God's Word Preserved
 

Referring to my comment that the TR, BHS, KJV, NIV, NASB and ESV are God's Word. They are all copies (of copies....) of God's Word originally given.

I can and will if you answer my question first. I asked first, so you prove scripturally that the KJV is the only Bible to be used since 1611.

Right on. I agree wholeheartedly.

Actually, the King James Bible is coming to be the only valid version to be used now.

Why? Biblically. Are we limited to only one English version? Some KJVOnlys say that we are allowed only one version at a time. I can point you to their comments if you desire.

I am asking this for clarification. I have discussed this with other KJVOnlys and they will not put it this way. To them, since 1611, it has been the only God-ordained option. There was no "coming to be..."

As we know, there are several broad categories of people with differing views who are called "King James Bible Only".

And I was not talking about English only when I said "coming to be", I meant throughout the whole world, in every nation. The King James Bible has already been the only Bible in English for years and years and years.

Clearly, the King James Bible progressively superseded the Geneva Version over time.

In like manner, the King James Bible is among all believers (as opposed to the large apostate portions of Pentecostal, evangelical and fundamental Protestantism) taking its rightful place as the only Bible, or rather, God's chosen final Bible.

(I have discussed the entire area in lots of detail in the latest draft of my new book, which presents a Scriptural basis in Part Four for why there should be one Bible for all.)

You forgot the NWT, the Message, GNFMM, ad nauseum, etc..

Two things that are different are not the same.

In Psalms, 12:6-7, God promises us that not only will His Word be preserved, but that it will also be pure, like silver tried in a furance of earth, purified seven times. That is perfection in metallurgy.

Also, inspiration of scripture is NOT corrupted by translation. I worship a God who made the laws of physics, the mountains, and the science of the cosmos, and is by no means limited to the pathetic tongues of men. See http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/inspired-translation.html

Also, every time that the word "translation" is used, it is transforming something to be much better, like Enoch's translation and the translation of a lost sinner brought to Christ. See http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/translation-better.html

Actually, that passage is not talking about the preservation of Scripture. It is talking about the preservation of the "poor."

Even if this was about preservation, there is nothing in this passage that teaches that the Word of God will be preserved completely and perfectly in the KJV alone.

The King James Bible says:
"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."
Psalms 12:6-7

What version are you using?

The KJV.
You simply stripped these verses out of their context.
"Them" in verse 7 is the antecedent of "poor" in verse 5
The entire passage is speaking about God preserving the poor from the wicked. He is not talking about preserving His word.

I am not against the preservation of Scripture. I believe God has preserved His word. This passage is not a proof text for it.

So you're saying that the "poor" is like silver purified seven times?

Thou shalt preserve the poor from this generation forever?

It is all about recognizing antecedents properly. The KJV is clear.

vs 6: The words of the LORD are pure. "pure" modifies "words"
vs 7: Thou shalt keep "them" goes back to the "poor" in verse 5

Thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever. The "poor" will be preserved FROM (from the Hebrew min) this generation of wicked people. That is the promise to these people. They can trust the words of the LORD. The poor will survive!

Your interpretation has a strange problem. How is it that the Word of the LORD will be kept from this generation? That would be a strange thing to say.

The KJV is clear. Read this article:

http://av1611.com/kjbp/ridiculous-kj...2-verse-7.html

You are stretching your understanding of scripture just to "be right". That is dangerous.

On what grounds do you think verse 7 is referring to something described two verses ago, when it would also make sense to be referring to something in its immediate context?

YOUR interpretation is strange. In the middle of this plan to preserve "the poor" (as you claim), the Pslamist just randomly inserts verse 6? Talking about how pure the words are, describing their puity,a nd then go right back to talking about the oppression of the poor? That does not make sense.

About the article by John Hinton: While I enjoyed his explanation of the epenthetic nun, his article does not handle the issues involved here.

1) He does not deal with the context of Psalm 12. It is clearly established in verse 1 that the subject is godly man is afraid of "ceasing" to exist.

2) He does not treat the antecedent issue. The Hebrew "them" (vs 7) is masculine. The Hebrew for "words" (vs 6) is feminine. "Them" cannot refer to "words" because they do not match gender.

3) If this was clearly a "preservation of Scripture" passage, you would expect to see the commentaries present this. They don't. In fact, they are unanimously agreed that vs 7 refers to the poor.

4) I find it a curious thing, but am pleased, that you will go to a Hebrew scholar for information on this. In my discussion on other threads, I find definitive statements that going to "The Greek" and "scholars" is wrong. I am starting a thread on that very topic.

If you want a more clear treatment of Psalm 12, go to page 15 of this article on Preservation of Scripture.

1. The appeal to "context" is often subjective, unless it is on the higher principle of the proper conference of Scripture with Scripture, which is to say, how does this word fit in with the same word throughout the Bible, various other passages and the Bible as a whole, etc.?

2. The appeal to the "Hebrew" is often subjective, for God clearly was able to use men of God to bring the full Scripture from the Hebrew to English in 1611. Therefore, the full sense is discernable in the English, and the Holy Ghost is yet present to help.

3. The appeal to the wisdom of man is misguided, in that there are those who have taught that Psalm 12 refers to the preservation of Scripture. It is more like being selective at which "commentary" one looks at, or a deliberate ignoring of certain sources.

4. Going to a "Hebrew scholar" is (at least almost always) today's form of Nicolaitanism, a continuation of the Romanist practice, and can even be likened to consulting a diviner/witch.

Before you charge me with Nicolaitanism, you had better reread the thread. It was Diligent who referred me to the interesting by an impressive Hebrew scholar's article here at av1611.org

So, bibleprotector, what is your take on this passage? What is the context?

FSSL,

I have only the below to say to you:

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Beware of the words you put in God's mouth.

Psalms 12:6-7 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.

Are you calling God a liar?

2 Corinthians 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

Are you corrupting God's word?



Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Think before the plagues of the book are bestowed upon you.

In Christ Love,
Renee

Renee: Why not show me where I am wrong here instead of throwing verses at me that have to do with the damnation of unbelievers? I am nice to people here. I used to be KJVOnly and know why you think I am a reprobate, but these inflated comments are not good for edifying. I am edifyable (just coined this term) and will retract where I am wrong.

Our impass with this passage has nothing to do with me correcting the KJV. I am simply challenging you to rethink your interpretation of this passage. I have supported my comments with all but one exception without going to the biblical languages on this one.

Read the context of Psalm 12 in the KJV.
Who is the subject throughout the Psalm?
What are they afraid of?
What does God promise?

I memorized Ephesians 2.8-9 when I was a child. It was not until I was in college that the meaning "jumped out at me" when I read the context. The same thing is happening here. KJVOnlys use Psalm 12.6-7 to support their position while ignoring the context.

Adopt the KJV translators approach which is quoted in my signature line...

And you think that your fallacious arguments and sophistry is edifying? I have a question - WHY are you here? It's certainly NOT to edify! :(

I must add...

When the Psalmist (David) wrote this, if he had in mind that this passage related to the preservation of Scripture, then why did he say "...from this generation forever."

Taking your interpretation, then David is suggesting that there was no preserved Scripture before him. Preservation begins with him.

Keep in mind, I am not challenging the KJV here, just your interpretation of this passage.

Freesudnayschoollessons, could you show us the verse that condemns KJBOnlyism?

I am here because it is a forum on the Internet. Apparently, there was a decision made to put the King James Only discussion out into the "marketplace." I am not here to exude sophistry. Simply, to get feedback and learn more fully the KJVOnly perspective.

I came out of a KJVOnly church and college. I have developed "stereotypical" thinking over the past two decades. I am here to bash my thoughts about you where I am wrong and I am here to share my thoughts so you can see that the "outsiders" are not that bad (the latter as hardly a main motive).

If you are not edified by my comments, I cannot help that. I am doing my best. Have you read my article on "straining at gnats?" Also, the thread on Psalm 12? If you don't find thoughts there for edification, I don't know what to tell you.

Gladly. I would like you to answer my question first. I will give anyone here until noon EST to show me where we are to use only one version and that the KJV is God's only preserved scripture for today, biblically. No long rambling discourses, just the verse and a sentence or two to explain. If your position is that clearly biblical, this should be no problem. Of course, it does not need to say KJV in the verse....

The translators said,

If there was any problem with the former Protestant English Bibles, those of the truth would rather humble themselves and get them right, rather than to stubbornly stay with an error. Now we know that the text form of the early Protestant Bibles was not always correct, nor the translation always the best, but by the thorough King James Bible method (54 men appointed to check and recheck, a seventh company, ratification, etc.) we know that these men went for truth rather than to stay with something which required correcting.

And as the Romanists also corrected their Vulgate, how is it that the King James Bible translators could not correct the Protestant English Bible? And if they did, why suddenly in the later portion of the 1800s, was it so "vile" (in the eyes of a few) that it had to be replaced?

We know that the truth clearly and utterly came through without hindrance from 1611, and that the widest possible Protestant testimony can be given in favour of this.

Whereas the modern versions, in their chopping and changing, in their constant and never ending alterations, are never without hindrance, and they never consent to one truth.

Psalm 12:7 - Commentaries
 

Thanks Steve. I should never put out that Hasty Generalization. I do see that there are commentaries that approach your interpretation. I simply do not have those commentaries. I have quite a few on the Psalms, but not those. Matthew Henry, which seems to be one of the most favored commentaries here, surely agrees with my interpretation.

As far as the Westminster Confession goes, that is interesting that they obviously use the words in Psalm 12. My copy does not have the passage footnoted. Does yours? Even so, I would have to say, that I won't disagree that we don't have the Word completely today.

What do you think about the other points? The gender of "them" and "words" and the overall context? Also, what about the "from this generation forever" point above?

I have posted a more direct reply in this thread:
http://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=270

Welcome.

For completeness, another "words" reference is :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Martyn
Henry Martyn (1781 -1812), Persian Bible translator

Who translated the NT and Psalms into Persian and did other excellent translating work in his brief life. We are trying to get the exact words of his translation and/or commentary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons As far as the Westminster Confession goes, that is interesting that they obviously use the words in Psalm 12. My copy does not have the passage footnoted. Does yours?

I looked at a couple of web copies and did not see a footnote.

http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/16.../Chapter01.htm
The London Baptist Confession

and some other Confessions have the same language. Anyway we know the reference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons Even so, I would have to say, that I won't disagree that we don't have the Word completely today.

Your double negative is confusing, and you are apparently reading something into the Confession.

Quote:

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons What do you think about the other points? The gender of "them" and "words" and the overall context? Also, what about the "from this generation forever" point above?

There can be a lot being discussed on the new thread over time. I have a few posts I might extract and bring over. First, I simply wanted to straighten out the commentary issue.

Shalom,
Steven

conflicting texts & the authority of God's word
 

Biblical and Logical Arguments For One Bible-Only
 

See my post A Man With One Watch Knows What Time It Is; A Man With Two Is Never Quite Sure

__________________________________

- “One accurate measurement is worth more than a thousand expert opinions”

- “...this is the Word of God; come, search, ye critics, and find a flaw; examine it, from its Genesis to its Revelation, and find an error... This is the book untainted by any error; but is pure, unalloyed, perfect truth. Why? Because God wrote it. Ah! charge God with error if you please; tell him that his book is not what it ought to be. I have heard men, with prudish and mock-modesty, who would like to alter the Bible; and (I almost blush to say it) I have heard ministers alter God's Bible, because they were afraid of it... Pity they were not born when God lived far—far back that they might have taught God how to write.” Charles Haddon Spurgeon (Spurgeon's Sermons Volume 1: Sermon II p. 31)

- “If, therefore, any do complain that I have sometimes hit my opponents rather hard, I take leave to point out that 'to everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the sun' : 'a time to embrace, and a time to be far from embracing' : a time for speaking smoothly, and a time for speaking sharply. And that when the words of Inspiration are seriously imperilled, as now they are, it is scarcely possible for one who is determined effectually to preserve the Deposit in its integrity, to hit either too straight or too hard.” Dean John William Burgon (The Revision Revised. pp. vii-viii)

You misunderstand the meaning of "this generation"...the term is not to be applied to a group of people living in a particular time period of one lifespan, but applied to a type of people who's characteristics are those of proud double speaking liars.

Christ uses the term "generation" many times to describe a type of person and their characteristics.

Are there proud, double speaking liars living today? yes there are, just as they were in OT times and NT times, and in times before David wrote the Psalm.This is the generation from which the LORD did and will preserve his words forever.

To restrict the use of the term "this generation" only to those living from the time that David wrote the Psalm until that generation died out in 70 or 80 years would make unecessary the need for God to preserve his words "forever".

fundy