Psalm 119:140 Thy word is very pure.

[FSSL]

Hi,

Your question is irrelevant to my question, which is simply about your declarations about what is a "very pure" Bible.

If you don't want to say how many corruptions could make a version impure, simply say so.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

So, let me understand...
...you quote Psalm 119:140
...The OP of this thread is an exegetical breakdown of the phrase, "very pure," in Psalm 119:140
...now you say my question is irrelevant

I already answered your rabbit trail question. My view of Scripture matches that of the KJV translators. They viewed the "very meanest translations (including the LXX which is very different from the KJV) as the word of God. They did not equivocate on the language or try to undermine the word of God by counting variants. They had a high regard for a translation they thought was deficient. Why? Because it is the word of God which "seemed good to the Holy Ghost."

If you are going to use Psalm 119:140, give us an exegetical basis for your use. It is not good to misuse Scriptures for one's own purposes.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

 
I already answered your rabbit trail question.

No, your answer carefully avoided saying whether a specific edition or number of corruptions could possibly be less than "very pure". 

Again, how about 10,000 corruptions?
How about 25,000?

The question here is your usage of "very pure". 

we have the LXX, Hexapla, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and tens of thousands of mss of both Greek and Hebrew. All of them... the "very pure word of God."

Nobody forced you to use the phrase, so I would like you to be more helpful.

Is there any possible Bible edition, with any number of corruptions, that could ever not be "very pure"?  If it is impossible, say so. If it is possible, please give an example.

(Ironically, this is related to Popper falsifiability.  All manuscripts and editions of "the Bible" are "very pure", by definition. Thus, in that textual economy, it would be impossible to ever demonstrate that a manuscript or edition is not "very pure".)

Or, if you want to retract your claim above, that would be fine too.  Just asking you for some logic and consistency.

Thanks.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[rsc2a]

I'll answer your question. Scripture is pure, regardless of the words chosen, so long as the words chosen accurately reflect the meaning of the original message.

 

[Torrent v.3]

I'll answer your question. Scripture is pure, regardless of the words chosen, so long as the words chosen accurately reflect the meaning of the original message.

Oh, now you're baiting him.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

I am not interested in maligning the nature of any word of God.

That is fine.  However you went way beyond that.

You call as "very pure" the addition of full sections, the tampering of man, in the LXX or Codex Bezae. 

I can understand that, from such an illogical position, you do not want to tell us what "very pure" means to you, and you do not want to give any example of a corruption that is not "very pure".

What you show is that the words actually mean nothing, since in your position 10,000 corruptions, and the adding or omitting of whole sections (or five books in the Peshitta) can still be "very pure".

There is quite an irony that you claim a lack of definition of "pure" and then your own claims are simply illogical.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery 

 

[prophet]

I haven't claimed any doctrine here.

Oh really.

I do believe that the AV was the final completion of the process of putting the Bible into an acceptable English translation.

That is a doctrinal claim: specifically, a teleological one, claiming that the English Bible had an end purpose that it was striving toward, and that end goal was the AV.

If you were not claiming a certain doctrine, you could not say that. The AV would not be the "final completion" of anything; at best, it would simply be one step in the ongoing history of Bible translation.

Believing that the effect that the Common English Bible has had ,on the lost, in the last 400 years, speaks for itself is not equal to claiming some doctrine.

What last 400 years? There actually is a Bible titled the "Common English Version," and it is all of 2 years old.  Obviously you mean the Authorized Version, so kindly just call it the Authorized Version. Clarity is not helped by the KJV-onlyist tendency to multiply superlative titles for their Bible of choice.

The claim was an observational one  on my part, not a doctrinal statement. 
  'The Common English Bible' is what the AV was called here in the U.S. until the MVs showed up.  And you ducked the point I made, to nit pick at the usage of a once popular term.
  The effect of the AV on the lost, over the last 400 years, speaks louder than his critics can. 
 

Anishinabe

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Steven Avery]What you show is that the words actually mean nothing, since in your position 10,000 corruptions, and the adding or omitting of whole sections (or five books in the Peshitta) can still be "very pure".[/quote]

Interesting...


...I didn't know you favored keeping the Apocrypha in the canon...

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=prophet]  'The Common English Bible' is what the AV was called here in the U.S. until the MVs showed up.  And you ducked the point I made, to nit pick at the usage of a once popular term.
  The effect of the AV on the lost, over the last 400 years, speaks louder than his critics can.  [/quote]

Really...you should scrap your KJV and just pick up a Vulgate.

 

[FSSL]

You call as "very pure" the addition of full sections, the tampering of man, in the LXX or Codex Bezae.

You have misused Psalm 119:140.
You are unable/unwilling to biblically define the meaning and usage of the phrase "very pure" in Psalm 119:140.
You call the position of the KJV translators illogical...
...and you have the gall to turn this back on me as ironic and illogical?

If you are looking for irony, do some self-examination.

Instead of chasing down your percentages and numbers, tell us how that has anything to do with Psalm 119:140.

Definition of Irony: Claiming that the KJV is the exclusive pure word of God while misusing it.

Definition of Illogical: Suggesting that the KJV is the exclusive pure word of God while denying the KJV translators' words about what is called "the word of God."

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

 
You have misused Psalm 119:140.

You call as "very pure" the addition of full sections, the tampering of man, in the LXX or Codex Bezae.

With your recent declarations, my only interest in this thread is if you will try to be logical and consistent in your "very pure" quote above.

we have the LXX, Hexapla, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and tens of thousands of mss of both Greek and Hebrew. All of them... the "very pure word of God."

If you can not do that, I see no basis for discussion, since you are standing language and logic on its head.

So, can you point to any texts, any numbers of corruptions, that are not a "very pure" Bible?

If not, you clearly have disqualified yourself from iron sharpeneth dialog on the question off the pure Bible. So far, for you, any text that is remotely a Bible, no matter how corrupt, is a very pure Bible. 

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[prophet]

[quote author=prophet]  'The Common English Bible' is what the AV was called here in the U.S. until the MVs showed up.  And you ducked the point I made, to nit pick at the usage of a once popular term.
  The effect of the AV on the lost, over the last 400 years, speaks louder than his critics can. 

Really...you should scrap your KJV and just pick up a Vulgate.
[/quote]The effect of the Vulgate on the world is so obvious, it's been given a name :  The Dark Ages.

Anishinabe

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=prophet]  'The Common English Bible' is what the AV was called here in the U.S. until the MVs showed up.  And you ducked the point I made, to nit pick at the usage of a once popular term.
  The effect of the AV on the lost, over the last 400 years, speaks louder than his critics can. 

Really...you should scrap your KJV and just pick up a Vulgate.

The effect of the Vulgate on the world is so obvious, it's been given a name :  The Dark Ages.

Anishinabe[/quote]

1 - The "Dark Ages" lasted for 1600 years and continues today?

- or -

2 - The term "Dark Ages" is a misnomer that doesn't actually reflect history at all.

***********

I'll let you choose which one you want to go with.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

If the KJV translators can call the LXX and Hexapla the word of God, so can we.

That's fine.  However, you said the LXX was the "very pure" word of God, despite the full sections, the tampering of man, added. And the many corruptions everywhere.

My question to you remains ... what Bible manuscript, edition or version is not the "very pure" word of God.

Is it possible for a corrupted edition to be "pure", yet not "very pure"?

Is it possible for a corrupted edition to not be "pure"?

==============

If you ever are responsive, here is a bonus question to help spur thinking.

Are you able to make any distinction at all on the purity levels of:

Beza 1598
NA27
Vulgate
Peshitta
Codex Bezae
Codex Sinaiticus ("many obvious blunders" - Tischendorf)

Is it at all possible that any one of these is more pure, or less corrupt, than another?

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[FSSL]

Hi,

If the KJV translators can call the LXX and Hexapla the word of God, so can we.

That's fine.  However, you said the LXX was the "very pure" word of God, despite the full sections, the tampering of man, added. And the many corruptions everywhere. My question to you remains ... what Bible manuscript, edition or version is not the "very pure" word of God.

You refuse to view the phrase "very pure" in its biblical context. Until then... your question is simply an illogical begging of the question.
The word of God is always "very pure." This is not difficult unless you are trying to foist a faulty understanding on the Bible.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

First, to FSSL, every edition and manuscript we are referencing is the "word of God".

... The word of God is always "very pure."

So you are saying that every text, no matter what the corruptness, is a "very pure" Bible text.

It is impossible for you to find any manuscript or edition that is not "very pure". ie. For you the words "very pure" actually have no meaning at all when applied to NT and OT manuscripts and editions and corruptions.

Clear enough.  And a simple enough reason to end the discussion, since logic and language are turned on their head.

For you the following are synonymous.

A Bible manuscript
A "very pure" Bible manuscript.

Makes no difference if sections are added or removed, there are "many obvious blunders" whether there are 10,000 corruptions with the abominable tampering of man throughout -- the manuscript remains a "very pure" Bible.

Our difference in perspective and word usage should now be clear, and since our constructs are completely different, there is no point in going back-and-forth more.  I say your position is illogical inconsistent, you are happy with your position, and we move on.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[FSSL]

Clear enough.  And a simple enough reason to end the discussion, since logic and language are turned on their head.

If using the phrase "very pure" in its biblical sense and usage are illogical to you, then you probably should end. The Bible has a unique way of overturning man's illogical attempts at begging the question.

The KJV translators had no issue calling the LXX / Hexapla / Vulgate and the "very meanest translations" the word of God. Why does the KJVO?

Our difference in perspective and word usage should now be clear, and since our constructs are completely different, there is no point in going back-and-forth more.  I say your position is illogical inconsistent, you are happy with your position, and we move on.

Yes. It is clear. Our difference is whether the Bible should define its own terms or not.
I agree that there is no point in going back and forth because I will not misuse Psalm 119:140. You refuse to even approach a discussion of that passage.
It is really no surprise to anyone on this forum that you consider the biblical meaning and usage as illogical and inconsistent.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

If using the phrase "very pure" in its biblical sense and usage are illogical to you,

A biblical sense is fine, and that would have logic and sense and consistency in the usage.  When "very pure" means the same a " ___ " then there is no there there.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[FSSL]

A biblical sense is fine, and that would have logic and sense and consistency in the usage.

I am not convinced you believe this. You have not interacted with Psalm 119:140 which you have been using as a postage stamp at the end of your posts.

When "very pure" means the same a " ___ " then there is no there there.

????

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

When "very pure Bible" has the exact same meaning as the same sentence without the words "very pure".

Steven

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Is there a word of God that is not very pure?

Clearly, there are texts that combine much from the word of God and also thousands of corruptions, the tampering and errors of men.  Those texts with thousands of errors and sections in or out that are not from God are clearly not "very pure". Even if, in certain contexts, they are still generically called the "word of God". 

This is really not very complicated.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery