Psalms 12:6-7

[robycop3]

MEANWHILE, BACK AT THE RANCH...

I see no commentary about V6.

 

[Providential]

Hey, relax. I have a full time job, 4 kids and two house guests, and a ministry, and today, a head ache! A number of statements have been made, and some questions. I'll get back to you, I think I need a nap, AFTER I clean out my work truck.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Providential:
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.

Amen! Agree!

 

[natters]

Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Providential:
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.

Amen! Agree! </font>[/QUOTE]Amen! Agree as well! That must have been true in 1600 as well, and 1500, and 1300, and 700, etc., don't you think?

 

[Providential]

Yes

 

[natters]

Then verses like Psalm 12:6-7 were true at all those times and in all those Bibles. Thus Psalm 12:6-7 CANNOT be about KJV exclusivity or superiority, etc. The passage was true in 1610, they already had God's preserved word in 1610 - yet they fired up the printing presses anyway.

 

[Askjo]

Psalm 12:6-7 refer to Hebrew and Greek mss, but anyone of you disagree with me. If God did not preserve His Words in the Gospel of Mark in modern versions more than 2,000 times, you, as modern version defenders, have simple problem:

Now you look CLOSELY at what I counted these manuscripts where Modern Versions DISAGREE with. Manuscripts and MVs disagree each other on the Gospel of Mark only MORE THAN 2,000 times!!!!!

Look at modern versions on the Gospel of Mark -- "UNCERTAINITY" - more than 2,000 times!!!

What problem do you have with modern versions is the UNCERTAIN Word of God.

According to Dr. Thomas Strouse, Ph.D, he wrote:

Can both the TR and the CT, with nearly 10,000 different word variations between them, be equally verbally inspired of God? Obviously not.

 

[natters]

Originally posted by Askjo:
Psalm 12:6-7 refer to Hebrew and Greek mss

I disagree, but let's assume you are correct. Which ones?

According to Dr. Thomas Strouse, Ph.D, he wrote: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Can both the TR and the CT, with nearly 10,000 different word variations between them, be equally verbally inspired of God? Obviously not.

</font>[/QUOTE]Why not? Many word variations exist between editions of the TR, editions of the KJV, the KJV compared to all prior Bibles (English, Greek, or any other language), etc. If word variations automatically invalidate something from being the verbally inspired word of God, then you're completely stuck, because you have to identify the single perfect edition of whatever document you select, and then you have to explain why that document does not perfectly match anything prior in history to it. "God's word" is not the ink stains on paper or papyrus. That's just one of the mediums by which God's word is conveyed.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by natters:
Why not? Many word variations exist between editions of the TR, editions of the KJV, the KJV compared to all prior Bibles (English, Greek, or any other language), etc. If word variations automatically invalidate something from being the verbally inspired word of God, then you're completely stuck, because you have to identify the single perfect edition of whatever document you select, and then you have to explain why that document does not perfectly match anything prior in history to it. "God's word" is not the ink stains on paper or papyrus. That's just one of the mediums by which God's word is conveyed.

More than 2,000 disagreeing words between mss and modern versions on the Gospel of Mark alone went up to maximum because the maximum is the worst. The worst is how uncertain did God preserve His uninspired words.

The difference between the TR, the TR and the KJV went down to minimum because the minimum is the best. The best is how certain did God preserve His inspired Words.

 

[natters]

Minimum? Maximum? Nope. So 2% is A-OK and 5% is outright heresy? Who gets to draw the line? You? Give me a break.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by natters:
Many word variations exist between editions of the TR, editions of the KJV, the KJV compared to all prior Bibles (English, Greek, or any other language), etc. If word variations automatically invalidate something from being the verbally inspired word of God, then you're completely stuck, because you have to identify the single perfect edition of whatever document you select, and then you have to explain why that document does not perfectly match anything prior in history to it. "God's word" is not the ink stains on paper or papyrus. That's just one of the mediums by which God's word is conveyed.

Amen, Brother Natters -- Preach it!

Askjo: "According to Dr. Thomas Strouse, Ph.D, he wrote:
quote:
----------------------------------------------------
Can both the TR and the CT, with nearly 10,000
different word variations between them, be equally
verbally inspired of God? Obviously not.
-------------------------------------------------- "

In the same manner in which the TR, with nearly 2,500
different word variations amongst itself
is verbally inspired of God.

Ed notes that these variations are documented in
the KJV1611 Edition that i read. It is in the translator's
margin notes. "Hebr" means there is a variation
among the the Hebrew sources of the Old
Testament which the translators of the
KJV used. "Gr" means there is a variation among
the Greek sources of the New Testament used by the
KJV translators. "Or" means that there is a close
English word or phrase that means the same as the English
word or phrase which was used by the translator.

I understand why KJVOs #4 and #5 MUST REBUKE the
margin notes in the original KJV1611 Edition --
those margin notes invalidate 95% of the KJVO position.
The TR are not one source but many sources. These
sources are different from each other -- this invalidates
90% of the principles and arguments of the KJVO-ites.
No wonder that KJVOs won't admit there are variants
among the TR.

 

[Providential]

Aren't you glad God used the 1611 translators to solve these minor problems so we wouldn't have to worry our witul heads about it anymore and move on?

 

[natters]

Originally posted by Providential:
Aren't you glad God used the 1611 translators to solve these minor problems so we wouldn't have to worry our witul heads about it anymore and move on?

God's word had minor problems? Nay! God's word is preserved, not improved. Psalm 12 says "The words of the LORD are pure words" - this was true before 1611, not just after.

 

[Trotter]

Providental,

Yeah. Ain't you glad that God retired to His park bench after 1611 (to borrow Roby's expresion)?

This is not an attack, by the way. But how do you come to the conclussion that the word of God was perfected in 1611? Or 1769? Or whenever? Why then? Did God move in a new wave of inspiration? If so, how can anyone say that the canon is closed?

There has yet to be any scriptural evidence for the KJVO position that cannot apply to each and every other translation known to man. And the other old, worn-out fairy tales don't cut it either. Outside of personal preference, why should anyone take the KJVO position as anything other than a blight on the face of Christianity?

In Christ,
Trotter

PS- I'm praying for you and your headache. Nasty things, those.

 

[Providential]

Natters argues in a circle. You cannot say God's Word was PURE AND PRESERVED, if different versions were out there contradicting one anothers, like the TR vs. the Vulgate! Purity implies preservation from error. You can't have it both ways, although that's how you seem to like to have it around here. IF all the versions and translations before 1611 WERE God's preserved, pure Words, and yet the Vulgate has serious deviations from the TR, somnewhere in that scenario are words of men, deletions by men, corruptions by men, and hence, IMPURITY. That is simply logical and true. Now I know you KJV bashers THINK you have all the answers, and we can't answer your questions, but you are wrong on both counts, and I will patiently and calmly continue to demonstrate that.

 

[natters]

Originally posted by Providential:
Natters argues in a circle.

Not at all, you simply do not understand my argument.

Purity implies preservation from error. You can't have it both ways

Was God's word PRESERVED in 1610? If so (and it was!) the KJV deviated from this. You can't have it both ways.

IF all the versions and translations before 1611 WERE God's preserved, pure Words, and yet the Vulgate has serious deviations from the TR, somnewhere in that scenario are words of men, deletions by men, corruptions by men, and hence, IMPURITY. That is simply logical and true.

Do you really not understand. This is not just about the Vulgate. This is about EVERY EVERY EVERY Bible and manuscript prior to the KJV. NONE match the KJV perfectly in their text. Was God's word preserved prior to the KJV? YES, despite the minor variations in textual readings. God's word is not ink on paper, it is the meaning that ink can convey when properly understood, when rightly divided. Textual imperfection in any particular text does NOT mean the text cannot be rightly divided, and thus is not God's word. This fact is where KJV-onlyists stumble in their understanding.

Now I know you KJV bashers THINK you have all the answers

There are no KJV bashers around here. We love the KJV. We bash an extra-Biblical doctrine about the KJV.

 

[Providential]

Natters please, Don't think your beliefs are so sophisticated and complex that i cannot understand it. That is ridiculous. I understand it quite well, and what you lack in facts and logic, you seek to make up for with emotion and argumentativeness.

You don't know if any other Bible before 1611 matched the KJV--none of you do! We don't have all the evidence. All the Greek texts have not even been published, the Latin remains inn limbo, etc. I am not arguing from silence, i am merely stating that you argue like you have all the evidence from every nation and every century in front of you. Well you don't and neither does any scholar on this earth. Not even close. So all this pontificating is quite amusing to watch.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Providential:
Natters argues in a circle. You cannot say God's Word was PURE AND PRESERVED, if different versions were out there contradicting one anothers, like the TR vs. the Vulgate! Purity implies preservation from error. You can't have it both ways, although that's how you seem to like to have it around here. IF all the versions and translations before 1611 WERE God's preserved, pure Words, and yet the Vulgate has serious deviations from the TR, somnewhere in that scenario are words of men, deletions by men, corruptions by men, and hence, IMPURITY. That is simply logical and true. Now I know you KJV bashers THINK you have all the answers, and we can't answer your questions, but you are wrong on both counts, and I will patiently and calmly continue to demonstrate that.

I second that.

 

[natters]

Originally posted by Providential:
Natters please, Don't think your beliefs are so sophisticated and complex that i cannot understand it. That is ridiculous. I understand it quite well,

If you understood it, you would not have said I was arguing in circles, for I am not arguing in circles.

You don't know if any other Bible before 1611 matched the KJV--none of you do!

Sure we do. If they had a Bible that perfectly matched the KJV, they wouldn't have had to produce the KJV, they could have simply pulled it off the shelf instead.

I am not arguing from silence, i am merely stating that you argue like you have all the evidence from every nation and every century in front of you.

And you say you understand me.

I am NOT arguing like that, in fact I'm saying nearly the opposite: that all the evidence is not even needed, for we already have God's preserved word, and always have had it. More "evidence" can useful for sorting through some of the minor texual variations, but we already have God's preserved word despite minor textual variations.

Instead of saying I'm being emotional or arguing in circles, why not try actually dealing with my comments directly and show me how/where I am wrong and why.

 

[Trotter]

(fill with the name of any KJVO) please, Don't think your beliefs are so sophisticated and complex that i cannot understand it. That is ridiculous. I understand it quite well, and what you lack in facts and logic, you seek to make up for with emotion and argumentativeness.

In Christ,
Trotter