Were God's words purified seven times?

[Keith M]

Then either you are wrong in your ascertian, or you're only partway kept by a god who can only partway keep you. ( by your estimation of Ps 12:6,7)

Good dodge, Salamander! Still putting words in the mouths of others when you cannot support your own arrant ideas. Keep it up, Sal! You're becoming more and more like Ruckman all the time.

hint: marginal notes do not make the Bible, they only at best make marginal notes.

Still you dodge my questions. I asked you for proof, not conjecture.

While it is true that marginal notes do not make the Bible, those notes DO provide the evidence you asked for, Salamander. You asked for proof that the KJV translators did not support the false notion that vs. 7 spoke of preserving words. Then when that proof was given you made the false accusation that the question was being dodged. So what more do you want, Salamander? Why don't you try re-writing the Bible to support the KJVO myth? And while you're at it add your own marginal notes too. That should be interesting!

 

[Keith M]

Salamander:I must ask for your evidence that "AV men" ever said that verse 7 is limited to people, who BTW, are people kept by the Pure Word of God which is kept!

I, & several others, have posted the marginal note written by the AV men several times. I even typed it real slow once so certain people could catch it. Not to mention several versions, including the Geneva Bible, have "him" in V7.

Are you poor and needy?

Financially, no. But I could be in other areas...but not from believing an incorrect doctrine.

Cranston, the truth is obviously not being accepted here. There is no truth accepted by supporters of the KJVO myth, because their entire belief is based in untruth. Truth shows Salamander and others who support the KJVO myth to be wrong, and since they will not admit to their error, they refuse to accept the truth. Sad, truly sad...

:tear:

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I must ask for your evidence that "AV men" ever said that verse 7 is limited to people, who BTW, are people kept by the Pure Word of God which is kept!

There is no evidence that they thought it meant "only" people. It is clear that they at least recognised the people concept because of the marginal note they added. The problem comes when one tries to claim that they only accepted the idea that it referred to the words. They chose to make it clear that they knew there was another option.

 

[robycop3]

Salamander:Then either you are wrong in your ascertian, or you're only partway kept by a god who can only partway keep you. ( by your estimation of Ps 12:6,7)

Nothing to do with the subject material.

hint: marginal notes do not make the Bible, they only at best make marginal notes.

BIGGER HINT: The marginal notes reveal the INTENT and BELIEFS of the translators as they rendered certain parts of the text in one of several possible ways. Here, the translators showed the LITERAL meaning of the Hebrew. Knowing the first 5 verses were about PLURAL PEOPLE, they substituted the plural them for the singular him.

Still you dodge my questions. I asked you for proof, not conjecture.

The proof is right there in the AV 1611, as I've said numerous times. If ya don't like it, I suggest you take it up with the editors.

MEANWHILE, BACK AT THE RANCH...

hERE'S PSALM 12:7 as found in some other versions:

NIV: "O LORD, you will keep us safe
and protect us from such people forever.

NASV:"You, O LORD, will keep them;
You will preserve him from this generation forever.

Young's Literal Translation:"Thou, O Jehovah, dost preserve them, Thou keepest us from this generation to the age.

HCSB:"You, LORD, will guard us; ]
You will protect us from this generation forever.

Geneva Bible:"Thou wilt keepe them, O Lord: thou wilt preserue him from this generation for euer. "

Bishop's Bible:" [Wherfore] thou wylt kepe the godly, O God: thou wylt preserue euery one of them from this generation for euer.

Oh, yeah...Here's a coupla more Psalms that cross-reference Ps. 12:7:

Ps. 37:28, & 97:10. Remember, the SAME MAN wrote ALL these Psalms.

Looks as if the KJVOs are outvoted on this'n, Sal! And, unlike YOU, Sir, I did NOT dodge a question. Ya might not like the answer, but lessee ya prove it incorrect!


Now, once again...

"Even if Psalm 12:7 WERE about God's words(but it isn't!), where is the first blip of evidence that it points to the KJV?"

Is that "quiet" enuff for you? Please ANSWER; please don't dodge any more.

 

[robycop3]

Looking at Bible versions older than the KJV, it appears that:

a.) Psalm 12:7 was overlooked in the sevenfold purification process...

Or...

b.) It was pure to start with, as David said.

I choose the latter.

And again, there's not the first quark of the slightest implication that points to the KJV in all of Psalm 12.

 

[franklinmonroe]

yep, you missed it again, STRIKE!

The metaphor expressed in the form of the simile implicates the femininity of how the actions of Jesus were to be described in His laying His Life down for man's sin. True.

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

No, sir. I will show here that it is you that has missed something important in my previous post. Notice I wrote "almost certainly".

The antecedent of “them” in verse 7 is almost certainly not the “words” of verse 6 based upon gender agreement. The Hebrew word for “them” (twice in v. 7) is masculine, while the term for “words” is feminine.

I was aware that there are exceptions to gender agreement rule, and thus worded my post carefully (the STRIKE! is actually on you!). Gender agreement is a very good indicator of antecedent when it is unclear otherwise. Contrary to another of your statements, gender agreement is the Rule, while gender disagreement is the exception in a small minority of cases (STRIKE 2!!). Therefore, it is risky to discard the rule to interpret in favor of an exception, unless there are other very solid reasons to do so, like context, which not in you favor in this passage (you're OUT!!!).

 

[robycop3]

It appears that if the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie" which Sal has apparently picked up from the "Wilkinson-Ray-Ruckman-Fuller-Waite-Riplinger Party Line" were true, then all those translators, including the AV men, were wrong. We see from the examples I posted earlier what these translators, past and present, believed/believe about the antecedent of Ps. 12:7.

Apparently, if there actually WAS any "purification" of God's words, it missed David, who wrote many of them.

 

[Salamander]

Good dodge, Salamander! Still putting words in the mouths of others when you cannot support your own arrant ideas. Keep it up, Sal! You're becoming more and more like Ruckman all the time.



While it is true that marginal notes do not make the Bible, those notes DO provide the evidence you asked for, Salamander. You asked for proof that the KJV translators did not support the false notion that vs. 7 spoke of preserving words. Then when that proof was given you made the false accusation that the question was being dodged. So what more do you want, Salamander? Why don't you try re-writing the Bible to support the KJVO myth? And while you're at it add your own marginal notes too. That should be interesting!

:laugh: Surely you jest! All the marginal notes do is explain what the translators or editers thought about the verse.

What the Translators say is not inspired as the Canon either.

If, as you say, that the "poor and needy" is the antecedent of the verses, then your rendition will make God out to the a liar.

Many poor and needy today are victimized by the arrogant and oppressive evil men, that has been the case throughout all of history. Many of these same people have died in their sins and went to a devil's hell due to their failing to trust in the Preserved Word of God and its Christ.

Obviously you praise God for the wrong reasons. I praise Him for keeping His Word!!!:godisgood:

 

[Salamander]

There is no evidence that they thought it meant "only" people. It is clear that they at least recognised the people concept because of the marginal note they added. The problem comes when one tries to claim that they only accepted the idea that it referred to the words. They chose to make it clear that they knew there was another option.

Thank you for a sane comment on this subject, but I firmly belive when all the avenues of reason have been considered, we are left knowing that it is the words that are kept.

 

[Salamander]

No, sir. I will show here that it is you that has missed something important in my previous post. Notice I wrote "almost certainly".


I was aware that there are exceptions to gender agreement rule, and thus worded my post carefully (the STRIKE! is actually on you!). Gender agreement is a very good indicator of antecedent when it is unclear otherwise. Contrary to another of your statements, gender agreement is the Rule, while gender disagreement is the exception in a small minority of cases (STRIKE 2!!). Therefore, it is risky to discard the rule to interpret in favor of an exception, unless there are other very solid reasons to do so, like context, which not in you favor in this passage (you're OUT!!!).

Ball four, I walk to first. ( of course with a gleam in my eye for making the strike zone so narrow).

Lest ye forget there are exceptions to most rules. In this case, doctrinal reason over-rides the gender agreement principle.

 

[Salamander]

It appears that if the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie" which Sal has apparently picked up from the "Wilkinson-Ray-Ruckman-Fuller-Waite-Riplinger Party Line" were true, then all those translators, including the AV men, were wrong. We see from the examples I posted earlier what these translators, past and present, believed/believe about the antecedent of Ps. 12:7.

Apparently, if there actually WAS any "purification" of God's words, it missed David, who wrote many of them.

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.

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.

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.:BangHead:

 

[Ed Edwards]

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.:BangHead:

Actually the argument slays the whole KJVO viewpoint right out
of the Word of God:

Psalm 12:5-7 (Geneva Bible):
Now for the oppression of the needy,
and for the sighes of the poore,
I will vp, sayeth the Lord, and will set at libertie him,
whom the wicked hath snared.
6 The wordes of the Lord are pure wordes,
as the siluer, tried in a fornace of earth,
fined seuen folde.
7 Thou wilt keepe them, O Lord:
thou wilt preserue him from this generation for euer.

 

[AVBunyan]

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.

 

[robycop3]

There is no evidence that they thought it meant "only" people. It is clear that they at least recognised the people concept because of the marginal note they added. The problem comes when one tries to claim that they only accepted the idea that it referred to the words. They chose to make it clear that they knew there was another option.

I'm basing what I said not only on the AV mens' note, but upon the rendering of the verse as found in many other versions, old and new.

I believe the KJVOs' obsession with V7 has coma about because the "God's words" thingie came about from the "party line" derived from Wilkinson's book. I base this statement on the fact that there are several verses elsewhere that very clearly state God has preserved His word, which SHOULD eliminate stretching the message of Psalm 12:7 to include God's words. Were there no other verses CLEARLY, UNEQUIVOCALLY stating God preserves His word, then such a stretch of V7 might be valid.

I still find it amazing that BAPTISTS believe a theory from a SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST!

 

[robycop3]

Salamander::laugh: Surely you jest! All the marginal notes do is explain what the translators or editers thought about the verse.

So that's not important??????? They substituted them for him, while explaining the LITERAL translation is "him, I, euery one of them". These are the renderings used in every other valid English version I've ever seen except the NKJV.

What the Translators say is not inspired as the Canon either.

Never said it was. However, their notes are often an explanation of why they used a certain rendering from those available, or why they departed from the literal translation. That's what they did with Ps. 12:7.

If, as you say, that the "poor and needy" is the antecedent of the verses, then your rendition will make God out to the a liar.

Given what the AV men wrote, given that no other translators of any valid English version applies V7 to God's words, I could easily say that applying V7 to God's words makes YOU a liar. But in the interests of board rules, and the fact I believe you're a fellow Christian & Baptist, I won't. I'll just let the facts speak for themselves.

Many poor and needy today are victimized by the arrogant and oppressive evil men, that has been the case throughout all of history. Many of these same people have died in their sins and went to a devil's hell due to their failing to trust in the Preserved Word of God and its Christ.

Please read Psalm 12:1 to see about whom David was writing.

Obviously you praise God for the wrong reasons. I praise Him for keeping His Word!!!:godisgood:

Obviously you don't believe the meanings of certain parts of the Bible version you say is the only valid one. If you did, you'd believe its translators over the words of a cult official's book.

 

[robycop3]

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

And obviously winning. FACT beats GUESSWORK every time.

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.

ARE WE?

Here ya go:
http://www.biblebelievers.com/Vance5.html

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.

Yeah...about as much water as a sieve can hold. First, the supporters of that lie manipulate the #s of bible versions made before the KJV to make it fit their lie. Then, they completely mis-apply Ps. 12:6, where David first states GOD' WORDS **ARE PURE, then COMPARES them to silver refined 7 times.

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.:BangHead:

No, it's a FACT versus the stretch and guesswork of the author of your KJVO fallacy.

AND, Sal......

Once again, you have FAILED to deal with the FACT that NOTHING in Ps. 12 points to the KJV whatsoever. until you deal with that FACT, your argument is vapor & your credibility is near Enron Land.

 

[robycop3]

AVBunyan: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"

Never said otherwise. However, if the KJVO point of view were correct, no one had God's pure words till 1611. Fortunately, this view is bunk, as shown by the KJVOs' own fave Bible version.

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

So do I...as well as in several other versions, old & new.

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.

Thank God you live where you do, where you're allowed to hold to and broadcast such an erroneous belief...a belief which you cannot justify, a belief unsupported by any evidence. I don't care that you hold such a belief, but I DO care when you try to deceive someone else into believing it also.

 

[franklinmonroe]

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.

 

[Keith M]

Surely you jest! All the marginal notes do is explain what the translators or editers thought about the verse.

And the marginal notes for this passage blows your opinion right out of the water!

What the Translators say is not inspired as the Canon either.

And neither is their translation inspired. It is merely a translation of the inspired words of God.

If, as you say, that the "poor and needy" is the antecedent of the verses, then your rendition will make God out to the a liar.

Not at all, Salamander! God does not lie, yet if you apply vs. 7 to words and not people, then that thinking makes God out as the liar. After all, if the KJV is the perfectly preserved words of God as you cliam, then God failed to carry through on His promise since the KJV didn't appear on the scene until 1611. The promise of preservation "from this generation for ever" was certainly not kept if this promise applies to words. That's basic truth, Salamander. Why do you reject truth?

Many poor and needy today are victimized by the arrogant and oppressive evil men, that has been the case throughout all of history. Many of these same people have died in their sins and went to a devil's hell due to their failing to trust in the Preserved Word of God and its Christ.

One of the few true things you have ever said, Salamander! But although your statement is true on the surface, your application is all wrong. Look at vs. 1 where the writer says that there are those who fall from among the faithful. God's promise of preservation is not for those who are not faithful, but the promise of preservation is for faithful people! People, Salamander, not words as you erroneously claim! The entire psalm is about the preservation of the poor and needy, pure and simple. It is not about preserving words or anything else. The writer of the psalm merely interjected praise in vs. 6. He did not claim that God promised to preserve words in this psalm, Salamander! Your follow a private interpretation of vs. 7, Salamander, and it is wrong.

knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation 2 Peter 1:20 NKJV

Obviously you praise God for the wrong reasons. I praise Him for keeping His Word!!!

My, my, my! Such pride, arrogance and judgment you show, Salamander! God does Keep His word! Only His promise in this passage is not to preserve words as you opine, but to preserve the poor and the needy who are faithful. I praise God for keeping His word, too! At least we can agree on one thing!

 

[Keith M]

Thank you for a sane comment on this subject, but I firmly belive when all the avenues of reason have been considered, we are left knowing that it is the words that are kept.

Right there is much of your problem, Salamander. You depend far too much on the reasoning of man and not on what God says. In Psalm 12:7 God promised to preserve people, yet your humanistic reasoning causes you to reject the truth.