Psalms 12:6-7

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

The Wycliffe, Taverner, and Douay-Rheims Bibles, whatever merits any of them may have, are not part of the purified line God "authorized," of which the King James Authorized Version is God's last one -- purified seven times.

Wow! Now that is a perfect example of human reasoning. I find 10 English version,that doesn't fit a misapplied passage in Psalm 12 so I will throw out three of them to make the KJV1611 the 7th translation.

We have another member who has used the same reasoning to reject the AV1611 and say that the Oxford KJV of 1769 is the 7 times purified version.

 

[Glory2God]

AMEN!!!Providential You get 'em brother.

De 8:3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.
Mt 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

I put the italics in bold, they're God's words too.

 

[Glory2God]

C4K,
Just like Ed, you have shown your ignorance to the whole KJV issue. If you would have read the entire post and the one I posted after it you would see that those versions where NOT AUTHORIZED by the king:

Pr 16:10 ¶ A divine sentence is in the lips of the king: his mouth transgresseth not in judgment.
Ec 8:4 Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?

Well, it would appear that you guys are saying "what doest thou" and "Yea, hath God said".
Your way of earnestly contending for the faith, no doubt. By the way, where is that perfect bible you guys keep talking about? Or is it that your opinion is that perfect bible, which would make YOU God's perfect word!!

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I must say, G2G, that your human logic amazes me. Where do you find that only Bibles authorised by kings "count?"

How do you make a connexion between the verses you posted and Bible translations? Eisegesis perhaps?

So that means that every language on earth must have a 7th translation authorised by a king or they don't have a Bible? Oh, thats right, God only speaks English since 1611.

 

[Glory2God]

Let me guess your favorite ballteam, The Dodgers!!! You still haven't told me where to get that perfect bible!!! If you guys know where all the errors are, why don't you write one and send me a copy!!

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

The topic of this thread is not perfect Bibles, it is Ps 12v6-7. If you want a thread on that topic, feel free to start one.

How does this passage apply to a Spanish speaker, or a French speaker. Must they depend on a human translation of the KJV1611? Or is there an application of these verse in their own langauge? Must they have a "7 times purified" version approved by their kings?

 

[Glory2God]

Absolutely not:
19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
20 ¶ Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
I never said the new versions don't contain the word of God. My position is:

Ga 5:9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

Bread is a type of the word of God. New versions are full of leaven, and unfortunately this has everything to do with this post. Concerning translatingforeign bibles, stick to the Antiocin,Masoretic, and KJB texts and lots of prayer, God will keep his words.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Can a Polish speaker depend 100% on Psalm 12v6-7 in their own language?

 

[HankD]

O really? You LOOK FOR Scriptural evidence, do you? Hard evidence? Really? I ought to be in stand up comedy? I have no evidence?

Providence, have we met before?

Well lets see if you follow your own advice, or if you are a provable hypocrite, shall we?

Tell, O mighty man of Scriptural proof and hard evidence, where does the Scripture teach us about the canon of the New Testament? Where is your hard proof for only accepting 27 books for the inspired Word of God??? Where is the DIVINE TABLE OF CONTENTS, so that we have HARD EVIDENCE as to which books are canonical, and which aren't?

And the Scriptural, hard evidence reasons you reject the Apocrypha as inspired Scripture is??? Chapter? verse?

Now go ahead and tell me you DON'T look at history to see HOW God did this, how you don't look at history and accept what happened there, and how us KJV people cannot look to history to learn HOW and WHERE God did preserve His Word . Go ahead. You talk big, now start talking.

Personally (although this is not addressed to me), I have in the past acknowledged that there is indeed the witness of God and the witness of man (1 John 5:7-8) and they meet together in the following passage:

1 Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

So we indeed depend upon the “Tradition” of the Church and look back to Church History for such things as the Canon of Scripture. That is one reason that I personally support what is called the “Traditional Text “ (as Burgon and others called it) and today is called the Textus Receptus and in fact Wescott and Hort admitted that this text underlying the AV was that text (virtually) and that it went back to the 4th century.

“Church Tradition” is shunned by Baptists but nevertheless as you pointed out it is a determining factor in some Baptist doctrine (the canon of the Scripture is the most obvious example). But where does Tradition end and the falling away begin? Personally I would say that the establishment of the Traditional Text and the Canon of Scripture coming out of the apostolic churches of Asia Minor and Europe (Rome before their apostacy) would be the boundaries of time and geography.

However (and it’s a big however) for those “Traditional Text(s)” the Church has by that same tradition, looked to and maintained the apographs of the original languages and not a translation of those apographs to make other translations.

Personally, I believe it is error to say that any translation is "perfect".

There have been supposed exceptions such as the Latin Vulgate, which for a season, the Church of Rome considered “perfect” and better than the Greek and Hebrew. However they had the same conflicting problem that the KJ Bible now has. A history of hundreds of years of corrections with no way of knowing which revision/edition was the best “perfect” text.

In fact the KJV "autograph" disappeared somewhere around 1647, but it didn't matter because they needed only to return to the original language mss.

Indeed the KJ translators acknowledged the superiority of the Greek and Hebrew apographs :

If truth be tried by these tongues, then whence should a Translation be made, but out of them? These tongues therefore, the Scriptures we say in those tongues, we set before us to translate, being the tongues wherein God was pleased to speak to his Church by the Prophets and Apostles.

Then they publicly proved that their translation was not “perfect” by their first correction in 1613 and several subsequent corrections up to the 1800's.

...that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God...

2 Timothy 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,

Titus 3:2 To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.

...Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams...


HankD

 

[robycop3]

mE: "If that's true, then it was by His same providence that they wrote their marginal note."

Providential: You see, its those types of questions that we find incredible. Most people have never seen or known of the marginal notes in the AV1611.

It's not a question; it's a statement of fact. And WE know the marginal notes are there, don't we? It would be quite disingenuous of us to ignore them, wouldn't it?


So how important and relevant have they been the last 400 years??? I like the idea of having any scrap of insight into their thoughts, but this question is a smoke-screen.

Evidently the AV translators thought it was important enough for them to have included it in their work. And again, it's not a question. but a STATEMENT.


Its the translation we are talking about.

And it was the translation of a given Hebrew word they were explaining.


I don't care if their marginal notes stated the moon was made of swiss cheese.

You SHOULD...It's THEIR translation you're holding up as the only valid English Bible version.

When Saul prophecied, Scripture tells us, he became ANOTHER MAN. On his own, you know how he ended up.

What does the above statement have to do with a Bible translation?

The same translators who wrote the text also wrote their marginal notes. To accept every word they wrote into the text while rejecting their marginal notes explaining why they wrote certain words or phrases into their text is entertaining a DOUBLE STANDARD.

 

[robycop3]

Providential: This is nonsense really. Roby, you keep posting the same things as if doing it over and over makes it true.

Actually, I repeatedly post the same things because the KJVOs have yet to deny them with any valid defense.


I am answering these little-gnat straining questions,

So far, your "answers" have been mere EXCUSES.


BUT since YOU are already pledged to a position on this, it doesn't matter what is said to you. You are die-cast in stone.

Concrete takes time and the right conditions to set. I haven't arrived at my position of totally rejecting the KJVO myth in one day. I've studied both sides of the issue carefully, and all I've seen from you is the same ole party-line stuff as first concocted by Wilkinson, Ray, and Fuller, colored and added to by Riplinger, Ruckman, and the like. Your insistence that Ps. 12:7 is about God's words, in the face of a truckload of PROOF to the contrary is evidence that the KJVO myth means more to you than the KJV itself, as you reject the words of its translators that don't fit that myth. You yourself have provided the empirical proof of my above statement.

 

[robycop3]

Askjo: No, you are one of KJV bashers because what the KJVO said about the KJV, TR and mss is that you disagree with what the Scripture actually said. Psalm 12:6-7 talked about God's preserved words, but you denied it.

No, Askjo, it's the KJVOs who've denied what their fave version actually says. Logos posted quotes from earlier English Bibles that all say "him" or "us" in V7. The AV translators wrote the plural "them" and explained in their marginal note that they believed the literal translation of the Hebrew is "him". That's plain empirical proof that the AV men could just as easily written "him" in the text. There's nothing else that can be made from such proof; it must be taken at face value. So actually it's the KJVO who's bashing the AV by their selective belief of what its translators wrote. Obviously their myth is more important to them than the book.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Glory2God: "Are you aware that your Holman "bible" is in perfect agreement with corruptions in the NAB(Catholic) and the NWT(Jehovah Whitless)."

Convince me your statement is not hearsay.
That is, that you have a copy of the Holman Christian
Standard Bible (HCSB) and have had time to study
it so that you know your statement is true first hand.

YOur source of information about the HCSB could be
IN AWE OF THY WORD. Gail Riplinger was allowed to
examing the working copies prior to publication.
IN AWE OF THY WORD was published in 2003 before the
HCSB was. Throughout all the book Gail says nothing
good about the HCSB, yet it does things that even
Gail would think is good, but Gail, the propagandist,
can't say anything good about anything save the
KJV only. Interesting study in a Black/or/Whitest.

Glory2God: //Are you even aware of the significance of the post you refer to as "circular reasoning". The term Authorized refers to the fact that a king approved of the translation:

Pr 16:10 ¶ A divine sentence is in the lips of the king: his mouth transgresseth not in judgment.
Ec 8:4 Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?//

Parden me all. But i can't resist saying this.
Your idea is un-American and un-Baptist. We Americans
shall have no King but Jesus EVER.

 

[robycop3]

I had hoped to not go into V6 until the V7 thingy had run its course, but....

Glory2God:

Dr. Vance is simply another in the line of KJVO party-line authors who've continued the Wilkinson-Ray-Fuller line of falsehoods.

His logic in his article you quoted is in line with the KJVO myth instead of total truth. While his HISTORY is correct, his OPINION is NOT. People like him hope to dazzle people like you with articles that are 99% true, counting on you to not research his veracity. But remember, rat poison is 99% wholesome food.

To make my point, let's take a close look at Ps. 12:6, KJV..."The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times."

Look closely...David said, "*AS* silver..." David is COMPARING God's words with the most pure precious thing he knows. He is NOT saying God's words need purifying!!! He says His words *ARE* pure words, NOT that they need to be purified!

The "7th Bible in line" thingy is just another KJVO crock, made from a deliberate misinterpretation of Psalm 12:6. Coming from a person of Dr. Vance's background, it's a DELIBERATE LIE, as he should know better. Long as he finds someone like you to believe his codwallop, he will have succeeded in his deception.

 

[robycop3]

Glory2God: Are you even aware of the significance of the post you refer to as "circular reasoning". The term Authorized refers to the fact that a king approved of the translation:

Big deal. This same king and his homeboys whacked more than a few Baptists. I'm sure he authorized that also.

Pr 16:10 ¶ A divine sentence is in the lips of the king: his mouth transgresseth not in judgment.
Ec 8:4 Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?

Solomon was speaking of himself. He had absolute power of life and death over everyone within his borders. But did that make him GOD? Not hardly. While KJ had quite a bit of power, it wasn't as absolute as Solomon's had been. And again, was he GOD? Was HIS authorization the same as GOD'S? Not hardly.

These verses infuriate Cranston Roby to no end. He just says everyone is wrong and NEVER gives any scripture to back his position,

BUUZZ! WRONG!

I gave the many OT quotes found in the NT which don't match the OT translations in our Bibles.

Now, what Scriptures have the KJVOs given that support their myth?


just like most everyone else on this site. Correct it where you don't agree. SOP in Laodecia. That's not the context,blah,blah,blah. So Cranston, enlighten everybody, what IS the context.

I assume you're referring to Psalm 12. The context is that God is arising to protect the poor and the innocent while punishing the evildoers. remember, this is a SONG, and, same as modern songs, its thoughts sometimes switch suddenly. David takes time to PRAISE GOD, knowing His words are 100% true. Then, he returns to the PEOPLE. This is shown in most Bible versions, including the AV 1611, where its makers indicate "them" coulda just as easily been "him".

An aside about your mention of Laodicea...This is an indicator that you believe the false "Church Age" doctrine, last preached extensively by the charlatan William Branham(D.1965). Since you obviously believe the KJVO myth, is this an indicator that one false doctrine opens the door for others?

 

[robycop3]

Providential: Now go ahead and tell me you DON'T look at history to see HOW God did this, how you don't look at history and accept what happened there, and how us KJV people cannot look to history to learn HOW and WHERE God did preserve His Word . Go ahead. You talk big, now start talking.

First...You may accept the Apocrypha, the book of Enoch, etc. as Scripture if you wish. I do NOT accept them, and we'll just hafta disagree if YOU accept them.

Next...An HONEST look at history shows God has preserved His word in English in many versions. Where is there any PROOF that God is limited to just the one version? The whole KJVO myth is based upon such fallacies and fishing stories. The KJVO take of Psalm 12:6-7 is more proof that the KJVO thinks more of the myth than the truth.

 

[robycop3]

Glory2God: Just like Ed, you have shown your ignorance to the whole KJV issue. If you would have read the entire post and the one I posted after it you would see that those versions where NOT AUTHORIZED by the king:

Who CARES?

 

[robycop3]

Glory2God: Let me guess your favorite ballteam, The Dodgers!!! You still haven't told me where to get that perfect bible!!! If you guys know where all the errors are, why don't you write one and send me a copy!!

Speaking of ball, you're drifting into left field, down the foul line. In discussing Ps.12:6-7, were are NOT saying the KJV is in error; we're presenting proof from the AV1611 itself that the KJVO view of these verses is in complete error. You posted an article by rabid(and often INCORRECT)KJVO Dr. L. Vance that fully reveals that error. And this stuff about kings is utter nonsense. Is a HUMAN KING'S will always GOD'S will? Not hardly.

As for the perfect Bible, each valid version in any language is perfect for God's intended purpose He had for causing/allowing it to be made.

 

[Trotter]

Tell, O mighty man of Scriptural proof and hard evidence, where does the Scripture teach us about the canon of the New Testament? Where is your hard proof for only accepting 27 books for the inspired Word of God??? Where is the DIVINE TABLE OF CONTENTS, so that we have HARD EVIDENCE as to which books are canonical, and which aren't?

And the Scriptural, hard evidence reasons you reject the Apocrypha as inspired Scripture is??? Chapter? verse?

Now go ahead and tell me you DON'T look at history to see HOW God did this, how you don't look at history and accept what happened there, and how us KJV people cannot look to history to learn HOW and WHERE God did preserve His Word . Go ahead. You talk big, now start talking.

No prob, Bob. (no offense, Dr.B)

They are none, Prov. And I have no problem saying that. I do not attempt to hide behind a smokescreen, but will honestly say that there is no scriptural backing for the contents of the canon, be it Old Testament, New Testament, or the exclusion of the Apocrypha.

I fully expect him to give no Scripture supporting any of his reasons for the canonical books, or for the rejection of the Apocrypha. He accepts the evidence he finds in history, despite how loudly he protests against us doing that, and despite how loudly he pretends he doesn't do that.

And you were right (for once). There is no scripture backing for it. But, do you follow the historical choices of the church fathers yourself?

The choices of what belongs in the canon were settled long ago through a simple means. The OT is what the Jews had been using for a long, long time. The NT took a bit of debate, prayer, and time to finalize, but the final word was in favor of what follows the whole of scripture, and internal harmony. Those books that were refused flew in the face of the gospel of Christ. The Apocrypha was refused on a similar basis. This is an oversimpification, but it serves the purpose.

He does it FAR MORE than we do, as do all Anti KJV people. They just don't see their hypocrsiy in this and other things.

I push for answers, Prov. I push for the use of something that lies dormant between most people's ears.

There you go with the anti-KJV rhetoric again. You are so far off base you can't even see the stadium. I am all for the KJV...but not the the deification of it.

I know hypocrisy very well, and have been a practicing hypocrit before, so I know it when I see it.

Check-mate.

To declare "shah-matte" before the condition exists is an automatic forfeiture of the game, Prov. Maybe you ought to stick to tiddly-winks...

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Glory2God:
Ed,
Are you even aware of the significance of the post you refer to as "circular reasoning". The term Authorized refers to the fact that a king approved of the translation:

[/b]

Glory2God, the word "Authorized" was penned by the PRINTERS of the Bible to let people who bought it know that they were authorized under the perpetual copyright of the Crown to print the Bible. With many unauthorized printings of the KJV going on (many in the United States) the printers simply printed "Authorized Version" on the front of their Bibles so that people who bought it would know that the printer was indeed authorized to print it and they were not buying a "bootlegged" copy of the same thing.

The term "Authorized" stuck and continued to be used, but THAT is the origination of the word--it had to do with "AUTHORIZED PRINTERS" not the King authorizing the "translation". THIS is historical.