Psalms 12:6-7

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.

 

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.

 

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!!

 

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.

 

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!!

 

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?

 

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.

 

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

 

Providence, have we met before?

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 :

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

 

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

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

 

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.