The"Psalm 12:6-7 thingie"

[agedman]

I like Ruckman (RiP), inspite of some of his theological or personality errors. However, tell me, if you will please, what does what Ruckman said, have anything to do with what you said people like Ruckman said:



Where did Ruckman say that a person can only and/or ever be saved by the AV1611 or KJB?

Where did Ruckman say that just because there are differing translations, in any language (English included), that they aren't the word of God, for that reason?

Where did Ruckman ever say that just because there are translations from older mss that they are in error automatically for being translations?

Where did Ruckman ever say that the only pure word of God was the KJB? (He continually says, that the KJB is the preserved word of God 'in the English')

One of us is baiting and switching. (psssst. hint. It isn't me ..., but if you'd like, I'll help you find the person who is doing it ... do you have a mirror available?)

You are more greedy to follow unrighteousness than truth.

I encouraged you to enlarge your research, even gave an example of what can be found and you make false claim against me.

Obviously, you think commenting untruthfully about me garners both esteem and proof.

It does neither. It destroys debate and edification.

Take your mirror you offered and gaze again into it, for does not the Scripture state: “For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like.”

We’re done.

 

[robycop3]

Mere unfounded assertion of exaggeration. What we do have in the AV1611 is a footnote, given by an unknown person/s (unless you can produce the evidence of person/s?) Again, there were final editors to the AV 1611, and they dealt with the footnotes, or possibly (I have no evidence for or against) were asked to include a footnote by particular person/s that did work on the translation, and no way of knowing if the person that gave that footnote worked on the particular section of translation specifically (unless you would like to produce that evdence?). That's what we have, and that footnote was already addressed by the previous responses. It doesn't help you in your agenda to save the world from believers in inspired final preserved authority of God's word, in all matters of faith and practice, in English, the King James Bible

You're just guessing, of course. The translators themselves were the editors.

 

[robycop3]

I have no idea what you are referring to.

Please stop prevaricating. You know EXACTLY to what I was referring to - the false, man-made doctrine that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation. That idea is false as Paul Manafort's testimony, phony as a Ford Corvette.

The one in my hands, the preserved word of God is English, the King James Bible.

The various editions read differently in many places. Things that are different are not the same. Only ONE could be absolutely right, but there are NONE without goofs & booboos, such as "Easter " in Acts 12:4.

Question in return. Where, on this present earth, is the preserved word of God, in any language? Or is there such a thing?

In every valid translation, & in all the ancient Scriptural manuscripts from thich those translations are made. (Before you ask, a valid translation is one that closely follows its sources.)

 

[robycop3]

I like Ruckman (RiP), inspite of some of his theological or personality errors. However, tell me, if you will please, what does what Ruckman said, have anything to do with what you said people like Ruckman said:



Where did Ruckman say that a person can only and/or ever be saved by the AV1611 or KJB?

Where did Ruckman say that just because there are differing translations, in any language (English included), that they aren't the word of God, for that reason?

Where did Ruckman ever say that just because there are translations from older mss that they are in error automatically for being translations?

Where did Ruckman ever say that the only pure word of God was the KJB? (He continually says, that the KJB is the preserved word of God 'in the English')

One of us is baiting and switching. (psssst. hint. It isn't me ..., but if you'd like, I'll help you find the person who is doing it ... do you have a mirror available?)

Ruckman was a quack.

Ruckman DID say the KJV (NOT "KJB") was "advanced revelation", & corrected its Greek sources, which was pure nonsense.

 

[agedman]

Ruckman was a quack.

Ruckman DID say the KJV (NOT "KJB") was "advanced revelation", & corrected its Greek sources, which was pure nonsense.

Hey robycop3, Alofa Atu said tha he, “likes Ruckman (RiP), inspite of some of his theological or personality errors.”

If one agrees with someone who has theological and personality error, (not to mention the moral violations which he had to degrade the authority of Scripture to excuse) then it is no wonder the responding posts reflect that influence.

Can one run, walk, stand, sit with the dirty and remain clean?

 

[rlvaughn]

I looked at the views of 3 older commentators on this text. They lived before the version debate wars existed (at least our kind of version wars). John Calvin (1536), Matthew Henry (1706) and John Gill (1763) thought the words “them” in verse 7 applied to the people that God would preserve rather than the Bible. John Calvin wrote, “Some give this exposition of the passage, Thou wilt keep them, namely, thy words; but this does not seem to me to be suitable. David, I have no doubt, returns to speak of the poor, of whom he had spoken in the preceding part of the psalm.”

It is worth noticing, though, that the comment of Calvin suggests some in his day thought it referred to words. I do not think that should be surprising.

The AV men believed same as modern translators do, that those verses are about people, as they showed in their footnote. And David, while using the knowledge God gave him, still used "artist's license" in writing the songs.

Not sure what you have in mind with the "artist's license" comment. I haven't read the entire thread and was replying to your initial post. Your comments don't seem to address mine, which is that (1) some leading commentators many years prior to the modern Bible version wars believed them meant the people not the words, however, (2) there were some people in Calvin's day (he lived 1509-1564) did think it meant the words. He and they knew nothing of the KJV, and probably not didn't deal with much in the English language.

Gill wrote:

Thou shall keep them, O Lord,.... Not the words before mentioned, as Aben Ezra explains it, for the affix is masculine and not feminine; not but God has wonderfully kept and preserved the sacred writings; and he keeps every word of promise which he has made; and the doctrines of the Gospel will always continue from one generation to another; but the sense is, that God will keep the poor and needy, and such as he sets in safety, as Kimchi rightly observes...

 

[Alofa Atu]

"Easter " in Acts 12:4.

'easter' is a carry over from Tyndale, and is a shortened form of 'easterlambe', or passover lamb - Tyndale Bible 1534 Textus Receptus Bibles

Even the Matthew's Bible has it - Matthew's Bible 1537 Textus Receptus Bibles

Nothing wrong with 'easter' in the KJB, and is in no way error, specially when compared to all the other places it is translated as 'passover'. God uses multiple words to mean the same thing, in many places.

 

[Alofa Atu]

Please stop prevaricating. You know EXACTLY to what I was referring to - the false, man-made doctrine that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation. ...

I did not 'prevaricate'. You asked a question, and I gave you a very specific answer. The reason you did not accept the answer, is not because it was not an answer, but you reject the answer, because you do not believe in the preserved word of God that a person can hold in their hands.

Allow me to give you the opportunity to show what other (than the KJB) English book, that I can hold in my hand right today, is 'valid', and is it perfectly preserved or does it contain errors, missing pieces, need to be updated in a few years if another find in the 'dirt' of the 'desert' or in a room of the 'secret chambers' happens?

When you say 'valid' who defined that? What was the standard of criterion that determines validity?

 

[robycop3]

Not sure what you have in mind with the "artist's license" comment. I haven't read the entire thread and was replying to your initial post. Your comments don't seem to address mine, which is that (1) some leading commentators many years prior to the modern Bible version wars believed them meant the people not the words, however, (2) there were some people in Calvin's day (he lived 1509-1564) did think it meant the words. He and they knew nothing of the KJV, and probably not didn't deal with much in the English language.

Gill wrote:

By "artist's license", I meant the language & grammar stretches, along with similes & metophors, that songwriters use, & have used long as we know of, in all languages. I figured David mighta used it as well, to make his lyrics fit a given melody.

As for the old commentators, they might've been influenced by the Hebrew of V7, where the AV makers wrote "them" instead of the singular "him, as, obviously, the verse was about more than one person.

But still, there's no way those verses are "proof-texts" of Scriptural support for KJVO. They don't mention ANY translation, or God's word in any other language.

 

[robycop3]

'easter' is a carry over from Tyndale, and is a shortened form of 'easterlambe', or passover lamb - Tyndale Bible 1534 Textus Receptus Bibles

Even the Matthew's Bible has it - Matthew's Bible 1537 Textus Receptus Bibles

Nothing wrong with 'easter' in the KJB, and is in no way error, specially when compared to all the other places it is translated as 'passover'. God uses multiple words to mean the same thing, in many places.

First, your pet Bible version is the "KJV", NOT KJB". Its makers called it the "Authorized VERSION", not "Authorized Bible". And it IS a version, not "the" Bible.

As for Easter, we have discussed ad nauseam in other forums here why it's a goof in the KJV. The CONTEXT clearly shows Luke was referring to PASSOVER. There was no reason to define pascha as Easter that ONE time outta 29 appearances in the New Testament Greek.

The AV 1611 includes an "Easter-Finder" placed in it by the translators, proving they clearly knew Easter & passover apart. While they USED to be used interchangeably, and pascha can mean either one in MODERN Greek, depending upon the context, by the time the AV was made, such usage had pretty well faded, replaced by Tyndale's word "passover", coined in the 1530s. While that didn't happen overnight, it DID happen.

And, of course, "Easter" isn't the only goof in the KJV. There's "Thou shalt not KILL" in Ex. 20:13, & "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil" in 1 Tim. 6:10. And this is just a short list of the KJV's goofs & booboos.

 

[Alofa Atu]

First, your pet Bible version is the "KJV", NOT KJB"...

So, you would even rob me of saying "King James Bible" (KJB)? Exodus 20:15

 

[robycop3]

I did not 'prevaricate'. You asked a question, and I gave you a very specific answer. The reason you did not accept the answer, is not because it was not an answer, but you reject the answer, because you do not believe in the preserved word of God that a person can hold in their hands.

Well, actually, you DID, as I'm sure you knew full well what I meant by "KJVO myth". It's a doctrine because it's TAUGHT, and a myth because it's false & man-made. The ONLY true doctrines of faith/worship are found in SCRIPTURE & nowhere else.

Allow me to give you the opportunity to show what other (than the KJB) English book, that I can hold in my hand right today, is 'valid', and is it perfectly preserved or does it contain errors, missing pieces, need to be updated in a few years if another find in the 'dirt' of the 'desert' or in a room of the 'secret chambers' happens?

I can hold any number of Englishn translations in my hand & have God's word as He intended for us to have it. GOD IS NOT LIMITED to any one translation in any language, & in English, He has kept His word updated as the language changed.

When you say 'valid' who defined that? What was the standard of criterion that determines validity?

Ole man Webster said, "(of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent." And a Bible translation that closely follows the sources being translated certainly meets that criterion. The correctness of translation is the criterion that determines "validity".

 

[robycop3]

So, you would even rob me of saying "King James Bible" (KJB)? Exodus 20:15

Sure! It's INCORRECT.

 

[Alofa Atu]

...

The AV 1611 includes an "Easter-Finder" placed in it by the translators ....

Uh-huh, and they knew that it meant:

See Matthews Bible:

1 Corinthians 5:7 Pourge therfore the olde leuen, that ye may be new dowe, as ye are swete bread. For Christ oure easterlambe is offered vp for vs. - Link

When was Christ Jesus offered up for us?

They understood the feasts of Leviticus 23 (23:4-14), in that the Passover was the sacrifice, 14 Abib, and that it followed 14 days from the New Moon, and thus needed an 'easter' finder, which would also include the days following, such as the first day of unleavened bread, and firstfruits, since they are all tied together. vs 3. 'the days of unleavened bread', and it was on passover that they began the eating of unleavened bread, Exo 12:8,11, &c.

They also included a bunch of so-called 'holy days' a few pages later, 'all Sundayes in the yeere'. Should I keep those?

You seem to be under the impression that the notes and extra content of the AV1611 is preserved and infallible, while the word of God itself, Gen - Rev is not. Me thinks you are reversed.

 

[Alofa Atu]

Sure! It's INCORRECT.

What is incorrect? That the book I hold in my hands, called the 'King James', is not the "Bible"?

You do know what "Bible" means right?

 

[Alofa Atu]

... I can hold any number of Englishn translations in my hand & have God's word as He intended for us to have it. ...

What if they contradict one another?

Can I show you how the NIV contradicts itself, and other English 'versions'?

Are they all the word of God then, preserved? If not, which ones are then?

 

[Alofa Atu]

...& "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil" in 1 Tim. 6:10. ....

Me thinks you are way off your own OP. and demonstrating it was never about the topic to begin with.

Geneva 1560

1 Timothy 6:10 For the desire of money is the roote of all euill

Tyndale 1531

1 Timothy 6:10 For coveteousnes is the rote of all evyll which whill some lusted after they erred fro the fayth and tanglyd them selves with many sorowes.

Wycliffe 1394

1 Timothy 6:10 For the rote of alle yuelis is coueytise, which summen coueitinge erriden fro the feith, and bisettiden hem with many sorewis.

Me thinks you do not know how to properly translate koine Greek into English.

 

[robycop3]

Me thinks you are way off your own OP. and demonstrating it was never about the topic to begin with.

Geneva 1560

1 Timothy 6:10 For the desire of money is the roote of all euill

Tyndale 1531

1 Timothy 6:10 For coveteousnes is the rote of all evyll which whill some lusted after they erred fro the fayth and tanglyd them selves with many sorowes.

Wycliffe 1394

1 Timothy 6:10 For the rote of alle yuelis is coueytise, which summen coueitinge erriden fro the feith, and bisettiden hem with many sorewis.

Me thinks you do not know how to properly translate koine Greek into English.

The PROPER translation is "the love of money is A root of ALL SORTS of evil", as found in most MODERN translations, and which fits REALITY.

Reality is shaped by Scripture, not vice versa, so the Greek of that verse is correct, of course. Some of mens' translations of that Greek are incorrect.

 

[robycop3]

Uh-huh, and they knew that it meant:

See Matthews Bible:

1 Corinthians 5:7 Pourge therfore the olde leuen, that ye may be new dowe, as ye are swete bread. For Christ oure easterlambe is offered vp for vs. - Link

http://oldebible.com/matthew-bible/1-corinthians-5.asp
The Matthews version was published in 1537, but Rogers had finished his New Testament by 1526. Thus, a good while passed from it to the KJV, during which the "Easter = passover" thingie had all but died out. Some 85 years ago, Americans called most non-pneumonia or TB respiratory ailments "catarrh", but no one does so now. in the manner "catarrh" died out, so did "Easter = passover".

When was Christ Jesus offered up for us?

As His crucifixion, on the 3rd day of passover.

They understood the feasts of Leviticus 23 (23:4-14), in that the Passover was the sacrifice, 14 Abib, and that it followed 14 days from the New Moon, and thus needed an 'easter' finder, which would also include the days following, such as the first day of unleavened bread, and firstfruits, since they are all tied together. vs 3. 'the days of unleavened bread', and it was on passover that they began the eating of unleavened bread, Exo 12:8,11, &c.

They also included a bunch of so-called 'holy days' a few pages later, 'all Sundayes in the yeere'. Should I keep those?

That's up to YOU. If you're an Israeli, yes, as God gave passover, etc. only to Israel, but as a gentile & a Christian, I'm not under the law God gave to Israel, except those things that are always sinful for anyone, I. E. murder, theft, sexual sin, idol-worship, etc.

You seem to be under the impression that the notes and extra content of the AV1611 is preserved and infallible, while the word of God itself, Gen - Rev is not. Me thinks you are reversed.

MMRRPP ! WRONG!
The extratextual content of the AV shows some of the mindset & beliefs of its makers, as well as clarifying certain passages of the text.

 

[Alofa Atu]

The PROPER translation is "the love of money is A root of ALL SORTS of evil", as found in most MODERN translations, and which fits REALITY. ...

I think you do not realize what you just said, in the same sentence. "MODERN translations" in connection with "love of money", and "ALL SORTS (you mean like 'versions'?)" of evil ...