My feet were almost gone

I'm not sure whether you realize it or not, but Asaph [The human author of Psalm 73] isn't talking about someone whom God has called to defend a certain human translation of the autographs into some foreign language, which in your case is most likely any English language Bible other than the Authorized Version (AV).

What you've done in your OP is called "Proof Texting," which is one of the favorite tricks of the trade in many of the KJVO circles with which I'm familiar.

One of their most favorite "proof texts" is Psalm 119:89, which the KJV has translated as "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven."

It's a "proof text" because they completely yank out of context not only the general theme of Psalm 119's 176 verses, namely how the author of this Psalm [Most likely it was Ezra.] reveres the OT scrolls.

What many of the KJVO advocates will tell you is that Psalm 119:89 clearly states that the KJV is settled in heaven, and, therefore, a person needs to settle in his own heart, mind and soul, that the AV should be settled in the heart, mind and soul of every English-language speaker on planet earth today.

The problem is that nowhere in Psalm 119:89 does it say God's Word is settled--i.e., firmly established as one and only inspired Word of God for the English language!!--on planet earth. Even the very men who translated the AV admitted that all the A.D. 1611 AV was was a translation "out of the original tongues with previous translations diligently compared and revised."

Now, if God wanted a 100% pure and unadulterated Bible for English-speakers, why then would the AV's translators "compare and revise" previous translations which, to them anyway, would have been tarnished by fallible humans?

Logic itself ought to tell us that the extreme views of some [but not all] of the more ardent KJVO-iers just simply do not have a really sensible leg on which to stand.

At least our friend here has a good BB identifying name....Still Learning. If his name honestly means what it ought to, then perhaps one of these days he'll come to the conclusion that the KJVO position he seems to want to defend so dearly is not one that bears defending at all.

 

Brother Stilllearning,
You stick to your KJV and may God bless the reading of it to you. :godisgood:

However, I'm afraid I can't follow you there. When I was a young man, still unsaved, I decided to read the Bible all the way through. I went all the way through Genesis and Exodus until I came to Lev. 2. There I found an insoluble problem. How come the 'meat offering' is the only one without any meat in it?? God's word stands forever, but translations need to be updated.

But I do admire your love of the Bible and your willingness to defend it. Every blessing to you.

 

The trouble is "it" is a particular imperfect translation that he holds up as Perfect. Not just better, in his fallible estimation --but with absolutely no flaws. That is as wrong-headed as can be. His faith lies in the KJV. That is his primary confession of faith.

It is no mere matter of loving the Bible. Otherwise he would realize that there are many other imperfect versions that the Lord has seen fit to bless us with.

 

I often wondered about this seemingly illogical paradox as well. After all, why call it a "meat offering" if there wasn't any "meat" in it?

Then I looked up the original Hebrew word for "meat" in some OT reference books. Here's what they said in reference to the AV's rendering of "meat," or "meat offering" in Leviticus Chapter 2 [and elsewhere in the OT, such as in Numbers 7,15,28-29; Joshua 22; 1 Kings 8; 2 Kings 3 & 16;1 Chron.12,21 & 23; Ezra 7; Neh. 10 & 13; Isa. 57; Jer. 17& 19; Ezek. 34,42-46; Dan. 4; Joel 1 & 2; and in Amos 5].

The Hebrew word in all these passages is minhah, a feminine noun which in OT Hebrew literally meant "a gift," or "an offering," or a "present." (Strong's numbering 4503).

In my King James Study Bible, (c) 1988 by Liberty Univ., p. 172, it says that, "The meaning of a word changes in the course of time, and we have just such an instance here.

"The meat offering unto the LORD was the one offering that did not consist of 'meat.' It was the 'meal offering,' an offering of grain or cereals made of fine flour.

"The word translated 'meat' means in Hebrew simply a 'present.'

"The primary idea of this offering is that of a gift presented to God as act of worship."

Doctors Warren Baker & Eugene Carpenter in their Complete Word Study Dictionary of the Old Testament, (c) 2003 by AMG, essentially say the same thing on page 629.

They write, "Perhaps the most frequent use of this word is to denote a grain offering. Grain offerings were brought on pans, suggesting cakes (Lev. 2:5) and mixed with oil and other substances (Num. 6:5)."

This sheds a lot of useful information for the modern-day English reader. The word "meat" in these contexts was apparently just an archaic English word that, to the people of 17th century England, simply means to us today as "grain."

 

To post the obvious, grain offering is the best translation. The NKJV goes with grain. HCSB goes with grain. NASB goes with grain. LEB goes with grain.

Some argue that a burnt offering (meat) required a supplemental grain offering and thus could be termed a "meat offering of grain." Too clever by half.

 

There is an even worse problem in Exodus 22:28, which says, "Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people." If anyone wishes to say the KJV is perfect, I'd like to know why we are not to revile idols. I did it all the time when I was a missionary in an idolatrous country. More than that, all through the Bible God Himself reviles idols.

Stilllearning, would you please comment on this verse?