-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Psalms 12:6-7
- Thread starter robycop3
- Start date
P
Providential
Guest
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.
This is a problem for all Christians to explain, not King James people.
A
Amity
Guest
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
P
Providential
Guest
"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.
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!
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
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.
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.
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.
P
Providential
Guest
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.
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.
P
Providential
Guest
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.
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.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
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.
P
Providential
Guest
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.
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.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
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.
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
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
The whole KJVO idea about Ps.12:6-7 is a very poor piece of work. They take the word of the Wilkinson-Ray-Fuller line over that of the translators of the very version they're touting.
Second, there are many other verses such as Psalms 119: 89-90 that leave no doubt that they're about God's word being preserved forever. The KJVOs' insistence that Ps.12:6-7 are word preservation verses in the face of the av translators' statement that V7 is about PEOPLE shows me that some KJVOs think more of their myth than they do the TRUTH, as found in the very Bible version they tout.
Third, the fact that those other preservation verses DO exist shows the KJVO myth to be false. The proof? The existence of many different English BVs, as well as the existence of many versions in the other old major languages. Can God not guard His word from corruption as well as preserve it? Yes, there are some clearly-bogus "bibles" out there, but it doesn't take a theology degree to smell'em.
The KJVO is stuck with trying to find a reason to believe his/her myth other than convenience or it "sounds good", when no such legitimate reason exists. Therefore, he/she is on a constant safari to find the "excuse of the day" to try to support the KJVO myth.
Again, the KJVOs' twisting & spinning to attempt to support the ridiculous statement that Ps.12:7 is about God's words-in the face of the statement of the AV translators, and of the existence of many CLEAR preservation verses-is a source of amusement to me.
Second, there are many other verses such as Psalms 119: 89-90 that leave no doubt that they're about God's word being preserved forever. The KJVOs' insistence that Ps.12:6-7 are word preservation verses in the face of the av translators' statement that V7 is about PEOPLE shows me that some KJVOs think more of their myth than they do the TRUTH, as found in the very Bible version they tout.
Third, the fact that those other preservation verses DO exist shows the KJVO myth to be false. The proof? The existence of many different English BVs, as well as the existence of many versions in the other old major languages. Can God not guard His word from corruption as well as preserve it? Yes, there are some clearly-bogus "bibles" out there, but it doesn't take a theology degree to smell'em.
The KJVO is stuck with trying to find a reason to believe his/her myth other than convenience or it "sounds good", when no such legitimate reason exists. Therefore, he/she is on a constant safari to find the "excuse of the day" to try to support the KJVO myth.
Again, the KJVOs' twisting & spinning to attempt to support the ridiculous statement that Ps.12:7 is about God's words-in the face of the statement of the AV translators, and of the existence of many CLEAR preservation verses-is a source of amusement to me.
Providential...I, too, have studied the KJVO myth awhile, since summer of 1982, to be exact. I've read virtually every important work both for and against KJVO, examining the veracity of the various statements made in those works, through independent and unbiased sources. I've found that the KJVO doctrine is a pack of lies, based upon guesswork and imagination, with NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT, no historical justification, and no evidence.
The KJVO myth was inadvertently started by Dr. benjamin Wilkinson, a 7TH DAY ADVENTIST preacher/teacher/official, who was attempting to heal a rift within the SDA cult. In his 1930 book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, he made the statement that Ps.12:7 is about God's words. This was just one of BW's numerous errors in his book, which are discussed elsewhere on this board. This was among the statements copied by J.J.Ray in his book, God Wrote Only One Bible, published in 1955, which was largely plagiarized from Wilkinson's book. Then, in 1970, Dr. D.O. Fuller copied both Wilkinson and Ray in his book, Which Bible? Fuller went so far as to try to conceal BW's cult affiliation, while repeating many of his errors, including the Ps.12:7 thingy.
All these books are readily available if you wish to check the veracity of my statements.
Now, back on topic...
Logos 1560 posted the Psalms in question from the Coverdale's and from the Bishop's Bibles, as well as V7 as written in the Geneva Bible's being posted elsewhere. Plus, I posted the marginal note as found in the AV 1611 for V7 in the initial post of this thread. Now, are all those other Bibles AND the AV translators themselves all wrong about V7, while SDA official Dr. Wilkinson is right about it?
The KJVO myth was inadvertently started by Dr. benjamin Wilkinson, a 7TH DAY ADVENTIST preacher/teacher/official, who was attempting to heal a rift within the SDA cult. In his 1930 book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, he made the statement that Ps.12:7 is about God's words. This was just one of BW's numerous errors in his book, which are discussed elsewhere on this board. This was among the statements copied by J.J.Ray in his book, God Wrote Only One Bible, published in 1955, which was largely plagiarized from Wilkinson's book. Then, in 1970, Dr. D.O. Fuller copied both Wilkinson and Ray in his book, Which Bible? Fuller went so far as to try to conceal BW's cult affiliation, while repeating many of his errors, including the Ps.12:7 thingy.
All these books are readily available if you wish to check the veracity of my statements.
Now, back on topic...
Logos 1560 posted the Psalms in question from the Coverdale's and from the Bishop's Bibles, as well as V7 as written in the Geneva Bible's being posted elsewhere. Plus, I posted the marginal note as found in the AV 1611 for V7 in the initial post of this thread. Now, are all those other Bibles AND the AV translators themselves all wrong about V7, while SDA official Dr. Wilkinson is right about it?
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?
Providential: Your question is what? The KJV or Geneva for Ps 12:6-7?
Don't think he coulda said it more succintly.
Are you claiming to have read, and are familiar with the KJV position?
He said he was KJVO for years, and his intimate knowledge of the KJVO myth shows he knows what he's talking about.
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.
What could be a trap about it? The geneva Bible and the KJV are both in existence for anyone to read. The GB reads "him" in Ps.12:7, the AV 1611 reads "them" w/a marginal note saying the translators believed the strict interpretation of the Hebrew to be "him", while later KJV editions read "them" w/o the translators' note. Now, who is right, or the MOST right? Seems that the older English Bibles, as well as the AV, all indicate the verse is about PEOPLE.
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.
Not any regular here believes that. My "Shooter's Bible" says "bible", but I don't look for Scripture in it, any more than I check out gun prices in the KJV.
The NWT departs from any known mss in more than one place, and it was "translated" by two men, Fred Franz & George Gangas, who admitted they knew little Greek, even less Koine Greek, and NO Hebrew. I believe every regular here knows this.
I reckon by KJVO standards, their myth is more important than what's actually written in their fave BV. Now before anyone tells me "de marginal notes aint the text", let's remember that in many cases such as 12:7, they coulda just as easily been the text.
In the face of all the contrary evidence, can you justify the statement that Ps. 12:7 is about God's words?
Don't think he coulda said it more succintly.
Are you claiming to have read, and are familiar with the KJV position?
He said he was KJVO for years, and his intimate knowledge of the KJVO myth shows he knows what he's talking about.
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.
What could be a trap about it? The geneva Bible and the KJV are both in existence for anyone to read. The GB reads "him" in Ps.12:7, the AV 1611 reads "them" w/a marginal note saying the translators believed the strict interpretation of the Hebrew to be "him", while later KJV editions read "them" w/o the translators' note. Now, who is right, or the MOST right? Seems that the older English Bibles, as well as the AV, all indicate the verse is about PEOPLE.
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.
Not any regular here believes that. My "Shooter's Bible" says "bible", but I don't look for Scripture in it, any more than I check out gun prices in the KJV.
The NWT departs from any known mss in more than one place, and it was "translated" by two men, Fred Franz & George Gangas, who admitted they knew little Greek, even less Koine Greek, and NO Hebrew. I believe every regular here knows this.
I reckon by KJVO standards, their myth is more important than what's actually written in their fave BV. Now before anyone tells me "de marginal notes aint the text", let's remember that in many cases such as 12:7, they coulda just as easily been the text.
In the face of all the contrary evidence, can you justify the statement that Ps. 12:7 is about God's words?