Why KJ-Only actually works as God's inerrant word,

[37818]

One of two reasons.
1. It is actually God's preserved word per Psalms 12:7.
2. It happens to be over all a more reliable translation with its known faults than most of the modern translations, Isaiah 55:11.

 

[Anon1379]

One of two reasons.
1. It is actually God's preserved word per Psalms 12:7.
2. It happens to be over all a more reliable translation with its known faults than most of the modern translations, Isaiah 55:11.

Really Psalms 12:7 refers to the kjv? Let's pretend it's the words and not poor people for the sake of your argument, what the did Psalms 12:6-7 mean before 1611?

 

[Anon1379]

One of the major problems I have with your interpretation of psalms 12 is that the English speaking people of the 1900s and 2000s are the ONLY people in the entire world who will interpret that verse this way. The people during martin luther's day would have never applied this verse to the king james for the obvious reason they had no idea who king james even was at that point. People during David's day would not have applied this verse this way as at that point there wasn't even a translation around, and because David would never even think to suggest that God's word needed to be purified. The Russians, chinese, Spanish, etc of today would not apply this verse this way.

God's word does not reveal truth to only a specific ethnic group of people some 3000 years after written, and ignore everyone else who doesn't speak English and have never heard of the king james. What it means to the Russians and Martin Luther of the reformation is what it means to us today. To suggest the English speaking people are the only ones blessed enough to receive special revelation and prophecy fulfilled on this one verse in the form of the king james is pure and utter heresy.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

 

[37818]

Really Psalms 12:7 refers to the kjv? Let's pretend it's the words and not poor people for the sake of your argument, what the did Psalms 12:6-7 mean before 1611?

The Psalms 12:7 is used by many KJVO. It refers to a persons not the word of God of verse 6.
Many KJVO are caught in that lie by them adding the KJV translation itself to God's inerrant word, caught in the lie per God's promise in Proverbs 30:6, "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."

 

[Salty]

...Many KJVO are caught in that lie by them adding the KJV translation itself to God's inerrant word, caught in the lie per God's promise in Proverbs 30:6, "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."

Note: Bold my emphasis

Be very careful about using the word "lie". More than likely, it is their interpretation. Now, you may disagree with said interpretation - but it does not mean it is a lie.

 

[37818]

Note: Bold my emphasis

Be very careful about using the word "lie". More than likely, it is their interpretation. Now, you may disagree with said interpretation - but it does not mean it is a lie.

My point was a promise God made regarding adding to His word, Proverbs 30:6, "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."

The Quran, that God has no Son, the Book of Mormon, Jesus was born of Mary at Jerusalem.

Now there are known textual variants, where only one of two readings can be true. Where the other is not the true correct reading, yet both otherwise can yet be true as statments. 1 John 5:7.

There are many examples where believers disagtee on interptetations, where only one view can be correct and yes both interpretations can be wrong. While it could be true believing a false view is believing "lie." We just do not acuse our fellow believer of "lying."

What I wanted to convey is what God does or what may do when we add to His word. Re: Proverbs 30:5-6.

I am pro-KJV but not a KJOnlyist.

Psalms 12:7 is a real case example. See the 1611 for them for that verse. Heb. him. i. every one of them. The them v.7 does not refer to God's word in verse 6.

 

[Salty]

I am pro-KJV but not a KJOnlyist.
.

I have a question about this -
but so I do not hijack - click here for my question

 

[Yeshua1]

One of two reasons.
1. It is actually God's preserved word per Psalms 12:7.
2. It happens to be over all a more reliable translation with its known faults than most of the modern translations, Isaiah 55:11.

Which Tr text, and which KJV version would that be then?

 

[Yeshua1]

One of the major problems I have with your interpretation of psalms 12 is that the English speaking people of the 1900s and 2000s are the ONLY people in the entire world who will interpret that verse this way. The people during martin luther's day would have never applied this verse to the king james for the obvious reason they had no idea who king james even was at that point. People during David's day would not have applied this verse this way as at that point there wasn't even a translation around, and because David would never even think to suggest that God's word needed to be purified. The Russians, chinese, Spanish, etc of today would not apply this verse this way.

God's word does not reveal truth to only a specific ethnic group of people some 3000 years after written, and ignore everyone else who doesn't speak English and have never heard of the king james. What it means to the Russians and Martin Luther of the reformation is what it means to us today. To suggest the English speaking people are the only ones blessed enough to receive special revelation and prophecy fulfilled on this one verse in the form of the king james is pure and utter heresy.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

was not the Vulgate the word of the Lord to those of their time, was not the Geneva also. among others?

 

[Yeshua1]

The Psalms 12:7 is used by many KJVO. It refers to a persons not the word of God of verse 6.
Many KJVO are caught in that lie by them adding the KJV translation itself to God's inerrant word, caught in the lie per God's promise in Proverbs 30:6, "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."

It refers to the Hebrew and Greek texts, not the English translations!

 

[Yeshua1]

My point was a promise God made regarding adding to His word, Proverbs 30:6, "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."

The Quran, that God has no Son, the Book of Mormon, Jesus was born of Mary at Jerusalem.

Now there are known textual variants, where only one of two readings can be true. Where the other is not the true correct reading, yet both otherwise can yet be true as statments. 1 John 5:7.

There are many examples where believers disagtee on interptetations, where only one view can be correct and yes both interpretations can be wrong. While it could be true believing a false view is believing "lie." We just do not acuse our fellow believer of "lying."

What I wanted to convey is what God does or what may do when we add to His word. Re: Proverbs 30:5-6.

I am pro-KJV but not a KJOnlyist.

Psalms 12:7 is a real case example. See the 1611 for them for that verse. Heb. him. i. every one of them. The them v.7 does not refer to God's word in verse 6.

One can be a Tr preferred, and a kjv preferred, no way can be an Only!

 

[37818]

Which Tr text, and which KJV version would that be then?

Where the TR has more in common with God's origiinals than the CT. Where what ever edition of the KJV is closer to that same God given originals. It is God's word which is immutable not the translations per say.

 

[Yeshua1]

Where the TR has more in common with God's origiinals than the CT. Where what ever edition of the KJV is closer to that same God given originals. It is God's word which is immutable not the translations per say.

You are still assuming then that the TR is closer to originals, and that is your starting assumption!

 

[Origen]

sorry

 

[37818]

One can be a Tr preferred, and a kjv preferred, no way can be an Only!

Then why are there KJOnlyists?

 

[Salty]

Then why are there KJOnlyists?

Because they listened to a pastor who is a KJO -who listen to someone like Waite, ect.

 

[John of Japan]

One of two reasons.
1. It is actually God's preserved word per Psalms 12:7.

This is impossible to prove by the KJV, the original language, or anything else. The English language not only did not exist in Bible times, there are no prophecies of English, England, or America in Scripture.

Therefore, it's an existential leap of faith to say that Ps. 12:7 refers to the KJV. Imagine that, the KJVO side lining up with neo-orthodoxy! The Neo-orthodox believer says that the Bible is not the Word of God, it becomes the Word of God in an existential moment when the reader finds something that means to him God is speaking. On the other hand, the reader holding the belief that Ps. 12:7 refers to the KJV must have an existential moment when he reads the verse, thinking, "Well, yeah, that has to be the KJV," in spite of nothing in the text or anywhere else in Scripture about the KJV, the English language, 1611, Bible translation, etc., etc.

2. It happens to be over all a more reliable translation with its known faults than most of the modern translations, Isaiah 55:11.

This I will agree with, except for the reference, which has nothing to do with any specific language, much less the English of the KJV.

 

[Salty]

This is impossible to prove by the KJV, the original language, or anything else. The English language not only did not exist in Bible times, there are no prophecies of English, England, or America in Scripture. ...

John - why are you trying to confuse our KJO friends with the facts

 

[Dave G]

Because they listened to a pastor who is a KJO -who listen to someone like Waite, ect.

Respectfully,

Because some of us have done the research for ourselves and have decided that, independently of what we're told by those who may or may not have influence...
We made an honest decision to stick with a translation that most others are telling us is "archaic" and not "up-to-date".

We know it's old, and we know that some of its English is from a time long gone.

But when we actually take a hard look at two Bibles side by side;
Like, say, the ESV and the KJV...
and we then carefully compare passages like 1 John 5:6-8 or Philippians 2:6,
we see that something's wrong.

Regardless of which side is right or wrong, we then see that the deeper we dig, the more that one side doesn't seem concerned with God's every word, while the other side counts it as precious and not-to-be-messed-with.
Since most of today's English translations appear to be on a path of "continuous improvement", we are then faced with a hard decision:

Face the mocking and ridicule from people who think that we are refusing to "upgrade" while we stick to what we know to be God's words,
or abandon the foundation that we have and choose something...anything...from the majority of modern translations, while keeping our mouths shut about the changes that we feel, in our spirits, are wrong.


Salty,
Not everyone who is convinced of the matter simply went along with what "pastor so-and-so" said...
We actually have investigated it and come to a firm conclusion based on the evidence;
and find that we, once again, are in the minority.
We are getting used to that.

Speaking for myself alone, I will never tell my brothers and sisters in the Lord that they are not allowed to investigate the matter...
Quite the contrary, I will tell them to dig as deeply as possible into the subject and to satisfy themselves one way or the other.


Good afternoon to you, sir, and I wish you well.

 

[37818]

It refers to the Hebrew and Greek texts, not the English translations!

So are you saying once it is translated the words are no longer God's word?