The KJV itself is against KJVO!

[Rubato 1]

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.

David was a very emotional man. There were many times in his life when he would feel despondent: running from Saul, running from Absolom, the burning fo Ziklag, the pain he caused over Bathsheba, the plots of Jeroboam and enemies on David's deathbed, to name a few.

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

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.

David refers to the wicked as among the 'vilest men.' David never referred to Saul that way, and never would (he might, however, when thinking about Jereboam, who was plotting against him for many years).
David said the godly man ceaseth, but he knew that Samuel was alive and well while he was on the run from Saul.
Did Saul say 'With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us?'

Did God preserve them (David's friends) to every generation, if we don't even know who it may have been at this generation?

The grammatical structure of the passage (remembering that there are no verse divisions in the Hebrew) obviously suggests one complete thought in vs. 6-7. The only reasonable antecedent for 'them' is in v. 6, 'the words of the Lord.'

This verse is reasonably interpreted in light of similar verses:Psalm 33:11The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations.
Psalm 100:5
For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.
Psalm 135:13
Thy name, O LORD, endureth for ever; and thy memorial, O LORD, throughout all generations.
(thanks, BibleGateway).
Why would God give his word and not keep it for every generation? That sounds like a business plan that is bound to fail.

This is just off the top of my head, I may look into it further. However, I think the burded of proof should be upoon you to show that the verse does not mean what it initially seems to indicate.

 

[Salamander]

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.

So you now believe since God wasn't confused, God now is.:laugh:

 

[Salamander]

David was a very emotional man. There were many times in his life when he would feel despondent: running from Saul, running from Absolom, the burning fo Ziklag, the pain he caused over Bathsheba, the plots of Jeroboam and enemies on David's deathbed, to name a few.

David refers to the wicked as among the 'vilest men.' David never referred to Saul that way, and never would (he might, however, when thinking about Jereboam, who was plotting against him for many years).
David said the godly man ceaseth, but he knew that Samuel was alive and well while he was on the run from Saul.
Did Saul say 'With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us?'

Did God preserve them (David's friends) to every generation, if we don't even know who it may have been at this generation?

The grammatical structure of the passage (remembering that there are no verse divisions in the Hebrew) obviously suggests one complete thought in vs. 6-7. The only reasonable antecedent for 'them' is in v. 6, 'the words of the Lord.'

This verse is reasonably interpreted in light of similar verses:Psalm 33:11The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations.
Psalm 100:5
For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.
Psalm 135:13
Thy name, O LORD, endureth for ever; and thy memorial, O LORD, throughout all generations.
(thanks, BibleGateway).
Why would God give his word and not keep it for every generation? That sounds like a business plan that is bound to fail.

This is just off the top of my head, I may look into it further. However, I think the burded of proof should be upoon you to show that the verse does not mean what it initially seems to indicate.

Exactly! A-MEN!

men are not preserved from all their enemies, yet all the words of God are preserved and forever settled in Heaven where moth and rust doth not corrupt.

To believe this isn't referring to words and that it refers to people makes God inable to protect His people to every generation, which Israel has been subject to the heathens and many,many put to death in direct opposition to that position!

Al roby has to offer is conjecture. The definition found among the Hebrew is this could refer to either people or words, but common sense isn't as common as it used to be~!:tonofbricks:

 

[Askjo]

Originally Posted by robycop3
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.

Ok, let’s see how valid modern versions are. About 10,000 words in modern versions are not Words of God. How valid are these 10,000 words disagreeing with the identification of wording of the autographs?

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.

You refer “them” to the people because you are interested in man’s words more than God’s Words. Do you?

 

[EdSutton]

Can't say what this REALLY is, and stay on the Baptist Board!

Ok, let’s see how valid modern versions are. About 10,000 words in modern versions are not Words of God. How valid are these 10,000 words disagreeing with the identification of wording of the autographs?

News Flash!!!

Askjo now knows exactly what are (or where are) the autographs!!

Help out the rest of us poor souls! Where are they, so we can see them for ourselves??

BTW, exactly how did you recognize the fact that they were the autographs??

Ed

 

[Askjo]

News Flash!!!

Askjo now knows exactly what are (or where are) the autographs!!

Help out the rest of us poor souls! Where are they, so we can see them for ourselves??

BTW, exactly how did you recognize the fact that they were the autographs??

Let’s look at the CT and the TR where 10,000 different word variations are. Can they be equally verbally inspired of God?

 

[gb93433]

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

It is actually about those who think their English KJV is the only Bible. To say such a thing is to claim that God's word never existed until the KJV. Some of those folks even claim that the English KJV is used to correct the Greek text.

Your same argument was actually used when the KJV came along. At the time there were those who claimed it as a MV. I laugh at the thought that those who were against the KJV at the time used the same arguments as those today who are in support of their once MV called the KJV of today.

 

[FundamentalBaptist02]

Although I am not KJVO, I wonder how valid your argument is? Is Paul discussing translations of the bible in 2 Timothy 2.9? No; he is surely saying that, although for the sake of the gospel, he himself is a prisoner, bound in chains, God's Word cannot be bound. The gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ was still going forth.

I may be wrong, but at the moment I cannot see any reference whatever in 2 Timothy 9 to varying translations of the bible.

I was thinking the same thing. I also am not KJVO but this argument doesn't really sound all that valid. If you want some good arguments against King James Onlyism, go to www.kjvonly.org.

 

[gb93433]

Ok, let’s see how valid modern versions are. About 10,000 words in modern versions are not Words of God. How valid are these 10,000 words disagreeing with the identification of wording of the autographs? You refer “them” to the people because you are interested in man’s words more than God’s Words. Do you?

You are terrribly wrong. You could not be more wrong. God's word was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. He chose to have it written in those languages. Who am I to question His choice and make such condemnation of that choice? God never asked for my opinion anyway.

 

[FundamentalBaptist02]

You are terrribly wrong. You could not be more wrong. God's word was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. He chose to have it written in those languages. Who am I to question His choice and make such condemnation of that choice? God never asked for my opinion anyway.

Exactly! I strongly recommend that any KJVO Baptist carefully look in to the other side of things. I'm sure they would find that they are wrong.

 

[gb93433]

Exactly! I strongly recommend that any KJVO Baptist carefully look in to the other side of things. I'm sure they would find that they are wrong.

Some are so fragile and afraid that their theology would come tumbling down and they would fall. They are afraid that if they question their god who preaches to them on Sunday they might fall apart.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Time to stop the merry-go-round again.