Preserved and Pure?

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.  Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.  (Ps. 12:6-7)

If Ps 12:6,7 speaks of God’s words being kept without error, and kept pure, why was there ever a “Wicked” Bible?¹

You will remember that the “Wicked” Bible had a misprint.  The misprint omitted the word “not” in the commandment, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” (Exodus 20:14)

Thus, it read, “Thou shalt commit adultery.”

It certainly makes one wonder how the preserved Word of God was allowed by God to become so very corrupt.

The point of this article? If we were to speak of God’s preserving His Word, we should speak of His keeping His Word from becoming so adulterated as to become:

1.  Lost and unrecoverable

2.  So corrupt as to encourage immorality (By the way, that is precisely why this “Wicked” Bible is a collector’s piece.  Only about eleven of one thousand copies survived.  The rest were destroyed because of the error.  One only wonders how the rest evaded destruction.  They are known to be in error, thus there is no danger of their being a danger to morality.)

3.  So corrupt as to teach anything that contradicts the essence of Christianity.

Let us honestly ask ourselves a question:  Do the modern Bible versions that are produced by honest translators and publishing houses (Watchtower, Seventh Day Adventists, and other cults’ translations are excluded from this.) actually encourage immorality, or contradict the essence of Christianity?  It is obvious that God has kept His Word.  It has not become lost.  Neither do I know of any honestly produced modern Bible translation that encourages immorality or promotes doctrines that are heterodox.

It seems that God has indeed preserved His Word, and that across a number of translations that attempt to be faithful to the original language texts.

¹ Accessed 08/03/2009


60 thoughts on “Preserved and Pure?

  1. fundyreformed January 5, 2010 / 1:55 pm

    Good point, Jason. There’s some level of preservation involved, not a mechanical, absolute all-or-nothing promise. Given the presence of textual corruption (intentional or accidental), we must figure out what is actually intended by texts such as Ps. 12.

    Sorry it took so long for me to put your post up, too. Hopefully we’ll get some activity going again on this blog! 😉

  2. JasonS January 5, 2010 / 2:49 pm

    No problem on the timing. I’m not sure what happened. It may have been my browser. I now see the “paste from Word” button on the editor.
    One thing that is necessary, too, is to define “corrupt”. KJVO definition and our view would be different, I think.

  3. PeterAV January 5, 2010 / 4:04 pm

    Somebody knowingly put out a Straw man on this one, right Jason?..Namely..[quote]If Ps 12:6,7 speaks of God’s words being kept without error, and kept pure, why was there ever a “Wicked” Bible?¹[/quote]
    How about Jeremiah? It appears your made up rules are way off here.
    Are you actually serious that just because a printer made an error, this constitutes God being a liar? Such straw is easily burned, and only the precious remains.

    You say that,NOT because you believe in Preservation, for you don’t. You would rather question God’s pure word.
    The AV is the pure word of God, even with the typos. But now all the typos are gone and you have no argument, for the correct reading was around at the very same day that the printer’s error occurred. So don’t give me that higher than thou slop, as if only one certain bible of the thousands that existed are to be the measure of the fullness of prophecy for that verse. Give your dishonest head a shake there Jason.
    Shame on you, pimping out garbage like that.
    No wonder the church is loosing members and the students at Bible Colleges no longer believe in the pure holy Bible. But they are taught to criticize it. You have learned well by obeying man instead of God.

    • JasonS January 5, 2010 / 4:55 pm

      You don’t know me. You don’t know my heart. Neither do you know what you are talking about.
      Prove where I have built a straw man.
      It’s time to back your words with something other than hot air, Peter.

    • williamdudding1977 January 5, 2010 / 5:10 pm

      Peter and other KJVOX are insane. There is no reasoning with them.

  4. PeterAV January 5, 2010 / 7:46 pm

    Well, hello there Jason.
    I don’t know what I am talking about?
    O? so you have the pure holy Bible?
    That is what this thread is about, n’est ce pas?

    It is pure biblical logic, that when you read in the Bible “Thy word is very pure:” you believe that the Bible IS very pure.
    When obvious error and meddling happens, then one needs to reject that one that has been tampered with. That is obvious.
    Do you have a pure holy Bible?
    Error free?
    I know you do not, for you would like to critique the word of God. And play pick and choose. Just like EVE did.

    Or do you declare with me today that”the word of God is perfect and pure. Preserved perfect and pure only in the King James Bible.”
    If you can’t say that then you are wrong, when I showed you I do know what I am talking about. And I know what God is talking about.
    Don’t forget, you are not fighting me, you are fighting against the very truth of the pure words of God.

    Thy word is very pure:
    Do you believe that?
    And which word of God is that?
    Holy Bible
    There is only one.
    We all know that you can’t answer that one.
    Show me your pure Bible.

  5. PeterAV January 5, 2010 / 7:57 pm

    William Dudding states;[quote]Peter and other KJVOX are insane. There is no reasoning with them.[/quote]
    Nope, I am not insane, only David style, but you got fooled as God would have it.
    Neither are the other King James only folk insane.
    The insanity is when you already HAVE the pure holy Bible, and then you reject it for the words of Man especially the Jesuit Catholic Bibles like NASB, NIV, and the newer ones.
    You know about the corrupt sources they came from.
    Yet you fight against those that actually believe their Bible to BE the Bible.
    Now that is insane.
    Is it not reasonable to chuck out known corrupted works that were rejected almost 2000 years ago? You do remember the Bibshop of Antioch throwing out the faked bibles even way back then.
    No, I stand upon the pure word of God for my defense.
    Your defense is your own opinions.
    If you reject the AV as the pure word of God, then all hope for you is lost, because you have believed in a lie.

  6. JasonS January 5, 2010 / 8:55 pm

    We BELIEVE and are convinced that the KJV is the pure Word of God.
    We believe that Word of God is preserved purely in other translations, too.
    You have proven nothing other than the fact that you have no tact, no charity, and no integrity.
    I still await your proof. If you call names and sling mud any more, I’ll ban you. We’ll gladly discuss things with you in a civil way, but if you continue to act in an ugly way, you shall be dismissed.

  7. JasonS January 5, 2010 / 9:39 pm

    By the way, how can misprints ever be totally removed so as to make what in your view would be a perfect Bible? As long as humans are involved there will be misprints and typos.
    I have a Thompson Chain KJV that I bought when I was 18 that has several additional verses at the end of one of the minor prophets due to a misprint.

  8. fundyreformed January 6, 2010 / 12:11 am


    I don’t think you’re “hearing” Jason in what he’s trying to say in the post. He’s making a point. God preserves His Word, this is a promise. But we also see errors, corruptions and false versions. Yet God promised to preserve His Word pure, right? What gives?!?

    Well, obviously, we are not to understand the promise as a complete all-or-nothing thing. He is not promising that no one will ever corrupt the Bible in one edition or in one copy or in one manuscript. But God will do a work to preserve the purity of His Word.

    I believe that in the majority of manuscript traditions, and in the majority of English Bibles today, we find God’s Word. These versions don’t aim to corrupt God’s word. And in the multiplicity of available texts, manuscripts and versions, God safeguards His Word from wholesale corruption.

    So Jason is not erecting a straw man. He is not claiming that everyone who believes in the perfect preservation of God’s Words in one edition of an English translation of a 16th century text is also believing that no errant Bibles could possibly exist. He is just making a point from the text.

    Could the text be saying God wouldn’t let a majority of translations corrupt His Word? Wouldn’t that be letting His Word become impure? What about the text makes us think He is promising that a super minority of available texts will be kept pure amidst an overwhelming flood of corrupt and impure Bibles?

    Please try to interact with the post rather than just anathematize us and somehow earn brownie points by doing so.

  9. PeterAV January 6, 2010 / 2:24 pm

    [quote]We BELIEVE and are convinced that the KJV is the pure Word of God.
    We believe that Word of God is preserved purely in other translations, too.[/quote]
    That is a huge contradiction.
    Matthew 5:22 is the pure word of God in the NIV and others?
    So you are OK with Jesus being in danger of judgment?

  10. JasonS January 6, 2010 / 3:13 pm

    Your quote proves nothing. The CONTEXT of the verse STILL shows that Jesus was speaking of murderous anger.
    Try again, if you wish.

  11. PeterAV January 6, 2010 / 3:16 pm

    Hi Jason,
    You stated,[quote]Peter,
    By the way, how can misprints ever be totally removed so as to make what in your view would be a perfect Bible? As long as humans are involved there will be misprints and typos.

    I have a Thompson Chain KJV that I bought when I was 18 that has several additional verses at the end of one of the minor prophets due to a misprint.[/quote]
    Very good question Jason.
    You state that there will always be misprints.
    Yes, there will always be misprints around, for sure; but not in the King James Bible that is pure in its presentational form.
    The 1611 is the pure word of God as are all King James Bibles, but there is only one King James Bible that is free from all erratta, including typos.
    This is the PCE,[Pure Cambridge Edition].
    This Bible was first published about 1900 by Cambridge. Other publishers used this text as well. Collins, World, Trinitarian Bible Society,etc.
    Not only is the AV the best Bible, but it is now presentationaly pure as well, without any admixture of error, including typos.
    This can only be found in a PCE.

    With the advent of the computer, it is much easier to check for discrepancies, etc.
    In fact, we have checked this Bible over and it is 100% completely error free.
    In other words, it is not just any King James Bible as the standard, as it has been; but now we have zeroed in on the actual pure presentation of the AV. Namely, the PCE promoted by
    This includes such ones as Genesis 6:5 which should read GOD not God.
    Ezra 2:26 which should read Geba not Gaba.
    Josh 19:2 should read or not and.
    Plus a few more indicators totaling 12.
    All 12 indicator verses must be 100% letter perfect to verify a PCE.

    • Jason (another one) March 16, 2010 / 12:32 pm

      Peter, you made a claim accusing Jason of committing a straw man. This leads me to believe you know a little bit about argumentation. So you certainly know what ad hominem is? You made a claim and you have yet to back it up. Let me make a claim, the fact is, the Bible TRANSLATIONS have errors and none are pure. We believe the the autographs are pure – not the translations. All have errors and those errors are not the least bit important to the reliability of scripture.

  12. Joel January 6, 2010 / 5:24 pm

    It seems to me that too often the KJV has replaced the Scriptures as what is inspired, and now, the KJVO movement has split into other camps, such as the PCE.

    For those who do not believe in developed doctrine or progressive revelation outside of Scripture, I do not find justification for God waiting for 1700 years to reveal His word as anything but that which is practiced among the Romans daily.

  13. Steve January 7, 2010 / 8:51 am

    I’ve debated with many a KJVO on Ps. 12:6-7, and read innumerable books and articles discussing the correct interpretation of these verses (and more importantly, the entire Psalm) from both sides of the fence. I have NEVER seen a compelling argument that justifies the use of these verses as some sort of “proof text” for a promise of a perfectly preserved text of scripture. The context simply doesn’t warrant this sort of misuse, and it’s absolutely absurd that so many KJVO’s stake their false belief in perfect preservation vis-à-vis the KJV on these verses.

  14. Joel January 7, 2010 / 8:54 am

    Further, if you check the margins of the original KJV, you will find that the translators were not in agree about what exactly was preserved here – which returning to good grammar and an understanding of Hebrew, we find that indeed, it is not the ‘words’ but the people we find preserved.

    And hasn’t God always preserved His people without one ‘printer’s error’?

  15. Aaron Blumer January 7, 2010 / 9:56 am

    I’ve written a little article on preservation that will appear on SharperIron in a week or two.
    I would differ with Joel at #14… of course, He does preserve His people, but He has also promised to preserved word.
    An often overlooked question is what form has He promised to preserved it in, and where?

    Also wanted to note that the link to SharperIron forums English Bible Debate in the sidebar needs an update. The proper link now is

  16. fundyreformed January 7, 2010 / 10:02 am

    Thanks for dropping by, Aaron. I agree that God promises to preserve His Word, but it comes down to “how” and “in what form”. This is where Scripture doesn’t speak clearly to the degree that only the text behind the King James is that Word (in my opinion).

    On Ps. 12 I’m still not sure if it is strictly people, or people and words in view, but other passages lead me to hold to a belief in the promise of God’s preserving His Word.

    The contributors to this blog vary in their exact position on the issue, some prefer and use primarily the KJV. Others prefer the modern Greek text and modern versions.

    I will update the link to Sharper Iron’s forums.



  17. fundyreformed January 7, 2010 / 10:07 am

    Thanks too, to Joel and Steve for jumping in here. We hope to have more regular posting once again on the blog here.

  18. Aaron Blumer January 10, 2010 / 4:32 pm

    I had actually forgotten about Psalm 12:6-7 in the reservation debate. Appreciate the reminder.

  19. Aaron Blumer January 10, 2010 / 4:45 pm

    Turns out the pronomial suffix on “preserve” (resulting in “preserve them” in KJV) is masculine and does not fit “words” very well (which is feminine). So it is–at the very least–not a very good proof text for preserving the words of Scripture to each generation.
    It may well refer to the “poor and needy” in v.5 (the nearest masculine plural referent). So I don’t disagree with Joel, after all.
    The KJV marginal note is interesting. They catch the masculinity there and recognize a problem but don’t seem to follow it to the most likely grammatical conclusion.

    • fundyreformed January 10, 2010 / 4:53 pm

      I dealt with Ps. 12 in depth in a series I need to revisit and complete. The link is here: The Bible and the KJV Only Debate, part 4.

      The argument from the gender of the Hebrew has been “answered” by Kent Brandenburg in the book he edited on the KJV Only issue (Thou Shalt Keep Them), and I think his blog covers it. Basically elsewhere in Psalms the same gender disparity is found in passages dealing with God’s Word. I haven’t cross-checked his claims yet, and now that I have Bible Works 8 I might try doing that. The gender argument supports the interpretation Joel favors above.

      I think also if you look at the history of interpretation of that verse, there is a split, it isn’t definitively a preservation of words idea. I’m trying to remember the name of the guy in Holland, MI area, a dutch guy who did a small booklet on Ps. 12 that was helpful too. I’ll be looking for your post at Sharper Iron. We can link to it from here as it should be good for discussion on this blog too.



  20. Aaron Blumer January 11, 2010 / 10:33 am

    Appreciate the link, Bob. I’m getting the feeling now that I’ve got like 9 nine years of research to do before I write that article. But, alas, I only have a few days!
    But I’m much clearer on Psalm 12 now and where it fits in. The article might be delayed a bit–and I think it will speak better to general audiences vs. those who are deep into the preservation debate. Probably nothing fresh for the latter.

  21. Steve January 19, 2010 / 5:11 pm

    I did a little research on people vs. word preservation from the commentaries I’ve been able to find on Psalm 12, and here’s what I’ve found so far:

    1599 Geneva Study Bible:
    People Preservation

    John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible:
    People Preservation

    John Calvin’s Commentaries:
    People Preservation

    Matthew Henry Commentary:
    People Preservation

    Spurgeon’s Treasury of David:
    People Preservation

    Adam Clarke’s Commmentary:
    People Preservation

    St. Augustine’s Exposition of the Psalms:
    People Preservation

    John Brown of Haddington (18th Century Scottish minister):
    People Preservation

    John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes


    • JasonS January 19, 2010 / 10:39 pm

      Interesting. Thanks for posting that.
      Do you intend to take that any further?

  22. Steve January 20, 2010 / 10:15 am

    Jason, at this point I’ve just about exhausted the resources at my disposal in terms of commentaries discussing Psalm 12. I’d be very curious to see what Jewish “commentary” resources are available, and what they would have to say about preservation in this Psalm.

  23. fundyreformed January 22, 2010 / 1:50 pm

    Great stuff, Steve. I previously had looked at some commentaries on this and found that Albert Barnes, Keil & Delitzch, and John Darby can be added to your list of commentaries supporting “people preservation”.

  24. fundyreformed January 22, 2010 / 2:23 pm

    Matthew Poole has either words or poor/needy. And Henry Law sides with “people preservation”.

    • JasonS January 23, 2010 / 10:42 am

      As an aside, you can find many old commentaries as free add-ons to the Online Bible program at I think they may have Poole, but cannot recall. Between that and Esword you can get a good amount of the old stuff free.

  25. fundyreformed January 22, 2010 / 5:17 pm

    It’s available for E-Sword too.

  26. CD-Host January 22, 2010 / 6:30 pm

    As an aside, Rashi is essentially an “official commentary”. Religious Jews use an “official” study bible for the first 5 books of the bible called the Chumash. The Chumash Rashi is his set of notes on those books. Rashi’s commentary is part of the Talmud for every passage again a unique honor.

  27. PeterAV August 17, 2010 / 4:32 pm

    Thy word is very pure, therefore thy servant loveth it.
    If not the AV, where is this pure word?
    Looks like faith is waining [sp] big time.
    A whole host of Church attending, Bible agnostics.
    Steve is a great example. He runs hard to the commentators instead of God’s word for the final say.
    Is there even one person on this site that believes the word of God is pure as it testifies?
    No longer is there absolute truth for many of you folk.
    It all hinges upon your own private, selfish, opinions.
    Evites all the way, choosing arbitrarily against the very words of God. For shame.
    Every word of God is pure:

    very few believe this verse any more because they went to Greek class and they got indoctrinated with “this is how to bash the Pure AV Bible”
    And all these new kids that come out of School teach the same junk to the churches.
    Putting the Professor as the priest.

    • Erik DiVietro August 17, 2010 / 7:36 pm


      I am not sure what to make of your comment. Why would the KJV have to be the ‘pure word’ based on this passage, which incidentally was written about 2500 years before the advent of English as we know it?

      Questioning this position has nothing to do with biblical agnosticism, commentators, selfishness or indoctrination. It has to do with simple historical fact. English cannot be the “pure word” unless you ignore the previous 1,500 years of church history and the 1,000 years of Hebrew Scriptures being written before that.

      You simply cannot claim the KJV as the ‘pure word’ and then reverse engineer a history that makes it so. You cannot make dramatic declarations with no verification or validation and expect everyone to accept your position as fact because it is YOUR position.

    • JasonS August 17, 2010 / 9:19 pm

      “You simply cannot claim the KJV as the ‘pure word’ and then reverse engineer a history that makes it so. You cannot make dramatic declarations with no verification or validation and expect everyone to accept your position as fact because it is YOUR position.”

      You can’t?????????????
      Lots of folks will be shocked to hear that 🙂

    • Erik DiVietro August 17, 2010 / 10:22 pm

      I know, Jason. A staggering piece of revelation and completely counter-culture. Just call me the Ralph Nader of fundamentalism.

  28. PeterAV August 20, 2010 / 11:46 am

    Where is the pure word of God?
    Please put a name to it.
    This will settle the whole issue.

    • Erik DiVietro August 20, 2010 / 12:36 pm

      You’re offering an invalid premise for me to answer. Let me try to explain why:

      1. The verse you quoted above (Ps 119:140) is about the spoken word, not the written word. The Hebrew word אמרה is not a written word at all. A written word, if anything, would be דבר. So, this verse does not apply to the written word but to whatever God commands – which as we all know is more than just the written word.

      2. Even if it did apply to the written word as a subset, it was written sometime in the Early Monarchy of Israel, around 1000BC. That means it was written before most of what we call the Bible existed. I know you could make an argument that it existed in the mind of God and is eternal, etc. But that’s an extrapolation. There’s no way that David sat down and sang intending it to mean, “God, your word we don’t even know yet it pure and will be preserved in a language no one speaks yet (Greek).”

      You are reverse engineering the belief in the KJV back into the Hebrew Scriptures, and that is an abuse of the Hebrew Scriptures. It is morpholiteralism (to coin a word) and myopegesis. You are changing the meaning of the text by the way you choose to read it.

      If you want to know where the Word of God is – it is present in the rich and beautiful variety of the ancient manuscripts. It is present in those living, vibrant communities of faith that preserved it and copied it and even (GASP) contributed their thoughts to it.

      The Word of God is so wondrously, miraculously amazing that it does not need to be contained in your human construct of ‘pure’ anymore than the Spirit can be contained within our understanding of any of the things he gives to us.

  29. PeterAV August 20, 2010 / 11:56 am

    Jason tries yet again to make man’s word above God’s.
    “You simply cannot claim the KJV as the ‘pure word’ and then reverse engineer a history that makes it so. [‘quote]
    Nice try there Jason, Just because all the other Bibles have huge glaring errors on every page; and you fight against the olny Bible that has no error, Thy word is very pure.
    Where is that pure word of God, Jason?
    Answer that one and the whole issue will be resolved.

    • Erik DiVietro August 20, 2010 / 12:37 pm

      Actually, I was the one who wrote that statement. And I’ve answered you above.

    • brainout August 20, 2010 / 7:13 pm

      You just answered your own question, PeterAV, by means of your own typo. Quoting you: “against the olny Bible” — you mistyped ONLY. Now, because I can read ENGLISH, that mistake is no problem. Because I can read the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, similar errors are no problem.

      You KJVO are crazy, IMPOSING ON GOD what should be called ‘pure’. I am pure IN CHRIST, not in myself. So the PURE WORD — not per Psalm 12:7, but per Jer 31:31-34, Bk Hebrews and per 1Cor13 IN GREEK — so the PURE WORD is in imperfect copies (like the TR) made by imperfect people and imperfectly translated (like the KJV), but is still GOD’s WORD, in aggregate. 44 writers, not 1; 1500 years, not one; 66 books, not 1. This makes the original-language texts, books, translations all AUDITABLE, silly. Your KJV is thus proven just another translation, often very good, and sometimes quite bad. No problem: we can AUDIT it, with the thousands of other TEXTS God Preserved.

    • JasonS August 20, 2010 / 7:28 pm

      We appreciate your interaction here, but we need to ask you to not call names. To call someone “silly” is not something that we wish to have occur.
      Let’s try to keep the dialogue on a level of intelligent discussion.

  30. PeterAV August 20, 2010 / 1:22 pm

    That’s right, run to the Greek and Hebrew.
    That way you can play one against the other.
    No absolutes.
    All become opinion.
    Evite factories made every day.
    Is the written word inaccurate?
    Care to prove it? [AV PCE]
    I find much of what God SAID was also Written.
    Is there any authority that can be seen, heard, read, felt, or handled?
    You have sidestepped the question because of an appeared loophole.
    Good grief.
    I also asked Erik a separate question with no verse as the premise.Look above. be honest and answer that question then.
    Where is the pure word of God?
    Please put a name to it.
    This will settle the whole issue.

    • Erik DiVietro August 20, 2010 / 1:42 pm

      Any answer to an invalid question is, by default, invalid. It is not sidestepping. It is elementary logic. I’ve shown that the question is invalid, hence I cannot answer it without producing an invalid answer.

      To answer your invalid question, as you so resolutely insist we must, creates a logic loop in your closed set of reasoning. Any answer – and it does not matter what answer is given – can be manipulated within the closed set because you have created the parameters.

      But I say the parameters are invalid. You are demanding that we only answer within your closed set. But since the parameters are invalid, the closed set does not exist.

      The question is invalid.

  31. PeterAV August 20, 2010 / 2:32 pm

    Nice try there EriK.
    Is the Bible the word of God?

    • Erik DiVietro August 20, 2010 / 2:57 pm

      Peter. I am going to ask you to either contribute to the conversation or stop posting. All you’re doing is repeating the same invalid question over and over.

      We’re all for hearing opposing points of view, but you are not offering one. You cannot provide a reason why I SHOULD answer your invalid question.
      You’re not even answering my reasoning and logic. You are simply posting the same thing time and again.

  32. PeterAV August 20, 2010 / 4:15 pm

    No answer = no Bible Just as I thought.
    ashamed of your Bible, eh?

    • Erik DiVietro August 23, 2010 / 6:11 am

      Peter, no one is ashamed of the Word of the God here. Your attitude, however, is both combative and abrasive. You are welcome to contribute to the conversation here, but conversation is a two-way street. When all you do is repeat the same thing over and over again, that is not conversation.

      Let me put it this way. I taught English and speech in a Christian high school. If a student had attempted to argue a point in a debate the way you are trying to argue, they would have failed the project.

      You cannot make your point by trying to force others to make a statement so you can yell, “See, I told you so!” That is faulty logic and to be honest, a poor testimony.

      If you have presented your position, repeating your questions or making wild accusations will not strengthen it.

      So, I will repeat my request to either contribute to the conversation or stop posting. I will not however repeat it again.

  33. JasonS August 20, 2010 / 5:32 pm

    Bye-bye, Peter.

  34. brainout August 20, 2010 / 7:40 pm

    Thanks for this great post, JasonS. Gets to the heart of the question, that KJVO impose on God what ought to be called ‘pure’, despite millennia of testimony IN Bible what IS ‘pure’. KJVO instead impose on God the same definition of ‘pure’ that Muslims use for the Koran. 🙂

    Re Psalm 12:7, at least five Youtubers (one of them not Christian, but Jewish) and I did extensive videos showing how Psalm 12:7’s titsrennu cannot reference ‘words’ in verse 6, due to the Hebrew grammar rule that gender and person match.

    The KJVO guy we debated kept on trying to cite Gesenius Section 58, proving the KJVO guy didn’t even know what ‘declension’ means.

    Gesenius, of course, didn’t except Psalm 12:7’s ‘nu’ as poetic, so it means ‘us’, not ‘them’.

    So why ‘them’ in translation, including sometimes in BibleWorks morphology? Well, English grammar rules dictate the same object. So often the ‘nu’ in Hebrew is translated ‘them’, to conform to the ENGLISH rules on pronouns. Similarly, English past tense is used versus the Greek present (most Bible prefaces note this translated-tense difference).

    In short, for Psalm 12:7, the translators often decide good English demands two ‘them’ references. So: the first ‘them’ referenced, tishmarEM means people. David’s Hebrew says titsrennu — ‘shepard us’ — to apply also to his current generation. But in English, two ‘them’ pronouns are more correct, in English grammar. Pity the grammar rules differ, since the current-generation application David made, thus gets lost.

    Thanks again!

  35. PeterAV August 22, 2010 / 9:02 pm

    That’s right! As if they are going to put the weaker rendering into the text. The text is fine and you all know it.

    • brainout August 23, 2010 / 3:48 am

      The weaker rendering of Psalm 12:7, is the KJVO interpretation of it. The KJV translation itself, is fuzzy, but no more so than any other translation out there. The second ‘them’ is good English, but bad exegesis, for the actual Hebrew for titsrennu should have been rendered ‘us’. David’s making application to the PEOPLE in his own generation, parallelling them with the PROMISE to the PEOPLE of the past, in verses 1-2. It’s a chiasmus. Verses 6 and 5, by contrast, are a parenthetical promise of MESSIAH’S COMING, with verse 6 functioning as an affirmation to the WORDS in verse 5, which is the promise itself.

      So you KJVO who insist on claiming 12:7 references ‘words’ of the whole Scripture, cut out MESSIAH and GOD’S VERY PROMISE to PEOPLE, in your screwed-up interpretation.

      So you again trash the KJV, even as you trash it by claiming the LXX is an invention of Origen, since the NT quotes the LXX between 1000+ times, which anyone who can read the Greek, can easily prove in five minutes.

    • Erik DiVietro August 23, 2010 / 6:06 am


      As Jason already noted, we appreciate your input, however, we do try to keep the discussions here respectful. You can disagree with someone’s opinion without calling it ‘screwed-up’ or telling them to ‘trash’ the KJV.

      The moderators (Jason and I are two of five) have laid out specific rules for discussions on the site, and we have asked that participants on either side of discussions abide by them.

      Please moderate your language. We understand the passion you have, but we ask for your compliance.

  36. brainout August 23, 2010 / 6:36 am

    To Mr. DiVietro,

    I apologize for saying the KJVO interpretation was ‘screwed-up’ on Psalm 12:7. I should have said ‘wrong’. For it is grammatically wrong, I can’t pretend otherwise.

    But on the ‘trash’ claim, my actual text was (quoting): ‘So you again trash the KJV, even as you trash it by claiming the LXX is an invention of Origen, since the NT quotes the LXX between 1000+ times, which anyone who can read the Greek, can easily prove in five minutes.’

    In short, the KJVO trash the KJV by claiming verses in it quoting from the LXX, are bogus. I don’t know how to better word that statement. What should I do?

    Thank you again!

    • Erik DiVietro August 23, 2010 / 9:03 am

      Thank you for being flexible. We find that respectful language does more than win arguments. It develops mutual respect, even among those who disagree. You will notice that I have requested the same of PeterAV, and on other threads, of other commenters.

      To be honest, I’m actually not entirely sure what you meant by your statement, so I cannot really tell you a better way to word it; but all we hope for is that going forward everyone will continue to show respect even in disagreement.

  37. PeterAV April 12, 2012 / 1:02 pm

    I cannot for the life of me see how a truth seeking Christian can spend his whole life fighting against the very words of God and sit in judgment against it.
    All of you are corrupt and perverts.
    Not one person will answer the easy question; Where is the pure Holy Bible?
    The one that I can put in my hands and open up and read.
    Instead, just parlor tricks and slop from men.
    Then you wonder why some KJBO may tend to think you as actually unsaved. The fruit buddies, the fruit.
    You are against me because you are against the pure word of God.

Comments are closed.