Your KJVO myth is false.

[Rippon]

I would disagree. I have several examples of "doctrinal" error in the modern versions, including the NIV. But this thread is tired already.

Start a new thread on the topic. Van has had quite a number of unsuccessful NIV bashing threads. He's still licking his wounds. ;-) I'm sure you'll uncover his talking points. Have at it.

 

[HankD]

This is somewhat off OP for a moment - but last year I was talking to a lady who told me that ONLY the red letter words in the Bible were important.

Convenient...

 

[John of Japan]

I think you mean, "was", John. It was the best translation in 1611, but not now.

Nope, sorry, I didn't stutter. As I said before on this thread, I have compared almost all (probably all) of the KJV with the Greek, and it is an extremely accurate version even today, as long as one understands 1611 English, as I often tell my students.

 

[John of Japan]

What? Concordance is not the holy grail, so to speak, of translation. Say it ain't so.

I can say no more than I have. There is danger. Van might be reading this very thread.

 

[Rippon]

Nope, sorry, I didn't stutter. As I said before on this thread, I have compared almost all (probably all) of the KJV with the Greek, and it is an extremely accurate version even today, as long as one understands 1611 English, as I often tell my students.

You're comparing it with the Byz., I assume? So the KJV departs from the Greek of your choice a good number of times. Not nearly as much as the NU, but...

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 1:30 PM Pacific.

 

[loDebar]

Nope, sorry, I didn't stutter. As I said before on this thread, I have compared almost all (probably all) of the KJV with the Greek, and it is an extremely accurate version even today, as long as one understands 1611 English, as I often tell my students.

I assume you compared from English to Greek, reverse it go from Greek to English and see if there is a difference. English has "latitude" in meanings.

 

[SheepWhisperer]

You've got to be kidding.Do you ever read Bible commentaries or even scholarly works of any nature? You won't find dumbed-down language. When a Bible translation does not use thee, thine, thou and ye it is not a sign of weakening the language. You don't speak using all of the afore-mentioned --why make that a standard?

Do you think that Bible translations in English before 1611 were all superior to modern translations?

How about English translations before 1511?

Pronoun "you"
Thee, thou, thine are singular
You, ye and your, are plural. In this respect the King James is more precise.

 

[robycop3]

Brother, look at those 'notes' on the page, it supports what I have said, for the 'marginal note' says at Psalms 12:6-7:

"+Heb. him. i. euery one of them"​

This same note is also found in the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, on Psalms 12:6-7:

"... them: etc. Heb. him, i.e. every one of them ..."​

Its simply a more literalized reading [as the other notes also do], which emphasizes that "euery one of them" [God's words] are going to be preserved by God. Where does it disagree with what I have presented contextually in regards the association with mouth, lips, words of the wicked, which will pass away, to that of God's words, which would never pass away, and be preserved by Himself?

Benjamin G. Wilkinson, even quoted the more literalized reading:

"... Inspiration declares that this revelation has been under the special protection of all power in heaven and earth. “The words of the Lord are pure words,” says the Psalmist, “as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve every one of them, (margin) from this generation forever.”<191206>Psalm 12:6,7. ..." - Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, page 150/168 PDF​

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

Psalms 12:7 KJB - Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.​

Leaving it the way they did, shows a more parallel reading:

Thou shalt keep them, O LORD,
thou shalt preserve them ...​

Notice these

מןH4480 תצרנוH5341

imarot YHVH amarot horot Kesef tzaruf Baaliyl laaretz m'zuQaq shiv'atayim

aTah-YHVH Tish'm'rem TiTZ'reNu min-haDor zu l'olam
​

However, when looking at this, more closely, notice the first portion "Thou shalt keep them", [and the word "keep" is also to preserve] is a direct reference back to God's "words" in verse 6. If we accept the more literal translation of the marginal notation, for the second half, which says, "thou shalt preserve him", this too then fits with the context, since it would then be a reference to Jesus Christ being preserved from the congregation of the wicked forever [for all the scriptures testify of Jesus Christ, hence the many places which has Him saying, "I am poor and needy" [Psalms 40:17, 69:2, 70:5, 86:1, 109:22 KJB]], once He is raised from death. Jesus Christ is called the "word of God", John 1:1, etc KJB. He pours His words into us, His children [Matthew 9:17; Luke 5:28; John 15:7 KJB]. Thus, every one in Him would be preserved [John 6:39; Jude 1:1 KJB] along with Him. This would not negate the first half, in which God stated that He keeps His words, which includes Jesus words, Jesus Himself, and we who are in Him, being living epistles [Ezekiel 36:27; 2 Corinthians 3:3 KJB].

Nothing is wrong with the King James reading, neither how it is understood. It is deeper than is normally known.

HOW SILLY!

The note reads "him, I" - NOT "i. e,"!

Your whole rant is incorrect!

 

[robycop3]

I don't believe in your strawman definition of KJVO. I keep telling you that.

In other words, YOU CAN'T ANSWER!

A doctrine is something that's taught. And the KJVO myth certainly fits that criterion. it's taught in several congregations, Baptist (unfortunately) as well as in many SDA congregations & others. But it was, and is, phony as a $3 bill.

We must conclude that since you can't answer a simple, legitimate question, you're stumped & clueless, and all your pro-KJVO stuff is thermal atmosphere, not to be believed by any Christian.

 

[TCassidy]

Nothing is wrong with the King James reading, neither how it is understood. It is deeper than is normally known.

You seem to have missed the point. The Hebrew word is "him." It is not English (him - a pronoun referring to a male) but is a masculine pronoun, plural, referring to a group of males (it would have to be neuter to refer to the words). Therefore the only possible antecedent of the masculine personal plural pronoun is the "poor and needy" of verse 5.

Hebrew grammar demands the antecedent is the "poor" and "needy" of verse 5. If it refers to the "words" then God made a grammatical mistake when He inspired the Psalm.

So you have to choose. Is God an idiot or is He all knowing. I vote for the latter.

 

[TCassidy]

What translation are you using?, the WEB? Does your English Bible ever translate ποιμαίνω as "feed", "feedeth":, etc? What does your Jude 1:12, or 1 Corinthians 9:7 say?

"Feed" both times. What's your point?

 

[TCassidy]

But Christ Jesus [and His word in English, KJB] is my instructor. Jesus is the Master, the Teacher.

Jesus is my Instructor, Master, and Teacher too, and He taught me that the Hebrew in Psalm 12:6-7 is referring to the poor and needy of verse 6.

Is Jesus wrong in His teaching?

Is the bible wrong in what God inspired? (Did He inspire an error?)

It is rather silly to be willing to die on this hill, Psalm 12:6-7, when preservation of the scriptures is taught in literally dozens of other places in the bible.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

It is rather silly to be willing to die on this hill, Psalm 12:6-7, when preservation of the scriptures is taught in literally dozens of other places in the bible.

100% agree.

 

[John of Japan]

I assume you compared from English to Greek, reverse it go from Greek to English and see if there is a difference. English has "latitude" in meanings.

Nope. I am a Bible translator (currently teaching a course on it in our seminary). In the process of translating the Greek NT into Japanese, I have compared the KJV and the Greek in all or almost all of the NT. I make my statement that the KJV is a great translation based on that.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This thread is closed.

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 1:30 PM Pacific.