Opus 2026-031: KJO or MAD, part 2 of 3

Consistency and logic are not strong points with either the KJO or MAD positions.  A good example is the teaching that the KJV is really the KJB and it has never changed since before it was translated.

The “B” is significant in KJB.  I did not realize this until I had read about six of the books sent to me by my MAD friend.  When a MAD writer or speaker speaks of the “Bible” he is talking about the original King James of 1611.  No other translation need apply.  Everything else is a document assembled by Satan to water down the truth handed down from 1611.  Once I realized this I went back and scanned some of what I had read and realized that where I thought I had agreed I often did not because they used the words we all use but with their own special definition.

An example of their lack of logic is their reference to the 1611 King James.  The problem is that the 1611 version was corrected at least four times.  When you arrive in 1769 both Cambridge and Oxford had their editions.  This is all well documented.  I understand there are even lists you can get that itemize the corrections.  Somehow in their jargon and reasoning none of these are revisions.  They sometimes claim they were just spelling and punctuation errors.  My problem with that explanation is it means that God does not know how to spell.

They believe they have a Bible verse that establishes this.  The specific verse is,

Psalms 12:7 (KJV) Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

To understand why I have trouble with what they say let me give you the context of the preceding two verses and then do a little grammar work.

(Psa 12:5 KJV)  For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.
(Psa 12:6 KJV)  The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
(Psa 12:7 KJV)  Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

The KJO people say that the “them” being kept and preserved are the “words” of verse 6.  In English that might work but not in the Hebrew.  Hebrew verbs have gender.  If you look at this passage you see the verbs in verse 7, “keep” and “preserve”, do not match up with the noun, “words” in verse 6 but do match up to the nouns in verse 5, “poor” and “needy”.  One other thing to consider is that the verse divisions were added later and were not in the original.  I could be totally wrong.  If you are a better Hebrew scholar than I am then I will stand corrected, but what this says to me is the it is the poor and needy God is promsing to keep.  This is not a promise to preserve the word and if it would the preservation would not have been in 1611 English.

To be concluded...

homo unius libri