KJV only, KJVTR only and TR only

Any thoughts? YES-BOTH ARE WRONG!

Those who reject the KJV are as wrong as those who reject all other versions. Same for the "TR Onlies".

In the AV, Ps.12:7 clearly refers to MEN. But that does NOT mean God didn't preserve His word.

As far as BVs go, ANY onlyism, KJV or otherwise, is WRONG. Not the use of any one version only, but the myth that any particular version is the ONLY 'official' version, to the rejection of all others.

 

Uh, er, say what?

On Google i searched for "KJV Only"
and got 6,880 hits.
I searached for "KJV Only" and
"King James Version" and got 2,520 hits.
That means there are 4,360 pages
that don't bother to define KJV but
talk about "KJV Only"

When i did a search of "TR Only" i found
sites that speak of a TR other than
textus receptus. When i did a Google
search of both "Textus Receptus" and
"TR Only" i found 90 hits.

I don't think there is much to be
said for TR Onlyism and a lot said
about KJV Onlyism.

 

Neither. The verse refers to the people in the preceding context.

 

Neither. The verse refers to the people in the preceding context. </font>[/QUOTE]Amen, Brother Skanwmatos -- Preach it!

 

Some thoughts...

The meaning of Psalms 12:6-7 (preservation of words or saints?) has been debated for centuries.

Here on the BB grammarians, commentators and opinionators have been quoted ad nauseum on both sides.

askjo, let's suppose it does apply to His words?

What good does it do to know this without the enlightenment of the Spirit of God who inspired them in the first place?

Proverbs 1
23 Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.

In the NT venue:
...grieve not the holy Spirit of God,...
.Quench not the Spirit.

Is the Spirit of God unable to overcome the 5% textual problem introduced by man (assuming of course we have kept our part of the agreement - turning at His reproof)?

Perhaps the one good thing in all this is the focus of the Church(es) upon the written Word of God and the spiritual arts and sciences thereof.

HankD

 

Incorrect -- you know better -- most KJV onlyists believe this verse refers to the word. </font>[/QUOTE]And most KJV-Onlyists would be *wrong* on this point.

How do we know that "them" in Psa. 12:7 refers to the people of v. 5 and not the words of v. 6?

(1) Hebrew Grammar -- The gender agreements of the Hebrew pronouns tell us what the antecedents are. "The poor" and "the needy" in v. 5 are both masculine plurals; "words" in v. 6 is a feminine plural; "them" in v. 7 is a masculine plural. According to the normal rules of gender agreement in Hebrew, the masculine plural pronoun "them" in v. 7 refers back to a masculine plural antecedent, which would be "the poor" and "the needy" in v. 5.

KJV Psalm 12:5 For the oppression of THE POOR [masc. pl. noun], for the sighing of THE NEEDY [masc. pl. noun], now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set HIM in safety [masc. sing. noun, masc. sing. pronoun implied] from him that puffeth at him. 6 THE WORDS [fem. pl. noun] of the LORD are pure WORDS [fem. pl. noun]: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep THEM [masc. pl. pronoun referring back to the "poor" and "needy" of v. 5], O LORD, thou shalt preserve THEM [literally, "Thou shalt preserve HIM," masc. sing. pronoun referring back to the masc. sing. noun and "him" in v. 5] from this generation for ever.

(2) Biblical Usage -- On *every* other occasion in Psalms where the word "preserve" appears in the KJV, it *always* refers to people or living creatures and *never* to words (cf. Psa. 6:1, Psa. 25:21, Psa. 31:23, Psa. 32:7, Psa. 36:6, Psa. 37:28, Psa. 40:11, Psa. 41:2, Psa. 61:7, Psa. 64:1, Psa. 79:11, Psa. 86:2, Psa. 97:10, Psa. 116:6, Psa. 121:7, Psa. 121:8, Psa. 140:1, Psa. 140:4, Psa. 145:20, Psa. 146:9).

Conclusion: Psa. 12 is about *people* preservation, not "words" preservation.

 

You are next to get "F" on your grade. </font>[/QUOTE]Then please
explaine why the 12th chapter of Pfalmes
has 5 variants in the Hebrew source texts.
That is, 5 variants documented in the
REAL King James Versions (KJVs), the ones
that have the translators notes.

In fact, forget why, just tell me what
the five textual variants are.

Here let me help:
the phrase in verse 7 "thou shalt
preserue them" might be "thou shalt
preserue every one of them"

 

Neither. The verse refers to the people in the preceding context. </font>[/QUOTE]I disagree.

The emphasis of Psalm 12 is word., rather that people per se. It is the words of God which will prevail rather than the flattering lips of men.

they speak vanity

with flattering lips

with a double heart do they speak

the Lord shall cut off all flattering lips

and the tongue

that speaketh proud things

who have said

with our tongue will we prevail

our lips are our own

the words of the Lord

are pure words By Jack Moorman

 

Incorrect -- you know better -- most KJV onlyists believe this verse refers to the word. </font>[/QUOTE]And most KJV-Onlyists would be *wrong* on this point.

How do we know that "them" in Psa. 12:7 refers to the people of v. 5 and not the words of v. 6?

(1) Hebrew Grammar -- The gender agreements of the Hebrew pronouns tell us what the antecedents are. "The poor" and "the needy" in v. 5 are both masculine plurals; "words" in v. 6 is a feminine plural; "them" in v. 7 is a masculine plural. According to the normal rules of gender agreement in Hebrew, the masculine plural pronoun "them" in v. 7 refers back to a masculine plural antecedent, which would be "the poor" and "the needy" in v. 5.

KJV Psalm 12:5 For the oppression of THE POOR [masc. pl. noun], for the sighing of THE NEEDY [masc. pl. noun], now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set HIM in safety [masc. sing. noun, masc. sing. pronoun implied] from him that puffeth at him. 6 THE WORDS [fem. pl. noun] of the LORD are pure WORDS [fem. pl. noun]: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep THEM [masc. pl. pronoun referring back to the "poor" and "needy" of v. 5], O LORD, thou shalt preserve THEM [literally, "Thou shalt preserve HIM," masc. sing. pronoun referring back to the masc. sing. noun and "him" in v. 5] from this generation for ever.

(2) Biblical Usage -- On *every* other occasion in Psalms where the word "preserve" appears in the KJV, it *always* refers to people or living creatures and *never* to words (cf. Psa. 6:1, Psa. 25:21, Psa. 31:23, Psa. 32:7, Psa. 36:6, Psa. 37:28, Psa. 40:11, Psa. 41:2, Psa. 61:7, Psa. 64:1, Psa. 79:11, Psa. 86:2, Psa. 97:10, Psa. 116:6, Psa. 121:7, Psa. 121:8, Psa. 140:1, Psa. 140:4, Psa. 145:20, Psa. 146:9).

Conclusion: Psa. 12 is about *people* preservation, not "words" preservation. </font>[/QUOTE]By Jack Moorman

THE ANTECEDENT QUESTION

Words (verse 6) is the nearest likely antecedent to them (verse 7). In sentence structure we naturally expect the antecedent to the pronoun them to be close at hand. If it is at a distance we do not expect another likely antecedent to intervene. A survey of the thems in the first twenty-five Psalms gives a clear demonstration of this principle.

A problem arises: Hebrew, like other languages, has grammatical gender, and here the pronoun them is masculine, while words is feminine. The more distant yet possible antecedents of verse five or verse one are masculine.

While we may assume that gender agreement will occur between a pronoun and its antecedent, the following authorities acknowledge that frequently this is not the case.

The standard Gesenius-Kautzsch-Cowley grammar says:

...masculine suffixes (especially in the plural) are not infrequently used to refer to feminine substantives, (#135-0).

Also, the recent Hebrew grammar by Waltke and O'Conner:

The masculine pronoun is often used for a feminine antecedent. (Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns Publ., 1990, #16.4b).

In commenting on the passage itself, Rabbi Samson Hirsch writes:

Thou O Lord wilt constantly keep them, Thy promises...The word [them] has a masculine ending in order to stress the constancy and immutability of these assurances. (Psalms. New York: Feldheim Publ., 1960, p.85).

 

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that them is referring to the Lord's words: I'm having trouble seeing how this text is specifying their sole preservation in the TR or KJV or any other particular document. Maybe I'm experiencing a reading difficulty or I'm lacking spiritually. Someone please help!

 

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that them is referring to the Lord's words: I'm having trouble seeing how this text is specifying their sole preservation in the TR or KJV or any other particular document. Maybe I'm experiencing a reading difficulty or I'm lacking spiritually. Someone please help! </font>[/QUOTE]The passage does not say how or what God will preserve his word in, but I believe that perservation is found in the King James Bible. BTW, when God preserves something, it's perfect preservation.

 

“Perfect preservation”. This leads to an interesting observation HB.

Compare what Jesus read (according to the KJV) and the text in the OT.

KJV Luke 4:16-19
And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,

The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

KJV Isaiah 61:1
The Spirit of the Lord GOD [is] upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to [them that are] bound;

Apparently God’s “perfect preservation” (assuming the KJV is “perfect preservation”) does necessarily mean “word perfect”.

If you don’t agree, please explain the difference between the KJV NT account of what Jesus read recorded in Luke 4:18-19 and Isaiah 61:1 in the OT.

HankD

 

“Perfect preservation”. This leads to an interesting observation HB.

Compare what Jesus read (according to the KJV) and the text in the OT.

KJV Luke 4:16-19
And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,

The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

KJV Isaiah 61:1
The Spirit of the Lord GOD [is] upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to [them that are] bound;

Apparently God’s “perfect preservation” (assuming the KJV is “perfect preservation”) does necessarily mean “word perfect”.

If you don’t agree, please explain the difference between the KJV NT account of what Jesus read recorded in Luke 4:18-19 and Isaiah 61:1 in the OT.

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]I have no idea. Maybe one is in Hebrew and the other Greek. Do you know?

 

You're welcome to believe that. You're not welcome to make that a doctrinal requirement for all of humankind.

Then the KJV can't be the aforementioned perfect preservation, because it's not a perfect translation.

 

I had no intentions of doing so.

So you say.