Battle Royale XIV discussion thread

[drbrumley]

Good post by Brandplucked. Interested in seeing the reply.

 

[George Affleck]

Thank you for using words this time instead of just quoting a load of scriptures and expecting us to guess your meaning.

In answer, the original statement in issue was that of GO who said

In response to this you quoted a load of verses, none of which talk about a Bible or any kind of body of literature.

Let's take one as an example Heb 4:12KJV. This sword cannot be used by man or God unless it exists somewhere. It is universally accepted by Christians, myself included, that this is talking about scripture; specifically the body of truth that God has deposited with sinful man by supernatural means. If you decide not to believe this, by all means continue with your deception.

If it is not obvious that what is being talked about is a body of truth, building from one perfection to the next, from these and other verses, or even from the historical facts we have, then we will simply leave it as a disagreement. I refuse to be lured into an argument over whether or not the Bible exists. I am past that and am asking the question "Where is it?".

If you are suggesting that there is no objective written Word of God, then we might as well sign off right now because the written Word is the one and only reason we, 2000 years distant, can know Jesus; specifically because God has preserved His Word to us.

Now, you have moved the goalposts to a different question, 'Is God's word preserved'.

Goalposts have not been moved. It is impossible to talk about preservation without the object which is being preserved. It is one and the same coin with two sides. I have already stated that preservation applies to that which is inerrant and I keep asking the question which no one answers; "Where is it?" to which GO replied "God never promised that there would be a complete and inerrant Bible available for anyone". If He promised to preserve something Is 40:8KJV, 1 Pet 1:25KJV where is it preserved?

And still none of the scriptures you have posted refer to any body of literature. It's a different question. For instance, take John 21:25. Clearly there were lots of things Jesus did which were never recorded. There must have also been things which he said which were not recorded either. How does that fit with your naive view that all of Jesus' words would be preserved forever?

My "naive" view is not that every word Jesus spoke would be preserved, nor did I say so, but that the ones that the Holy Ghost inspired the writers to record would be preserved. My "naive" view is that you are deliberately perverting my words for the sake of subjectively charged argumentation.

I have another question, which I wonder if BE/WD will broach in later posts.

You never answered the part in GO's post which said 'inerrant'. I am assuming that by 'inerrant' you mean simply that the text of some document or set of documents, is a 100% correct copy of some previous document or documents. Or that it is the 100% representation of some spoken word by Jesus/the apostles/prophets.
Of course it may have other connotations relating to the actual quality of the content such as it being historically 100% accurate, that sort of thing. I don't see how this kind of assertion is at all relevant because if God speaks some words, those words are his words, whatever words they are. That's why I assume when KJVO people state that the preserved word of God is 100% inerrant, they mean that it reflects the original word of God as spoken or written by the inspired original author.

Correct - I did not address inerrancy. My conviction is that God has broken through into this sinful world and deposited, by the process of inspiring holy men, His inerrant Word and has kept His promise to preserve it. If you choose to disagree, fine. But that is my conviction. By disagreeing, however, you are admitting that you cannot answer the question "Where is it?" because, for you, it does not exist.

Which is why also it makes no sense to suggest that the KJV is 100% inerrant. Because the KJV was an English language Bible and although in practice it was copied from the Bishops Bible, from your theological perspective it was a completely new work. So why call it inerrant? If it is a new work that stands on its own authority, then it just is what it is. Or when a KJVO believer says that God's inerrant word has been preserved, was he perhaps expecting that there was some issue over whether what God said was somehow wrong?

It is impossible to discuss inerrancy for any version, including the originals, unless it is first agreed that such a thing exists and that it is preserved somewhere. I have never, on this site, declared that the KJV is that preservation nor will I argue for or against it until such an agreement is reached.

In my view, the Christian who does not believe that God has spoken truth into the world and preserved it free of error has bigger problems than he/she can comprehend. It opens the door into a room of infinite subjectivity where the creature stands in judgement on the words of the Creator and I will not agree to a discussion in that room.

 

[ddevonb]

I guess it can be called an explanation.

Here is his "explanation":

"God never promised that every nation or individual would have a perfect Bible, but He did promise to preserve His pure, complete and 100% true words in a Book somewhere on this earth."

IOW, he is claiming that English speaking people did not have the perfect infallible word of God before 1611.

It's arrogance, and conflicts with what the Bible actually says:

(Psalm 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

We also get into trouble when we take a couple of verses out of the context of the larger statement...

"12 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."

Just as we learned to diagram sentences in English class, If you read the whole chapter. In this case we see that God is protecting the poor and the needy, the verse 6 is about God's words being pure and we can trust His commitment to the poor and the needy. In verse 7, it is a statement that God will preserve these people. It isn't God's Word that He has promised to preserve... it's people.

 

[ddevonb]

Nope, not that one either.

Edit:
Well, GA just called me thick in a rep comment. However, I fail to see how a printed book can exist when heaven and Earth have both passed away. Back to you chum to be a little clearer and use words.

Very good point. God chose to give us His word though the original authors, but had He chose to never have His word written down, His word would still exist. That passage clearly is not referring to a book written down by men. All of the books on earth can burn and God's word still exists because God still exists.

 

[ddevonb]

I may be off on this; but I've yet to hear or read of any MADists who are KJVO who hold that it was inspired.

That'd be perhaps informational along a different line - two MADists - one KJVO, one not: both who actually know their position; that is.

Again, though; I've yet to hear or read any on any side who have not ended up reading their view into things in some places.

Actually the most popular MAD forum on Facebook is KJO and they often threaten to ban people for posting in other versions or arguing against KJO.

 

[ddevonb]

I'm curious why it's a two one handicap match? I side with Duffy and Enyart, but still?

The number of debaters on each side is not relevant. The facts are the facts no matter how many people are arguing for them or against them.
Kinney is the expert that most KJO people look to to make their arguments.

 

[ddevonb]

Got to love the tribute to William Shakespere in the text of the original KJV 1611. So inspired by........

I like the claim of KJO's that God preserved His inerrant word in English because English was going to become the most universal language and the international language of commerce.

The response to that... when was 1611 English ever the most universal language and the international language of commerce?

 

[ddevonb]

Could the title of the Battle Royale XIV be changed to
"Is the King James Bible the Only Inspired Scripture In English on Earth Today?"

It seems very unfair against Will Kinney if Bob Enyart and Will Duffy are able to bring in Hebrew and Greek scripture as proof that there is scripture in other languages that is clearly more inspired than any translation.

For that matter, there is still the Latin scripture used by the Catholic church and the German scripture used by the Reformers that have been used for even longer than the KJV.

Allowing the argument to wander away from English translations will just muddle the debate.

The title is appropriate because it the official KJO position that the KJV version is the only perfect translation in any language existing today.
It is their position that God intentionally chose to preserve His perfect word only in English.

 

[ddevonb]

One person I discussed with claimed that before the KJV, God used the Vulgate because it was in the common tongue for its day and that was how God preserved his word. He stated that God used the KJV because English was a worldwide language. He didn't manage to quite find an answer to the fact that in 1611 English was only spoken in England. And probably not even the whole of England. Let alone Scotland and Wales. They dig deeper and deeper holes for themselves. I told him that Latin was still the lingua franca in 1611 by a large margin.
Personally, I feel that KJVOnlyists are so for the sole reason of having an excuse to tell as many people as possible how stupid they are. Sorry you folk out there, but it really is at that level. It is utterly unsupportable in every aspect.

In the New Testament, Jesus sometimes quoted from the Greek Septuagint, proving that He was not as hung up on Bible translations as the KJO people.

 

[ddevonb]

The King James translators rendered the Hebrew sheol as hell 31 times; 31 times as grave, and three times as pit. Why the inconsistencies for this translation? God is not one of disorder but God is one of peace.

While I totally disagree with the KJO position, your argument is faulty. The meaning of many words changes according to actual usage in context. That is true in any language. If that Hebrew word was translated the same with each usage, I would tend to be suspicious of the translation. Translation from one language to another generally tries to be faithful to the meaning of a phrase or concept. It is often true that no single word exists in one language for a word in another language.

 

[James Snapp Jr]

The KJV and the Words of God

The KJV and the Words of God


Knight,

Thanks for having this gallery for onlookers. (I recommend deleting all the posts from before the debate began, though, just to keep things tidy. Who wants to wade through 79 posts before the actual feedback begins?!)

I hope everyone noticed the precision of the language which Will Kinney used in his opening statement: he believes that the KJV is "The only complete and inerrant words of God." Not just inerrant -- as a translation might be even if it lacked an original verse here or there -- but also complete.

He thus makes two assertions for his fellow debaters to challenge; their default position seems to be that
(A) the KJV is not inerrant, and
(B) the KJV is not complete.

(I suppose a third position -- that the KJV is both inerrant and complete, but others are, too (for example, carefully made non-English translations of the KJV) -- is theoretically possible, but that does not seem to be their position.)

I would like for Bob Enyart and Will Duffy to express more specifically what they seem to assume via the challenge that Will Kinney has made about the completeness of the KJV. To keep things simple (or, more simple than they might become otherwise), let's consider only the New Testament: what New Testament, currently in existence in any language, do they regard as both inerrant and complete?

The compilers of the UBS/Nestle-Aland Greek text do not even affirm this about their own compilation; it is still described as a work in progress by its own editors. The 1984 NIV is not even in print anymore. The ESV has already undergone two revisions, plus one special edition that involved many textual changes, and the revisions show no signs of stopping.

So, granting that a close analysis of how the KJV was produced might draw into question its completeness (at least, its completeness when first issued), I am curious about what text Bob Enyart and Will Duffy uphold -- if any -- as "the complete and inerrant words of God," in existence today in a single printed volume of text. Do they have a complete and inerrant text (as in, a specific collection of words, not merely a conveyance of of ideas) -- at least for the New Testament -- that they wish to advocate?

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

 

[James Snapp Jr]

A Question About KJV-Editing

A Question About KJV-Editing

Knight,

Perhaps Bob Enyart and/or Will Duffy could clear something up: they seem to lean on excerpts from the annotations in a Bishops' Bible as evidence that the 1611 KJV had mistakes that issued from the translators as well as from the printer. However, in the Preface to the KJV (The Translators to the Reader), mention is made that "We revised what we had done, and brought back to the anvil that which we had hammered."

Now, having done some translation-work myself, I know that it is entirely possible, even probably, that a translator or team of translators might consider rival renderings once, twice, or multiple times, before finally settling on a rendering. Other than correspondences between the 1611 KJV's text and the annotations, do you have any evidence that the annotations you presented were the direct source of the final form of the text issued by the translators, rather than some intermediate stage of the KJV's production? (Or, if that seems to demand too much speculation, then consider the matter in reverse: are there any such annotations that are not reflected in the 1611 KJV's text?)

Also: do these items you have pointed out constitute the full extent of your criticism of the KJV's contents? That is, inasmuch as the features that you described as errors (in Deut. 26:1, Second Kings 11:10, and Second Chronicles 32:5) have been subsequently altered -- at least, in the Cambridge edition to which Will Kinney referred -- then what objection do you bring against that particular edition, as far as its alleged completeness and its alleged inerrancy are concerned? Do you agree with Will Kinney that the Cambridge edition of the KJV as currently printed is complete and inerrant, or does your objection go further than the small, corrected points that were the focus of the pictures?

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

 

[OCTOBER23]

VERY INTERESTING SO FAR I THINK.:think:

It could use a few Scriptures. :read:

 

[genuineoriginal]

(Previous)

Second Post in Round 1

Analysis of Bob Enyart's first post.

A quick read of Bob's post looked good, but after examining the arguments presented the initial post against KJO fell short of being a strong opening gambit.

One example is this one.

The origin of the KJV is the opposite of what is envisioned by thousands of King James Only advocates. God did not bring about a brand new divinely inspired English Bible.

Bob is assuming (possibly from previous statements made by KJO advocates) that they believe that the KJV is a brand new divinely inspired English Bible.
However, the statements I have seen do not make the claim that it is a brand new English Bible, only that it is the most divinely inspired Bible translation ever produced.
Without a clear understanding of the opposing view, Bob will have difficulty in addressing the arguments, and the two sides will end up talking past each other with neither being able to understand what point the other is making.

Bob's first question opened with this:

Is God able to

The answer is obviously, Yes, God is able to since He is the almighty. However Can God does not address the real question of Did God.

Did God create a message that could survive thousands of years of minor mistranslations, additions, and deletions, or did God throw up His hands at the thought of what man would do to the written Word and correct all the mistakes in one divine act of intervention called the KJV?
This seems to be the heart of the debate, but neither side has even come close to addressing it.

Bob spent a lot of time researching the creation of the KJV, and I really appreciate reading the details of how the translators took the Bishop's Bible and attempted to make that translation even better than before.

Bob then fumbles and asks a KJO advocate whether the tautology they believe in is true.

Does God’s perfect Word exist anywhere on Earth today?

The answer by any KJO advocate is, "Yes, it is called the King James Version!"
This appears to have been a wasted question since the answer is the topic of the debate itself.

The next question from Bob appeared to be strong enough to end the debate.

please provide a list of King James Bibles, listing publisher and year published, for which you and, to the best of your knowledge, the KJO camp generally, claim them to be free of error

Well, it appeared that way until I realized that the only answer is, "The KJV Bible that I use is the one that is free of error." The great thing about that answer is that it does not matter which publisher or date of printing is on the Bible, the fact that it is a KJV Bible makes it inerrant and complete in the eyes of the KJO advocate.

From the opening posts of the two sides, it appears that the entire debate may end up with the two sides talking past each other and neither of the sides will be able to understand the arguments and counter-arguments of the other side.

(Next)

 

[George Affleck]

We also get into trouble when we take a couple of verses out of the context of the larger statement...

"12 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."

Just as we learned to diagram sentences in English class, If you read the whole chapter. In this case we see that God is protecting the poor and the needy, the verse 6 is about God's words being pure and we can trust His commitment to the poor and the needy. In verse 7, it is a statement that God will preserve these people. It isn't God's Word that He has promised to preserve... it's people.

Interesting.

I would not have thought that I would find one person, let alone two (you and DR) who would put forward an interpretation that God is committed to preserving the poor and needy. I suppose this is what comes from using faulty versions. The NIV and ESV incorrectly use the word "us" as the object of preservation.

1. The rule is that the nearest noun is the most likely antecedent. "The words of the Lord" and the descriptive "as silver" are nearest to that which is being guarded/kept/preserved and should be given priority unless it destroys the sense of the passage. Other O.T. passages show us that both people and words can be kept or preserved.

2. The main focus of the Psalm, as measured by the number of references, is not the plight of the needy (as important as this is) but, rather, the superiority of God's words over the words of man. In fact, the second most referenced thing is the works of evil men; the poor comes third. This is further evidence that the words of the Lord are the object of protection.

3. It makes more sense that God would keep His words, in that they are as precious as refined silver, as solid, unwavering promises to the poor and oppressed than that he would, as you say, "preserve these people" and keep the oppressed in their condition for all generations.

4. It also makes theological sense that God knows that the best way to silence "flattering lips" and "evil men" is to crush them with everlasting truth. Those who are being deceived and taken advantage of will forever have their simple faith in God's words as their shield and buckler.

5. Why mention that the words of the Lord are pure, that they are as silver refined seven times, and then immediately say that the Lord will preserve people? This completely destroys the flow of the psalm and unnaturally allows a collision of thoughts.

I am convinced that the KJV rendering here leads us to a right understanding of what is being kept/protected/preserved; God's words.

 

[Desert Reign]

Let's take one as an example Heb 4:12KJV. This sword cannot be used by man or God unless it exists somewhere. It is universally accepted by Christians, myself included, that this is talking about scripture; specifically the body of truth that God has deposited with sinful man by supernatural means. If you decide not to believe this, by all means continue with your deception.

You offer no evidence that your view is universally accepted. And you can't. You are looking at the world through rose coloured spectacles. When I began to read the Bible, I had never heard of KJVO and I woud never have understood this verse to be about a written word. Quite the opposite, it seems much more likely to be in reference to the spoken word.

If it is not obvious that what is being talked about is a body of truth, building from one perfection to the next, from these and other verses, or even from the historical facts we have, then we will simply leave it as a disagreement. I refuse to be lured into an argument over whether or not the Bible exists. I am past that and am asking the question "Where is it?".

Unfortunately, the debate is not on your terms. Just because you refuse to deal with an issue, will not make the issue go away.

If you are suggesting that there is no objective written Word of God, then we might as well sign off right now because the written Word is the one and only reason we, 2000 years distant, can know Jesus; specifically because God has preserved His Word to us.

As I said, the debate is not on your terms. Obviously you have no argument to support your position or else you would have brought one. BE/WD also answered this question pretty directly in my view and I entirely agree with it. Besides, your own position is self-defeating: we '2000 years distant' are not the be-all and end-all of humanity. The church did not possess this body of literature throughout its 2000 years of existence and neither did the KJV exist during all of that time as KJV English wasn't even a language until 1500 or later. It's preposterous to claim that God's word existed or exists only in English.

Goalposts have not been moved. It is impossible to talk about preservation without the object which is being preserved. It is one and the same coin with two sides.

Again, this is your presupposition. You offer no proof of it anywhere and neither does WK.

I have already stated that preservation applies to that which is inerrant and I keep asking the question which no one answers; "Where is it?" to which GO replied "God never promised that there would be a complete and inerrant Bible available for anyone". If He promised to preserve something Is 40:8KJV, 1 Pet 1:25KJV where is it preserved?

Already answered above and previously.

My "naive" view is not that every word Jesus spoke would be preserved, nor did I say so, but that the ones that the Holy Ghost inspired the writers to record would be preserved. My "naive" view is that you are deliberately perverting my words for the sake of subjectively charged argumentation.

But it is you and the KJVOs who have made an inference that there must be a written word of God in a fixed form. As I have previously stated, NONE of the scriptures you cite say this or come anywhere close to it. And since I first pointed this out to you you have made at least two attempts to produce other scriptures than the ones you first listed. You are clearly running away from the issue. If there was a clear passage of scripture supporting your view, you would have brought it to us by now. And since you are into making inferences then you have to deal with the argument that every word Jesus spoke from his birth until his ascension into heaven are the words of God. Are they not???

Correct - I did not address inerrancy. My conviction is that God has broken through into this sinful world and deposited, by the process of inspiring holy men, His inerrant Word and has kept His promise to preserve it. If you choose to disagree, fine. But that is my conviction. By disagreeing, however, you are admitting that you cannot answer the question "Where is it?" because, for you, it does not exist.

Thanks for sharing your opinion. Although, when put like that, I would half-way agree with it. But that is not all you believe since you also believe specifically that there is a written body of literature which has been preserved verbatim. It would be great to also have at least one scripture citation to support this. Shame you didn't manage to find even one.

It is impossible to discuss inerrancy for any version, including the originals, unless it is first agreed that such a thing exists and that it is preserved somewhere. I have never, on this site, declared that the KJV is that preservation nor will I argue for or against it until such an agreement is reached.

As stated above, the debate is not on your terms. If I were to make a parallel stipulation that unless you accept the 6 points of historical transmission that I made earlier in the debate are accepted then I will not argue further, then the debate would go nowhere. Your refusal to debate the point is evidence of only one thing: your absolute lack of evidence to support your position.

We also get into trouble when we take a couple of verses out of the context of the larger statement...
Just as we learned to diagram sentences in English class, If you read the whole chapter. In this case we see that God is protecting the poor and the needy, the verse 6 is about God's words being pure and we can trust His commitment to the poor and the needy. In verse 7, it is a statement that God will preserve these people. It isn't God's Word that He has promised to preserve... it's people.

Thank you. I made this point earlier.

Very good point. God chose to give us His word though the original authors, but had He chose to never have His word written down, His word would still exist. That passage clearly is not referring to a book written down by men. All of the books on earth can burn and God's word still exists because God still exists.

Exactly. Though GA and, I presume, other KJVOs, lack the faith in God to keep his word preserved and instead want to see something concrete in front of their eyes. I suggest that this lack of faith is the main underlying spiritual driver of the KJVO position. Although I am sure that some of them are also motivated by the English racist/language supremacist attitude. The same faithless attitude comes across in heavy shepherding or legalism or excessively controlling attitudes of church leaders at all levels. Lack of faith is at the bottom of it. Control is a substitute for this lack. Insistence on the wirtten word is a substitute for trust in the Holy Spirit.

And they call it subjectivity or being tossed about by every wind of doctrine or other such negative sounding phrases but it is all to conceal the one lack of faith that rules them all and in the darkness binds them.

In the New Testament, Jesus sometimes quoted from the Greek Septuagint, proving that He was not as hung up on Bible translations as the KJO people.

And not only but also different versions of the same passage are treated as divinely authored. And books not in the canon are also treated as divinely authored.

Knight,

Perhaps Bob Enyart and/or Will Duffy could clear something up: they seem to lean on excerpts from the annotations in a Bishops' Bible as evidence that the 1611 KJV had mistakes that issued from the translators as well as from the printer. However, in the Preface to the KJV (The Translators to the Reader), mention is made that "We revised what we had done, and brought back to the anvil that which we had hammered."

Now, having done some translation-work myself,

You will have to take your place in the grandstand along with the rest of us. No disrespect to you but we all have the same rank here. If BE/WD/WK want to take your comments into consideration that is their prerogative.

Well, it appeared that way until I realized that the only answer is, "The KJV Bible that I use is the one that is free of error." The great thing about that answer is that it does not matter which publisher or date of printing is on the Bible, the fact that it is a KJV Bible makes it inerrant and complete in the eyes of the KJO advocate.

From the opening posts of the two sides, it appears that the entire debate may end up with the two sides talking past each other and neither of the sides will be able to understand the arguments and counter-arguments of the other side.

Another little nicety I am looking forward to in the debate is the self-contradiction implied in this position and the argument that the KJV is better than other translations because of x,y and z. If you are going to follow the 'better than x,y and z' argument, then you can't at the same time support an exclusive KJV argument. Because any other translation could also be argued to be better for exactly the same reasons. I suggested earlier that WK might not be up to a structured logical debate and that his position was highly emotive and subjective. The arbitrary nature of the KJVO argument is its great weakness. Inerrancy is a red herring because anything God says is right. They use it as a psychological lever. The implied message is that unless you believe in their KJVO position you won't be sure that what you are reading is from God. This is the faithless position I mentioned above. It undermines our faith in God and that is why it must be dispensed with.

I'd add that there are an increasing number of ordinary, otherwise untutored Christians who are learning ancient Greek. It's a sign, especially in our internet days, that the theological elitism of academia is on the wane. Knowledge is freely available to everyone. We don't need English any more. It's ironic because the old guard are not even academics. Had they done an ounce of study of linguistics or ancient languages or hermeneutics they could not possibly come to these aberrant conclusions.

 

[Desert Reign]

Interesting.

I would not have thought that I would find one person, let alone two (you and DR) who would put forward an interpretation that God is committed to preserving the poor and needy. I suppose this is what comes from using faulty versions. The NIV and ESV incorrectly use the word "us" as the object of preservation.

1. The rule is that the nearest noun is the most likely antecedent.
2. The main focus of the Psalm, as measured by the number of references, is not the plight of the needy.
3. It makes more sense that God would keep His words,
4. It also makes theological sense that God knows that the best way to silence
5. Why mention that the words of the Lord are pure, that they are as silver refined seven times, and then immediately say that the Lord will preserve people?
I am convinced that the KJV rendering here leads us to a right understanding of what is being kept/protected/preserved; God's words.

Unfortunately for you, the Bible is there for all of us. We too can read the passages for ourselves and it is obvious that you have put your own slant on it. We can see both that and we can see you vainly performing rear-guard manouevres - vainly because we have also read the passage ourselves and we know that you are wrong. What you would or 'would not have thought' is irrelevant and is all the more irrelevant as you have failed to support your belief with any scripture at all.

I am not surprised that you don't want to get involved in defending the KJVO position explicitly if you can't even find any scripture that supports your presumption of verbal preservation.

 

[brandplucked]

Is the NKJV the inerrant words of God? Not a Chance!

Is the NKJV the inerrant words of God? Not a Chance!

Will Kinney says this:



He admits the NKJV on part with the KJV here, so what exactly is his objection to the NKJV? Does he not believe it as "inspired" as the KJV?

Hi Angel4Truth. Are you willing to look at MANY concrete reasons why the NKJV is just another fake bible version?

http://brandplucked.webs.com/nkjvsameaskjb.htm

God bless.

 

[brandplucked]

God's Book - the King James Bible

God's Book - the King James Bible

I like the claim of KJO's that God preserved His inerrant word in English because English was going to become the most universal language and the international language of commerce.

The response to that... when was 1611 English ever the most universal language and the international language of commerce?

Uh...you don't suppose God can see the future, do you? Nah...what are the chances of that happening, right?

 

[brandplucked]

Psalms 12 and the preservation of God's words

Psalms 12 and the preservation of God's words

Spurgeon and others agree that Psalm 12:7 "Thou shalt keep THEM, O LORD, thou shalt preserve THEM from this generation for ever." is speaking of God’s words in contrast to man’s words that being preserved.

C.H. Spurgeon’s sermon on Psalm 12 - “What a contrast between the vain words of man, and the pure words of Jehovah. Man's words are yea and nay, but the Lord's promises are yea and amen. For truth, certainty, holiness, faithfulness, the words of the Lord are pure as well-refined silver. In the original there is an allusion to the most severely-purifying process known to the ancients, through which silver was passed when the greatest possible purity was desired; the dross was all consumed, and only the bright and precious metal remained; so clear and free from all alloy of error or unfaithfulness is the book of the words of the Lord. The Bible has passed through the furnace of persecution, literary criticism, philosophic doubt, and scientific discovery, and has lost nothing but those human interpretations which clung to it as alloy to precious ore. The experience of saints has tried it in every conceivable manner, but not a single doctrine or promise has been consumed in the most excessive heat. What God's words are, the words of his children should be.”

David Guzik's Commentary on the Bible - You shall keep them, O Lord, You shall preserve them: This was David’s declaration of confidence in God’s ability to preserve His own words. He did not only give His word to mankind; His providential hand has protected the existence and integrity of His word through the centuries.
i. There are some manuscripts and Bible translations that render this You shall keep us, O Lord, You shall preserve us. Yet, according to VanGemeren, there is legitimate manuscript support for the rendering You shall keep them . . . You shall preserve them. We can take it as true that God will keep and preserve both His Word and His people.

ii. “The psalmist breaks out into praise of the purity of His words, and declares that Jehovah will ‘keep them,’ and ‘preserve them.’ The ‘them’ refers to the words. There is no promise made of widespread revival or renewal. It is the salvation of a remnant and the preservation of His own words which Jehovah promises.” (Morgan)

iii. God has and will keep and preserve His Word. “The French atheist Voltaire made these claims openly. He once said, ‘In twenty years Christianity will be no more. My single had shall destroy the edifice it took twelve apostles to rear.’ He wrote that in fifty years no one would remember Christianity. But in the year he wrote that, the British Museum paid the Russian government five hundred thousand dollars for a Bible manuscript while one of Voltaire’s books was selling in the London book stalls for just eight cents.” (Boice)



Bible Version Comparison

Psalm 12:6-7 - God’s promise to preserve His words


Has God promised to preserve His words here on this earth till heaven and earth pass away? Well, a lot depends on which particular bible version you are using.

The Book which I and thousands of other Christians all over the world believe to be the complete, inerrant, infallible and 100% true words of God tell us that He did promise to preserve His words.

Here is a simple Bible version comparison regarding the promise found in Psalm 12 of the King James Bible.

King James Bible - “Thou shalt keep THEM, O LORD, thou shalt preserve THEM from this generation for ever.”

Also agreeing with the King James Bible in this verse are the following modern day versions, several of which are Jewish and Jewish Christian translations: the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company version, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2008, the 1993 Word of Yah translation, the 2001 Sacred Scriptures Family of Yah, the 2003 Evidence Bible, Literal Translation Bible 2005 by Jay Green, the 2010 Holy Scriptures Jubilee Bible, Green’s 2005 literal, the Context Group Version 2007, the 2008 Ancient Roots Translinear Bible, the 2009 Bond Slave Version, the 2010 Hebraic Transliteration Scripture by Yerusha Shen, The Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010 by Paul Becker - “The Words of Jehovah are pure Words, like silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7. You shall keep them, O Jehovah, You shall preserve them from this generation forever.”, Conservative Bible 2011 by Andrew Schlafly, the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, the 2012 World English Bible, the 2012 Natural Israelite Bible, The Sacred Scriptures of Yahuwah 2014 and The Holy Bible, Modern English Version 2014 - "The words of the Lord are pure words; they are silver tried in an earthen furnace refined seven times. You will keep them, O Lord; You will preserve them from this generation.”

The Koster Scriptures 1998 - “6The Words are clean Words, Silver tried in a furnace of earth, Refined seven times. 7You guard THEM, You preserve THEM from this generation forever.”

The New European Version 2010 - “6The words of Yahweh are flawless words, as silver refined in a clay furnace, purified seven times. 7You will keep THEM, Yahweh. You will preserve THEM from this generation forever.”

Webster’s 1833 translation, the Lesser Bible 1853, The Wellbeloved Scriptures 1862, The Smith Bible 1876 - “Thou shalt keep THEM, O LORD, thou shalt preserve THEM from this generation for ever.”

The Jewish Family Bible 1864, the English Revised Version 1885 - “Thou shalt keep THEM, O LORD, thou shalt preserve THEM from this generation for ever.”

ASV 1901, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - “Thou wilt keep THEM, O Jehovah, Thou wilt preserve THEM from this generation for ever.”

The New Jewish Bible 1985 - "The words of the Lord are pure words, silver purged in an earthen crucible, refined sevenfold. 8. You, O Lord, will keep them, guarding each from this age evermore.”


World English Bible 2012 - “You will keep THEM, Yahweh. You will preserve THEM from this generation forever.”

Darby 1890- “Thou, Jehovah, wilt keep THEM, thou wilt preserve THEM from this generation for ever.

Hebrew Names Version 2014 = KJB -”You will keep THEM LORD, You will preserve THEM from this generation forever."

NKJV 1982 - “You shall keep THEM, O LORD, You shall preserve THEM from this generation forever.”

The 1985 New Jerusalem bible - “Yahweh's promises are promises unalloyed, natural silver which comes from the earth seven times refined. You, Yahweh, will watch over THEM, you will protect THEM from that brood for ever.”

The Voice 2012 - V.6 "The promises of the Eternal, they are true, they are pure— like silver refined in a furnace, purified seven times, they will be without impurity. V.7 You, O Eternal, will be THEIR protector. You will keep THEM safe from those around them forever."

However there are many other versions that disagree not only with the King James Bible but also with each other.

NASB - “You, O LORD, will keep THEM; You will preserve HIM from this generation forever.”

NIV - The NIV 1984 edition is very different, not only from the KJB but also from the NASB, and from one NIV to the other. The NIV 1984 edition says: “And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times. O LORD, you will keep US SAFE AND PROTECT US FROM SUCH PEOPLE forever.”

However, the "new" New International Version of 2011 has come on the scene and it now reads: "You, LORD, will keep THE NEEDY SAFE, AND WILL PROTECT US for ever FROM THE WICKED." So the 1984 says "keep US" not "them" nor even the NASB's "him", and the 2011 says "keep THE NEEDY SAFE" (not found in ANY Hebrew text) and changes "from this generation" first to "from such people" and then changes it once again to "from the wicked".

Here they both are so you can compare the 1984 NIV with the 2011 NIV

Psalm 12:6-7 NIV 1984 - “And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver REFINED in a FURNACE OF CLAY, PURIFIED seven times. O LORD, you will keep US safe and protect us from SUCH PEOPLE forever.”

Psalm 12:6-7 NIV 2011 - “And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver PURIFIED in a CRUCIBLE, LIKE GOLD REFINED seven times. You, LORD, will keep THE NEEDY safe and will protect us forever from. THE WICKED.”

Douay-Rheims - “Thou, O Lord, wilt preserve US: and keep US from this generation for ever.”

Lamsa’s 1936 translation of the Syriac - “Thou shalt keep THEM, O LORD; thou shalt preserve ME and save ME from this generation for ever.

Jewish Pub. Society 1917 - “Thou wilt keep THEM, O LORD; Thou wilt preserve US from this generation for ever.

RSV 1954- “Do thou, O LORD, protect US, guard US ever from this generation.

ESV 2001 - “You, O LORD, will keep THEM; you will guard US from this generation forever.”

Young’s - “Thou, O Jehovah, dost preserve THEM, Thou keepest US from this generation to the age.”

NET version 2006 Dan Wallace and company's NET version is interesting in that it differs from all the others and can even be read so as to have the same meaning as that found in the King James Bible. It says: -

"The Lord’s words are absolutely reliable. They are as untainted as silver purified in a furnace on the ground, where it is thoroughly refined. 7 You, Lord, will protect THEM; you will continually shelter EACH ONE from these evil people."

The 2004 Spanish Reina Valera Gomez says agrees exactly with the King James Bible and the genders of the nouns in this Spanish translation can ONLY refer to the words of the LORD. It reads: "Las palabras de Jehová son palabras puras; como plata refinado en horno de tierra, purificada siete veces. Tú, Jehová, LAS guardarás; LAS preservarás de esta generación para siempre."