The KJV itself is against KJVO!

[Rippon]

Granted. Now, will you also grant the KJVO the privilege of applying Psalm 12:6-7 to the preservation of God's Word?

And the words of the Lord are flawless , like silver refined in a furnace of clay , purified seven times . O Lord , you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever . ( NIV )

So am I to believe that only translations of the NIV are being referenced here ?! : The NIV , NIrV , NIVI , TNIV etc. ?

 

[Pastor_Bob]

So am I to believe that only translations of the NIV are being referenced here ?! : The NIV , NIrV , NIVI , TNIV etc. ?

You are free to believe what you will. However, I know no one who claims that this verse speaks specifically of the KJV.

 

[Dale-c]

You are free to believe what you will. However, I know no one who claims that this verse speaks specifically of the KJV.

But they use that verse as a defense of KJV onlyism. What else are we to take that to mean?

 

[Mexdeaf]

You are free to believe what you will. However, I know no one who claims that this verse speaks specifically of the KJV.

You better do some research then. There are many that claim tht the KJV IS 7-times purified- I just did a web search on 'seven times purified KJV' and a bunch of references popped up.

 

[Salamander]

Regardless of whether or not one applies 2 Tim. 2:9 to the binding of God's word in versions or not, I shall never, at least while on earth, believe God's word is restricted to just one version. Such an idea does not occur whatsoever in God's word, and all the evidence points against such an idea. While some of you don't believe the Timothy verse applies to this fact, I believe it does, so we're just gonna hafta agree to disagree.

OK, so let's hear YOUR version?:laugh:

 

[Salamander]

And the words of the Lord are flawless , like silver refined in a furnace of clay , purified seven times . O Lord , you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever . ( NIV )

So am I to believe that only translations of the NIV are being referenced here ?! : The NIV , NIrV , NIVI , TNIV etc. ?

Now IF it said the words are perfectly flawless I might agree with that perspective it offers, but it says only "flawless", that could be applied in any area.

That is why I'll stay with the reading "pure words", although meaning flawless, yet flawlessly perfect and pure words.

The understanding of the purifying of God's word is man's accomplishment to render that word into an offering that is pure from all other inferences of malgnity intrioduced by corrupt and unholy men.

The simplistic idealology that God's word needed to be purifed before it was pure from it's inception is STUPIDITY in its purest form!:godisgood:

 

[Salamander]

But they use that verse as a defense of KJV onlyism. What else are we to take that to mean?

In any from of any language man uses, that God's word is pure and upon close inspection, those versions are identified as being impure when discrepencies are exposed within their content.

All accusations against the KJB have been shown to only exist in the figment of the imagination and augmented by those trying to promote an intellectual understanding of God's word, which is contrary to the spiritual aspect due to the natural man cannot discern spiritual things.

God almost always does things which go contrary to a man's witty invention.:godisgood:

 

[Logos1560]

All accusations against the KJB have been shown to only exist in the figment of the imagination

Salamander, would you say that the evidence that Archbishop Richard Bancroft or another prelate made 14 changes in the text of the 1611 edition of the KJV from KJV translator Miles Smith was a "figment of the imagination?"

Do you claim that there were no errors of any kind [regardless of who supposedly made them--translators, editors, or printers] in the 1611 edition of the KJV?

Do you claim that there were no errors in the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV?

 

[gb93433]

All accusations against the KJB have been shown to only exist in the figment of the imagination and augmented by those trying to promote an intellectual understanding of God's word, which is contrary to the spiritual aspect due to the natural man cannot discern spiritual things.

God almost always does things which go contrary to a man's witty invention.

I guess that nobody had God's word before 1611. Amazing story that some tell.

I wonder what they did before English came along?

 

[robycop3]

OK, so let's hear YOUR version?:laugh:

Sure! ANY & ALL valid versions.

 

[robycop3]

In any from of any language man uses, that God's word is pure and upon close inspection, those versions are identified as being impure when discrepencies are exposed within their content.

All accusations against the KJB have been shown to only exist in the figment of the imagination and augmented by those trying to promote an intellectual understanding of God's word, which is contrary to the spiritual aspect due to the natural man cannot discern spiritual things.

God almost always does things which go contrary to a man's witty invention.:godisgood:

We have pointed out undeniable booboos in the KJV, so it aint as pure & flawless as you might tryta have us believe,

 

[robycop3]

I agree 100%.


Granted. Now, will you also grant the KJVO the privilege of applying Psalm 12:6-7 to the preservation of God's Word?

No, for two reasons...

The first is qiite simple & straightforward...V7 simply IS NOT about God's word; it's about David & friends while they were fleeing from Saul.

The second reason is that those verses in no way whatsoever point to the KJV alone, even if they WERE "preservation" verses.

 

[Rubato 1]

V7 simply IS NOT about God's word; it's about David & friends while they were fleeing from Saul.

I'm sorry, that is a bit of a stretch, my friend.

 

[EdSutton]

No, for two reasons...

The first is qiite (sic) simple & straightforward...V7 simply IS NOT about God's word; it's about David & friends while they were fleeing from Saul.

Is this interpretation 'binding'?

Ed

 

[Salamander]

We have pointed out undeniable booboos in the KJV, so it aint as pure & flawless as you might tryta have us believe,

Only deniable by your use of corrupt resources.

 

[Salamander]

Salamander, would you say that the evidence that Archbishop Richard Bancroft or another prelate made 14 changes in the text of the 1611 edition of the KJV from KJV translator Miles Smith was a "figment of the imagination?"

Do you claim that there were no errors of any kind [regardless of who supposedly made them--translators, editors, or printers] in the 1611 edition of the KJV?

Do you claim that there were no errors in the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV?

"Errors" in intent? Or is that "errors" in type?

Definition of one's hobbyhorse often proves its rider doesn't have a tight grip on the reigns.

 

[Salamander]

I guess that nobody had God's word before 1611. Amazing story that some tell.

I wonder what they did before English came along?

Keep guessing and one day you'll find another MV to boast about.

 

[Salamander]

Sure! ANY & ALL valid versions.

Sure, let's see your validations please.

Let's see where you say the text of Psalm 12 jumps from people to words back to people again. The effort is simply fruitless on your behalf. Why? Because some of us KNOW God isn't confused.

 

[robycop3]

Salamander:Sure, let's see your validations please.

Easy! If a translation closely follows its sources, it's valid. The validity of the sources is a different matter, and you cannot prove the validity or non-validity of any of them.

Now, I've answered you yet again, so please answer me...IS THERE ANY SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT FOR KJVO? IF NOT, WHAT'S YOUR JUSTIFICATION FOR BELIEVING IT?

Let's see where you say the text of Psalm 12 jumps from people to words back to people again.

That's exactly what it does, from V5(people) to V6(God's words) backta people.(V7) Remember, it was written as a SONG, and modern songs often jump from subject to subject. Apparently, in his plea for God's help, David took a little time to praise Him.

The effort is simply fruitless on your behalf. Why? Because some of us KNOW God isn't confused.

No, God wasn't confused, and neither was the songwriter David, who was using his "artist's license". The confused ones were apparently Dr. Wilkinson & the KJVOs who believed the error found in his book about Psalm 12:6-7.

 

[robycop3]

I'm sorry, that is a bit of a stretch, my friend.

IS IT? Not according to umpteen Jewish experts on the Psalms.

Clearly, Ps. 12 was written by David. What isn't known is if he wrote it during or after his persecution by Saul. having been driven from his home & family, it's only natural that he woulda had some periods of despair.

Another point is that after Saul fell outta favor with God, he allowed all Israel to become corrupt. This also saddened David.

Now, I ask this in all due respect to you, Rubato, and not in a sarcastic vein...

What makes you believe Psalm 12 is NOT about that time in David's life, when he was fleeing from Saul, almost all Israel was corrupt, and David couldn't trust any stranger he met not to disclose his whereabouts to Saul? In those days, David could depend ONLY UPON GOD to protect him and sustain his life. He could trust no man beyond his immediate companions.