Which One?

[Invicta]

Psalm 12 KJAV 6The 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.

Psalm 12, ESV.vesres
6 The words of the Lord are pure words,
like silver refined in a furnace on the ground,
purified seven times.
7 You, O Lord, will keep them;
you will guard us from this generation forever.

Psalm 12, NIV.vesres 6 And the words of the LORD are flawless,
like silver refined in a furnace of clay,
purified seven times.
7 O LORD, you will keep us safe
and protect us from such people forever.

Psalm 12:NKJ 6 The words of the LORD are pure words,
Like silver tried in a furnace of earth,
Purified seven times.
7 You shall keep them, O LORD,
You shall preserve them from this generation forever.


Both the ESV and NIV do not say that the Lord would preserve HIS word forever. It seems that the NIV translation of verse 7 is inexplicable as verse 6 is speaking about the Words of God.

No difference?

[war_eagle]

I strongly prefer the KJV and will nearly always preach out of it, except if I'm trying to make a point. But I do use several different versions.

[Tootle]

Psalm 12 KJAV 6The 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.

Psalm 12, NIV.vesres 6 And the words of the LORD are flawless,
like silver refined in a furnace of clay,
purified seven times.
7 O LORD, you will keep us safe
and protect us from such people forever.

Both the ESV and NIV do not say that the Lord would preserve HIS word forever. It seems that the NIV translation of verse 7 is inexplicable as verse 6 is speaking about the Words of God.

No difference?

Unlurking again!

The translation choice of the CBT here is practically identical to that of the KJV Translators. The KJV committee felt that "them," in verse seven, referred to "him," or "every one of them." It is referring to persons, not words. (You can see the marginal note offering this clarification here -- zoom in if it's too small to read.) This is also the most obvious reading of this passage--the psalm is a request to save "the faithful" from "the children of men" or "this generation." The logic of the psalm runs something like this:

1. The faithful are being overwhelmed by sinners. (vv. 1-2)
2. The psalmist asks for help against those who feel invincible. (vv. 3-4)
3. God says he will arise and save the faithful. (v. 5)
4. The words of the Lord are pure. (v. 6)
5. Therefore, God will do as he says and preserve the faithful. (v. 7)

Verses 1-4 describe the situation and ask for intervention, 5 is an oracle from the Lord, 6 is an axiomatic statement confirming God's trustworthiness, and 7 is the logical conclusion of 5 and 6. Verse 8 is a restatement of the initial argument, adding a sense of urgency. ("Lord, things are still pretty bad down here, get on it please!")

The NET notes on this verse make it clear that "them" cannot refer to words, since the former has the masculine gender and the latter is feminine. The use of "us" in v. 7 is pretty well attested from ancient versions, too. It's found in the Septuagint and both the Gallican and Hebrew psalters of Jerome, for instance.

[Jerry]

There is proof that Psalm 12:6-7 is referring to God's Word - and that many Christians have taken it as such over the centuries. I have posted some links on this subject in another thread recently. Perhaps do a search for it.

P.S. You are not going to learn the truth on the Bible version issue and about Bible preservation from the heretic who put the Net Bible together.

[RayJr]

KJB only I feel dirty just touching the others.

[madmax]

based on Isiah 14:12, the KJV and no other for me!

[LindaR]

King James Bible is the only Bible I will use. My Bible software has some other versions, but I use those strictly for comparison purposes.

[PreacherBen]

As to why I think the TR copies (KJV for us English speakers,) is preserved, if I go out to the pantry and get a jar of canned peaches, open them up (and boy are they good!) I do not expect to get canned tomatoes. If God put his hand of preservation on those copies that came from the Majority Text, it is logical to conclude he did not preserve those that were tampered with by unscrupulous translators, i.e., the Catholic Church, Wescott and Hort, Jehovahs (false) Witnesses, etc. If you want pure and preserved, go to the good spring, the drinking is fine!

Revised Version and Good News everywhere we look,
But won't somebody tell me, what's wrong with the Old Black Book (KJV)?

Answer: Not a thing.

[BlessedChristianlady8]

I got a Precious Moments Pink Bible which is New King James that I recieved 20 years ago from my parents. Later on my Christian frinnds family suggested an NIV and NLT so I got those, Later I got another Precious Moments New King James blue from my Aunt before our wedding in 2002. When we moved down here to TN in 2004 I started getting the King James and stuff. So I have mixture of the Bible. However, the Main Bible my husband and I uses are the King James Bible.

[tired]

On a facebook group called stop the emergents I have been discussing with an emergent about what Paul meant by being all things to all people. The person kept saying that Paul wrote that he became like the world. Guess what she was using a NIV. that is why she could say something that I have never heard. There are some major differances in the NIV and the KJV.

[Guest Guest]

I would answer this...but I did once, and nobody seemed to keen on my answer.

Suffice to say, I prefer the KJV over any other version. I must, however, make it clear that you cannot dispel the other versions solely because of the background of its translators. Do even a short study on good old King Jimmy, and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

[Jerry]

King James was not involved in translating the King James Bible.

[Jerry]

Also, the problems with modern versions goes way beyond just what the translators believed or practiced - though that certainly plays a part. An apostate or heretic cannot understand the Word of God - therefore will not be able to translate it accurately.

[Guest Guest]

King James was not involved in translating the King James Bible.

No, he only commissioned it. That is no involvement at all. In his own words, he "appointed certain learned men, to the number of four and fifty, for the translating of the Bible."

Now, if you mean he did not grab a quill and parchment and do it himself, I agree. In fact, I never remember reading anyone saying anything like that. Do you?

[Jerry]

Now' date=' if you mean he did not grab a quill and parchment and do it himself, I agree. In fact, I never remember reading anyone saying anything like that. Do you?[/quote']

You said this:

I must, however, make it clear that you cannot dispel the other versions solely because of the background of its translators. Do even a short study on good old King Jimmy, and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

If that was not what you meant, you should be a bit clearer. Comparing King James' oversight with the actual work of an apostate or heretical translator are entirely different things - and yes, we should reject the work of reprobates, such as Westcott and Hort, several Unitarians, Virginia Mollenkott and the other sodomites involved in some MVs.