Were God's words purified seven times?

[Keith M]

You're arguing with a standpoint on the title of the thread.

If anyone said God's Words were purified, which I haven't observed verbatim on their behalf, but only an accusation surmised by KJVO objectioners, they are wrong.

KJVO writer Bill Brdley makes this false claim.

One could come to a conclusion that the versions in English were purified 7 times due to the number available in that day prior to the KJB. That arguement will hold much water.

Your bucket has a big hole in it so it won't hold any water at all, Salamander! It has been shown previously in this thread that the "seven translations leading to the KJV" theory is wrong, becausee the numbers just don't match up. Sorry! Try again!

Since verses 5,6, and 7 are found in the Word of God, to argue that God's Word isn't what is kept over the poor and needy is, well, not a very educated an arguement at best.

In light of all the evidence that has been presented which shows othewise, it is the opinion that this passage refers to the preservation of words that is not very educated. The preservation promised in Psalm 12 is of people, not words, Salamander. Anyone should be able to see that truth since it is so plain and simple.

 

[Keith M]

This thread is pointless - I don't know whether vs. 7 refers to the AV - probably doesn't - so what? The issue is the "pure words"

I believe I have the pure words in my hand in a King James Bible.

I do not believe the modern versions contain the same - they continn some of the pure words (not many of them though) but they certainly do not contain all of God's pure words.

And since God has chosen to preserve His word in many different English translations down through time, then your opinion about the MV translations of God's word borders on heresy. God's word is preserved in the KJV as well as in modern versions, and to cast doubt on the MVs is to cast doubt on God's word.

 

[Keith M]

Jesus did state that we will always have the poor with us ("but me ye have not always" - Matthew 26:11). That sounds like a confirmation to the fact that the poor will be well preserved.

Amen, Bro. Franklin! Preach it!

 

[HankD]

This and many other KJVO theories are akin to the "emporer's new clothes" syndrome IMO.

There was a time when the KJVO hammered away with Jesus statement that not one jot nor tittle would pass from the law and that the preservation of His Word went down to the very words themselves and even commas, periods, semi-colons, etc...

However comparing the AV1611 with the AV1769 disqualifies one of or both from being the "pure" Word of God using this criteria.

HankD

 

[Keith M]

Right, Hank! I have yet to see anything new from supporters of onlyism that would even mildly suggest they are right. All their old arguments have been shown false over and over again, yet they still reject truth. They really are a confused bunch!

:BangHead: :tonofbricks:

 

[robycop3]

Please note that a certain person WILL NOT deal with the fact that Psalm 12 does NOT mention the KJV by the slightest hint of the slightest implication.

Please note that this same persion has NOT responded to the fact that his Psalm 12:7 thingie is proven wrong,,both by the AV's marginal note, the works of the AV translators, as well as every other translator of every other valid English version, and by two other verses in his own KJV: Psalms 37:28 & 97:10. HIS theory is man-made; its rebuttal is found in the very Bible version he proclaims as the only valid one in the field.


I believe we've overwhelmingly swamped the Psalm 12:7 thingie here, as well as the point I denounced in my OP of this thread.

For anyone who believes Vance is a paragon of erudition, here's a link to some of his other works:

http://www.vancepublications.com/articles by lmv.htm

 

[franklinmonroe]

...Since verses 5,6, and 7 are found in the Word of God, to argue that God's Word isn't what is kept over the poor and needy is, well, not a very educated an arguement at best.

Let's consistantly apply this proximity method of interpretation; that is, applying the "them" in v.7 to the closest possible antecendant, the "words" in v.6. Then immediately preceding are recorded those "words of the LORD" the psalmist is referring to--

Ps 12:5 (KJV) 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.

It is somewhat unclear whether this direct quotation of the LORD begins with the phrase "For the oppression of the poor..." or with "Now I will rise...". In either case: v.6 follows to tell us that His statement is truth; and v.7 follows to tell us that the LORD will not only accomplish what He says He will do, His work will not be overturned in the future.

The LORD has simply promised eternal security to the poor man from his oppressor. David's commentary is only about the LORD's statement as quoted within his psalm, and should not be extrapolated to mean anything else.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Psalm 12:6, KJV: "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times."

A footnote of the NET Bible suggests that the number seven is used rhetorically to express the thorough nature of the action. Other possible figurative uses of the Hebrew term (shib’athayim, here translated as “seven times”), see Gen 4:15, 24; Ps 79:12; Prov 6:31; and Isa 30:26.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Then explain how the Holy Spirit inspired Isaiah to refer to Jesus as a "sheep before HER sheerers was dumb"

Ut O! Now you will have to explain how the Holy Spirit inspired Luke to refer to Jesus as a "lamb dumb before HIS shearer" in the New Testament book of Acts. (Good folks, please accept my apology for going a bit off topic here).

Acts 8:32 (KJV) The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:

Isa 53:7 (KJV) He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

The mention of the animals in Acts is reversed of Isaiah: now it is the sheep (the Greek word is neuter) that is led, or brought, to the slaughter; now it is the lamb (a different masculine Greek word) that is dumb before the shearer(s). No feminine forms at all.

You must have been confused when you chose this example in an attempt to prove that gender agreement is not a principle way in determining unclear antecedents (like in Psalm 12:7). Yep, you missed it again... and I have hit a GRAND SLAM TO WIN THE GAME!

 

[robycop3]

A footnote of the NET Bible suggests that the number seven is used rhetorically to express the thorough nature of the action. Other possible figurative uses of the Hebrew term (shib’athayim, here translated as “seven times”), see Gen 4:15, 24; Ps 79:12; Prov 6:31; and Isa 30:26.

The silver Tabernacle utensils were made of silver refined 7 times. This was the purest physical thing known to David; thus he used this standard with which to compare God's words. And yes, the # 7, the Biblical # for purity, was purposely used, I'll venture to say.

Funny, Dr. Vance, with a degree in English, missed the fact that Psalm 12:6 is a COMPARISON made by David, that Vance missed the word 'as' before the word 'silver'. Do we have a case of overlookus deliberatitis here?

 

[Keith M]

Now would Dr. Vance deliberately overlook something to try to prove error?

Would a bird fly to try to get to its nest?

 

[franklinmonroe]

From Brenton's English translation of the Septuagint--

5 Because of the misery of the poor, and because of the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the Lord, I will set them in safety; I will speak to them thereof openly.

6 The oracles of the Lord are pure oracles; as silver tried in the fire, proved in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

7 Thou, O Lord, shalt keep us, and shalt preserve us, from this generation, and for ever.

 

[robycop3]

I don't think the idea of Psalm 12:7 originated with Wilkinson; he had compiled mosta his stuff from other sources, putting them all in one book. Obviously he copied them without bothering to establish their veracity.

I cannot remember where this incorrect idea originally came from. I don't think it was Hislop who was the source of some other incorrect ideas, but at any rate it was Wilkinson's book that served as the foundation of the line of Onlyists who include it in their propaganda.

At any rate, the whole idea is false, and the KJVOs really need to take a closer look at it before they push it any more. This thingie identifies Party-Line KJVOs to me & tells me they need to READ-N HEED their fave BV a lot more closely.

 

[Dr. Bob]

It is all false, conjured up by those woefully lacking in basic English skills, much less Hebrew or Greek!

But, trust me from 7 years here on the BB, you will NEVER get that thru to those "honest scholars" who include 1611 right in their screen names! To admit to the slightest "issue" with the 1611 (even if they don't use it, just parrot the name) is a "slippery slope" to ending up like . . ME!!

And no one wants that! :tonofbricks:

 

[Salamander]

God FORBID!:tongue3:

 

[franklinmonroe]

Originally Posted by Salamander
Then explain how the Holy Spirit inspired Isaiah to refer to Jesus as a "sheep before HER sheerers was dumb"

Ut O! Now you will have to explain how the Holy Spirit inspired Luke to refer to Jesus as a "lamb dumb before HIS shearer" in the New Testament book of Acts. (Good folks, please accept my apology for going a bit off topic here).

Acts 8:32 (KJV) The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:

Isa 53:7 (KJV) He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

The mention of the animals in Acts is reversed of Isaiah: now it is the sheep (the Greek word is neuter) that is led, or brought, to the slaughter; now it is the lamb (a different masculine Greek word) that is dumb before the shearer(s). No feminine forms at all.

You must have been confused when you chose this example in an attempt to prove that gender agreement is not a principle way in determining unclear antecedents (like in Psalm 12:7). Yep, you missed it again... and I have hit a GRAND SLAM TO WIN THE GAME!

The Septuagint does not exibit the gender conflict that the KJVs OT text has (from Brenton's English translation, CAPS are mine)--

7 And he, because of his affliction, opens not his mouth: he was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before THE shearer is dumb, so he opens not his mouth.

 

[franklinmonroe]

...In this case, doctrinal reason over-rides the gender agreement principle.

At least initially, I would not want to read the words through doctrine-colored glasses (deductive: to derive or draw as a conclusion by reasoning from given premises or principles), but rather I would predicate my doctrine upon what the Word of God actually states (inductive: reasoning from detailed facts to general principles).

So, please tell us, exactly which doctrine are you justified in applying here?

 

[Salamander]

The Septuagint does not exibit the gender conflict that the KJVs OT text has (from Brenton's English translation, CAPS are mine)--

No gender conflict, except for those who promote it.

 

[robycop3]

No gender conflict, except for those who promote it.

Sal, are you now prepared to deal with the issue I brought up earlier? To refresh your memory, I asked how do you deal with the fact that Psalm 12 does not mention the KJV, nor lean toward it by the slightest quark of the slightest implication.

See, I'm being careful not to shout nor type too fast. Answer, please?

 

[franklinmonroe]

It was Salamander that asserted that there is gender disagreement in Isaiah 53:7 (in his post #59 of this thread)--

...Then explain how the Holy Spirit inspired Isaiah to refer to Jesus as a "sheep before HER sheerers was dumb"

Evidently, Salamander's desperate purpose of exhibiting any potential example of gender disagreement (conflict) was to discredit the valid application of the Gender Agreement principle to assist in determining uncertain antecedents (as related to this topic, the "them" in Psalm 12:7)--

...The example was to prove that gender is not the over-riding rule of thumb in determining the interpretation.

Therefore, the promoter of gender conflict is now clearly identified... it is Salamander.