Quote:
Originally Posted by Diligent
And the KJV translators knew Hebrew better than Gill. If you're saying the KJV is wrong here, just come out and say it. If not, then this is a simple grammar issue. What if we apply your understanding here? Psalms 119:110-111 The wicked have laid a snare for me: yet I erred not from thy precepts. Thy testimonies have I taken as an heritage for ever: for they are the rejoicing of my heart.
Ah, well then, I can safely regard this as totally disingenuous: |
Humm....
I would not make the claim that the KJV translators knew the hebrew language better than Gill. Of coarse they rendered their "version" of the text. Where they better scholars or translators....I think not.
How about the Masoretes? Would you accept their understanding of the text?
Or how about the orthodox Jew? Does any orthodox Jew consider Psalm 12:7 to relate to verse 5 and not verse 6?
I believe the answer is yes.
Ultimately you are chosing the translation of the KJV translators over other scholars. Some of these scholars are stritic orthodox Jews. The very people who God charged with the preservation of the text. Why is that?
I have found it odd that some say KJV and others KJB. I assume this is an attempt to not see the KJV as a version and avoid the obvious argument that the very acronym KJV.... is self attesting to the 1611 being a version.
I don't get what your trying to say about Psalm 119:110-111. Are you trying to say that the 119:110:111 is a verse that proves God promised a preservation of the text?
Certainly David saw the law of God or "testamonies" in the text as his heritage forever and I am certain that they will be...... because he has found eternal life in Christ and will live forever. It in no way promises a complete unchanging preservation of the text to any succeeding generations.