Featured Trying To Understand KJVOnlyism

Yes, it DOES, unless you call your bowling ball a "him".

Apparently, it's better than YOURS. Since you say you're in Tel Aviv, you're surely familiar with Hebrew University...if you're telling the truth. In the late 1980s I wrote them about THAT VERY QUESTION, and they answered that indeed the second 'them' in V7 is the masculine singular. I take THEIR word, as well as that of a train load of translators and rabbis over YOURS.

You're forgetting that the psalms are SONGS, written by David, based upon what GOD had told him, either thru visions or by His prophets. (Remember, JESUS said David was also a prophet!) Therefore, David had 'artist's license' when composing the Psalms.

And again, the AV men indicated, in their marginal note, that they believed V7 referred to PEOPLE. The NIV, NASV, YLT, Bishop's, and Geneva translations, among others, all render V7 about PEOPLE. You're badly outvoted by men, past and present, more learned than yourself.

"Pardom, your ignorance is showing."

V6 sez "AS silver". David is COMPARING God'e words to seven-times-purified silver. he is NOT saying God's words were purified seven times, nor that they needed such purification.

I stated the apparent reason the AV men wrote "them". Their own marginal note affirms that reason.

You can't even quote the King James foot-note right,[/quote]

HOW ABSURD!

maybe YOU'RE not stupid, but your above statement isTOTALLY stupid!
I copied that marginal note directly from the Hendrickson repro AV 1611, which is right in fronta me even as I type this! Now, tell us again that I misquoted this, as I'm sure most of the readers here also have repro AV 1611.

I'm starting to not believe a thing you say, based upon your absurdities such as the one above.

I never claimed to be a hebrew scholar. However, the little side discussion here is about the ENGLISH TRANSLATION of some Hebrew. And the GIST is, that Psalm 12:6-7 is NOT a Scriptural support for the KJVO myth.


[/quote]You created a conclusion based on Doug Kutilek's butchering of the Hebrew, and then extrapolated your own interpretation of the footnote to mean something the foot note doesn't say.[/quote]

Without Kutilek, the marginal note is what it is. And so are the renderings of many translators who rendered V7 as being about PEOPLE.

Again, you're badly outnumbered, having brought a knife to a gun fight.

The more you post, the goofier your stuff becomes. You act as if you're sharing a toke with Herbie(Hreb) Evans.

I hear YOUR song gaining volume...

"Silly Boy"
- The Lettermen, 1962

 

It is a "HIM" in Hebrew you idiot.....

duh:BangHead:

Dr. J. tried to explain this to you earlier........

You must understand how to inflect Hebrew for masculine and feminine...........there's a LOT of languages that work that way.....a LOT of them. This is elementary information that the KJV translators were aware of that you obviously aren't.

English is RARE in it's refusal to do so. MOST languages actually do. You obviously don't understand a thing Dr. J. was trying to inform you of when he explained that to you. This is information the KJV translators were obviously aware of that you aren't.

No scholarship.......none.....

mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, anti-scholarship fundamentalism.....that's what we get from anti-KJVO's........:BangHead:

Go fabricate steel.

 

Just in case you, like "Roby-cop" didn't know......

There's no direct translation for the word "it".....in Hebrew either

ditto French (I know that much).....the closest thing would be "HIM'S" (a pluralization of the Masculine Singular "him".)

ditto Spanish (I think)
ditto Italian
ditto a LOT of languages.

 

I'm really interested when he wrote to "Hebrew University" in TEL AVIV. Furthermore, he claims that SEVERAL rabbis and scholars wrote him. Obviously, he doesn't know the differences between what Hebrews consider a scholar and what a rabbi teaches, and to think that SEVERAL OF THEM responded to one email? Give me a break. Would love to see this letter, would be very interesting

Learn something about Israel before you go half cocked about where you got your info from Robyflop. Coming from the man who worships Foo Fighters "Led Zeppelin is my spiritual guide" Dave Grohl.

 

And again, here on posts 28 and 29, P4T demonstrates his total ignorance of some BASIC language issues such as the difference between translation and transLITeration, and yet assumes the ability to agree with someone else critique of languages. http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=86700&page=3

 

So you speak to your bowling ball in Hebrew?

Well, apparently you and the good doctor are less-aware of a lotta things that I AM aware of, and so were the AV men, as THEY wrote "him" in their marginal note.

Seems the translators of the AV, Geneva, Bishop's, YLT, NASV, etc. etc. were far aheada you, as they all wrote "him" or something similar in their English renderings of Ps. 12:7.(The AV men wrote it in their marginal note.)

...on the part of the KJVOs.

Maybe so(in your opinion) but it's still aheada the KJVO "skollershipp".

I make a pretty good living at it. You're most likely jealous.

 

Slight typo on my part. I had to call the Israeli Embassy to get their JERUSALEM addy as I wrote them in the days before the internet.

MMRRPP! WRONG!

I said I CONTACTED several rabbis. I wrote to a couple; I phoned others. And again that was in the days BEFORE Email.

Many rabbis know Hebrew; that was all I was interested in.

 

In English, there's no personal plural pronoun that would correctly fit into Psalm 12:7, so the AV men used the plural them, which can mean multiple people or objects, as they knew V7 is about multiple people. They then placed the literal translation of the Hebrew into their marginal note.

But again-

For the sake of discussion, let's say V7 IS about God's words. THERE'S NOT ONE QUARK of that verse, nor anywhere in Psalm 12 pointing to the KJV, nor any other English translation.

So, your whole argument about him/them is moot.

 

Actually, if you read the entire psalm, you do not come to that conclusion. Verse 6 is saying that whatever God says is true(or pure). The words of God are pure words. Verse 7 is speaking of the entire chapter. The preservation of the people. Now, the Bible does specifically say that the words of God will be preserved, but that's not what Psalm 12 is speaking about. There is no need to misinterpret the passage to prove that God will preserve His words. (Isaiah 40:8, Matt 24:35).

1 Help, Lord; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men. 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.

As it has been pointed out, the words literally is "him" there. "Him" cannot refer to words but only to people. Since the KJV translators(and others as well) believe it to be referring to multiple people, they used the plural of him which is "them."

With that being said, even if you misinterpret the verse to mean that God will preserve his words, it doesn't change anything doctrinal. God preserving His words is a biblical doctrine. The Bible teaches that God's words will be preserved. This cannot refer to the KJV because the KJV didn't exist then.

1. They didn't have "thousands of manuscripts." Not even close. 25 would be a much close number. The KJV mainly used Beza's text(which came from Erasmus) and Stephanus' text some too. .

they used it because that's pretty much all they had.

really?!?! It was not available "AT ALL." No where to be found like the Geneva Bible, 1587, "Whosoeuer denyeth the Sonne, the same hath not the Father."
What you may have meant is they didn't find it in any Greek manuscript that they had in possession. The KJV was not the first Bible to include the verse.

Yes, they placed it originally because it wasn't in any Greek text they had.

Or they just copied the Bishops Bible or the Geneva Bible.... There is no reason at all to say that God brought about a 2nd inspiration of the verse in English because the KJV translators didn't have any Greek manuscripts of the verse.

 

The KJV is the word of God and is without error in theological truths. However grammar, spelling, and mistranslations have been corrected and updated in more recent Bible versions such as the NKJV & ESV. Greg you may dislike the ESV (as its like the NIV) but what do you think of the NKJV? Some KJV people like the NKJV and its very similar as the KJV.

 

I

You're gonna report me for calling you out trying to lie about Hebrew!! This forum is getting funnier by the day

And a "slight typo"??? Come on fella, "Tel Aviv" and "Jerusalem" isn't a typo. What's really funny as that you know I am from Israel and tried to pull that off. That was just a real silly move on your part. You thought it would be a convincing argument since you knew I'd be familiar with it, but you forgot to check your facts before you LIED about it.

And I'll accept your critique of my English if you'll accept my critique of your Hebrew!:laugh::thumbs:

 

No, I'll report any further ad-hominem attacks by you. And I apologize for my ad-hominem rebuttals. That wasn't very Christ-like of me.

Yes, it IS, when I was thinking about Tel Aviv. Typos are more than just merely typing a wrong letter, you know.

I didn't try to pull ANYTHING off, nor did I lie. I DID write to hebrew U. and received a reply, which was basically the same answer I received from every other Jew who knew Hebrew that I contacted. The Hebrew for Psalm 12:7 2nd them in the KJV translates to HIM in English, whether you like it or not.

And again-the whole bunny trail of the " them/him thingie" is moot because the KJV isn't even hinted at by the slightest quark of the least implication in that verse, in Psalm 12 as a whole, nor in Scripture whatsoever. There's simply NO Scriptural support for KJVO.

Criticize my "Hebrew" all U wish-I don't care. I don't use Hebrew. That's why I wrote to H. U. & asked some actual Hebrews about Ps, 12:7, among other things. (The others aren't relevant to this present discussion.)

As for your English, I was being sarcastic. I KNOW you were deliberately twisting what I actually wrote, same as you've done in the past-and I'll continue to call you down for it every time I catch you doing it. You're forgetting there are many other readers of this forum, and they see your chicanery for what it is every time you try it, so it's YOUR credibility that's going south.

Carry on...

 

God didn't inspire nor influence the KJV any more than He did any other valid English translation.

Frankly, I'd liketa see the Geneva and Bishop's versions more-readily available to the general public. Now, while there were other excellent versions before them, such as the "Great Bible" ordered to be made by Henry VIII, their English style and spelling is somewhat too difficult for many people today.

I believe God INFLUENCED the making of all valid versions, not -RE-INSPIRED their makers....from Caedmon and Aelfric to Wycliffe to Tyndale to Coverdale to the AV men, to contemporary translators. And He's done the same for other languages. I'm glad we still have the old translations before us as well as those in our own language style.

PRAISE THE LORD!

THANK YOU, LORD!