Your KJVO myth is false.

Because the earliest manuscripts did not have this passage. Scholars believe that it was later added In the form of a note to bring clarification. Ending at verse 8 is a cliff hangar. Eventually, the note mistakenly found its way into the texts.

 

I think you mean, "was", John. It was the best translation in 1611, but not now.

 

REB :
When she became his wife, Othniel induced her to ask her father for a piece of land.
She dismounted from her donkey, and Caleb asked her, 'What do you need?'

​

 

Brother, look at those 'notes' on the page, it supports what I have said, for the 'marginal note' says at Psalms 12:6-7:

"+Heb. him. i. euery one of them"​

This same note is also found in the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, on Psalms 12:6-7:

"... them: etc. Heb. him, i.e. every one of them ..."​

Its simply a more literalized reading [as the other notes also do], which emphasizes that "euery one of them" [God's words] are going to be preserved by God. Where does it disagree with what I have presented contextually in regards the association with mouth, lips, words of the wicked, which will pass away, to that of God's words, which would never pass away, and be preserved by Himself?

Benjamin G. Wilkinson, even quoted the more literalized reading:

"... Inspiration declares that this revelation has been under the special protection of all power in heaven and earth. “The words of the Lord are pure words,” says the Psalmist, “as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve every one of them, (margin) from this generation forever.”<191206>Psalm 12:6,7. ..." - Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, page 150/168 PDF​

Psalms 12:6 KJB - The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Psalms 12:7 KJB - Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.​

Leaving it the way they did, shows a more parallel reading:

Thou shalt keep them, O LORD,
thou shalt preserve them ...​

Notice these

מןH4480 תצרנוH5341

imarot YHVH amarot horot Kesef tzaruf Baaliyl laaretz m'zuQaq shiv'atayim

aTah-YHVH Tish'm'rem TiTZ'reNu min-haDor zu l'olam
​

However, when looking at this, more closely, notice the first portion "Thou shalt keep them", [and the word "keep" is also to preserve] is a direct reference back to God's "words" in verse 6. If we accept the more literal translation of the marginal notation, for the second half, which says, "thou shalt preserve him", this too then fits with the context, since it would then be a reference to Jesus Christ being preserved from the congregation of the wicked forever [for all the scriptures testify of Jesus Christ, hence the many places which has Him saying, "I am poor and needy" [Psalms 40:17, 69:2, 70:5, 86:1, 109:22 KJB]], once He is raised from death. Jesus Christ is called the "word of God", John 1:1, etc KJB. He pours His words into us, His children [Matthew 9:17; Luke 5:28; John 15:7 KJB]. Thus, every one in Him would be preserved [John 6:39; Jude 1:1 KJB] along with Him. This would not negate the first half, in which God stated that He keeps His words, which includes Jesus words, Jesus Himself, and we who are in Him, being living epistles [Ezekiel 36:27; 2 Corinthians 3:3 KJB].

Nothing is wrong with the King James reading, neither how it is understood. It is deeper than is normally known.

 

Thank you for following up.​

 

Agreed. MSS evidence is overwhelming for this [Mark 16:9-20]. It shows the NIV's bias in discarding all the evidence in favour of its Sinaiticus [aleph], Vaticanus [.B.], and even at that point is used deceptively by not divulging that full evidence.

The ending is found in [citing A Closer Look at the Early Manuscripts, Jack Moorman, page 85 [so it might be a little dated]]:

"... A, C, D, E, F, G, (H), K, (L), M ,S, U, V, (W), X, Y
Gamma, Delta, Theta, Pi, Sigma, (Psi)
Omega, (099), (0112)
Cursives: MAJORITY fam 1,13
Old Latin: aur, c, d-suppl, ff2, g1,2
l, n, o ,q, r2, Vulg
Syr: pesh, cur, harc, pal Cop: sa
bo, fay
Goth, Arm, Eth
Also extant in 047, 055, 0211, 0233?, 0257 ..."​

 

Is he your brother [in Christ]? He, and I can read English [KJB] just fine [without getting into what he or I knows of Hebrew or Greek, or any other language for that matter].

How do you answer the Agape/Phileo test and the evidence as found in John 21:15-17 KJB, in regards "do you love [agape] me" [first time]. do you love [agape] me" [second time], and "do you love [phileo] me" [???, is this the first time, or the third time Jesus asked about love?] Jesus did not say do you love [agape] me three times. Jesus did not say "do you love [phileo] me" three times. What was asked three times?

As I read the plain English, Jesus simply asked, "Do you love me?" three times. Hence the "second" and "third" time.

It would be like me asking:

Do you want to jump over the creek?

Do you want to jump over the creek?

Do you want to leap over the creek?

How many times did I ask for the person to hop over the creek?

 

Feel ya'. Red letters - Klopsch. I think it was one of those helpful ideas, though in certain instances this day, it is being used against Jesus, ie Matthew 24:15 KJB in modern printings. Jesus said all of the words in the text. Yet, in certain printing, they do not 'red' the "whoso readeth, let him understand', and make it look like Jesus never said it [when He surely did, contextually], but that some 'scribe' wrote it later etc, which then takes away the force of the need to read Daniel carefully.

 

But Christ Jesus [and His word in English, KJB] is my instructor. Jesus is the Master, the Teacher.

The whole idea, that I [or anyone] needs to be proficient [in any manner] in Greek [of any sort, modern Greek/Macedonian, etc or ancient, Koine, etc] is an error. Macedonians, Greeks, of today do not read, nor speak Koine Greek on the whole [I do not discount various linguists]. It is different in several ways. Also, reading the actual scraps of mss, papryii, codices etc is a far cry from reading a concordance, or interlinear, etc. Not even the same thing.

You do realize that the OT [being written in Hebrew] is quoted many times in the NT in Koine Greek? If a translation was good enough for the use in the early days of the Apostles, then a faithful translation of the preserved words of God into the English of the King James Bible, is good enough for me.

If Koine Greek is so important, why stop there? Why not go all the way back to Hebrew, Syriac/Chaldee?

Paul was more proficient in those languages. Jesus more than he.

Do you make the same distinctions between the Hebrew words translated as "love" in the OT, as you do in the Koine Greek of the NT?

Go back, read the actual texts [John 21:15-17] in your primary language.

1 Corinthians 14:19 KJB - Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.​

 

I don't believe in your strawman definition of KJVO. I keep telling you that.

 

I would disagree. I have several examples of "doctrinal" error in the modern versions, including the NIV. But this thread is tired already.

 

What translation are you using?, the WEB? Does your English Bible ever translate ποιμαίνω as "feed", "feedeth":, etc? What does your Jude 1:12, or 1 Corinthians 9:7 say?

 

I noticed. They do not even use their same argumentation [which they use against the KJB] against their own 'version/s'. The sword of Goliath or of king Saul, can only injure themselves.