Psalm 12:6

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by robycop3, Feb 9, 2005.

  1. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    The thread about both Psalms, 12:6 and 7, was closed because it had wandered off topic. It closed with the KJVOs having NO reply to the fact that the KJV translators believed Ps.12:7 to be about PEOPLE, and that the view that it's about God's WORDS was first widely publicized by the dishonest KJVO authors named many times previously. Therefore, we must conclude that the KJVO view is wrong. (Any KJVO believing otherwise, please feel free to start another thread advocating your views.)

    Now, may we discuss Psalm 12:6? There's also an incorrect KJVO view of this verse, claiming the KJV is the culmination of the purifying process, a process in which God needed 7 tries to get His word right.

    Let's look at the verse, as written in the KJV:

    "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." (The NKJV reads, "LIKE silver...")

    Notice that David said, "*ARE* pure words". He THEN compared God's words with highly-refined silver. He says NOTHING about any purification process for God's words.

    Unbelievably, a highly-educated man, Dr. Lawrence Vance, is among those who hold this absolutely-incorrect view of V6. The words in the KJV couldn't be plainer in any other translation, showing David was COMPARING God's words with the purest physical precious thing he knew of. To me, if anyone states this verse shows God's words were refined 7 times, this person either has problems comprehending written English...or is deliberately telling a lie. Given Dr. Vance's education, which do you believe HE did? (I mention Dr. Vance because another member cited him as an authority and advocate of the KJVO myth. Dr. Vance's article is pasted into the now-closed "psalms 12:6-7" thread.)

    In summary, the KJVO view that God's word had to be purified seven times is a 3rd-degree humbug.

    May we keep the posts in this thread limited to the subject of Psalm 12:6 and the various views of what it's telling us?
     
  2. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    Even if KJVO distortions are right about Psalm 12:6 the whole 7 times process is seriously flawed. If the Lord’s words required seven times to get them right when did this process start? How do we know if the KJV(1611-1873,1982NKJV, MKJV, KJ21, and TMB) is the finished product? Since it is impossible for KJVOist to logically answer us we must assume that God meant what He said when He said His words ARE PURE WORDS therefore not needing to be refined. Evidence in Psalm 12 proves this KJVO claim to be a lie.

    Psa 12:6,” The wordes of the Lord are pure wordes, as the siluer, tried in a fornace of earth, fined seuen folde.” 1599 Geneva Bible

    Seems as though there is a problem with the KJVO 7 times process. KJVOist are telling God that He did not mean what He said in this verse.

    KJVO interpretation would read like this:

    Psalm 12:6,” The wordes of the Lord are pure words waiting to be refined seuen times ultimately ending up as the 1769 KJV, as the siluer, tried in a furnace of earth, fined seuen folde.” KJVO Geneva Bible circa 1930 [​IMG]

    It’s amazing how some KJVOist will even try to change the structure of the English language in order to defend the KJVO myths.
     
  3. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    I believe MOST of those who say this verse refers to the REFINING of God's word understand the English perfectly well and are trying to pass on a FRAUD perpetrated by the originators of the current KJVO myth. Why? Because they need some EXCUSE for the fact of the existence of several English versions, which they don't wanna deny as being God's word in the face of His preservation of His word. The fact that God HAS preserved His word in English in several versions BEFORE the AV is a kick in the teeth of the KJVO myth, so they attempt to justify it by saying it took God seven attempts to FINALLY get His word right, His purification process culminating in the AV 1611.

    If that were so, then ANY alteration whatsoever in the AV 1611 would be LESS than pure, right? Therefore, all subsequent editions would be impure.

    I cannot think of any other basis for giving an incorrect meaning for a plain-as-day verse except to attempt to pass on a fraud and sell more books.
     
  4. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    I cannot think of any other basis for giving an incorrect meaning for a plain-as-day verse except to attempt to pass on a fraud and sell more books.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Roby;
    That is unless of course that "plain as day" interpretation is not as you and yours see it. To us it is plain as day that the passage is talking about the WORDS of God. Not the PEOPLE of God. I also question the need to "seven times" purify God's words. I would agree that they are pure to begin with. With that thought in mind,I would submit that it took English translators seven trie to get it right.
    Question:
    How MANY times are the modern translators going to try before they are satisfied?
    WE are satisfied with the KJV. For us, that settles it. Though I admit, some of the folks in my camp DO stretch some verses to explain what is plain to us to the satisfaction of our doubters.
    Nevertheless, the explainations ARE satisfactory to many who are looking for a FINAL AUTHORITY they can point to and say "Thus saith the Lord." And strangely, that is IN SPITE of the apparent problems with the position.
    Weird huh? It is almost like explaining one's faith in the Bible (any Bible) to an unbeliever.

    In HIS service;
    Jim
     
  5. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    KJV-only author lists all the English translations prior to 1991. The KJV is 17th on the list, or 29th if you including Bibles that were just the NT.

    That's not how, or why, it works. But supposing it was, what if someone asked that in 1605, and the KJV translators said "Ya, you're right, let's forget this project."

    But I question the need to make any single exclusive translation the "final authority" in the first place - for that implies that there must be a singular "final authority", which in turn implies that a "final authority" must have existed in 1605, from which the KJV deviated. Get it? How is that "preservation"? How was that "final"?
     
  6. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    I've posted this information in the past; I apologize that I could not find a link to offer. Here are a few excerpts to consider regarding this issue taken from Way of Life's website.

     
  7. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pastor_Bob, no wonder the KJVo's don't like the Geneva Bible. [​IMG]
     
  8. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,118
    Likes Received:
    319
    The purifying is in a furnace of earth.

    God's Word is purified in the hearts and minds of these earthen vessels and that takes time and that often through afflictions.

    Isaiah 28
    9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
    10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

    HankD
     
  9. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    HankD;
    OK. thanks.
    In HIS service;
    Jim
     
  10. Slambo

    Slambo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    0
    You mean to say it took God 7 times to get His promise right to the poor people too????
     
  11. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gte back on track Slambo LOL!
     
  12. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Av1611jim: "How MANY times are the modern translators
    going to try before they are satisfied?"

    As many times as the English Language changes.

    Joke time for you old HOL programmers:
    I learned Fortran so long ago that it was called
    Three-tran back then [​IMG]

    Actually i learned Fortran (FORmula TRANslation)
    IV, 5, and 6 before i got into assembler language
    programming. But the computer language changed
    three major times from 1968 to 1979.
     
  13. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    AV1611Jim:Roby;
    That is unless of course that "plain as day" interpretation is not as you and yours see it.

    But there's simply no valid excuse to see it any other than how it's plainly written, in light of what the translators themselves wrote.


    To us it is plain as day that the passage is talking about the WORDS of God. Not the PEOPLE of God.

    But to us, it's plain as day that view is WRONG, and WE have quite a bit of evidence to PROVE our view...previous translations, the knowledge of several Hebrew scholars, and, most telling, the words of the AV men themselves. What EVIDENCE do YOU have to support the "words" view? All we've seen is guesswork and opinions shaped by bias.


    I also question the need to "seven times" purify God's words. I would agree that they are pure to begin with.

    Excellent. Seems you have a much-better insight of that silliness than does the highly-educated Dr. Vance.


    With that thought in mind,I would submit that it took English translators seven trie to get it right.

    Uh-oh!

    Just as you were making progress, you blew it again.

    Question:
    How MANY times are the modern translators going to try before they are satisfied?


    As many times as they disagree among themselves, and as often as the language changes.

    WE are satisfied with the KJV. For us, that settles it.

    That's all right, but I wonder if you'd be satisfied to drive a cheap replica of the Model-T while modern cars are readily available?


    Though I admit, some of the folks in my camp DO stretch some verses to explain what is plain to us to the satisfaction of our doubters.

    What an understatement! They don't STRETCH...they BUTCHER! And in the process, they toss in a heapin' helpin' of imagination, wishful thinging, guesswork, and sometimes outright DISHONESTY.


    Nevertheless, the explainations ARE satisfactory to many who are looking for a FINAL AUTHORITY they can point to and say "Thus saith the Lord."

    A balm for itching ears, which in effect is spraying water on the fire alarm while the building burns.


    And strangely, that is IN SPITE of the apparent problems with the position.

    Yes, it IS strange, seeing as how the REAL prob with the KJVO myth isn't just apparent...it's REAL And that problem is...it's WRONG.


    Weird huh? It is almost like explaining one's faith in the Bible (any Bible) to an unbeliever.

    Weird is still an understatement. It kinda reminds me of a Flat-Earther inventing reasons why he still believes the earth is flat, after being given a spaceship ride in which he can see the roundness of the earth as the ship rises.

    "It's only make-believe"-Conway Twitty
     
  14. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,118
    Likes Received:
    319
    No but it might take us seven times to trust His Word.

    HankD
     
  15. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    "It's only make-believe"-Conway Twitty


    So... a "twit" is your final authority? LOL ;) [​IMG]
    In HIS service;
    Jim


    just funnin' ya' !
     
  16. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,118
    Likes Received:
    319
  17. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sad he was only sixty when he passed. Truly WAS a living legend. And much EASIER to listen to than Elvis or the Beatles.
    Thanks for the link brother!
    Enjoyed it.

    In HIS service;
    Jim
     
  18. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Interestingly, Conway was originally a truck-driver (as you probably know). He came through our neck of the woods often and would stop and sing with local singers and strummers. He would then fly in to our small airport and put on a show for new businesses that would open and obviously didn't charge them much. Then he got famous and we never saw him. Same with Reba, she used to eat with her band almost every day at a local restaurant and after she went to Tennessee you never see her.

    Okay, how does this fit with Psalms 12:6? Uh, Conway's words weren't purified at all. How's that for a fit? :D
     
  19. TC

    TC
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,225
    Likes Received:
    10
    God's words didn't need and haven't been purified. They are pure today just as they were pure when He first spoke them through the apostles, prophets, and holy men of old. Psalm 12:6 uses a simile so that we might understand a little better just how pure His words are. God, in no wise, was saying that His words needed purifying or would go through seven steps of purification like some KJVO's claim.
     
  20. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen, TC. It is amazing that people cannot understand plain Elizabethean English. :D
    Seriously, the verse is only COMPARING the Words of God to silver that has been purified seven times. It is not saying ANYTHING about the Words needing purification, only that they are already "pure" like purified silver.

    The other theory of seven purifications is really quite silly.
     

Share This Page

Loading...