = Holman Christian Standard Bible):

The words of the Lord are pure words,
like silver refined in an earthen furnace,
purified seven times. 7 [v]You, Lord, will guard us;
You will protect us from this generation forever[/b].

"Us" here refers to "the words of the Lord"
in verse 6. Because this is the HCSB where it
is said, "the words of the Lord" are the HCSB.

The HCSB is the inerrant & perfect written words
of God. And i have a copy of it right in my
hands. A free electronic copy is right here:

http://bible.crosswalk.com/

 

Looks like all we are going to get is the typical KJVO evasion tactics of answer a question with and question, avoid answering THE question, and the same old junk over and over again from the KJVO vast pool of knowledge.

I know its very frustration being a KJVO and trying to answer our hard questions. Since KJVOist can not answer it is very evident that KJVOism is bankrupt. This thread proves that not a single KJVO will tackle the issue of the Geneva Bible and why did the AV1611 translators put HIM in the marginal notes for verse 7. Without causing the KJVO perfect word for word myth to crumble KJVOist are forced to dodge these types of questions.

Just answer the question with a simply answer using facts and not the emotional note that so many KJVOist sing so well.

Well these verses, of many others along this line lend themselves to the idea that God certainly isn't responsible for the chaos of all the contradictory versions out there. The lunacy that has developed since 1881 is something the Lord never intended, that is for sure. God's preserved Word has to be SOMEHWHERE, and after reading on these forums for MONTHS before finally registering, and listening to all this bravado agains the KJV and its adherents, I will say NONE OF YOU Very-Errant-Copies-and-Translations-of-the-Scriptures-Only people have answered your own questions either.

Well then show me the word for word perfect Bible that matches up 100% with the KJV(which ever revision that you think is perfect) and I will shut up. You have a problem glaring at you that you have yet to address. The Geneva Bible says HIM in verse 7 and the KJV says THEM. Now according the KJVO’s myth about Psalm 12:6-7 both CAN NOT BE CORRECT! Either the KJV is right and advanced revelation(refer to my KJVO Ex Cathedra definition) occurred or the AV1611 translators simply chose to use “them” instead of “him” never intending that “them” referred to “words” but to PEOPLE.

Now please answer the questions.

 

Psalm 12:6-7 in 1535 Coverdale's Bible and in
1537 Matthew's Bible

The words of the LORD are pure words: even
as the silver, which from earth is tried and purified vii times in the fire.
Keep them therefore (O LORD) and preserve us
from this generation for ever

Psalm 12:6-7 in 1568 Bishops' Bible
The words of God be words pure, as the silver
tried in a furnace of earth and purified seven times.
[Wherefore] thou wilt keep the godly, O God:
thou wilt perserve every one of them from this generation for ever.

 

Your question is what? The KJV or Geneva for Ps 12:6-7? Are you claiming to have read, and are familiar with the KJV position? Then surely you know the answer and could give it, with the reasons why! You shouldn't be asking this if you are informed, or your question is merely a trap.

Now, some have answered that any book with the Word "Bible" stamped on it is the Word of God, regardless of its contents. Brilliant. No risk of deception there! No opportunity being handed to Satan on a silver platter there! I guess I will have to concede that the New World translation IS the Word of God after all, since it says "Bible" on it.

No friends, these kinds of simplistic responses will not do. They ignore facts and problems, and do not answer the question.

Besides many books on the list given are based on the TR, hence we have no real problem. The Latin Vulgate??? Please!

Rest assured, I am new here, but not to this debate. I will try to answer your questions, but many seem hot under the collar, and I will probably lose interest with answering if I see you are too cantankerous to even listen, let alone concede a point when you see it. I have been studying this issue for 20 years now, that's all I can say. I hope I can help.

 

Providential,

You just proved my point. A trap? Please! Just answer my questions and show me something.

For your information I was a rabid KJVO for over 7 years. I fully understand KJVO dogma and how "broke" KJVOism is from start to finish.

 

You prove my point. You KNOW the answer. I do not see the point in making us tell you what you already know, unles there is some other motive. By the way, I am not "rabid", and I will not descend to some of what i have seen here, so unless we can keep it calm, I'll just bow out.

So to anwer you ANYWAY, of course we believe the KJV is an improvement on already good translations, based on the TR. We believe the KJV was the refining of these other English versions, AS THE TRANSLATORS THEMSELVES SAID . This is nothing new, the information is almost 400 years old.

 

And I beleive that the NKJV is also a refining of earler English version from the same body of texts. I could easily apply Pslam 12 the the NKJV with the exact same arguments.

 

No you couldn't, because they re-inserted RSV readings back into the text. This is a giant step backwards.

I have no problem with the KJV being truly updated, but the NKJV went beyond that. The committee simply had too many Hortian proclivities to overcome, and couldn't do it consistently. Nice try.

 

Prove to me that the NKJV committee purposefully re-inserted RSV readings back into the text and did not just update the language. Even if you could prove it, what makes using the RSV any worse than the KJV translators using the Geneva Bible?

I contend that if Psalm 12v6-7 applies to the KJV, it applies to the NKJV. It is human reasoning to pick one version and say that this paasage ONLY applies to that one.

 

Here is the real reason why the KJVO do not support the NKJV:

KJV Acts 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

NKJV Acts 12:4 So when he had arrested him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four squads of soldiers to keep him, intending to bring him before the people after Passover.

Whoever supports "Passover" in Acts 12:4 invokes the wrath of the KJVO Pontifex Maximus because of the ex cathedra promulgation of "second-inspiration" and "advanced revelation".

These are the Only two reasons to support "Easter" in Acts 12:4 which was "passover-pascha" for 15 centuries when (according to KJVO sages) God changed His mind and turned it into "Easter" (a word derived from the name of the godess ishtaar).


HankD

 

No, my question is: was the Geneva the "word of God" and was Psalm 12:6-7 true in the pre-KJV Bibles?

I am very familiar with the KJV-only position. No KJV-onlyist I have ever encountered has ever answered the question in a way that doesn't contradict the fundamental principles KJV-onlyism relies on.

Yes, the Latin Vulgate. Yes, the Greek Septuagint. No real problem with Bibles based on the TR? Me neither. But no two are the same. For that matter, multiple "TRs" exist. For that matter, the "TR" response only changes the question from "Where was the word of God in 1600?" to "Where was the word of God in 1500?"

Start with this one: how is only the KJV the "preserved" word of God if it differs from everything prior, including the various editions of the TR and Masoretic texts?