Psalm 12:6

Jerry has been spotted in Waikiki!

HankD

 

Unfortunately, too many people buy into these types of arguments. This is exactly the type of stuff that got me out of the KJVO movement. However, I admit being a KJVO was easier - I didn't have to study or think about anything that way.

 

Unfortunately, too many people buy into these types of arguments. This is exactly the type of stuff that got me out of the KJVO movement. However, I admit being a KJVO was easier - I didn't have to study or think about anything that way.

Amen TC!

When I was a KJVO it required blind faith in KJVO authors etc... To think for myself seemed to be a high crime in the KJVO Camp and to question KJVOism brought down the wrath of KJVOism upon my head!

So yes it was easier to be KJVO. I personally don't regret leaving KJVOism because as an honest rational man I can not live a lie when I know the truth.

 

Jerry has been spotted in Waikiki!

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]__________________________________________________

That makes sense. Have you SEEN Waikiki? I have, and there are LOTS of devils there.
"Any friend of the Devil is a friend of Mine." Jerry Garcia


In HIS service;
Jim

 

So you into are memorizing Jerry's words ey?



Actually yes I have seen Waikiki on more than one occassion.

FWIW, before Jerry's death I would occassionally be swamped by young folks asking for my autograph Jerry! Jerry! (among other things). One of those places was Honolulu. The reason, one of my daughters clued me in "Dad you are the spitting image of Jerry Garcia of the Grateful Dead". I looked at some of his pictures and it was like looking in a mirror.

Before that I had no clue who Jerry Gracia was.

But I did survive

What does this have to do with Psalm 12:6?

HankD

 

The way I see it, the KJVo's biggest problem is explaining WHY the KJV even needed to be translated if God's preserved "word-perfect" Bible in English already existed.

Now, they are trying to use the seven purification theory.

The only problem here is they run into their own interpretation of the verse that says it is preserved for all generations. If this is SO...(according to the KJVonlyist) then we are back to the problem of what was available to the generations BEFORE 1611 who spoke English?

...and round and round we go.

 

The radical KJVO theories were born out of ignorance of historical facts. Every new and bizaare theory which emerges from the KJVO Vatican is to explain away the logical and historical pitfalls of past blunders.

When something even halfway credible comes forth the faithful run with it until it is shot down and something new is hatched. then they run with that, etc, etc, etc.

First we had "jot" and "tittle" preservation of the "very" words of God in the 17th Century English of the KJV. Then someone asks "which KJV? there are several, they are all different". After the smoke of the shouting tantrums clear, the answer is "they are only SMALL ERRORS". OK God can't make big errors only small ones?

The latest is the "advanced revelation" theory, Yes, there were errors but they were God's errors awaiting a certain somebody in the 20-21st century to reveal them.

HankD

 

Has this "ONLY business" occurred to any significant level with other Bibles in history?

(besides maybe the Vulgate and the RCC)

 

Actually, it has. I believe it was Augustine who railed at those that were beginning to translate the Greek manuscripts into the old latin because that would cause the people to doubt what God said. He used some other arguments (as far as I can remember) similar to LVO's and KJVO's. So, you could say that he was Greek only.

 

Sadly, I can see a little more "reason" in Augustine's arguments than in the KJVo arguments. Its still not right, but I think Augustine had a better argument since Greek was the manuscript language.

English?---doesn't make sense at all.

How about Geneva onlyists? I know the puritans rejected the KJV, but was this more of a preference? (I'm assuming it was.)

 

TC said:

So, you could say that he was Greek only.

To my recollection, you've got the story a bit backward. Augustine was a Latin speaker; he didn't know Greek. His preference was for the old Latin Bible and he was initially critical of Jerome's new translation when he read it.

(Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.)

 

Let's see, let me get my reading glasses on and see what my 1611 replica.

Ahhhhh, very interesting.

PFalmes 12:7 Thou shalt keepe them, (O Lord,) thou shlt preserue *them, from this generation for euer.

And I wonder what this is in the margin (by the ORIGINAL 1611 translators)

*Hebr, him i. every one of them.

Amazing what the original 1611 translators "thought" about when they were translating, vs. what today's few KJVonly's THINK they "were thinking" about.

 

Marginal notes are NOT Scripture.



In HIS service;
Jim

 

Neither are they in any version, yet that is one of the key complaints about the NKJV.

Besides, if we can trust the KJV translators so completely, why can't we trust their notes?

 

In the instance in which Phillip gave above, the marginal notes in the 1611 edition of the KJV ARE indeed quoting the exact reading of the Hebrew text, and therefore IS Scripture!

 

Again, there are three kinds of marginal notes:

1. Translator notes - inspired like the translation
2. Cross-reference notes - uninspired
3. Comentary notes - uninspired