Were God's words purified seven times?

[robycop3]

Franklin, it's apparent that Sal cannot deal with the simple basic question I asked several times before, lately in the last post in this thread before yours. although he seems intelligent enuff, this'n's got him stumped.

The lengths some people will go to try to defend an undefendable, unprovable doctrine!

 

[Keith M]

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

Salamander is the promoter of much conflict, confusion and error...

 

[robycop3]

I believe we can conclude that the "purified seven times" theory is false, that God's words are pure from the instant He says them, & that yet another product of man's imagination about Scripture has bit the dirt.

Roger, if there's no more meaningful discussion brought forth on this subject within 24 hours, will you close it?

 

[Salamander]

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?

Only since you asked "please".

No Bible has in it's content other than the title the name you demand in any translation.

Any evidences required to substanciate any version is found within its pages.

The ultimately substancial evidences found to ensure the KJB as God's Word are found right within its pages.

The Context demands this. Jumping from context to context promotes confusion.

Show where within any version that the version is advocated by the Lord? You cannot. You're arguement lacks honesty.

 

[Salamander]

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


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)--


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

Which conflict? The one about gender positive, gender alternative, or gender neutral?

You seem to try and do alot of talking for others, friend, that is very dishonest.

I can only observe desparation on the behalf of those who live on the internet verses being busy about what the Lord actually calls all men to do: SPREAD THE GOSPEL!

I know we cannot be expected to be 24/7 about God's business, but I have been busy and not consumed by your pre-occupation with arguing the Bible. Especially since you all like to leave basic reasoning out of the conversation and omit common knowledge and allude to all sorts of insanities to try and prove a point.:1_grouphug: The Rainbow Coalition would be proud of the use of this icon.

Let's see you people deal with the gender agreement principle regarding Ps 12:6,7; espcially since it does not always apply to every scripture to determine the gender, as some have well pointed out by referencing N.T. to O.T. accounts.

Where the Hebrew suggests the feminine, Greek many times suggests the masculine.

I thank the moderators for not being so hasty as others have suggested the thread be closed.

Arguing against a widely accepted theory by advocating contradictory proof texts is utter confusion. To coin a phrase, "Learn Something!":sleeping_2:

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I believe we can conclude that the "purified seven times" theory is false, that God's words are pure from the instant He says them, & that yet another product of man's imagination about Scripture has bit the dirt.

Roger, if there's no more meaningful discussion brought forth on this subject within 24 hours, will you close it?

Was away for a couple of days - I'll have a look back over this tomorrow

 

[robycop3]

Salamander"No Bible has in it's content other than the title the name you demand in any translation.

Any evidences required to substanciate any version is found within its pages.

The ultimately substancial evidences found to ensure the KJB as God's Word are found right within its pages.

Same thing is found in the text of every other valid version(& some non-valid ones) also. None of it is exclusive to the KJV.

The Context demands this. Jumping from context to context promotes confusion.

Not if you've progressed past the 4th grade in reading level.

Show where within any version that the version is advocated by the Lord? You cannot. You're arguement lacks honesty.

No, YOURS does. The same things you say substantiates the KJV are found in every valid version, and even in some of the non-valid ones such as the NWT. But yet, your fellow KJVOs say ONLY THE KJV is valid. To prove this, ya need some Scripture that points to the KJV alone. This is CERTAINLY not found in Psalm 12. There's NO EVIDENCE that God's word in English was "purified" even once, let alone seven times.

You're right back to Square One, stuck with a doctrine that has nothing but opinion & guesswork sustaining it.

 

[Salamander]

Salamander"No Bible has in it's content other than the title the name you demand in any translation.

Any evidences required to substanciate any version is found within its pages.

The ultimately substancial evidences found to ensure the KJB as God's Word are found right within its pages.

Same thing is found in the text of every other valid version(& some non-valid ones) also. None of it is exclusive to the KJV.

Not in complete harmony with all other Canonized Scripture. The ONLY Bible in English we find COMPLETE harmony within is the KJB.

The Context demands this. Jumping from context to context promotes confusion.

Not if you've progressed past the 4th grade in reading level.

Ut O! What about all your "easier to read version" ideals? I believest thou hast just trashed thy idealology!:laugh:

Show where within any version that the version is advocated by the Lord? You cannot. You're arguement lacks honesty.

No, YOURS does. The same things you say substantiates the KJV are found in every valid version, and even in some of the non-valid ones such as the NWT. But yet, your fellow KJVOs say ONLY THE KJV is valid. To prove this, ya need some Scripture that points to the KJV alone. This is CERTAINLY not found in Psalm 12. There's NO EVIDENCE that God's word in English was "purified" even once, let alone seven times.

You're right back to Square One, stuck with a doctrine that has nothing but opinion & guesswork sustaining it.

Finally we agree that God's word is pure from the moment He spoke it.

Your attempt to lump me up with some others has failed repeatedly.

Your aqueisiance of other versions has corrupted your thinking in that any of your examples are polluting the harmony of Scripture and pitting God's PURE Words against Himself.

It's not thin ice, friend, it's thin crust you're treading upon. (Not Pizza Inn either):laugh:

 

[Salamander]

BTW, as told before, your interpretation demands that one must be poor and needy to be kept by the LORD.

The Bible clearly teaches that all one has to do to be kept by the LORD is to be in His hand, rich or poor, needy or well provided for.

Doctrinally speaking, your interpretation is HERESY!

 

[franklinmonroe]

BTW, as told before, your interpretation demands that one must be poor and needy to be kept by the LORD...

Really? Is that the proper doctrinal interpretation of these verses? No, you have drawn an illogical conclusion.

Psalm 12:5-7 (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.
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.

I don't see anything "demands" that only the poor and needy will be kept the LORD. This promise is specifically to the poor and needy, but does not specifically exclude any other groups or types of people from also being kept by the LORD. There is nothing here to impose such a narrow limitation upon the LORD, as you insist that a 'poor and needy interpretation' of this passage must place upon Him.

In the event that you do not understand my explanation above, here is an example: if I state that "I will always love my son", that statement does not logically imply that I must conversely not love my daughters, my wife, my mother, my sister, Salamander, and all the other people in the world. I hope you've learned something.

 

[robycop3]

Really? Is that the proper doctrinal interpretation of these verses? No, you have drawn an illogical conclusion.


I don't see anything "demands" that only the poor and needy will be kept the LORD. This promise is specifically to the poor and needy, but does not specifically exclude any other groups or types of people from also being kept by the LORD. There is nothing here to impose such a narrow limitation upon the LORD, as you insist that a 'poor and needy interpretation' of this passage must place upon Him.

In the event that you do not understand my explanation above, here is an example: if I state that "I will always love my son", that statement does not logically imply that I must conversely not love my daughters, my wife, my mother, my sister, Salamander, and all the other people in the world. I hope you've learned something.

Franklin, you cannot teach an old KJVO new trix. Only the HOLY SPIRIT can open their eyes after they've been immersed in false for so long. However, many a new Christian will see the buffonry & avoid the man-made guesswork.

 

[robycop3]

Salamander:Not in complete harmony with all other Canonized Scripture. The ONLY Bible in English we find COMPLETE harmony within is the KJB.

If that's all ya wanna see, that's all you're gonna find.

Ut O! What about all your "easier to read version" ideals? I believest thou hast just trashed thy idealology!:laugh:

Not really. just told the TRUTH, something some believerzz of a certain false doctrine find hard to do.

Finally we agree that God's word is pure from the moment He spoke it.

Never said otherwise. That was the whole point of this thread-to show Dr. Lawrence Vance's goofy 'purified seven times' idea as trash.

Your attempt to lump me up with some others has failed repeatedly.

No, it hasn't. You're as much KJVO as mosta the other KJVOs.

Your aqueisiance of other versions has corrupted your thinking in that any of your examples are polluting the harmony of Scripture and pitting God's PURE Words against Himself.

Actually, it proves I'm eager and open to anything God decides to send me, while YOUR mind is closed to such because you believe a man-made false doctrine over the truth of God's word.

It's not thin ice, friend, it's thin crust you're treading upon. (Not Pizza Inn either):laugh:[/quote]

Actually, YOU'VE stepped into something THICK...a certain substance deposited by male bovines, which, in trying to remove by rubbing one shoe against your pants leg, you've SPREAD instead.

 

[robycop3]

Salamander]BTW, as told before, your interpretation demands that one must be poor and needy to be kept by the LORD.

Yeah, & every time you've told me that, you've been JUST AS WRONG as you are now.

The Bible clearly teaches that all one has to do to be kept by the LORD is to be in His hand, rich or poor, needy or well provided for.

Doctrinally speaking, your interpretation is HERESY!

Now, you're trying to make applesauce outta oranges.


The HEBREW says him; the AV men, recognizing the verse is about plural PEOPLE, substituted the plural them for the singular him & noted the literaltranslation in their marginal note.

Besides that, your credibility is zero. I have repeatedly asked you how ya dealt with the FACT that neither Psalm 12:6-7 nor the entire Psalm 12 point to the KJV or any other one version whatsoever...and you've failed to answer. Therefore you have placed yourself in the dust bin of the nonsensical KJVOs who talk the talk but cannot walk the walk come EVIDENCE TIME.

And now, you've come up with another goofy idea that has nothing to do with the discussion. In this Psalm, david is referring to ONE SPECIFIC GENRE of people...those Godly poor people being oppressed by the heathen at the time...and David was among them while he was running from Saul.

In your attempt to save face for KJVO by inventing another silly, unsupported theory, you're making yourself look more than slightly foolish. And your repeated ignoring of a very legitimate question doesn't exactly boost your credibility. And until you see KJVO is false, I'm afraid you're never gonna get outta that rut of FALSE. Now you're inventing false ideas to try to support a false doctrine. A newt is a salamander. Kinda reminds me of some other Newt..........

 

[Salamander]

Really? Is that the proper doctrinal interpretation of these verses? No, you have drawn an illogical conclusion.

No, you have entered an ideal that causes one to conclude that only the poor and needy are kept by the LORD due to the fatc the rich and powerful are NOT mentioned. I suppose you're one fo those who believe all the rich go to hell.

I don't see anything "demands" that only the poor and needy will be kept the LORD. This promise is specifically to the poor and needy, but does not specifically exclude any other groups or types of people from also being kept by the LORD. There is nothing here to impose such a narrow limitation upon the LORD, as you insist that a 'poor and needy interpretation' of this passage must place upon Him.

So now you're telling us all that doctrine cannot be determined by the Scripture available unless it meets your approval?

In the event that you do not understand my explanation above, here is an example: if I state that "I will always love my son", that statement does not logically imply that I must conversely not love my daughters, my wife, my mother, my sister, Salamander, and all the other people in the world. I hope you've learned something.

No, you haven't taught anyone anything except that you are dishonest in your example. No one would think otherwise, but your love would be expressed for only your son in a specific case of singularity.

The verse representative is plural. "Him" is singular.

If you had used a conjunction such as "and" or "but" in your example one could come to a conclusion.

Do you really think the LORD would omit any group of people under the oppressive acts of others to be kept by Him? You seem to write things into the Scripture that just aren't there.

 

[Salamander]

Finally we agree that God's word is pure from the moment He spoke it.

Never said otherwise. That was the whole point of this thread-to show Dr. Lawrence Vance's goofy 'purified seven times' idea as trash.

Your attempt to lump me up with some others has failed repeatedly.

Yes, yes. And anyone that has any sense KNOWS the Lord never had to have His word purifed by men, uh, except the previous translations that had the imperfections in thembefore 1611!

Now it would do you alot of good to notice I said TRANSLATIONS and NOT the Words of God needed to be purifed!

I seriously doubt the extension of your dubious snout will alow that observation though.

How do you do that anyway? I've never seen anyone add on cubit to their stature or any length to their nose as you have.

 

[Keith M]

Do you really think the LORD would omit any group of people under the oppressive acts of others to be kept by Him?

No one is saying that anyone is excluded, Salamander. You're just grasping at straws to try to support a false iuntrpretation. The Lord also loves those who are not under opression, too. Are you saying then that we must be oppressed in order for the Lord to love us? Ridiculous!

You seem to write things into the Scripture that just aren't there.

And saying that Psalm 12:7 is about preserving words is writing something into Scripture that just isn't there, Salamander! Psalm 12 is about people, not words. Your false interpretation is adding something to the word of God that is not there at all.

 

[Keith M]

Yes, yes. And anyone that has any sense KNOWS the Lord never had to have His word purifed by men, uh, except the previous translations that had the imperfections in thembefore 1611![/i]

Now it would do you alot of good to notice I said TRANSLATIONS and NOT the Words of God needed to be purifed!

I seriously doubt the extension of your dubious snout will alow that observation though.

How do you do that anyway? I've never seen anyone add on cubit to their stature or any length to their nose as you have.

Then are you saying that these previous translations were not the word of God, Salamander? That translations prior to 1611 needed to be purified? Then the KJV also needs to be purified, since it has errors in it just as previous and subsequent translations have all had errors. Your idea of preservation is all wrong. God preserved his word, not the individual words. When onlyists confuse God's word with individual words, as the vast majority of you do, then you become more and more confused in your thinking. When you realize that God's holy word can be preserved without perfect preservation of the individual words, then and only then can you begin to comprehend the truth. Until then you will be stuck deep in the error that is the KJVO thought.

 

[robycop3]

Salamander:Yes, yes. And anyone that has any sense KNOWS the Lord never had to have His word purifed by men, uh, except the previous translations that had the imperfections in thembefore 1611!

Same thing Vance says, almost...and just as wrong. prob is, EVERY translation has imperfections.

Now it would do you alot of good to notice I said TRANSLATIONS and NOT the Words of God needed to be purifed!

Well, are the TRANSLATIONS God's words or not? According to many of your fellow KJVOs they are. And if ONE translation is NOT God's words, then neither are any others. Throws some serious light on yer myth, doesn't it?

I seriously doubt the extension of your dubious snout will alow that observation though.

I seriously doubt that your attempt to derail the discussion will fool anyone.



How do you do that anyway? I've never seen anyone add on cubit to their stature or any length to their nose as you have.

Well, I don't believe in evolution, but you've made me a believer in Devolution. I've seen a man make a monkey outta himself.

And your failure to answer my simple legitimate question only adds to your simian attributes.

One more time....

HOWDYA DEAL WITH THE FACT THAT PSALM 12:6-7, & ALL OF PSALM 12 DOES NOT POINT TOWARD THE KJV BY THE SLIGHTEST IMPLICATION?

 

[robycop3]

Here's a link to Dr. Vance's ridiculous article:

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/kjb-purified.htm

Please pay especial attention to his misinterpretation of Psalm 12:6, which I believe iS deliberate, as he supposedly has an ENGLISH degree..

If Dr. Vance's degrees are legitimate, we can see he's a deliberate liar. If his degrees are phony, we can write him off as the Nilli Vanilli of the versions issue.

 

[Mexdeaf]

If his degrees are phony, we can write him off as the Nilli Vanilli of the versions issue.

Uh, Roby, that is Milli Vanilli.

Or maybe it is 'willy nilly'.

Carry on...