Psalms 12:6-7

[Trotter]

natters,

You're making perfect sense to me, brother.

In the words of Brother Ed: Preach it!

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[David J]

Still no real answers to the questions. It's not like I expected to get any real answers out side of KJVO ex cathedra.

Why is pointing out KJVO myths basing the KJV?

Why can we just get a simple answer?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Providential: "Now I know you KJV bashers THINK you
have all the answers, ... "

Sir, in MHO it is you are the Bible basher:

Providential: "You cannot say God's Word was
PURE AND PRESERVED, if different versions
were out there contradicting one anothers, ... "

Yep, you bash my Bible saying it is contradicting
yours. Sorry, God's Written word in Your KJV1769
does NOT contradict God's Written word in my
Holman Christian Starndard Bible (HCSB). In fact,
the word-for-word differences are less than 4%
YET even from the same vewrsion i find 22% differences
in doctrines among Baptists. Or understanding of the
Bible makes many more differences than the minor
variations that exist, even among the Textus
Receptus documents from which the KJV was partically
translated.

 

[Glory2God]

1 John 4:3
(KJB) And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

(HCSB) But every spirit who does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist; you have heard that he is coming, and he is already in the world now.
(NAB) while every spirit that fails to acknowledge him does not belong to God. Such is the spirit of the antichrist which, as you have heard, is to come; in fact, it is in the world already.
(NWT) but every inspired expression that does not confess Jesus does not originate with God. Furthermore, this is the antichrist’s [inspired expression] which YOU have heard was coming, and now it is already in the world.


Ephesians 5:30
(KJB) For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
(HCSB) since we are members of His body.
(NAB) for we are members of his body.
(NWT) because we are members of his body.

Philippians 3:16
(KJB) Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule , let us mind the same thing.

(HCSB) In any case, we should live up to whatever truth we have attained.
(NAB) It is important that we continue on our course, no matter what stage we have reached.
(NWT) At any rate, to what extent we have made progress, let us go on walking orderly in this same routine.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

And you post, G2G, applies to Psalm 12v6-7 in what way?

 

[robycop3]

Ladies and gentlemen, I think we've gotten a little off-course, myself included. May we deal with this question first: Referring to Ps.12:7, in the face of the many translations that say 'him' or 'us', and, given the marginal note of the AV translators, is there any justification at all for saying V7 refers to God's WORDS?

Sorry that I got ahead of myself, Providential, but I've heard all those incorrect arguments for so many years....

 

[Providential]

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

When people argue in a circle, they ususally don't see it. The reason I am telling you this is because that is what I am observing you do. Its called "arguing in a circle". There is such a thing, you know.

Ed, I have read many of your posts and find it hard to take you seriously. You seem about as open as a Bank Vault.

Your points about division amongst the Baptists is lamentable, BUT the differences between new versions and the KJV are substantial and doctrinal. This has been proven so many times by so many different authors, that I will not debate it on a board full of people acting like they are "Schooled" in this issue.

As to Psalms 12, Yes I BELIEVE IT REFERS TO GOD'S WORDS.

Contextually, it fits, and I have read many "exegetical" attempts to explain both sides. I think the KJV rendering has the better of it.

In the Providence of God, the KJV translators chose the word "them" instead of "him", ot "us". Seeing what version we are talking about, and the Critical timie it came out, I find their rendering decisive. Its like they said, they were making good translations better. And, they did not mean the Vulgate when they said that.

 

[KeithS]

This seems to address the heart of the issue. Any comments?

The underlying Hebrew holds the key. In Hebrew, nouns and pronouns have a gender form - masculine or feminine. Not that the objects themselves have to be physically male or female, but rather words are classified into these two categories, much like the French words "le" and "la" are the masculine and feminine forms respectively of the English word "the".

In verse 7 of the KJV, the words "preserve them" was translated from the Hebrew word natsar (naw-tsar', Strong's #5341), and is in masculine form. The Hebrew word is a verb and can have either a feminine or a masculine form suffix, depending on whether the object(s) (noun or pronoun) it is acting upon is in feminine or masculine form. In this case it's in the masculine form. So we then know that whatever it's referring to (it's antecedent) must also be in masculine form.

Examining the word "words" in verse 6, we see that the underlying Hebrew word is 'emrah (em-raw', Strong's #565). This word is in feminine form. If the author (David) wanted to use the masculine form, so that the "them" in verse 7 would match, he would have used the Hebrew word 'emer (ay'-mer, Strong's #561), which is the exact same word but in the masculine form.

Examining the words "poor", "needy" in verse 5, we see that their Hebrew words are `aniy (aw-nee', Strong's #6041) and 'ebyown (eb-yone', Strong's #34) respectively. These words are both in masculine form.

So, it appears that in order to read this passage as a "word preservation" passage would require the breaking of Hebrew grammar rules. In the Hebrew, this passage is clearly a "people preservation" passage. The meaning that is clear in the Hebrew is blurred and is easily missed in the KJV.

It is also clear that it probably isn't an "exception to the rule" of gender matching, since David could have used the feminine suffix on the Hebrew word translated as "preserved them", thus avoiding the "exception". Another way he could have done it would be to have used the masculine form Hebrew word 'emer (ay'-mer, Strong's #561) for the "words" in verse 6, instead of the feminine form Hebrew word 'emrah (em-raw', Strong's #565), which both have the same meaning and are both translated as "words" throughout the KJV. Lastly, we don't need to see an "exception to the rule" because this passage is not a case where there is no other explanation - understanding "preserve them" to mean the people in verse 5 fits both Hebrew grammar rules and context of the chapter. An "exception" needs not exist for the passage to make perfect sense, as is the case with other "exceptions". To believe this passage is a "word preservation" passage is to create an "exception to the rule" where none is needed.

From a paper written by Brian Tegart at:

http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/psalm12.html

 

[HankD]

And, they did not mean the Vulgate when they said that.

KJV Psalm 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Latin VulgateThe Psalms are offset from the KJV in the VULGATE) Psalm 11:8 tu Domine servabis nos et custodies nos a generatione hac et in aeternum

Which is reflected in the Douay-Rheims
DRA Psalm 11:8 Thou, O Lord, wilt preserve us: and keep us from this generation for ever.

Also:
LXX Psalm 12:7 Thou, O Lord, shalt keep us, and shalt preserve us, from this generation, and for ever.


HankD

 

[robycop3]

I recently spoke to a Jewish acquaintance who knows Hebrew quite well and who says basically the same thing. He reminded me to bear in mind that the psalms were written as SONGS, and that they sometimes jump around in thought and context same as do modern songs; thus David often interposed praises of God within the stories he was writing. Also, he was putting the words & prophecies of his prophet friends Nathan & Gad into song, as well as what God had said directly to him. Thus, David interrupted his telling of God's answer to his prayer with words of praise in Psalm 12:6, then returned to God's answer in V7.

It appears that the various translators, including the AV men, have taken the view that Brian Tegart explains, Keith. I have yet to see a translation that reads, "You shall preserve your WORDS..." in V7.

 

[robycop3]

Providential:In the Providence of God, the KJV translators chose the word "them" instead of "him", ot "us".

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

 

[natters]

Originally posted by Providential:
When people argue in a circle, they ususally don't see it. The reason I am telling you this is because that is what I am observing you do.

And yet again, you cannot explain how. If I was arguing in a circle, it would be a very simple matter for you to explain how. Yet not only have you not done this, you also have not answered any of my questions (which you said you would) or explained any errors in my facts or logic. Go ahead, I'm waiting.

In the Providence of God, the KJV translators chose the word "them" instead of "him", ot "us". Seeing what version we are talking about, and the Critical timie it came out, I find their rendering decisive. Its like they said, they were making good translations better.

Didn't God's word already exist? Wasn't Psalm 12 already true? How do you improve the word of God? How is this "preservation" and not "alteration"?

 

[Providential]

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

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. 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. Its the translation we are talking about. I don't care if their marginal notes stated the moon was made of swiss cheese. When Saul prophecied, Scripture tells us, he became ANOTHER MAN. On his own, you know how he ended up.

"And yet again, you cannot explain how. If I was arguing in a circle, it would be a very simple matter for you to explain how. Yet not only have you not done this, you also have not answered any of my questions"

Actually i did explain "how" some posts ago. Go back and see.

I think I have answered the questions.

"Didn't God's word already exist? Wasn't Psalm 12 already true? How do you improve the word of God? How is this "preservation" and not "alteration"?"

Yes, in the Greek and Hebrew, and other languages also. As for Psalms 12, it was in the Hebrew, What we are talking about is a translation that accuratley brought everything over into the English. It is obvious the KJV has been that God-honored translation.

 

[Trotter]

"It is OBVIOUS the KJV has been that God-honored translation." Not to me it ain't.

Just because the KJV has been around for 400 years means squat. The Vulgate has been around for over a thousand years, so OBVIOUSLY it must be the God-honored translation.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Don't you know Trotter that English has been God's language since 1611 so this passage ONLY speaks of the KJV (I'm still not sure which edition or printing)and no other version?

 

[natters]

Originally posted by Providential:
"And yet again, you cannot explain how. If I was arguing in a circle, it would be a very simple matter for you to explain how. Yet not only have you not done this, you also have not answered any of my questions"

Actually i did explain "how" some posts ago. Go back and see.

I have gone back and looked. All I can find is your claim, not your explanation. Can you please help me out? Tell me what page it's on, or simply copy/paste your explanation.

"Didn't God's word already exist? Wasn't Psalm 12 already true? How do you improve the word of God? How is this "preservation" and not "alteration"?"

Yes, in the Greek and Hebrew, and other languages also.

Yet the KJV does not match any of these perfectly from a textual perspective.

What we are talking about is a translation that accuratley brought everything over into the English. It is obvious the KJV has been that God-honored translation.

I agree. I disagree about the KJV's exclusivity in this matter. Psalm 12:6-7 was true in other English Bibles before and after the KJV was published.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Providential:

In the Providence of God, the KJV translators chose the word "them" instead of "him", ot "us".

In the providence of God we now have a bunch of kooks running around telling people they can be "gods" of their own world... and the world has a high impression of the Mormons.

In the providence of God, the whacked out leadership of the JW's selectively edited their own Bible version that they now use to deceive people into joining their cult.

Providence does not mean inspiration nor perfection nor being exclusively correct... or being correct at all.

Seeing what version we are talking about, and the Critical timie it came out, I find their rendering decisive.

That is called eisogesis. You are reading into the text something you wish it said... but it doesn't.

Its like they said, they were making good translations better. And, they did not mean the Vulgate when they said that.

They also denied that their work was the final word on translation. They acknowledged that better translations were possible.

 

[robycop3]

Natters...This is just another case of some KJVOs cornered by their own doctrine who are trying to get away from answering basic questions whose correct answers prove their myth false.

I started this thread to prove yet another of the KJVO assertions false, but in order to try to cover up that fact, some KJVOs have accused us of attacking the KJV itself. That's totally ridiculous. What we HAVE done is remind people of the marginal note the translators placed into the AV 1611 that tells us they considered Ps.12:7 to be about PEOPLE. Therefore, if anyone is attacking the KJV, it's those who are going againat what its very TRANSLATORS wrote; they're trading the truth for a myth.

No Christian, especially a Baptist, denies that God has preserved His word. There are many Scriptures attesting to this fact. Yet, many a KJVO chooses this verse as a proof text of His preservation, in the face of a trainload of evidence to the contrary, because some erroneous KJVO author said so. That's what makes their argument such a laff riot...they're denying the words of the very translators whose work they're advocating! Can anyone see a DOUBLE STANDARD here, or the KJVOs' placing more stock in their myth than they've placed in their own fave Bible version?

Keep asking,em, Natters! So will I, and several other here.

 

[Providential]

This is nonsense really. Roby, you keep posting the same things as if doing it over and over makes it true. I am answering these little-gnat straining questions, 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.

Trotter said:

"It is OBVIOUS the KJV has been that God-honored translation." Not to me it ain't.

Just because the KJV has been around for 400 years means squat. The Vulgate has been around for over a thousand years, so OBVIOUSLY it must be the God-honored translation."

Great attitude about a serious and sacred subject. You are less open than a bank vault. Continue with your ostritch tactics of claiming not to see while you head is in the sand.

I have to go to a ministry function, so I will answer theother comments later. Be blessed in Jesus Name.

 

[Trotter]

Don't you know Trotter that English has been God's language since 1611 so this passage ONLY speaks of the KJV (I'm still not sure which edition or printing)and no other version?

Roge, if I didn't know just how twisted you really are, I'd be worried about you right now...

Thanks for the laugh.

In Christ,
Trotter