The NIV: part two

Thumper,

Do a search for Psalm 12 here on the BaptistBoard, as it has been debated time and time again. But, then, you KJVO's keep throwing it back out there.

Do you know what an 'interjection' is? That is verse 6, an interjection. How do I know? Because it is in the form of an exclaimation, and it deals with subject matter totally independant from the rest of the Psalm.

And the verse in the NIV got it right. David was talking about the people. If you read the Psalm in context (the whole thing) you can see that.

One more point to ponder, Thumper. Even if the KJVO's "interpretation" were correct, how does it only apply to the KJV? It can apply to each and every version and translation ever known to man, past, present, and future.

I find it so funny when the King James Onlyists shoot themselves in the foot, then hop around screaming "It doesn't hurt!"

In Christ,
Trotter

 

"Whaa! Whaa!" Somebody get Thumper a hanky.

This is a no whining zone. If you post some actual proof, then no one will have a problem with it.

Weak, brother, very weak.

Try actually thinking for yourself instead of sitting at the feet of Ruckman, Gipp, Riplinger, etc, etc. Never take anyone's word as authoritative as regarding what God's word says. Read it and find out. Until you do, you remain a puppet of these authors.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

KJVBibleThumper said "It does however sya that the Word of God will be around for every generation. "

So why, if it was around in 1610, did they bother producing a new Bible, "correcting" the preserved word of God they already had?

KJVBibleThumper said "NO other bible in the english language has been blessed as the King James"

For the sake of argument, let's assume that is agreed upon. How does it prove perfect inerrancy or exclusivity?

KJVBibleThumper said "it is clear that God had His hand in the translating of it"

How so?

KJVBibleThumper said "The new versions are translated from ROMAN CATHOLIC DOCUMENTS so why would they argue with them?"

Do you know where/how Byzantine manuscripts were preserved? It wasn't by your local Independent Byzantine Baptist Church.

 

I know this is only on page four, but this is make to the same useless arguements that we see time after time.

Advance notice:

This thread will be closed as soon at it reaches page 5.

 

KJVBibleThumper said "They needed one as there was no bible in the English language that was the Word of God."

Says who? They did so have the word of God, for scripture promises the word of God would be preserved.

KJVBibleThumper said "Because it kicked the Catholics out of England and established this country on the right foundation for a few."

No, the KJV just sat on a shelf. People did those things.

KJVBibleThumper said "It wasnt by Catholics I can promise you. Interesting that you are defending the Roman Catholic church."

You have no idea what "Byzantine" means, do you.

 

KJVBibleThumper said "It was preserved but it was not in the English language."

Yet no other Bible, in any other language, agrees 100% with the KJV. So you're back to square one. Try again?

KJVBibleThumper said "People backed by the KJV and the KJV principles."

Prove it. Why not backed by the Bishops Bible and Bishops Bible principles? Or Geneva? Or any exclusive Bible in the first place?

KJVBibleThumper said "You have no idea what you are talking about do you?"

Yes I do, that's why I brought up the Byzantine connection to the KJV.

 

If indeed there was no English Bible until 1611, that means that God DID NOT preserve His words for roughly 40 generations of English speaking people.

If that is the case, did He lie in Psalm 12?

 

Please, stop misrepresenting what Ps. 12:6-7 means. There is one verse pertinant to God's Word, and that is verse 6, which just refers back to the promise of God to protect/keep the righteous in v. 7. Why do KJVO's consistantly pull this kind of bologna??? Even if they were to be implied the way you try to present them, they would not back your position of kjVERION Onlyism. God nowhere stated he would keep his word in one version only, or word for word for that matter.

AVL1984

 

It doesn't, C4K, that's just the point so many here have tried to make. These verses are being taken totally out of context and twisted to fit the needs of the kjVO's.

AVL1984

 

KJVBibleThumper

"I also see that the Roman Catholics did not like it and tried to get rid of it <the KJV>."
''
Not anymore than they tried to get rid of any other bibletranslation of the same era and a couple of centuries earlier. In fact there are a number of bibleversions the RCC tried to ban a lot harder than the KJV.

"Have they tried that with any of the new versions?"
""
The RCC stopped doing that about a century before the first what you would call a MV was translated.

"The new versions are translated from ROMAN CATHOLIC DOCUMENTS so why would they argue with them? "
""
The work of Erasmus heavily influenced the New Testament of the KJV, Erasmus certainly was a Roman Catholic when he translated the relevant document. The Vulgate was an influence on the KJV and so was the Douay Rheims Bible. Many mv's are decidedly less influenced by explicitly RC sources.

"How can I post a reason if your bible reads different then mine?"
''
Time to break out the Masoretic text of the OT, both the NIV and the KJV had their psalms translated from it.

"the Vaticanus was found in a Vatican library."
"
Make that THE Vatican library

"Anyone here naive enough to say that Gods Word was preserved through the Roman Catholic church?"
"
Here! (well partly, let's not underestimate the contributions made by the Eastern-Orthodox Churches).

"And the Sinicatius was found in a trash can of a Roman Catholic monastary. Great source material indeed."
""
That was an Eastern-Orthodox church(a group that often has a greater distaste for the RCC than the baptists) monastery and it wasn't discovered in the trashcan.

"Your bibles certainly are from reputable sources. I think ill take the King James."
"'
I don't but English being my third language may have something to do with that.

"And where are you getting this stuff about Erasmus from?"
''
Personally I've read almost everything Erasmus has written.

 

Easy, it doesnt. It does however say that the Word of God will be around for every generation. I believe I am holding it in my hands as NO other bible in the english language has been blessed as the King James and it is clear that God had His hand in the translating of it. I also see that the Roman Catholics did not like it and tried to get rid of it. Have they tried that with any of the new versions? Why should they? The new versions are translated from ROMAN CATHOLIC DOCUMENTS so why would they argue with them? </font>[/QUOTE]Let me ask you something, KJVBT...what do you think ANGLICANS WERE? They were a split from the RCC. Plus, you're not correct in your statment of the MV's being translated from RCC documents..these were a MINOR part of the materials used. Your logic is very flawed, my young friend. And concerning Ps 12:6-7, please, quit misinterpreting this set of verses to fit your own needs. One must take the whole Psalm into account to receive the correct context.

AVL1984

 

Actually, there is little if any difference here,
and no difference that is of signifance.

You did not correctly quote the KJV.

Psalm 12:6-7 (KJV1873):

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.


Footnote: * Heb. him, that is everone one of them

This "Heb" refers to the source material that the KJV
had to work from, the usually Hebrew sources (though
there was a Greek O.T. called the LXX (i.e. The Seventy)
-- there is a variation in the received text received
by the KJV. The variation suggests that is some
"he" spoken of NOT "they". Two solutions present themselves:

1. Words of God can be called "he".
2. The resolution of "then" is NOT the words in
verse 6 but some people in verse 5.

I prefer the second solution as being more meaningful.
Verse six seems to be a parenthetic statement to the
rest over chapter 12. The context is that God preserves
His own People. This checks with the New Testament as well,
we who are God's people are preserved by God. Even in
death, we are preserved by God.

Now i'll admit that there are places in the Bible where
it says God will preserved His written word (The Bible) and
His Living Word (Messiah Iesus) -- it just isn't here
in Psalms 12.

"See? It clearly says that God will preserve His Word FOREVER!"

Not so. What is preserved is preserved "for ever"