KJV only, KJVTR only and TR only

Yes one is Hebrew (Isaiah 61:1) and the Luke passage is Greek. So we see the one of the difficulties of going from one language to the other. The Greek is a translation of the Hebrew which does not align itself with the Hebrew for more than one reason.

Now, if what the radical KJVO say is correct about second inspiration then these two passages would necessarily have to be exactly the same in both the Isaiah as well as the Luke passage because the KJVO don't care about the Hebrew and Greek but that they are superceded by the AV English which is "perfect".

In reality they are different probably because of mss variations. Even if Jesus was reading the Hebrew (in all probability) and Luke translated it into Greek there are differences which cannot be explained by translational issues in addition to which BOTH were inspired in the originals by the Spirit of God.

Apparently Jesus used a copy of Isaiah which did not align itself with the KJV Masoretic mss (which didn't exist yet) source but He kept on reading and said nothing about it in spite of the differences concerning which He had full knowledge being God come in the flesh.

If the Holy Spirit guided the KJV translators in the translation of the original language texts into the 1611 AV English, why then don't these passages line up in that 1611 AV English?
In what sense then is the KJV "perfect preservation"?

Is the thought the same in both passages?

HankD

 

Let's see what the AV1611 has to say:

PSAL. XII

6. The wordes of the LORD are pure wordes:* as siluer tried in a furnace of earth purified seuen times.

7. Thou shalt keepe them, ( O LORD, ) thou shalt preserue +them from this generation for euer.

*2 Sam. 23.31 psal 18.29 & 119. ver 140. prou 30.5

+ Hebr. Him i. euery one of them.

Why did the AV translators put this footnote here?

 

And that principle is already in jeopardy in the Second Psalm -- "Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break THEM with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash THEM in pieces like a potter's vessel." (Psa. 2:8-9, KJV)

Question: does "them" in v. 9 refer to the near antecedent ("uttermost parts of the earth," v. 8) or the far antecedent ("the heathen, " v. 8?)

Answer: "Them" in v. 9 is a masculine plural; "earth" is a feminine singular; and "heathen" is a masculine plural. Therefore, the correct antecedent is the far antecedent, which agrees in gender and number with the pronoun. Which is *exactly* what is happening in Psa. 12:7 -- a reference back to an earlier antecedent agreeing with the pronoun in gender and number.

When you add the fact that elsewhere in Psalms, the word "preserve" is *always* used of people or living creatures and *never* used of words, it's evident that Psa. 12:7 is about *people* preservation, not "words" preservation.

Just because something *might* be the case doesn't mean it *is*. If the *regular*, *normal*, and *usual* rules of Hebrew grammar are followed, then the masculine plural pronoun "them" in Psa 12:7 refers back to a masculine plural antecendent, and the only masculine plural antecedents are the "poor" and "needy" of v. 5. What needs to be shown is why this verse should be treated as an exception to the normal rules of Hebrew grammar, especially in light of how "preservation" is understood elsewhere in the Psalms. This is why other authoritative translators and commentators (e.g., Augustine, Tyndale, the Geneva Bible translators, Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke, and Charles Spurgeon, to mention just a few) assert that it is the people who are being preserved in Psa. 12:7 and not the words.

 

Yes, I say, and I say it as fact. The KJV is not a perfect translation. A person with basic knowlege of Greek and Hebrew can attest to this.

When you say the KJV is a perfect translation, you can only speak from opinion, an opinion which cannot be supported . When I say the KJV is not a perfect translation, I speak from authority, and as a matter of clear fact.

 

HomeBound, which KJV is perfect? The original edition of 1611 or the one you use, the 1762/1769? You are aware, are you not, that there are differences?

I will just post a couple for you, and you can tell me which reading is the perfect word of God.

In 2 Chronicles 28:11 which is correct, "LORD" or "GOD?"

In Ezra 2:22 which is correct, "children" or "men?"

In Acts 8:32 which is correct, "the shearer" or "his shearer?"

In 1 Corinthians 12:28 which is correct, "helps in governments" or "helps, governments?"

Please tell me which reading is correct, and thus the perfect word of God, and how you know which one is correct.

If you can give me a definitive answer that conforms to the facts of both scripture and history, I will convert to KJVO.

Thank you.

 

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that them is referring to the Lord's words: I'm having trouble seeing how this text is specifying their sole preservation in the TR or KJV or any other particular document. Maybe I'm experiencing a reading difficulty or I'm lacking spiritually. Someone please help! </font>[/QUOTE]This verses refer to the Hebrew/Greek manuscripts. </font>[/QUOTE]

Askjo

Are you advocating that the "sole preservation" of the Lord's "words" are found in the "Hebrew/Greek manuscripts" and not the "KJV only, KJVTR only and TR only"?

Honestly, it doesn't appear that these verses specify the "Hebrew/Greek manuscripts" either. Though, it does seem reasonable (by faith?) that we must start somewhere.

In Christ
Michael

 

askjo says...

Explain please.

HankD

 

It's more accurate in some areas, and less accurate in others.

 

What is the criteria for accuracy?


HankD

 

Originally posted by robycop3:
In the AV, Ps.12:7 clearly refers to MEN.


Askjo:Incorrect -- you know better -- most KJV onlyists believe this verse refers to the word.

No, the KJVO view of that verse is wrong, as clearly PROVEN by the side note in the AV 1611. Unlike the KJVO, I have proof for my statements.

 

Homebound:The passage does not say how or what God will preserve his word in, but I believe that perservation is found in the King James Bible.

So do I, but not ONLY in the KJV. God didn't either start or end His preservation in the KJV.

BTW, when God preserves something, it's perfect preservation.

Yes, perfect by HIS standards, but not necessarily OURS.

 

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
Neither. The verse refers to the people in the preceding context.


You are 100% wrong. I agree with HomeBound.

So you know more about the KJV than its very translators who placed the marginal note with Ps. 12:7 ? ?