1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured Interpretations of Psalms 12:7

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Tim71, Aug 20, 2017.

  1. Tim71

    Tim71 Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2016
    Messages:
    123
    Likes Received:
    23
    Faith:
    Baptist

    In your research do the alexandrian text and the majority text have vast amounts of differences? Do you believe the manuscripts agree at least 90% with each other? Where one differs from the other what guidelines are used to determine which one should be used?
     
  2. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,082
    Likes Received:
    3,480
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No. Differences of significance are rare.

    More than that. I would estimate 95+%. [Edit: I stand corrected. Dr. Robinson says 94% and I acknowledge his superior understanding of the issue.]

    That would depend on whether you were Alexandrian preferred or Byzantine Preferred. I am Byzantine Preferred so I accept the "reasoned transmissionalism" of Robinson/Pierpont in determining which variant is more likely to represent the original. "Reasoned transmissionalsim" uses many of the same methods of textual criticism as other critics use but applied to a broader scope of historical manuscript transmission. (I recommend "A Case for Byzantine Priority" by Dr. Maurice Robinson, available here Introduction to Robinson & Pierpont )

    One of the first things that got me interested in the Byzantine textform was the copyright information which states "Anyone is permitted to copy and distribute this text or any portion of this text."

    For the complete Introduction to the Byzantine Text see Introduction to Robinson & Pierpont
     
    #22 TCassidy, Aug 22, 2017
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Tim71

    Tim71 Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2016
    Messages:
    123
    Likes Received:
    23
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Tha
    Thank you so much TCassidy and Logos1560 I greatly appreciate the time and patience you have taken with me. I hope you feel comfortable where I'm coming from on this subject. I don't have any motives, other than just seeking the truth. Thank you again for pointing me In the right direction.

    I just pray now God give me discernment and knowledge to sift through all this information. May I have a better understanding of the truths of how we have your words in todays translations. I know it's a big task. Working with a man who has limited knowledge to begin with. However I believe you placed men in my paths to give me understanding. If it's your will Lord give me wisdom to understand these things.
     
  4. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    10,457
    Likes Received:
    220
    Faith:
    Baptist
    First, the KJVOs got their "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie' from Dr. Wilkinson's book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated. the "foundation book" of the KJVO myth, although he didn't originate it.

    Second, I believe the AV translators added the 2nd them to V7 to indicate plural persons, instead of the singulat him. Remember the footnote in the AV 1611 for this verse: "Heb. him, I euery one of them.".
     
  5. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,082
    Likes Received:
    3,480
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Well, in Hebrew pronouns often do not stand alone but are a function of the verb. In this case we have two different indicators that are important.

    First the verb/pronouns are masculine so must refer to the "afflicted" and the "needy" which are in the masculine plural while "words" is feminine so Case-Number-Gender don't match, and the verse ends with the referent to "them" in the masculine plural which refers back to the first half of the verse then singular in the second half of verse, which is rather typical of Hebrew poetry where the second half of the verse modifies (compliments or contradicts) the first half of the verse.

    This switching between plural and singular establishes a rhythmic pattern that is very poetic.

    Verse 3 - Part A: all flattering lips (plural)
    Part B: the tongue (singular)
    Verse 5 - Part A: afflicted, needy (plural)
    Part B: him (singular)
    Verse 6 - Part A: words (plural)
    Part B: silver (singular)
    Verse 7 - Part A: them (plural)
    Part B: him (singular)

    Hmmmmm. Did that make any sense? :D
     
  6. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    8,183
    Likes Received:
    666
    Faith:
    Baptist
    OK. Thanks.
     
  7. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,983
    Likes Received:
    67
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Is the KJV the seventh English translation?

    David Cloud listed the KJV as number 9 on his list of the “unmatched heritage” of the KJV (Faith, p. 433). KJV defender David Norris asserted that “between 1526 and 1611, nine English translations of Scripture of significance were made” (Big Picture, p. 333). David Daniell observed: “There were ten new English versions of the Bible or New Testament between Tyndale’s first New Testament in 1526 and the famous King James or Authorised Version of 1611, and all were influential” (Bible in English, p. 126). KJV-only author D. A. Waite listed the KJV as being number 17 on his chronological list of complete English Bibles (Defending the KJB, p. 203).

    Pre-1611 English Bibles would include the following: Wycliffe’s Bible (1388), Tyndale's New Testament (1526, 1534), Joyce's New Testament, Coverdale's Bible (1535), Matthew's Bible (1537), Coverdale's Latin-English New Testament (1538), Taverner's Bible (1539), the Great Bible (1539), Coverdale’s revision of Tyndale’s (1549), Bishop Becke's Bible (1551), Richard Jugge's New Testament (1552), Whittingham's New Testament (1557), Geneva Bible (1560), Bishops' Bible (1568), Lawrence Tomson's New Testament (1576), and Rheims New Testament (1582). In addition, there was more than one edition of many of these Bibles with some changes and revisions in them. The 1526 edition of Tyndale’s New Testament differs from his 1534 edition. The 1539 edition of the Great Bible has several differences with the 1540 edition of the Great Bible or with its 1541 edition. The Geneva Bible editions with the 1560 edition’s New Testament have a good number of differences when compared to the Geneva Bible editions with the 1576 Tomson’s New Testament. The 1568 edition of the Bishops' Bible has some differences when compared to the 1569 edition or to the 1572 edition. Each new English Bible was not always an improvement at every verse over the one before it so each was not always more purified than the prior one. Even those translations that may have been overall better than the previous one usually had a few renderings that were poorer or less accurate than those in the earlier Bible. Sometimes the next Bible in the line made some changes for the worse by adding words from the Latin Vulgate as in the case of the Great Bible. The 1568 Bishops' Bible was considered by many to be overall a poorer translation than the 1560 Geneva Bible, which also demonstrate that each later Bible was not more purified than the prior one.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Tim71

    Tim71 Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2016
    Messages:
    123
    Likes Received:
    23
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Is this statement being neutral on the interpretation of of the note at verse 7 in the KJV 1611?


    I came across some articles that say the note at verse 7 in the 1611 supports their point (the "word" is being preserved NOT the needy)

    Would it be grammatically impossible for (without a doubt) for them to say this? Are they being deceitful?

    Here is what they say:

    In verse 7. The margin note reads:

    Heb. him, i.e. euery one of them.


    So, it appears that even the KJV translators saw that the Hebrew word that they translated "preserve them" refers to the "him" - the "poor" and the "needy" in verse 5, instead of the "words" in verse 6. It seems they saw the misleading way a word-for-word English translation would sound, and thus wanted to clarify the actual meaning. Otherwise, why would they include the footnote? " (end of comments)


    What should be pointed out is the fact that "the poor and needy" would then be PLURAL as well and not the singular "him", and the marginal note does NOT say "that is, the poor and the needy" but rather "that is, every one of them", thus referring back to the immediate context of "the words of the LORD".
     
  9. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,082
    Likes Received:
    3,480
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I am not sure what you mean by "neutral." It is understanding the verse using the historical grammatical hermeneutic, which most bible believers use.

    Those articles were written by someone who either does not understand Hebrew grammar and syntax, or they are being deceitful.

    Yes. It is impossible for the "them" to refer to the "words." Doing so would cause a gender discordance indicating God is too stupid to understand Hebrew grammar.

    Possibly. Either that or ignorant.

    I dealt with that. Hebrew poetry, instead of using words that rhyme, as English poetry does, often uses number to produce a rhythm or cadence in the poem.

    Verse 3 - Part A: all flattering lips (plural)
    Part B: the tongue (singular)
    Verse 5 - Part A: afflicted, needy (plural)
    Part B: him (singular)
    Verse 6 - Part A: words (plural)
    Part B: silver (singular)
    Verse 7 - Part A: them (plural)
    Part B: him (singular)
     
  10. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,480
    Likes Received:
    780
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No, it is not impossible, but unlikely. I don't know if they are being deceitful; I prefer they think they are making a point but have no knowledge of the language and think the English takes precedence over the Hebrew.

    I refer you to John Gill, a Baptist 18th-century pastor who was a devoted student of Hebrew and quite possibly the best Hebraist (aside from Hugh Broughton, who was intentionally rejected as a KJV translator, probably because he couldn't seem to get along with anyone) up to the point:

    Psalms 12:7 Commentary - John Gill's Exposition of the Bible

    This is attempting to impose English grammatical standards on Hebrew. It doesn't work. Most of those who are attempting to make the argument, alas, probably know not a whit about Hebrew.

    In any case, even if the Psalms reference is referring to the words of the Lord, how do you know that the text underlying the KJV represents what is being preserved?
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  11. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    10,457
    Likes Received:
    220
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The whole argument about the meaning of Psalm 12:7 is a KJVO thing. KJVOs want to use this as a "proof verse' supporting their doctrine, but they're WRONG.

    For the sake of discussion, let's say Psalm 12:6-7 actually is about word preservation and nothing else. OK, WHERE DOES IT MENTION THE KJV OR ANY OTHER ENGLISH BIBLE TRANSLATION?????????? For that matter, where does Psalm 12 mention such translations?

    Taking it even farther, WHERE DOES THE KJV ITSELF SUPPORT KJVO????

    It's Only Make-Believe
    -Conway Twitty
     
  12. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,983
    Likes Received:
    67
    Faith:
    Baptist
    There are problems with the KJV-only purification process interpretation of Psalm 12:6 [purified seven times].

    Since each new English Bible was not always an improvement at every verse over the one before it, the next one was not completely more purified and more accurate than the prior one. Was the rendering "penance" found in the 1535 Coverdale's Bible at Matthew 3:8, 12:41, Luke 10:13, 11:32, 15:7, 10, 16:30, Acts 3:19 and 26:20 more purified or more accurate than Tyndale’s? Even those translations that may have been overall better than the previous one usually had a few renderings that were poorer or less accurate than those in the earlier Bible. Sometimes the next Bible in the line made some changes by adding words from the Latin Vulgate as in the case of the Great Bible. In several additions from the Latin Vulgate including three whole verses in Psalm 14, the Great Bible has over one hundred words in the book of Psalms that are not in the KJV. Because of additions from the Latin Vulgate, the Great Bible also has over one hundred words in one New Testament book (Acts) which are not found in the KJV (check Acts 4:25, 4:27, 5:15, 13:30, 14:7, 15:34c, 15:41c, 18:4, 23:24c, 24:17). Were the significant textual additions from the Latin Vulgate in the Great Bible changes towards more purity or changes for the worse? The 1568 Bishops' Bible was considered by many to be overall a poorer translation than the 1560 Geneva Bible. The Bishops’ Bible has a number of added explanatory words and phrases (likely over 200 words) with many of them not kept in the KJV. Actual facts from the pre-1611 English Bibles would demonstrate that each later English Bible was not more purified than the prior one, which would contradict a claimed purification process.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    10,457
    Likes Received:
    220
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Some people, especially some KJVOs, forget that Psalm 12:6 **COMPARES** the purity of God's words to silver purified seven times, which, even by ancient methods, made silver so pure as to make any impurities left in it undetectable by ordinary methods.

    It does NOT describe any purification of God's words at all. It states they ARE pure.
     
  14. SheepWhisperer

    SheepWhisperer Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2017
    Messages:
    590
    Likes Received:
    46
    Faith:
    Baptist


    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.


    1325-75; Middle English preserven < Medieval Latin praeservāre to guard( Late Latin: to observe), equivalent to Latin prae- pre- + servāre to watchover, keep, preserve, observe

    late 14c., "keep safe," from Anglo-French preservare, Old Frenchpreserver, from Medieval Latin preservare "keep, preserve," from LateLatin praeservare "guard beforehand," from Latin prae "before" (see pre- ) + servare "to keep safe" (see observe ). As a treatment of fruit, etc.,1570s; of organic bodies from 1610s. Related: Preserved ; preserving.

    If God's word were not "preserved", how do we know that the story of Jesus is true? Right there in your King James Bible, God has given us English speakers the assurance that He is well able to "keep safe" His words from corruption so that even thousands of years after they were first written down, we all might have the opportunity know Him. He has done it for other languages as well.
     
  15. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,983
    Likes Received:
    67
    Faith:
    Baptist
    By what consistent scriptural reasoning do you suggest that God's word has to be preserved perfectly in one of the varying editions of the KJV? The Scriptures were translated into English many years before 1611 so was God's word preserved perfectly in one of the pre-1611 English Bibles? Why would God wait until 1611 to preserve His Word in English?

    Would the consistent, sound teaching concerning preservation of the Scriptures be that the preservation concerns the actual exact specific original-language words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles?
    In translating, Bible translators add many words and omit providing an English word for some original-language words so a Bible translation does not have the same exact words that were given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles and a Bible translation does not have the same number of words.
    The Scriptures do not suggest that words added by men in translating would be preserving the exact, specific words that proceeded out of the mouth of God.

    Do the KJV-only claims of some suggest that God failed to preserve the actual specific original-language words He gave by inspiration well enough so that those preserved words remain the proper standard and authority for the trying of all Bible translations?
     
  16. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,082
    Likes Received:
    3,480
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Nobody has claimed God's word has not been preserved. Why are you changing the subject? Is it because, once again, you have been proven wrong but lack the character to admit it?
     
  17. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    10,457
    Likes Received:
    220
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Have you not read all the posts in this thread explaining those verses are NOT about word preservation? And what about the footnote for the 2nd them in Ps. 12:7 which reads "Heb. him, I. euery one of them."

    And WHERE does Psalm 12 mention the KJV by the least quark of the slightest implication????????????

    No Christian, especially Baptists, deny God has preserved His word.

    And this thread, nor countless ones like it in umpteen hundred other domains would exist if not for the false KJVO myth trying to add new meanings to some of God's word.
     
  18. SheepWhisperer

    SheepWhisperer Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2017
    Messages:
    590
    Likes Received:
    46
    Faith:
    Baptist
    "KJV onlyist?" I thought REAL "KJVonlyists" believe that the King James is the only true word of God in any language and even, go so far as to say that it is "double inspired"? No? If not, my bad. But I never said it was "inspired" at all: I just believe God was faithful in His providence to "preserve" an accurate copy for English speaking people. That's why I said........*.

     
  19. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,082
    Likes Received:
    3,480
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Please direct your attention to: Baptist Debate Forums (Baptist Only)> Bible Versions & Translations>Definitions of KJV Only which is a sticky giving the various definitions of KJVO for the purposes of discussion on the Baptist Board. Please familiarize yourself with them.
     
  20. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    25,627
    Likes Received:
    2,224
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Hi Tim,

    I am a former KJVO but now KJVP (preferred).

    Even at that I need to say that I am TRP (Textus Receptus Preferred) - Scrivener 1894 who made a distillation of the several contemporary TR's of the KJV translators to stand behind the beautiful Elizabethan-Jacobean English used by the KJV translators.

    A TR that is probably 99% equivalent of the Byzantine considering the volume of words.

    There is nothing wrong with the KJB, the preferred bible of the English speaking world for about 250 years.

    But Tim you have to live with the provable fact that the KJV translators did not have the power of prophet/apostle inspiration at any level as Peter Ruckman suggested.

    As you continue to educate yourself in the history of the bible you will see that God has indeed preserved His word.
    Scribal errors are not God's fault and almost everyone of them is repairable and is shown in the provided apparatus.

    A few you will need to pray and study the facts : e.g. 1 john 5:7 and decide for yourself.

    Just being honest Tim.

    God bless you in your endeavor :

    NIV 2 Timothy 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

    HankD
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
Loading...