verses that prove preservation

What does that have to do with what God promised? If you want to really be faithful to truth, you must learn Hebrew and Greek. If you disagree, you can trash your idea of how God preserved his word. </font>[/QUOTE]Homebound asked you one question. Yes or no? You did not answer his question.

 

God promised that the KJV would be the "accurate" manifestation of the preservation of His Word.

 

I'm saying that it begun in 1611. It begun when God said, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." I believe that if God can create the heaven and earth, he can inspire and preserve his word that all generations can have. My particular generation was preserved in the King James Bible and that is exactly where it is today and I guarantee from this generation forever. [/QUOTE]

What about the 1769 KJV?

 

I believe that the KJV is the inspired, preserved Word of God because the KJV derived from Psalm 12:6-7 referring to these Hebrew & Greek MSS.

 

Which KJVO? Many groups of KJVO -- Which do you talk about?

 

Correct, I agree with you, homebound! Amen to that!

 

5210 of 5255 MSS supported the KJV: 99% agreement!
45 of 5255 MSS supported the MVs: 1% agreement.

 

No, John 17:8 (KJV) For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

These believers received God's preserved Words. They had the texts where the words are preserved by God.

Received = Receptus

Words = Textus

Therefore it is the Textus Receptus.

 

Which KJVO? Many groups of KJVO -- Which do you talk about? </font>[/QUOTE]KJVO= King James Version Only= KJV is the true Word of God and all others are not. God preserved his word through the KJV and through it alone and then inspiration and preservation started and ended there. This is obviously unscriptural, as has already been admitted to by Homebound. So my only choices are:

1. KJVO is a man-made worldly doctrine with no Scriptual support whatsoever.

or

2. The KJV is his personal preference, but has no real bearing on my life as a Christian. IOW, I am under no obligation to consider the KJV as the only authoritative translation out there.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Please provide any post where someone stated that they would not be happy until Homebound "renounced" the belief in the 1769 Revision.

That is called Ethnocentrism. There are over a billion people in China, most of whom do not speak English. The vast majority of people in Latin America don't speak English. God preserved His Word in practically every major language, not simply English.

You must decide for yourself. But you cannot prove Scripturally that the ONLY Version of God's Holy Word is the 1769 Revision that Homebound utilizes. I love the Authorised Version more than Homebound does, and I do not subscribe to the Unscriptural belief of KJV-onlyism. Both versions of my Geneva Bibles are the Word of God, as are my Wiclif Translation, Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, Luther Translation, Tyndale (NT only), NKJV, NIV, ESV and RSV.

The bottom line: God didn't need King James to preserve His Holy Word.

 

Dear homebound,

I have repeated this several times in several different ways. NO TRANSLATION can be perfect (with one exception - those translations done by the Spirit of God).

We've been over this before. Didn't any KJVO folk notice that the KJ Bible itself does NOT PERFECTLY quote (in the NT) the OT quotes when they are both in 1611 English?

These were Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures further translated into English.

Now these OT quotes in the NT WERE and ARE inspired in BOTH the Hebrew and Greek yet they are different and do not align even when the KJ Bible translators gave it there best effort (which the KJVO say were God-breathed by the Holy Spirit) converting it to English.

How can the very same quote (if inspired in the English) be different in the KJB NT than what the KJB has in the OT? Moreover the Greek itself does not perfectly align with the Hebrew sometimes on several levels (tense, number, syntax).

I am not saying that one is inspired but the other isn't, they both are in the original languages. Use the wonderful mind that God gave us and figure it out for yourself because if I told you my reason you wouldn't believe it anyway.

homebound you asked me how I know I am saved.

I was saved while reading a Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible and I have never doubted Christ for a micro-second because from the moment I heard His voice calling me (yes from a Catholic Bible) I have had the witness of the Spirit constantly assuring me that I am a son of God.

Within two years after being saved I left the Church of Rome and went over to the KJV almost exclusively. I still have my worn out Douay-Rheims and occassionally pick it up and read it.

I have also been blessed and encouraged from reading and hearing the Word of God preached from the MVs. Satan would never be instrumental in doing that. Is Satan's house divided?

If I have a question in my mind concerning a word or variant or archaic KJV words, I go to the original language Traditional Text of the Scripture and go with that reading.

HankD

 

This reply was laughable, and clearly demonstrates Askjo's nonsensical thought process of "clearly supporting" his argument with absolutely no legitimate Scriptural Basis. Because the translators named their work the "Textus Receptus" this is irrefutable evidence that this is the true Word of God. Following Askjo's logic, we can ascertain that if the NIV is renamed "The Textus Receptus" it will become the Word of God.

By the way, I wonder if Askjo is using the 1611 Authorised Version (a.k.a. the REAL King James Version), or the 1769 Revision? I would pose the question to Askjo, but Askjo undoubtedly won't provide an answer. Although the Authorised Version is primarily based upon the Textus Receptus, the 1769 Revision is primarily based upon the Authorised Version.

 

Amen to that!

You see, you contradict your statements. You quoted, "I know that God has promised to keep his words. with your comment above.

 

I use the 1769 KJV.

 

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
And all but a couple of die-hards also understand simple English, that Ps 12 does NOT refer to this. Some are born obtuse!!

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns/fbns88.html

"In a report on the history of the translation and interpretation of Psalm 12:6,7, Peter Van Kleeck, Senior Pastor of the Wealthy Street Baptist Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan, shows that the testimony is divided. Some interpreters have viewed Psalm 12:7 as applying to Bible preservation; others have viewed it as applying to the preservation of God's people; others have viewed it as having a double application. Thus Van Kleeck speaks of "the genius of ambiguity." His report was completed in the process of pursuing an M.A.R. at Calvin Theological Seminary.

...

"Michael Ayguan (1340-1416) ... On Psalm 12:7 Ayguan comments, Keep them: that is, not as the passage is generally taken, Keep or guard Thy people, but Thou shalt keep, or make good, Thy words: and by doing so, shalt preserve him--him, the needy, him, the poor--from this generation...


"Martin Luther's German Bible ... Following the arrangement of this Psalm, Luther penned a hymn, two stanzas of which reflect his understanding of verse 6 and 7: ... "Thy truth thou wilt preserve, O Lord, from this vile generation..." In poetic form, Luther grasps the significance of this verse both for the preservation of those who are oppressed and for the Word of God. The two-pronged significance of this interpretation to both people and God's words in Luther's Psalter was to have wide-ranging significance in the English Bible tradition.


"Calvin's Commentary on the Psalms ... in the body of the commentary he writes, 'Some give this exposition of the passage, Thou wilt keep them, namely, thy words; but this does not seem to me to be suitable." [Thus while Calvin did not believe Psalm 12:7 referred to the Word of God, he admits that others did hold this view in his day.]


"Coverdale Bible, 1535 ... reads for [verse 7] of Psalm 12: "Keep them therefore (O Lord) and preserve us from this generation for ever." With the absence of "Thou shalt" to begin verse 7, there is a direct connection between 'words' and 'keep them.' In the first clause, Coverdale intended the words to be kept; in the second clause people are in view..."


"The Matthew Bible 1537. ... In Psalm 12:67 Rogers translated, "The words of the Lord are pure words as the silver, which from the earth is tried and purified vii times in the fire. Keep them therefore (O Lord) and preserve us from this generation for ever." Following Coverdale, Rogers makes a clear connection in his translation between the words being the antecedent to "them." ... The significance of Roger's marginal note is that two of the greatest Hebrew scholars referred to by the Reformation writers differed on the interpretation of "them" in Psalms 12:7. [Thus we see that the interpretation of this verse was also divided among Jewish scholars.]


"The Third Part of the Bible, 1550. Taken from Becke's text of 1549 this edition of the scriptures contains the Psalter, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs. ... In verse 7 there is a note at them which states, 'some understand here certain men, some others word." Again, the translators and exegetes allowed breadth of interpretation of "them" to include people and words.


"The Geneva Bible, 1560. ... The preface reads, "Then comforting himself and others with the assurance of God's help, he commendeth the constant vigil that God observeth in keeping his promises." The text reads, "The words of the Lord are pure words, as the silver, tried in a furnace of earth, fined seven fold. Thou wilt keep them, O Lord: Thou wilt preserve him from this generation forever." [The margin reads, "Because the Lords word and promise is true and unchangeable, he will perform it and preserve the poor from this wicked generation." Thus the Geneva took a position that verse 7 applies both to the preservation of the Bible and of God's people.]


"Annotations by Henry Ainsworth, 1626. Briggs commends Ainsworth as the "prince of Puritan commentators" and that his commentary on the Psalms is a "monument of learning." ... Ainsworth states that "the sayings" [of Psalm 12:7] are "words" or "promises" that are "tried" or "examined" "as in a fire." He cross references the reader to Psalm 18:31; 119:140; and Proverbs 30:5, each reference having to do with the purity of the word.


"Matthew Poole's 1685 Commentary of the Psalms ... writes at verse seven, "Thou shalt keep them; either, 1. The poor and needy, ver. 5 ... Or, 2. Thy words or promises last mentioned, ver. 6. ...


"In summary ... [t]he only sure conclusion is that there is no consensus within the English Bible tradition for the interpretation of "them" in Psalm 12:7 and it was precisely this lack of agreement within the tradition which was the genius of the ambiguity of the King James Version's rendering. ... by choosing a Greek-Latin basis the modern versions elect to overlook the Reformation's Hebrew basis for translation in Psalm 12:6-7; and the churchly tradition in the new versions is censored by not including a translation that is broad enough to include both interpretations--oppressed people and God's words" (Peter Van Kleeck, The Translational and Exegetical Rendering of Psalm 12:7 Primarily Considered in the Churchly Tradition of the 16th and 17th Centuries and Its Expression in the Reformation English Bibles: The Genius of Ambiguity, March 1993).

 

Not really, that marginal note is from verse 5 (on the phrase "and will set at liberty him"), and only talks about the unchanging truth of God's word (singular) and his promise - the promise to "him", the poor and the needy. The marginal note on 6-7 (on the phrase "Thou wilt keep them") says "That is, thine, though he were but one man."

The Geneva does not see this as a "preservation of words" passage, at least not in the way KJV-onlyist see the passage. It sees it as a "people preservation" passage, because the Lord is faithful to his his promise (his word).

God bless,
Brian