Are translations inspired?

[/b]Easy ... the authority of the text. Read the Psalm and tell us what the psalmist is talking about. Let's take a look:

Psalm 12:1 For the choir director; upon an eight-stringed lyre. A Psalm of David. Help, LORD, for the godly man ceases to be, For the faithful disappear from among the sons of men. 2 They speak falsehood to one another; With flattering lips and with a double heart they speak. 3 May the LORD cut off all flattering lips, The tongue that speaks great things; 4 Who have said, "With our tongue we will prevail; Our lips are our own; who is lord over us?" 5 "Because of the devastation of the afflicted, because of the groaning of the needy, Now I will arise," says the LORD; "I will set him in the safety for which he longs." 6 The words of the LORD are pure words; As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, refined seven times. 7 You, O LORD, will keep them; You will preserve him from this generation forever. 8 The wicked strut about on every side When vileness is exalted among the sons of men.

All of the highlighted portions refer to the theme of the Psalm ... the perishing of the godly man. The Psalmist appeals to God's promises as the proof that God will preserve the godly man. If you change the meaning of the Psalm as you have, then you have no reassuring promise for the psalmist.

The meaning of the text is always determined by context. This is a simple matter of exegesis ... look at the Psalm and see what it is talking about. See who is in danger and then see who is being preserved.

Perhaps Scott will explain what he meant. It would be very hard to say that God didn't preserve his word since we have it in over 5000 manuscripts in the NT, a host of evidence in the OT, and many good and faithful translations in many languages. If God didn't preserve it, how in the world do we have it??

[/qb]No. Hyles was a man about whom everything I said can be verified. The Bible gives qualifications for pastors. He violated those. The Bible calls us to stand up against sin and warn people of error. An elder is to be rebuked in the presence of all so that the rest may fear (1 Tim 5). There is your biblical basis for what I have done.

[/qb]HELLO!!!! Are you listening?? The Bible in Psa 12:6-7 does not say that he will preserve the words. Repeated denial will not change it. He said he would preserve the godly man. That is what the Psalm is about. You can get out your Hebrew text and see what it says, or you can take the word of those who know for it.

But what's the difference? What I am teaching conforms to what Scripture teaches. What you are teaching does not. The text of truth is not personal opinion and personal preference. It is Scripture. The Scriptures teach exactly what I am teaching. Therefore, I am not teaching falsely by teh standard of God's word.

 

Psalms 12:1 Help, LORD; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men.
2 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.

The highlighted areas are the theme behind this chapter.

 

Why are you adding to the Scriptures by bolding them? How shameful?

Pastor Larry is correct. You've blatantly ignored the meaning of this psalm.

 

Perhaps Scott will explain what he meant. It would be very hard to say that God didn't preserve his word since we have it in over 5000 manuscripts in the NT, a host of evidence in the OT, and many good and faithful translations in many languages. If God didn't preserve it, how in the world do we have it??</font>[/QUOTE] OK... God did not preserve a single set of words down throught history in Greek, Hebrew, or any other language. He preserved 5000+ copies and 12000+ ancient translations that all disagree with each other's wording at some point or another.

I believe He did preserve His Word. For that matter, I believe the original wording does exist within the whole of the evidence. What I don't believe is simply what the evidence disproves. Namely, I do not believe that God's Word is limited to a single set of human words in any language.

As Pastor Larry has shown several times, the Bible itself demonstrates that things other than the KJV can rightly be called the Word of God.

In this particular case, some things different are the same. Not the same in wording but in meaning.

 

Notice how you have equated the words of evil men with the words of God. Sorry ... that doesn't work. The Psalm says what it does and no amount of verbiage on your part will change that. Submit your mind and your theology to Scripture. Quit doing it your own way.

 

Sorry, but these versions have done nothing but discourage the believer in his walk with Christ. How? They have caused the believer to deny God's word.</font>[/QUOTE] Please cite your proof that MV's have been the cause of anyone being discouraged or denying God's Word.

I have never attended a church that used a version besides the KJV. I can think of several people who simply didn't read the Bible at all because they couldn't understand the KJV and had been convinced that MV's were the work of Satan, liberal, evil, counterfeits,... (fill in the blank with your lie of choice). I have also seen a few escape their fears, use an MV, and see spiritual growth.

Sounds to me that your problem is not with me, but with God. </font>[/QUOTE] It is with you until you provide a single manuscript that you can prove is an exact facsimile of the originals and that somehow the KJV translators were divinely empowered to produce a perfect translation... woops, maybe I should say the revisers of 1769 or 1762 produced the perfect form.

Even if your mis-use of scripture were legitimate (which it isn't), nothing in these verses says anything about the KJV or any other translation or specific copies of the scriptures in the original languages.

Your stretched interpretation of this passage requires that God either divinely and directly identify for each generation which words are His or else that He is lying. You nor anyone else can point to one Hebrew or Greek manuscript that is identical to the original. If cannot accomplish this relatively simple proof, why should I believe that the Anglicans were divinely chose to make God's Word perfect in English?

 

Here is a step-by-step account of the Psalm...

In the first verse, the author is crying out to God because all of the godly men are gone.
In the second verse, the author says that the the people are lying and speaking with a forked tongue.
In the third verse, the author states that he is sure that God will cause such language by these men to cease.
In the fourth verse, the author states that these men were saying that their speech manages the world.
In the fifth verse, the author states that God has said that he would protect the poor and needy from such people.
In the sixth verse, the author states that God's words, as opposed to the speech spoken by the men, is pure and truthful.
In the seventh verse, the author says that the poor, needy, and God-fearing (a remnant) would be protected, echoing the fifth verse, even when, as he adds in the eighth verse, wicked people are all around.

The inclusion of the sixth verse is in response to the words of the vile and ungodly. The seventh verse completes the thought of the fifth verse. Otherwise, verse 8 makes absolutely no sense at all.

 

Translation is what God preserved His inspired Words in your mother tongue Book.

 

But Moses and Pharoah spoke Egyptian.
</font>[/QUOTE]I agree.

 

Askjo, Are you related to Yogi Berra?

In other words, what in the world did you mean by this sentence?

 

God perfectly preserved His words in apographs what these translators imperfectly preserved in accurate Bible translations such as KJV, Olivetan Bible, Luther's Bible and others. If I am wrong, Timothy, please explain clearly and plainly.

 

ScottEmerson said:

The inclusion of the sixth verse is in response to the words of the vile and ungodly. The seventh verse completes the thought of the fifth verse.

No no no. In the sixth and seventh verse, the subject is the preserving the perfect Word of God for the English-speaking peoples, the King James Bible.

If you don't see anything about God's perfectly preserved word for the English-speaking peoples, the King James Bible, in there, or you don't see any reason why the subject should suddenly change from the plight of the godly to the preservation of the Word and then suddenly change back, then perhaps you are not reading the Scriptures with faith, but with unbelief.

Don't bring sound exegesis and reason into this argument. Logic is of the devil. Just have faith.

 

No. The inspired (pure) words are gone but we very much have the pure Word. </font>[/QUOTE]The words, "judgment seat of Christ" in the autograph that was gone after apographs started. Polycarp, a disciple of the Apostle John, witnessed that phrase, "judgment seat of Christ" from one of the autographs. This shows this phrase that Polycarp witnessed, agreed with the KJV because the wording of the autograph identified with the wording in the KJV. EXACT! However modern versions changed from "Christ" to "God." The KJV has this inspired Words -- gone back to the autograph. Modern versions are gone back to corrupted MSS, not autographs.

 

Double inspirations????

 

Logic of faith!

 

Incorrect translation of your own!

 

Askjo said:

Logic of faith!

Yes, we all know what the "logic of faith" is.

According to the "logic of faith":

</font>

1. The KJV translators were saved despite leaving no salvation testimonies.</font>
2. Westcott and Hort were unsaved because they left no salvation testimonies.</font>

In other words, it's another term for "inconsistency."

You gotta laugh.

 

Askjo said:

Incorrect translation of your own!

No, it is a correct paraphrase.

ScottEmerson and Pastor Larry both rightly divided this Psalm only a few posts ago, and I merely summarized the same interpretation.

Neither you, nor any other KJV-onlyist, has even tried to refute this interpretation. I take this silence to indicate inability, and claim victory.

So until you are ready to provide a sound exegesis of Psalm 12 supporting the KJV-onlyist view of vv. 6-7, I am going to treat it with all the respect it deserves, which is this: