Trying To Understand KJVOnlyism

[preacher4truth]

hello ach,

You've offered a lot here but unfortunately for your sake you're proven incorrect and misinformed on nearly every single thing that you type in your keyboard.

You've not proven anything from the OP but you certainly have proven the OP exposure of the maneuvers of kjvo'ers. You've failed and you're allegedly an expert. If Sam Gipp can't bring it is easy to deduce that neither could you.

But face it, you cannot prove what kjvo'ers blindly avow about a version they worship which has translational errors. You've been mislead by many who have originated this system, persons like Ruckman who has also mislead many. Not unlike you they take Scripture as proof texts out of context to support their theory, not excluding silly numerological tricks they offer as proof.

There is no proof for KJVOnlyism. There is no proof that there was double inspiration, the notion of advanced revelations is a heretical theory and cannot be proven, nor can the KJV be proven perfect and pure without a KJVOer doing hocus pocus on troublesome passages that have translational inaccuracies. And that is it in a nut shell, the evidences offered as proofs by KJVOers are merely hocus pocus.

With that in mind, in order to assist you in avoiding straw man arguments here is my stand and my objective; 1) I respect and use the KJV; 2) I am not attacking the KJV; 3) I am attacking the methods used by men that cannot prove a thing and are nothing more than antics.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks to all those knowledgeable about the KJVO fables and fabrications and for exposing even more of their fallacies. KJVO'ers have proven one thing in this thread, they don't have a leg to stand on for their assertions.

- Blessings

 

[robycop3]

A marginal note in the AV is your evidence? Oh well that settles it then. READ THE NOTE AGAIN, it doesn't say anything about people.

Yes, it DOES, unless you call your bowling ball a "him".

Your analysis of the Hebrew text is about as intelligent as a 5th grader trying to interpret the US tax code.

Apparently, it's better than YOURS. Since you say you're in Tel Aviv, you're surely familiar with Hebrew University...if you're telling the truth. In the late 1980s I wrote them about THAT VERY QUESTION, and they answered that indeed the second 'them' in V7 is the masculine singular. I take THEIR word, as well as that of a train load of translators and rabbis over YOURS.

The rule of proximity would show that "words" has a natural antecedent which is "them". All through the Psalms, feminine plural noun synonyms for "WORDS of the Lord" are antecedents to masculine plural pronoun/prominal suffixes:

"'Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou has founded them for ever'" Psalm 119:152

You're forgetting that the psalms are SONGS, written by David, based upon what GOD had told him, either thru visions or by His prophets. (Remember, JESUS said David was also a prophet!) Therefore, David had 'artist's license' when composing the Psalms.

And again, the AV men indicated, in their marginal note, that they believed V7 referred to PEOPLE. The NIV, NASV, YLT, Bishop's, and Geneva translations, among others, all render V7 about PEOPLE. You're badly outvoted by men, past and present, more learned than yourself.

The first 'them' is masculine plural, the second 'them' is masculine singular. "Words" in v6 are feminine plural. Silver, used as another for the word of GOd is masculine singular. The match in genders shows that what is preserved and what is kept is the word and words of God.

"Pardom, your ignorance is showing."

V6 sez "AS silver". David is COMPARING God'e words to seven-times-purified silver. he is NOT saying God's words were purified seven times, nor that they needed such purification.

The "oppression for the poor" follows the same format as verse 1 after "help LORD" "FOR the godly man ceaseth" "FOR the oppression of the poor". V5 continues with the same thought of verse 1.

Furthermore, the King James isn't the only one that follows this translation. Even some of your favorites do as well.

"ASV 1901 - “Thou wilt keep THEM, O Jehovah, Thou wilt preserve THEM from this generation for ever"

I stated the apparent reason the AV men wrote "them". Their own marginal note affirms that reason.

You can't even quote the King James foot-note right,[/quote]

HOW ABSURD!

maybe YOU'RE not stupid, but your above statement isTOTALLY stupid!
I copied that marginal note directly from the Hendrickson repro AV 1611, which is right in fronta me even as I type this! Now, tell us again that I misquoted this, as I'm sure most of the readers here also have repro AV 1611.

I'm starting to not believe a thing you say, based upon your absurdities such as the one above.

let alone know how to read a Hebrew text.

I never claimed to be a hebrew scholar. However, the little side discussion here is about the ENGLISH TRANSLATION of some Hebrew. And the GIST is, that Psalm 12:6-7 is NOT a Scriptural support for the KJVO myth.


[/quote]You created a conclusion based on Doug Kutilek's butchering of the Hebrew, and then extrapolated your own interpretation of the footnote to mean something the foot note doesn't say.[/quote]

Without Kutilek, the marginal note is what it is. And so are the renderings of many translators who rendered V7 as being about PEOPLE.

Again, you're badly outnumbered, having brought a knife to a gun fight.

I hear the band playing for you! Doo wop doo wop Robyflop:flower:

The more you post, the goofier your stuff becomes. You act as if you're sharing a toke with Herbie(Hreb) Evans.

I hear YOUR song gaining volume...

"Silly Boy"
- The Lettermen, 1962

 

[preacher4truth]

I see the 'dr' still has nothing to bring to the table. Then since this is true, he resorts to name calling.

You're correct robycop3, his nonsense gets goofier by the post. Not unlike Ruckman.

:wavey: :sleep:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Yes, it DOES, unless you call your bowling ball a "him".

It is a "HIM" in Hebrew you idiot.....

duh:BangHead:

Dr. J. tried to explain this to you earlier........

You must understand how to inflect Hebrew for masculine and feminine...........there's a LOT of languages that work that way.....a LOT of them. This is elementary information that the KJV translators were aware of that you obviously aren't.

English is RARE in it's refusal to do so. MOST languages actually do. You obviously don't understand a thing Dr. J. was trying to inform you of when he explained that to you. This is information the KJV translators were obviously aware of that you aren't.

No scholarship.......none.....

mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, anti-scholarship fundamentalism.....that's what we get from anti-KJVO's........:BangHead:

Go fabricate steel.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I see the 'dr' still has nothing to bring to the table. Then since this is true, he resorts to name calling.

You're correct robycop3, his nonsense gets goofier by the post. Not unlike Ruckman.

:wavey: :sleep:

Just in case you, like "Roby-cop" didn't know......

There's no direct translation for the word "it".....in Hebrew either

ditto French (I know that much).....the closest thing would be "HIM'S" (a pluralization of the Masculine Singular "him".)

ditto Spanish (I think)
ditto Italian
ditto a LOT of languages.

 

[DrJamesAch]

It is a "HIM" in Hebrew you idiot.....

duh:BangHead:

Dr. J. tried to explain this to you earlier........

You must understand how to inflect Hebrew for masculine and feminine...........there's a LOT of languages that work that way.....a LOT of them. This is elementary information that the KJV translators were aware of that you obviously aren't.

English is RARE in it's refusal to do so. MOST languages actually do. You obviously don't understand a thing Dr. J. was trying to inform you of when he explained that to you. This is information the KJV translators were obviously aware of that you aren't.

No scholarship.......none.....

mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, anti-scholarship fundamentalism.....that's what we get from anti-KJVO's........:BangHead:

Go fabricate steel.

I'm really interested when he wrote to "Hebrew University" in TEL AVIV. Furthermore, he claims that SEVERAL rabbis and scholars wrote him. Obviously, he doesn't know the differences between what Hebrews consider a scholar and what a rabbi teaches, and to think that SEVERAL OF THEM responded to one email? Give me a break. Would love to see this letter, would be very interesting

Learn something about Israel before you go half cocked about where you got your info from Robyflop. Coming from the man who worships Foo Fighters "Led Zeppelin is my spiritual guide" Dave Grohl.

 

[DrJamesAch]

And again, here on posts 28 and 29, P4T demonstrates his total ignorance of some BASIC language issues such as the difference between translation and transLITeration, and yet assumes the ability to agree with someone else critique of languages. http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=86700&page=3

 

[preacher4truth]

It is a "HIM" in Hebrew you idiot.....

Wow.......

 

[preacher4truth]

And again, here on posts 28 and 29, P4T demonstrates his total ignorance of some BASIC language issues such as the difference between translation and transLITeration, and yet assumes the ability to agree with someone else critique of languages. http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=86700&page=3

You're misinformed again. Here is my post #28:

I see. After 30 plus years of study you are bowing out. You've not 'listed in your post' anything from any sources. That's false information and is not seen in any of your posts. All of what you've said is arbitrary.

Yes, my side gives evidence of the KJV having translational mistakes. This is a fact.

Bro, after that much time, you don't need 'debating skills' all you would need after that vast period of time is the ability to offer some solid evidence, quotes, proofs &c. Yet after all this time you can offer none of this whatsoever.

The thing that happens instead is a dismissal and discrediting of opponents as 'proof'.

At the same time, you in essence blame me, that 'I can debate' and you 'cannot debate' and on this premise you bow out.

I believe it is rather this; that you believe in KJVO against reason, and after many years you still cannot provide proof for your system of belief. You don't need debating skills -- you simply need solid evidence and this you cannot provide and at the same time you should be able to after more than 3 decades of studying both sides.

Furthermore, the 1611 contained apocryphal works. Since they (the translators) were under 'DI' then these too must be inspired, yet they are rejected.

The 1611 also contained marginal notes, i.e. "other mss say...." so they did not know, they were only translating, and yet the KJVO camp ridicules other versions for stating the same things, yet all is acceptable if in the KJV. That's a double standard my friend.

Also, there have been revisions of the 1611 since, thus the original 1611 failed in areas, therefore 'DI' shows it was not inspired as corrections needed to be made, and proves 'The 1611' is not the standard nor does it fall under 'DI'.

I still await evidence, and welcome it. Your accusations and discrediting of me (and others) remain unaddressed, therefore I take it you still adhere to no evidence, and at the same time you cannot make an objective answer or proof for your theories.

So far there is no evidence given by you or any other to support KJVO. There is also no answer from you on my many points.

So, do you believe in 'double inspiration' and 'advanced revelation' and use these as your proof or not?

- Blessings

In this post I've shown how an expert has nothing to bring. You also, a self proclaimed expert have offered nothing but smoke and mirrors in support of your KJVO belief system. Post #29? That belongs to someone else. You're incorrect yet again and my feelings are that you just think people won't look up these posts and will simply believe your statements without looking. None of these posts say what you've falsely alleged. :wavey:

You've used inaccurate information and nothing in your post above has a thing to do with my post.

So I will ask this, do you believe the KJV was 'inspired' had 'advanced revelations' (an argument used to justify translational errors) that are in the KJV?

If you believe the KJV was inspired, you embrace DI. As a reader and follower of Ruckman (a follower of man) you also believe in 'advanced revelations'.

Nothing in my post had a thing to do with the languages nor with transliteration. Go gather yourself together, your post is nothing but a straw man filled with KJVO antics.

You cannot prove nor can you supply the slightest evidence that the KJV is the pure, perfect and inspired word of God. Nor can you prove that MV's are not His Word.

You've failed thus far. Dig deeper perhaps? Or, just plain give up -- you've offered no proof henceforth. Or you could employ HoS to try to buffer your erroneous stance. Up to this point he's been more than willing to support you in your plagiarism and your follow up to your plagiarized thread which was yet another fabrication on your part.

 

[robycop3]

It is a "HIM" in Hebrew you idiot.....

duh:BangHead:

So you speak to your bowling ball in Hebrew?

Dr. J. tried to explain this to you earlier........

You must understand how to inflect Hebrew for masculine and feminine...........there's a LOT of languages that work that way.....a LOT of them. This is elementary information that the KJV translators were aware of that you obviously aren't.

Well, apparently you and the good doctor are less-aware of a lotta things that I AM aware of, and so were the AV men, as THEY wrote "him" in their marginal note.

English is RARE in it's refusal to do so. MOST languages actually do. You obviously don't understand a thing Dr. J. was trying to inform you of when he explained that to you. This is information the KJV translators were obviously aware of that you aren't.

Seems the translators of the AV, Geneva, Bishop's, YLT, NASV, etc. etc. were far aheada you, as they all wrote "him" or something similar in their English renderings of Ps. 12:7.(The AV men wrote it in their marginal note.)

No scholarship.......none.....

...on the part of the KJVOs.

mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, anti-scholarship fundamentalism.....that's what we get from anti-KJVO's........:BangHead:

Maybe so(in your opinion) but it's still aheada the KJVO "skollershipp".

Go fabricate steel.

I make a pretty good living at it. You're most likely jealous.

 

[robycop3]

I'm really interested when he wrote to "Hebrew University" in TEL AVIV.

Slight typo on my part. I had to call the Israeli Embassy to get their JERUSALEM addy as I wrote them in the days before the internet.

Furthermore, he claims that SEVERAL rabbis and scholars wrote him.

MMRRPP! WRONG!

I said I CONTACTED several rabbis. I wrote to a couple; I phoned others. And again that was in the days BEFORE Email.

Obviously, he doesn't know the differences between what Hebrews consider a scholar and what a rabbi teaches,

Many rabbis know Hebrew; that was all I was interested in.

and to think that SEVERAL OF THEM responded to one email? Give me a break. Would love to see this letter, would be very interesting

I see why you said English is your SECOND language! "I wrote all the oddities shops in NYC, seeking a ring-dang-doo" is in everyday usage. that soes NOT mean I sent the same letter to every shop! maybe, COPIES of the same letter, but not just one copy to every shop!

Learn something about Israel before you go half cocked about where you got your info from Robyflop. Coming from the man who worships Foo Fighters "Led Zeppelin is my spiritual guide" Dave Grohl.

Something I've recently learned from YOU....The USA does NOT have a monopoly on wing nuts!

MEANWHILE, BACK AT THE RANCH..............

You have contributed nothing but babble-oney to this discussion. You have been totally unable to defend the KJVO myth, or refute one word of what was posted about the ORIGIN of the current edition of KJVO. Your ad-hominem proves your cluelessness.

Yes, I have fired back a little ad-hominem myself, but in response to what has been directed at me. Scripture sez turn the other cheek, but I've run outta cheex toward you.

I am thru with responding in kind to your hatred; it was un-Christ-like of me. I'm simply gonna report any further such stuff from you to the moderators/admin. So, I hope you act accordingly and actually contribute some SUBSTANCE to the dialogue.

 

[robycop3]

And again, here on posts 28 and 29, P4T demonstrates his total ignorance of some BASIC language issues such as the difference between translation and transLITeration, and yet assumes the ability to agree with someone else critique of languages. http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=86700&page=3

In English, there's no personal plural pronoun that would correctly fit into Psalm 12:7, so the AV men used the plural them, which can mean multiple people or objects, as they knew V7 is about multiple people. They then placed the literal translation of the Hebrew into their marginal note.

But again-

For the sake of discussion, let's say V7 IS about God's words. THERE'S NOT ONE QUARK of that verse, nor anywhere in Psalm 12 pointing to the KJV, nor any other English translation.

So, your whole argument about him/them is moot.

 

[preacher4truth]

THERE'S NOT ONE QUARK of that verse, nor anywhere in Psalm 12 pointing to the KJV, nor any other English translation.

So, your whole argument about him/them is moot.

Great point!!!!!!!!!!! Not one thing in Scripture points to a certain 'version'.

 

[jbh28]

Your analysis of Psalm 12 being "about people" is dead wrong.

"The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

The antecedent to both 'thems" is the "words of the Lord", not any of the various poor, or evil people prior to verse 6.

And you completely contradict yourself in attempt to "pull the teeth" out of the argument that the "Psalm 12 thingie" existed before Wilkinson. YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT IS BASED ON THAT and yet you ADMIT it didn't come from Wilkinson. So you assume that Ray and others did not have access to the same materials that Wilkinson did? Where's your proof of that? Could it be that they investigated Wilkinson's claims, and then agreed with his SOURCES instead of relying on Wilkinson's interpretation of the evidence? You can't prove that did NOT. Your assumptions that they borrowed strictly from Wilkinson are just that, assumptions bases on similarities in content.

Actually, if you read the entire psalm, you do not come to that conclusion. Verse 6 is saying that whatever God says is true(or pure). The words of God are pure words. Verse 7 is speaking of the entire chapter. The preservation of the people. Now, the Bible does specifically say that the words of God will be preserved, but that's not what Psalm 12 is speaking about. There is no need to misinterpret the passage to prove that God will preserve His words. (Isaiah 40:8, Matt 24:35).

1 Help, Lord; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men. They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak. 3 The Lord shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things: 4 Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us? 5 For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the Lord; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him. 6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. 8 The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.

As it has been pointed out, the words literally is "him" there. "Him" cannot refer to words but only to people. Since the KJV translators(and others as well) believe it to be referring to multiple people, they used the plural of him which is "them."

With that being said, even if you misinterpret the verse to mean that God will preserve his words, it doesn't change anything doctrinal. God preserving His words is a biblical doctrine. The Bible teaches that God's words will be preserved. This cannot refer to the KJV because the KJV didn't exist then.

When the KJV translators did their work, they have thousands of manuscripts from the Majority Text available and the other texts they had were used to compare to the Erasmus text which was a complete compilation.

1. They didn't have "thousands of manuscripts." Not even close. 25 would be a much close number. The KJV mainly used Beza's text(which came from Erasmus) and Stephanus' text some too. .

The KJV translators used Erasmus not only because of its accuracy, but because it was convenient to use a text where all of the mss were in one volume so instead of sifting through thousand of mss, they could walk through Erasmus text and then compare verse by verse his text to the Erasmus text as well as other completed texts.

they used it because that's pretty much all they had.

There are some verses that were not available AT ALL like 1 John 2:23.

really?!?! It was not available "AT ALL." No where to be found like the Geneva Bible, 1587, "Whosoeuer denyeth the Sonne, the same hath not the Father."
What you may have meant is they didn't find it in any Greek manuscript that they had in possession. The KJV was not the first Bible to include the verse.

The KJV translators place the entire verse in italics, and yet the verse was later found mss that were part of the MT, in which Nestles included in his 1979 Greek text edition. So nobody can claim that God was not part of the translation process.

Yes, they placed it originally because it wasn't in any Greek text they had.

The 'original' is in heaven, and there's no reason to believe that God could not have supplied the KJV translators with verses they may not have had available at the time because time has proven that they were right.

Or they just copied the Bishops Bible or the Geneva Bible.... There is no reason at all to say that God brought about a 2nd inspiration of the verse in English because the KJV translators didn't have any Greek manuscripts of the verse.

 

[evangelist6589]

The KJV is the word of God and is without error in theological truths. However grammar, spelling, and mistranslations have been corrected and updated in more recent Bible versions such as the NKJV & ESV. Greg you may dislike the ESV (as its like the NIV) but what do you think of the NKJV? Some KJV people like the NKJV and its very similar as the KJV.

I've examined the evidence over the course of 30+ years and like many others, have come to a completely different conclusion from you or Roby. How can you be so absolutely sure that what Roby says and presents is the truth? What makes the evidence he presents any more accurate or truthful than the evidence that the men I listed have presented. There are plenty of good and very academically intelligent men and women who would completely disagree with your position.

Frankly, I don't think you are really trying to understand KJVOnlyism. I think you may actually be trying to draw people who believe their Bibles into pointless arguments. That is my opinion. The conclusion of the matter for me is that, believing as I do, I have absolutely complete confidence that the Book I hold in my hand, the English language KJV, is the Word of God, perfect and without error as God wanted me to have it in the dispensation in which I am alive. It is the final authority for all matters of faith and practice for the Christian life. I don't have any need for other "versions". Sorry....I'm completely content with my KJV. The funny thing is...if the language is so "archaic" then I ought to NOT be able to understand it at all. English was actually one of my WORST subjects in school :tear:...Second only to math! Thank God it is His blessed Holy Spirit which leads the believing hearts of His children to understand His Word....in whatever of the many human tongues/languages it is rendered in. Even the simplest minded can understand it when HE "turns on the light". Thank God for that!

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[DrJamesAch]

.

Slight typo on my part. I had to call the Israeli Embassy to get their JERUSALEM addy as I wrote them in the days before the internet.




MMRRPP! WRONG!

I

said I CONTACTED several rabbis. I wrote to a couple; I phoned others. And again that was in the days BEFORE Email.




Many rabbis know Hebrew; that was all I was interested in.

and to think that SEVERAL OF THEM responded to one email? Give me a break. Would love to see this letter, would be very interesting

I see why you said English is your SECOND language! "I wrote all the oddities shops in NYC, seeking a ring-dang-doo" is in everyday usage. that soes NOT mean I sent the same letter to every shop! maybe, COPIES of the same letter, but not just one copy to every shop!



Something I've recently learned from YOU....The USA does NOT have a monopoly on wing nuts!

MEANWHILE, BACK AT THE RANCH..............

You have contributed nothing but babble-oney to this discussion. You have been totally unable to defend the KJVO myth, or refute one word of what was posted about the ORIGIN of the current edition of KJVO. Your ad-hominem proves your cluelessness.

Yes, I have fired back a little ad-hominem myself, but in response to what has been directed at me. Scripture sez turn the other cheek, but I've run outta cheex toward you.

I am thru with responding in kind to your hatred; it was un-Christ-like of me. I'm simply gonna report any further such stuff from you to the moderators/admin. So, I hope you act accordingly and actually contribute some SUBSTANCE to the dialogue.

You're gonna report me for calling you out trying to lie about Hebrew!! This forum is getting funnier by the day

And a "slight typo"??? Come on fella, "Tel Aviv" and "Jerusalem" isn't a typo. What's really funny as that you know I am from Israel and tried to pull that off. That was just a real silly move on your part. You thought it would be a convincing argument since you knew I'd be familiar with it, but you forgot to check your facts before you LIED about it.

And I'll accept your critique of my English if you'll accept my critique of your Hebrew!:laugh::thumbs:

 

[preacher4truth]

The KJV is the word of God and is without error in theological truths. However grammar, spelling, and mistranslations have been corrected and updated in more recent Bible versions such as the NKJV & ESV. Greg you may dislike the ESV (as its like the NIV) but what do you think of the NKJV? Some KJV people like the NKJV and its very similar as the KJV.

The NKJV is nice, I have one, and it's a Scofield. :laugh:

Just nevermind the notes. I actually found Bible and it was in nearly perfect condition.

The bad thing though is KJVOers will attack the NKJV just like other MV's on the basis of some things said by G A Riplinger and others like her -- missing words -- changed wording &c. We know the accusations such bring aren't nice, to say the least.

You're correct above. The KJV wasn't inspired and perfect and pure in every way therefore it had and still has translational errors. It still isn't perfect, never has been, never will be.

 

[preacher4truth]

The 'original' is in heaven, and there's no reason to believe that God could not have supplied the KJV translators with verses they may not have had available at the time because time has proven that they were right.

Oh boy...

So God gave them verses and as time went on they found out the verses were correct? This is untrue ach.

This is exactly where you and other KJVOers go astray.

And you continue:

There is no reason to believe that God could not have supplied them with verses? Come on ach, that's ridiculous reasoning. Here we see your belief in DI and advanced revelations. Ach, you know this isn't factual.

What next, prove He didn't do it? Come on doc. Talk about circular reasoning. Even without the 'what next' your statement is still circular and there is much of this in the KJVOers apologetic. Plainly there is no proof for any of such contentions on the KJV translation. Why? Simply because this didn't take place.

God blessed us with a KJV, but He didn't theos pnuestos this to the translators. I'm certain based on your above assertion this must have happened as well. More DI.

There was and is no magic going on in its translation proccess. Your arguments are pure conjecture, arbitrary, sensationalistic, mere fantasticism, and such ideas have had to have come from Ruckmanism.

 

[robycop3]

I



You're gonna report me for calling you out trying to lie about Hebrew!! This forum is getting funnier by the day

No, I'll report any further ad-hominem attacks by you. And I apologize for my ad-hominem rebuttals. That wasn't very Christ-like of me.

And a "slight typo"??? Come on fella, "Tel Aviv" and "Jerusalem" isn't a typo.

Yes, it IS, when I was thinking about Tel Aviv. Typos are more than just merely typing a wrong letter, you know.

What's really funny as that you know I am from Israel and tried to pull that off. That was just a real silly move on your part. You thought it would be a convincing argument since you knew I'd be familiar with it, but you forgot to check your facts before you LIED about it.

I didn't try to pull ANYTHING off, nor did I lie. I DID write to hebrew U. and received a reply, which was basically the same answer I received from every other Jew who knew Hebrew that I contacted. The Hebrew for Psalm 12:7 2nd them in the KJV translates to HIM in English, whether you like it or not.

And again-the whole bunny trail of the " them/him thingie" is moot because the KJV isn't even hinted at by the slightest quark of the least implication in that verse, in Psalm 12 as a whole, nor in Scripture whatsoever. There's simply NO Scriptural support for KJVO.

And I'll accept your critique of my English if you'll accept my critique of your Hebrew!:laugh::thumbs:

Criticize my "Hebrew" all U wish-I don't care. I don't use Hebrew. That's why I wrote to H. U. & asked some actual Hebrews about Ps, 12:7, among other things. (The others aren't relevant to this present discussion.)

As for your English, I was being sarcastic. I KNOW you were deliberately twisting what I actually wrote, same as you've done in the past-and I'll continue to call you down for it every time I catch you doing it. You're forgetting there are many other readers of this forum, and they see your chicanery for what it is every time you try it, so it's YOUR credibility that's going south.

Carry on...

 

[robycop3]

God didn't inspire nor influence the KJV any more than He did any other valid English translation.

Frankly, I'd liketa see the Geneva and Bishop's versions more-readily available to the general public. Now, while there were other excellent versions before them, such as the "Great Bible" ordered to be made by Henry VIII, their English style and spelling is somewhat too difficult for many people today.

I believe God INFLUENCED the making of all valid versions, not -RE-INSPIRED their makers....from Caedmon and Aelfric to Wycliffe to Tyndale to Coverdale to the AV men, to contemporary translators. And He's done the same for other languages. I'm glad we still have the old translations before us as well as those in our own language style.

PRAISE THE LORD!

THANK YOU, LORD!