What does this scripture mean and how do you interpret it?

[Logos1560]

You absolutely do not believe in the doctrine of preservation, because there is nowhere to find a preserved pure word, it's strictly imaginative in your minds.

You misrepresent and distort the views of believers who accept the preservation of the Scriptures.

Does a consistent application of your own inconsistent or faulty assertion or reasoning maintain that KJV-only advocates absolutely do not believe in the doctrine of preservation since there was nowhere a preserved pure word in the original languages before 1611 that match 100% the KJV or even one today that they can demonstrate matches the KJV 100% without changes being made to the existing preserved original language manuscripts from other sources?

A consistent and true view of preservation would concern the specific original language words given to the prophets and apostles.

A consistent and true view of preservation would be true both before and after 1611.

 

[Logos1560]

It is impossible that that the word of God should both contain and omit these verses, so either the Received Text contains extra words and is not preserved, or the Critical Text is missing words and is not preserved.

Does a consistent application of your own all-or-nothing KJV-only reasoning in effect assert that the Byzantine Greek manuscripts on which the varying Textus Receptus editions were based were not the preserved word of God since a number of them were missing words, phrases, clauses, and even whole verses such as Mark 11:26, Luke 17:36, Acts 8:37, and 1 John 5:7 and since they thus had textual differences?

Even some of the printed varying Textus Receptus editions did not include some words, phrases, clauses, and verses that were found in other editions.

There is no one consistent standard edition of the Textus Receptus so is it correct to speak of the Received Text as though it was one identical text that is 100% alike in all editions of it? There are twenty or more varying editions of it.

There is also no one standard edition of the KJV that has been printed in all editions of the KJV from 1611 until today. Some changes made to the text of the 1611 edition of the KJV made it in agreement with the text already earlier found in the 1560 Geneva Bible while other changes were made that made it in agreement with the text in the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible. Instead there would be over 300 varying editions of the KJV with likely thirty or more varying editions being still in print today.

 

[Logos1560]

So if the words of God are pure, but all translations and all Greek texts are impure

Instead of properly admitting that your understanding and interpretation of Psalm 12:6 that argued for a purification process was incorrect and correcting it, you seem to try to turn the tables by attacking those who pointed out your misunderstandings.

You are also misunderstanding and misrepresenting the views of believers perhaps by using fallacies such as the fallacy of composition. We have not claimed by a fallacy of composition that the entire text of all Greek texts are impure.

The words of the LORD are 100% pure (Ps. 12:6), and they remain pure when accurately copied.

It is only the mistakes made by men in copying, printing, or translating those words that are not 100% pure.

KJV-only advocates seem to want to dodge or avoid the fact that all known preserved original language manuscripts of the New Testament of length enough to include entire books have some copying errors in them, that includes the Greek manuscripts on which the varying Textus Receptus editions were based.

The word of the LORD is right (Ps. 33:4) (Ps. 19:8).

Any mistakes made by fallible men in copying, printing, or translating are not right.

 

[InTheLight]

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

What is your opinion/ interpretation of purified seven times?

"as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times."

Sheesh. It's a metaphor. It's not literal. God's word is pure just like silver purified in a furnace seven times is pure.

is the KJV this 7th purification?

No way. First of all, as I said this verse is a metaphor. Secondly, it is not a prophecy. Thirdly, you have to disregard other translations in your count to get the KJV to be #7. You are selectively choosing an endpoint. How KJVO's have to twist scripture to make their theories fit!

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Instead of properly admitting that your understanding and interpretation of Psalm 12:6 that argued for a purification process was incorrect and correcting it, you seem to try to turn the tables by attacking those who pointed out your misunderstandings.

You are also misunderstanding and misrepresenting the views of believers perhaps by using fallacies such as the fallacy of composition. We have not claimed by a fallacy of composition that the entire text of all Greek texts are impure.

The words of the LORD are 100% pure (Ps. 12:6), and they remain pure when accurately copied.

It is only the mistakes made by men in copying, printing, or translating those words that are not 100% pure.

KJV-only advocates seem to want to dodge or avoid the fact that all known preserved original language manuscripts of the New Testament of length enough to include entire books have some copying errors in them, that includes the Greek manuscripts on which the varying Textus Receptus editions were based.

The word of the LORD is right (Ps. 33:4) (Ps. 19:8).

Any mistakes made by fallible men in copying, printing, or translating are not right.

So God cannot preserve his word from human errors?

 

[Winman]

Does a consistent application of your own all-or-nothing KJV-only reasoning in effect assert that the Byzantine Greek manuscripts on which the varying Textus Receptus editions were based were not the preserved word of God since a number of them were missing words, phrases, clauses, and even whole verses such as Mark 11:26, Luke 17:36, Acts 8:37, and 1 John 5:7 and since they thus had textual differences?

Even some of the printed varying Textus Receptus editions did not include some words, phrases, clauses, and verses that were found in other editions.

There is no one consistent standard edition of the Textus Receptus so is it correct to speak of the Received Text as though it was one identical text that is 100% alike in all editions of it? There are twenty or more varying editions of it.

There is also no one standard edition of the KJV that has been printed in all editions of the KJV from 1611 until today. Some changes made to the text of the 1611 edition of the KJV made it in agreement with the text already earlier found in the 1560 Geneva Bible while other changes were made that made it in agreement with the text in the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible. Instead there would be over 300 varying editions of the KJV with likely thirty or more varying editions being still in print today.

Changes to the KJB are quite different from the missing 12 verses of Mark and you know it.

Most of the changes to the KJB have been corrections of typos, and spelling changes as English spelling became more standardized. There have been very limited textual changes that simply clarified the text.

Printing was very primitive in the early days of printing the King James, so yes, oftentimes errors were introduced that took many years to correct. That does not mean the original translation was error. And small textual changes also do not mean the original text was error. Adding the words "of God" to "Son" is not an error, and "Son" as it was was not an error. Adding "of God" just adds clarity.

As for all the different versions of the TR, I do not care about that. I am satisfied that the King James translators determined what was the correct texts and this is what they used to translate the KJB.

 

[Yeshua1]

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

What is your opinion/ interpretation of purified seven times?

is the KJV this 7th purification?

Figure of speech, number 7 one of completion/perfection, so the word of the lord when FIRST recorded down was perfect, as in the ORINGINALS penned down for us by Moses, peter, paul etc!

NOT the Kjv...

 

[HankD]

People need to redefine error when it comes to translations.

Truth is that God is incapable of the smallest error.

Where is the perfect preserved word of God?

Psalm 119:89 LAMED. For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.​

But personally I believe it is preserved in two original language publications which I have mentioned in times past.​

However, I'll not go into that opinion again seeing the accusations many of the disagreeing posters have used here at the BB.​

Not just for myself but for the consequences of these possibly unfounded accusations.​

HankD​

 

[Yeshua1]

People need to redefine error when it comes to translations.

Truth is that God is incapable of the smallest error.

Where is the perfect preserved word of God?

Psalm 119:89 LAMED. For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.​

But personally I believe it is preserved in two original language publications which I have mentioned in times past.​

However, I'll not go into that opinion again seeing the accusations many of the disagreeing posters have used here at the BB.​

Not just for myself but for the consequences of these possibly unfounded accusations.​

HankD​

Would you agree thatthe lord has preserved for us in the Greek/hebrew texts his word, and that when rightly translated off those copies, are the word of God to us in English?

We may disagree on whether the CT or the MT or the TR is the best/closest to the originals, but all those are the word of God to us preserved in Greek ?

 

[Yeshua1]

So God cannot preserve his word from human errors?

He did, in the originals!

the Greek/hebrew texts used for translations are his word, so close to thoseoriginals, they have infallibility bible versions from them produced!

 

[HankD]

Would you agree thatthe lord has preserved for us in the Greek/hebrew texts his word, and that when rightly translated off those copies, are the word of God to us in English?

We may disagree on whether the CT or the MT or the TR is the best/closest to the originals, but all those are the word of God to us preserved in Greek ?

Yes that is my belief.

A translation from the original languages is the word of God by derivation.

Actually the Greek CT has all of the text, however some of it is found in the footnote or marginal variants.

HankD

 

[Logos1560]

Printing was very primitive in the early days of printing the King James, so yes, oftentimes errors were introduced that took many years to correct. .

When the printers had to set the type for each edition printed each year, that would make it possible to correct any errors the very next time it was printed. Why then should it take many years to get them corrected?

Since the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London had a great deal of control over printing in the 1600's, they could have ordered any printing errors corrected in the very next edition after they had been noticed or pointed out.

Later in the 1800's when the printer had went to the expense to have plates made for the printing of each page that could be used many times, they would likely want to use them as long as possible.

 

[Logos1560]

There have been very limited textual changes that simply clarified the text.

What is your sound evidence that supports your assertion or opinion?

Without any sound evidence for it, it could be considered merely subjective, biased opinion.

 

[annsni]

Why would God's word need to be purified? Wasn't it pure when God spoke it? And He didn't speak it in English.

I'm with you Amy. Saying that the Word of God had to be purified 7x to be perfect is not reading the Scriptures correctly. Instead it is saying that the Word of God is as pure as silver purified 7x. The Word of God = the seventh purification of of silver, not the 1st, second, third, fourth, etc.

 

[HankD]

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

What is your opinion/ interpretation of purified seven times?

is the KJV this 7th purification?

Notice that its in a furnace of earth.

So it probably has to do with the earthly ministry of the word in the day of the Psalmist.

Unto the Jews were given the keeping of the scriptures.

I remember reading a piece concerning the Hebrew scribal craft in which after every completed manuscript copying the mss had to past 7 tests.

One of them was the number of words had to equal the number of words of its predecessor, another was the center word had to be the same, not sure what else but if it didn't pass all 7 tests the new mss copy was burned in a furnace.

HankD

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes that is my belief.

A translation from the original languages is the word of God by derivation.

Actually the Greek CT has all of the text, however some of it is found in the footnote or marginal variants.

HankD

that is one main reason like to use Nkjv along with nasb, as that edition has all those difeerent renderings in the margins/footnotes!

Would it be that we can be CTp/MTP/TRP, but not be ONLY one of those are a real Greek NT?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

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

What is your opinion/ interpretation of purified seven times?

That the KJV doesn't translate the passage properly.

Psalm 12, NASB
6 The words of the LORD are pure words;
As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, refined seven times.​

The reference is not to the word being purified seven times, but that it requires seven times heating silver to a liquid form to remove all the dross, i.e., impurities. The implication in the original Hebrew is that, even then, silver isn't as pure as the Lord's word.

The Lord's words don't need to be purified, as they are already perfect and pure.

 

[HankD]

that is one main reason like to use Nkjv along with nasb, as that edition has all those difeerent renderings in the margins/footnotes!

Would it be that we can be CTp/MTP/TRP, but not be ONLY one of those are a real Greek NT?

I know this sounds naive but I believe the 1894 Scrivener Greek Text is the true text.

Basically (apparently) it is a composite, he pieced together the text underlying the Authorised (AD1611) text using the different existing scribal works (Beza, Erasmus, Stephanus, etc).


HankD

 

[Yeshua1]

That the KJV doesn't translate the passage properly.

Psalm 12, NASB
6 The words of the LORD are pure words;
As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, refined seven times.​

The reference is not to the word being purified seven times, but that it requires seven times heating silver to a liquid form to remove all the dross, i.e., impurities. The implication in the original Hebrew is that, even then, silver isn't as pure as the Lord's word.

The Lord's words don't need to be purified, as they are already perfect and pure.

you mea the perfect translation would be corrected by an inferior MV then here?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

you mea the perfect translation would be corrected by an inferior MV then here?

There is no such thing as "the perfect translation." The Bible is inspired only in the original autographs, but God preserved His words through the multitude of manuscripts that were copied from those original autographs to give us a solid foundation upon which to base our translations and be 99.5% confident they are faithful to those original autographs.