the easy answer to which bible is the real one

[TCassidy]

Weren't Abott and Thayer both Unitarians?

Yes. Abott was also Bussey Professor of New Testament Criticism and Interpretation at Harvard Divinity School. He did have Unitarian leanings but his knowledge of New Testament Greek is incontestable.

Joseph Thayer succeeded Ezra Abbot as Bussey Professor of New Testament Criticism and Interpretation at Harvard Divinity School. Thayer also leaned heavily toward Unitarianism, and even worse, he stated his disagreement with Biblical inerrancy! But, again, his knowledge of Greek is incontestable.

 

[Salty]

It is almost impossible to read the 1611 KJV. So why do KJO insist they are commited to the 1611 (which they probably have never read) and just call themselves KJV 1769?

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Correct.

About 350 Greek manuscripts. And out that 350 only Minuscules Codex Montfortianus (Minuscule 61 Gregory-Aland, c. 1520), 629 (Codex Ottobonianus, 14th/15th century), 918 (16th century), 2318 (18th century) contain the comma.

Correct. With the exception of the ERV of 1881, and its American counterpart, the ASV of 1901, no current bible was translated exclusively from the 1881 Greek New Testament published by Westcott and Hort.

So, Jordan, are you saying the KJV is wrong in Psalm 12:6-7? After all, the translation committee included a marginal note indicating "thou shalt preserve them" is referring to the poor and needy of verse 5 and not the "words" of verse 6. Hebrew grammar absolutely forbids it (and God is not so stupid He doesn't understand Hebrew grammar) and the KJV translators even made sure their readers understood what "them" was referring to.

And nobody has claimed bible preservation is not taught elsewhere in the bible. In fact the concept is everywhere in the bible. The point is that the original poster doesn't understand what Psalm 12:6-7 is talking about. (He has proven he doesn't know very much of anything and just keeps repeating lies over and over again ignoring the fact those lies have been shown to be lies over and over again. )

Here is a copy of the marginal note in the 1st edition, 1st printing, of the KJV/AV of 1611.
View attachment 525

Please explain to me how the Hebrew grammar forbids it referring to the "words" of verse 6, because I disagree with you. Can you please demonstrate the grammatical problem you think exists?

 

[TCassidy]

It is almost impossible to read the 1611 KJV. So why do KJO insist they are commited to the 1611 (which they probably have never read) and just call themselves KJV 1769?

This is a myth. The 1611 edition is fairly simple to read.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Still waiting for a reply Cassidy

 

[TCassidy]

Please explain to me how the Hebrew grammar forbids it referring to the "words" of verse 6, because I disagree with you.

On what basis do you disagree regarding the Hebrew grammar? How much Hebrew do you know? How many semesters of Graduate Hebrew study have you completed?

Can you please demonstrate the grammatical problem you think exists?

Sure. There is gender discordance. The “them” is masculine plural in Hebrew, and “words” in verse 6 is feminine plural. The closest masculine plural words are “needy” and “poor” in verse 5. The rule of Hebrew grammar is that antecedents must agree in gender. "Words" is feminine and therefore cannot refer to "them" so "them" has to refer to the masculine nouns "poor" and "needy."

Just a little bid of education would clear up a lot of the KJVO myth.

 

[TCassidy]

Still waiting for a reply Cassidy

I don't really care what you are waiting for. I have a life completely apart from this forum. I have spent much of the afternoon with my daughter. I hope that did not inconvenience you too much.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

On what basis do you disagree regarding the Hebrew grammar? How much Hebrew do you know? How many semesters of Graduate Hebrew study have you completed? Sure. There is gender discordance. The “them” is masculine plural in Hebrew, and “words” in verse 6 is feminine plural. The closest masculine plural words are “needy” and “poor” in verse 5. The rule of Hebrew grammar is that antecedents must agree in gender. "Words" is feminine and therefore cannot refer to "them" so "them" has to refer to the masculine nouns "poor" and "needy."

Just a little bid of education would clear up a lot of the KJVO myth.

You have some explaining to do about the other times in the Hebrew OT where gender dissonance is utilized.

"It is important for the careful exegete of the Hebrew Scriptures to recognize the biblical phenomenon wherein the biblical writers employed masculine pronouns in reference to feminine antecedent nouns when those feminine nouns were synonyms for the Words of God (cf. Ps. 119). Since the words of Jehovah are an extension of this strong patriarchal God, the OT writers occasionally seemed to use masculine pronouns for the following synonyms. The Hebrew words Law (torah hr'AT), Testimony (`eduth tWd[e), Commandment (mitzwah hw"c.mi), Statute (chuqqah hQ 'xu), and Word ('imrah) hr'm.ai ) are feminine in gender. The normal Hebrew grammatical pattern is that concordance occurs between the gender and number of the pronoun with its respective antecedent noun. For instance, a masculine singular (m.s.) noun would take a masculine singular pronoun, and a masculine plural (m.p.) noun would take a masculine plural pronoun. However, the biblical writers deviated from this "grammatical norm" for theological purposes, emphasizing specific truths. The inspired Scripture is the only authority for the biblical languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek), including their respective vocabulary and grammar. There are examples in all three divisions of the Tanak illustrating this Scriptural Hebrew phenomenon of gender discordance for theological purposes. The following are examples of the phenomenon:

Law (torah) 1. "That thou mayest observe to do according to all the law (torah--f.s.)…turn not from it (mimmennu--WNM ,mi m.s.)," (Josh. 1:7). 2. "For he established a testimony (`eduth--f.s.) in Jacob, and appointed a law (torah-- f.s.) in Israel, which he commanded our fathers, that they should make them (lehodiy`am- -~['ydIAhl . m.p. suffix) known to their children" (Ps. 78:5).

Testimony (`eduth) 1. Ps. 78:5 (see above) 2. "Thy testimonies (`edoth--f.p.) have I taken as an heritage for ever: for they (hemmah--hM 'h e m.p.) are the rejoicing of my heart" (Ps. 119:111). 3. "Thy testimonies (`edoth--f.p.) are wonderful: therefore doth my soul keep them (netzaratham--~t;r 'c'n> m.p. suffix)" (Ps. 119:129). 4. "Concerning thy testimonies (`edoth), I have known of old that thou hast founded them (yesadtam--~T'd>s ;y > m.p. suffix) for ever" (Ps. 119:152). 5. "My soul hath kept thy testimonies (`edoth--f.p.), and I love them (wa'ohavem-- ~beh ]aow" m.p. suffix) exceedingly" (Ps. 119:167).

Commandment (mitzwah) 1. "Therefore shall ye keep my commandments (mitzwoth--f.p.), and do them ('otham-- ~t'ao m.p.): I am the LORD (Lev. 22:31). 2. "If ye walk in my statutes (chuqqoth--f.p.), and keep my commandments (mitzwoth-- f.p.), and do them ('otham--~t'ao m.p.)" (Lev. 26:3). 3. "And remember all the commandments (mitzwoth--f.p.) of the LORD, and do them ('otham--~t'ao m.p.)" (Num. 15:39). 4. "If thou wilt walk in my statutes (chuqqoth-f.p.), and execute my judgments (mishpat-- m.p.), and keep all my commandments (mitzwoth--f.p.) to walk in them (bahem--~h ,B' m.p. suffix)," (I Ki. 6:12).

Statute (chuqqah) 1. "And you shall keep my statutes (chuqqoth--f.p.), and do them ('otham--~t'ao m.p.)" (Lev. 20:8). 2. Lev. 26:3 (see above). 3. I Ki. 6:12 (see above). 4. "For they have refused my judgments (mishpat--m.p.) and my statutes (chuqqoth--f.p.), they have not walked in them (bahem--~h ,B' m.p. suffix)" (Ezk. 5:6). 5. "And hath kept all my statutes (chuqqoth--f.p.), and hath done them ('otham--~t'ao m.p.)" (Ezk. 18:19). 6. "They shall also walk in my judgments (mishpat--m.p.); and observe my statutes (chuqqoth--f.p.), and do them ('otham--~t'ao m.p.) " (Ezk. 37:24).

Word ('imrah) 1. "The words ('imroth--f.p.) of the LORD are pure words ('amaroth--f.p.)…thou shalt keep them (tishmerem--~r em.v.Ti m.p. suffix), O LORD, thou shalt preserve them (titztzerennu--WNr ,C.T i m.p. suffix) from this generation for ever" (Ps. 12:6-7).

Throughout the Hebrew OT, pronouns usually correspond to their antecedent nouns in proximity and with gender/number concordance. However, a phenomenon exists, which fresh Hebrew exegesis observes,17 that feminine synonyms for Word of God are addressed by masculine pronouns for the apparent purpose of masculinzing the patriarchal Jehovah God. The second verb "thou shalt preserve them" has the masculine singular pronominal suffix (titztzerennu WNr ,C.Ti) which refers to the individual Words. Since Hebrew does not have the neuter pronoun "it," the pronoun "him" (v. 7) refers to the individual item of "them" (v. 6).18 The KJV has the marginal note "Heb. him: i.e., everyone of them," which of course would then refer to every individual word. The first verb refers to all the Words that the Lord preserved, and the second to the very individual Words He preserved (cf. Lk. 4:4)."

http://www.bbc-cromwell.org/Seminary_Articles/Psalm-12-Expanded.pdf

It would seem you are wrong.

Note: Hebrew Characters did not show up in the above post when I copied them from the source and pasted them.

 

[Rginald Woodbridge]

I don't really care what you are waiting for. I have a life completely apart from this forum. I have spent much of the afternoon with my daughter. I hope that did not inconvenience you too much.

I spend less time on the forum than most I assure you......my life is dedicated to my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and am only bothering to be here to try to help some...also to learn....my life is Christs...I JUST DO AS hE DIRECTS....

 

[TCassidy]

You have some explaining to do about the other times in the Hebrew OT where gender dissonance is utilized.

So you have proved you know absolutely nothing about Hebrew, and post a bunch of ignorant KJVO nonsense to "prove" it! LOL!

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

That would be good..You see there are two lines of history....one is the catholic line...which you are learned in.....the other is the line of the K.J.V......SO YOU CAN PUT UP YOUR ROMAN CATHOLIC HISTORY AND HAVE THE BLOOD OF MULTITUDES WHO LISTEN TO YOU ........ON YOUR HANDS.......and attack anyone who believes in the other line...that saves with TRUTH......Satan has avialed to much with false info and catholic info being easy available...They bought up the book suppliers and today nearly every so called christian bookstore is a Franchise.......just like Mcdonalds and K.F.C...AND WILL ONLY LET YOU GET HOLD OF LITERATURE TO SUPPORT THE ANTI.K.J.V....they do let some books out from popular sellers......but go and try purchase any of the books I mentioned from your christian bookshop..see if you can get them......Yes you canbuy a K.J.V......IN THE PHILIPPINES AN n.i.v IS ABOUT 5 PESOS.....A k.j.v.IS AROUND 200 PESOS.........Also when people say the greek says today..where do they get their greek from......if only men of influence would stop to discern .....why satan finds it important for people who are supposed to lead the sheep..tend Christ lambs..TO ATTACK THE k.j.v...call those that defend it as cospiracy theorists............maybe if you found out you would realise why the K.J.V. MUST BE SILENCED......maybe I could explain to you this .......and have you never heard of the Inquisition...... Rome demanded anyone calling themselves Christians must not read Gods word for themselves.....so it was put into Latin.....The K.J.V.traslators totally rejected the sinicatus and VATICANUS...HENCE CATHOLIC HISTORIANS ATTACK THE k.j.v.Relenlessly..also vaticanus manuscripts and sinicatus were totally rejected by the translators of an English bible in 1605....... and were left with the 618 manuscripts that are of the recieved text...textus receptus.......The information you give is the catholic version...so are Practicing catholics saved........Rome callls it mortal sin to read the K.J.V..WHY WOULD THAT BE?
You should read Foxes book of Martyrs......and some excellent work by Samuel Gipps...an understandable history of the bible.....I think Gipps work would astound you......and other literature you would do well to lok at are.......IF THE FOUDATIONS BE DESTROYED....C.salliby....author....also Why the k.j.v.is the perfect word of God. from ..Gary Miller.....Which bible can we trust...by someone Garret..and you will find some work by a David.Otis Fuller.....maybe then we can discuss with you having an understanding of the incredible lengts satan went to to flood thew world with ...But where are you going to get these books...definately not from 99 percent of christian bookshops......

Brother, as a fellow KJV supporter I must urge you to be more clear in your presentation of information. The rambling and sloppy presentation makes it hard to understand and it certainly does not make people want to listen to you more, in fact it probably will make many turn away from the actual substance of what you are saying.

You represent Jesus and are an ambassador for him, the way you present your defense of the KJV is dishonorable to the very thing you are defending.

 

[TCassidy]

I spend less time on the forum than most I assure you.

I don't care. I wasn't talking to you.

 

[Internet Theologian]

That would be good..You see there are two lines of history....one is the catholic line...which you are learned in.....the other is the line of the K.J.V......SO YOU CAN PUT UP YOUR ROMAN CATHOLIC HISTORY AND HAVE THE BLOOD OF MULTITUDES WHO LISTEN TO YOU ........ON YOUR HANDS.......and attack anyone who believes in the other line...that saves with TRUTH......Satan has avialed to much with false info and catholic info being easy available...They bought up the book suppliers and today nearly every so called christian bookstore is a Franchise.......just like Mcdonalds and K.F.C...AND WILL ONLY LET YOU GET HOLD OF LITERATURE TO SUPPORT THE ANTI.K.J.V....they do let some books out from popular sellers......but go and try purchase any of the books I mentioned from your christian bookshop..see if you can get them......Yes you canbuy a K.J.V......IN THE PHILIPPINES AN n.i.v IS ABOUT 5 PESOS.....A k.j.v.IS AROUND 200 PESOS.........Also when people say the greek says today..where do they get their greek from......if only men of influence would stop to discern .....why satan finds it important for people who are supposed to lead the sheep..tend Christ lambs..TO ATTACK THE k.j.v...call those that defend it as cospiracy theorists............maybe if you found out you would realise why the K.J.V. MUST BE SILENCED......maybe I could explain to you this .......and have you never heard of the Inquisition...... Rome demanded anyone calling themselves Christians must not read Gods word for themselves.....so it was put into Latin.....The K.J.V.traslators totally rejected the sinicatus and VATICANUS...HENCE CATHOLIC HISTORIANS ATTACK THE k.j.v.Relenlessly..also vaticanus manuscripts and sinicatus were totally rejected by the translators of an English bible in 1605....... and were left with the 618 manuscripts that are of the recieved text...textus receptus.......The information you give is the catholic version...so are Practicing catholics saved........Rome callls it mortal sin to read the K.J.V..WHY WOULD THAT BE?
You should read Foxes book of Martyrs......and some excellent work by Samuel Gipps...an understandable history of the bible.....I think Gipps work would astound you......and other literature you would do well to lok at are.......IF THE FOUDATIONS BE DESTROYED....C.salliby....author....also Why the k.j.v.is the perfect word of God. from ..Gary Miller.....Which bible can we trust...by someone Garret..and you will find some work by a David.Otis Fuller.....maybe then we can discuss with you having an understanding of the incredible lengts satan went to to flood thew world with ...But where are you going to get these books...definately not from 99 percent of christian bookshops......

Utter nonsense.

Give us at least one documented piece of evidence. How about the evidence be that book suppliers have been bought out? That's a HUGE accusation. Provide the evidence.

 

[Rob_BW]

I cruised a couple of Filipino bookstores online, couldn't find any Bibles for 5 pesos.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

So you have proved you know absolutely nothing about Hebrew, and post a bunch of ignorant KJVO nonsense to "prove" it! LOL!

That article is from Dr. Thomas Strauss,

Strouse has a B.S. in industrial engineering from Purdue University, an M.Div. in theology and Biblical languages from Maranatha Baptist Graduate School of Theology, and a Ph.D. in theology from Bob Jones University. Strouse was a founding member of the Dean Burgon Society (1979)

It seems to me like you don't want to actually deal with the substance of what he says.

Why should I believe you over him? Simply because you call me ignorant and it "KJV Nonsense"?

Sorry but I don't have to bow to you simply because you resort to name calling, I thought you were one of the more respectable members of this board and you really disappointed me with your response.

You claim that in the Hebrew there is gender dissonance and therefore due to grammatical impossability proves that the "them" of Psalm 12:7 cannot be referring to the "words" of verse 6, and yet Dr. Strouse in his article shows examples in the Hebrew text in other places where this very thing is done, he gave biblical examples in the article, and your best response is that is is "ignorant KJVO nonsense." If there something wrong with Dr. Strouse reasoning I sure would appreciate it if you would demonstrate it based on the examples he gave. Otherwise it would seem to be you are avoiding dealing with the subtance of what he said and resorting to ad hominem instead and pooh pooh arguments (a rhetorical device in which the speaker ridicules an argument without responding to the substance of the argument)

 

[Internet Theologian]

Brother, as a fellow KJV supporter I must urge you to be more clear in your presentation of information. The rambling and sloppy presentation makes it hard to understand and it certainly does not make people want to listen to you more, in fact it probably will make many turn away from the actual substance of what you are saying.

You represent Jesus and are an ambassador for him, the way you present your defense of the KJV is dishonorable to the very thing you are defending.

Your presentations and arguments may be typed out better, but in the end they are just as asinine as 'Rginalds' and merely parrot what kjvo'ers disseminate. You've been indoctrinated well, and that is all it is, an indoctrination that is not founded in Scripture.

Psalm 12:7 is referring to preservation of the people, not to God's Word. And nowhere in that text does it imply a Bible version would come along that would be 'the perfect Word of God' let alone one of them being from among the many King James versions.

Some kjvo cultists have gone as far with this text to say it took 7 'versions' to finally purify the Word of God into the KJ'B', Psam 12:6, as if God's word needs to be purified via the translation process. And again, which KJV is the perfect one, as there are many, and why? Oh, never mind, I've heard the arguments and they all fail.

 

[TCassidy]

That article is from Dr. Thomas Strauss has two doctorates in Theology and is the president of a theological seminary and is skilled in the original languages.

Tom Strouse (correct spelling)holds to an idiotic belief in geocentricity (the earth is the center of the solar system). You are really going to use that guy as your "proof?"

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Tom Strouse (correct spelling)holds to an idiotic belief in geocentricity (the earth is the center of the solar system). You are really going to use that guy as your "proof?"

Cassidy, you and I both know that you are using rhetorical fallacy right now. I do not agree with his conclusions about geocentricity but that by no means negates his scholarship of biblical langauges. This is an incredibly dishonest way for you to debate. You are avoiding dealing with the actual substance of his argument. If he is such an idiot then surely it should be easy for you to show where his understanding of Hebrew and usage of biblical explanations is flawed.

Name calling is not dealing with argument, perhaps you need to read your own signature.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Name calling is not dealing with argument

So Jesus was wrong when in the 'KJB' name called others? Paul as well? Both dealt with and handled argumentation and employed 'name calling' in so doing. Or, is your argument only of convenience in a forum setting while overlooking these truths?

 

[McCree79]

Brother, as a fellow KJV supporter I must urge you to be more clear in your presentation of information. The rambling and sloppy presentation makes it hard to understand and it certainly does not make people want to listen to you more,

Very true.....I quit reading about 25% through.

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk