KJVBibleThumper
New Member
Please post what you mean instead of just saying it.My Bible says "words".
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What is your final authority?
- Thread starter KJVBibleThumper
- Start date
So according to you Gods Word is nonexistent. </font>[/QUOTE]No, I believe God's Word is existent. However, I cannot prove it such. </font>[/QUOTE]So,there is a Bible but you dont know where it is or what it looks like. At least I am dead sure I have it in my hands. </font>[/QUOTE]I do not believe that God's Word (as I was using it) is contained in a Bible. </font>[/QUOTE]So,you do believe that Gods Word is on earth,you just dont know where it is or in what form it is.
And from your point of view you are debating inferior versions with no substance vs. other of more of the same. Interesting. </font>[/QUOTE]They have substance, but in no Bible is contained the full, sum total of God's Word. And to answer your question, I do not believe that it exists on earth in physical form.
Psalm 12:1-8,"To the chief Musician upon Sheminith, A Psalm of David.Help, Lord; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men. [2] 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.' 1769 KJV
now check this out:
AV1611
5. For the oppression of the poore, for the sighting of the needy, now will I arise (saith the Lord,) I will set him in safetie from him that ||puffeth at him.
|| Or, would ensnare him.
6. The wordes of the Lord are pure wordes:*as siluere tried in a fornace of earth purified seuen times.
7. Thou shalt keepe them, (O Lord,) thou shalt preserue +them from this gerneration for euer.
+ Heb,\. him i. euery one of them.
8. The wicked walke on euery side, when the +vilest men are exalted.
+ Hebr. the vilest of the sonnes of men are exaulted.
Notice the AV translators do not agree with you. That is what I meant.
now check this out:
AV1611
5. For the oppression of the poore, for the sighting of the needy, now will I arise (saith the Lord,) I will set him in safetie from him that ||puffeth at him.
|| Or, would ensnare him.
6. The wordes of the Lord are pure wordes:*as siluere tried in a fornace of earth purified seuen times.
7. Thou shalt keepe them, (O Lord,) thou shalt preserue +them from this gerneration for euer.
+ Heb,\. him i. euery one of them.
8. The wicked walke on euery side, when the +vilest men are exalted.
+ Hebr. the vilest of the sonnes of men are exaulted.
Notice the AV translators do not agree with you. That is what I meant.
Why did YOU cast aside verse 6?
You said Psalms 12:5 is stated in verse 7.
Step by step: Verse by verse:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
7.
Wait a minute! Where is verse 6? YOU cast aside verse 6. You count WRONGLY! Therefore your interpretation is absolutely wrong. </font>[/QUOTE]This has already been addressed ad nauseam. I believe your criteria for determining what is wrong is that which disagrees with your baseless presuppositions.
Your interpretation:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
-------------------interruption by 6. and 7., unrelated to the rest of the psalm
8.
With your interpretation we basically have two psalms in one. My interpretation preserves the continuity. It is for this reason that nearly everyone who doesn't have a KJVO agenda agrees with me.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
-------------------interruption by 6. and 7., unrelated to the rest of the psalm
8.
With your interpretation we basically have two psalms in one. My interpretation preserves the continuity. It is for this reason that nearly everyone who doesn't have a KJVO agenda agrees with me.
Also if Askjo's and fellow KJVOist interpretation of Psalm 12:6-7 is right then it calls God a lair since He did not keep His Word! Sorry for the harsh sound to that, but it's the logical conclusion.
If your are right then where is the bible that is in 100% agreement with the 1769 KJV before 1769? Where is it in 1611,1605, 1500, 1450, 1300, 800, 500, 250AD?????
If your are right then where is the bible that is in 100% agreement with the 1769 KJV before 1769? Where is it in 1611,1605, 1500, 1450, 1300, 800, 500, 250AD?????
The 1611 KJV revised in I believe 1768(or 9) to modern spelling. Note, I did not say "modern words" I said modern spelling of old words.Such as changing "Iesus" to "Jesus" </font>[/QUOTE]Oh, so you're ok with "updating" the spelling of old words? Is that what I'm hearing? </font>[/QUOTE]note I said "updating" to modern spelling.I did NOT say modern words. Heres an example of the old way to spell "jail" "gaol",all that was done by changing the spelling was making it modern spelling.I DO NOT approve of putting modern words there. </font>[/QUOTE]Why did they update the spelling of ANY words? That is changing the text, isn't it? You are so convinced that every letter must be kept as it was in 1611 - your position is therefore faulty.
If they felt it was ok to update spelling, then how is it not ok to update words that aren't even in use anymore?
KJVBibleThumper, I hope you haven't forgotten about my answer to your original purpose of this thread, near the bottom of the third page. On page four you said you answer it later. I've watched you answer numerous posts in the mean time, and wanted to make sure you weren't avoiding my post. 
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
If you reject the KJV superiority, you are anti-KJV. </font>[/QUOTE]I acknowledge
the superiority of the KJV1769 over
other modern versions from 1769 until
2003. In 2003 the Holman Christian Standard
Bible (HCSB) was completed.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
You missed something.Originally posted by KJVBibleThumper:
Sooo...let me get this straight,you can hold up at least a dozen Final Authoritys?
And im stuck with one...
For one thing, you don't known any of the
conventions of debate. At least first define
what it is you mean by "final authority".
And when you do i'll note that your arguments
conflict with your definition.
No rational debater requiresOriginally posted by KJVBibleThumper:
Please show me how the King James and other bibles are NOT confusing.
demonstartion of the negative of a proposition.
Demonstration of the propostion is
required. So show me that some non-King
James Version is confusing. To prove the
propostion, one needs several examples;
to prove the counterpropostion, one needs
to show 100% of the cases. Which means
you expect me to do the impossible, show every
verse in every non-KJV version to be
non-confusing. Sorry, I don't go off on
a fools errand.
Nevertheless, consider this:
2 Corinthians6:12 (KJV1769):
Ye are not straitened in us, but ye
are straitened in your own bowels.
I personally have to check this every time
i use it. I have no idea what it means.
By contrast, this other Modern Version (MV)
is straighforward:
2 Corinthians 6:12 (HCSB = The Holman Christian Standard Bible)
You are not limited by us, but you
are limited by your own affections.
BTW, Brother, I'm praying that you will
quit straigntening your own bowels. You
need to get refreshed in your bowels; such
refreshment can come only from God above.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Call!
You can't even understand every word it
says in the KJV. I don't even remember you
specifying which of the three different
KJVs that i have before me you have
before you.
How do you use the words you cannot understand?
How can you use them as your Final Authority?
The only one thing is that you argue against the KJV, but why do you not agrue against the ASV? The ASV agrees with the KJV. That explains.
Interestingly, what you said is here:
I found another modern version saying, "The LORD's promises are pure, like silver refined in a furnace, purified seven times over." Compare to the KJV saying, "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." How contradictory are you with this MV?
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
There is no error in this quote from
Psalm 12:7 (KJV1769); These words from
the KJV1769 are the sacred, inerrant
words of God. However, watch out! you
can err if you think you understand what
these words mean.
The error comes when you attempt to understand
what it says. For example, the rules of
Language says that a pronoun has to refer
to a nearby (usually before) noun
(or noun-like construct). The pronoun "them" refers to which noun?
Correct answer: The people in Verse 5.
Error answer: The words of God in Verse 6.
BTW, the original translators of the KJV
who did their work 1605-1611 left a series
of translator notes which says in
verse 7 that some of the conflicting sources
of this verse say "he". IMHO "he" can
only refer to verse 5 (and not verse 6).
BTW, I can prove God preserves His holy
words for us, just not in Psalm 12.
The riot act:
---------------------------
I believe the Bible is the
inerrant written words of God.
It is nonsense for me to
believe that my understanding
of all the Bible is inerrant.
You believe your Bible is the
inerrant written words of God.
It is nonsense for me to
believe that your understanding
of all your Bible is inerrant.
Surely i have respect enough for my
Brother in Christ that i will allow you your
opinion. If further you believe your
opinion, i will allow that also.
But i will receive the same consideration
for my opinion/belief.
I am speaking of my opinion of what the Bible
said versus your opinion of what the Bible said.
What the Bible said is true, what
the Bible means is your opinion or
is my opinion.
Don't get your opinion of what the Bible meant
get confused with what the Bible said.
It is inerrant.
But, you understanding of it might be
chock full of errors.
The only one thing is that you argue against the KJV, but why do you not agrue against the ASV? The ASV agrees with the KJV. That explains.
Interestingly, what you said is here:
I found another modern version saying, "The LORD's promises are pure, like silver refined in a furnace, purified seven times over." Compare to the KJV saying, "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." How contradictory are you with this MV?
</font>[/QUOTE]To address the first point, I have nothing against the KJV text of Psalm 12. My interpretation and the KJV text are completely compatible.I don't understand what you were trying to say with your second point.
I'll respond if you can clear it up for me a bit.
I found another modern version saying, "The LORD's promises are pure, like silver refined in a furnace, purified seven times over." Compare to the KJV saying, "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." How contradictory are you with this MV?
</font>[/QUOTE]I think I may understand what you're trying to say. If not, I apologize. I do not disagree with either rendering of the verse. I believe the LORD's promises are absolutely pure, and I believe His words are pure. However, I do not believe that the preservation referred to in the next verse is the preservation of the promises or words. If the Psalm specifically said, "Thou shalt preserve thy words, O LORD, in 1611" (or 1769, 1901, 1995 or any other date), I would concede the point to you, but the fact of the matter is that it is not that clear. In any version, KJV or not, I see the preservation of the people, not the words. Even if the preservation referred to the words, that doesn't prove that they are written down on earth.DeclareHim
New Member
Then where O where did He preserve it? He promised to preserve it so where is it? </font>[/QUOTE]In the mss. Of the alexandria line.