AV1611 Bible Forum Archive

AV1611 Bible Forum Archive (https://av1611.com/forums/index.php)
-   Bible Versions (https://av1611.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   Psalm 12:7 - the Promise of Preservation (https://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=270)

MC1171611 10-31-2008 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Tim (Post 10681)
MC, there are a dozen or more verses that reference the WORDS, while only one references the SPEAKERS. If the men were inspired as opposed to the words, then why did the foundational verse on inspiration speak of the written words ("script"ure) and not the speakers?

Do you also apply inspiration to the translators of the KJB?

I'll post a new topic eventually; I would usually delve into the topic regardless, but this one is stickied and therefore I believe we should stick to preservation here. :)

llthomasjr 01-09-2009 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diligent (Post 4947)
Regarding Psalms 12:6,7
Psalms 12:6-7 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.
FSSL claims that the words "Thou shalt keep them" refer to the poor in verse five:
Psalms 12:5 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.

FSSL's claim is clearly incorrect simply from the grammar of the passage, but more obvious is that the "poor" of David's time were not preserved for ever.

FSSL later claims the word "from" would have to mean that the words began in David's generation. That is as incorrect as assuming that "the poor" began in that generation to the exclusion of all prior generations.

The book Thou Shalt Keep Them (ISBN 0974381705, chapter 1) offers a thorough examination of the Hebrew text proving that the modern versions that translate this passage so as to remove the promise of preservation are simply wrong. Those who have an interest in such things should read that book.

If we are to accept the incorrect reading of verse seven to make it refer to the poor instead of God's words, we must do the same in Psalm 119:110,111:
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.
If we accept FSSL's rules of grammar in this case, we must assume David was rejoicing at the wicked, instead of God's testimonies. (Note that this verse also teaches the preservation of God's word in that they are an heritage "for ever." Just as Psalm 12:7 says they will be preserved "for ever." A little "Scripture with Scripture" by the simplest of KJV believers will yield mountains more understanding than all the scholarly works of unbelieving "original language" scholars.)

The meaning of Psalm 12 is perfectly plain. The chapter is a contrast between David's love of God's words and the vanity of men's words. Incorrectly reading verse 7 to refer to a promise to preserve the poor forever ruins the praise of God's promises David is offering. It also leaves us with the strange, untenable position that God is promising the preservation of the poor in perpetuity -- a tenet not to be found elsewhere in Scripture. (And I looked -- among all of the commentaries I have that agree with FSSL's position, none of them offer a cross-reference teaching a similar tenet.) It also contradicts the very first verse, where David states that "for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men." If we are to accept the reading FSSL offers, we must conclude that the "godly man" and "faithful" can not also be "poor" and that, oddly, the poor are therefore ungodly, faithless, and will be preserved forever.

1. Diligent....

John Gill was one of the most seasoned hebrew expert of his day. He wrote extensively about the hebrew language. He wrote about Psalms 12:7

Quote:

thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever; or "thou shalt preserve him" (p); that is, everyone of the poor and needy, from the wicked generation of men in which they live, from being corrupted or intimidated by them; and who are described in the beginning of the psalm. Some take these words to be a prayer, "keep thou them, O Lord, and preserve them", &c. (q); and so the following words may be thought to be a reason or argument enforcing the request.

(p) תצרנו "custodies eum", Pagninus, Montanus, Gejerus, Michaelis; so Ainsworth. (q) "Custodi eum", Tigurine version, Vatablus, "custodito eorum quemque", Junius & Tremellius, Piscator.
He say that the text says "him" and not "them". He give the reasoning of such when be speaks of "custodies eum"

Are you saying that John Gill is wrong.

2. Did not our Lord say.

Quote:

Joh 12:8 For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.
How can you say that our Lord is wrong and that the poor are not preserved?

I am interested to read your responses.

Sincerely
Lewis

Diligent 01-09-2009 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by llthomasjr (Post 14209)
He say that the text says "him" and not "them". He give the reasoning of such when be speaks of "custodies eum"

Are you saying that John Gill is wrong.

Yes. He's wrong, for the reasons I already explained. My final authority is not John Gill, so this doesn't bother me much.

I suppose I could retort "are you saying John Wesley was wrong" since he agrees with my reading of the passage. But John Wesley is not my final authority either.

Quote:

How can you say that our Lord is wrong and that the poor are not preserved?
Did the Lord say the poor would be preserved forever? No, there is no conflict with what I said and what the Lord said. There is no problem here because those to whom the Lord was speaking always had poor people around them. That doesn't mean the Lord preserved all of them. Can you tell me where the poor of Jesus' time are now? I'm pretty sure none of them were preserved. The poor couldn't usually afford good mummification services.

llthomasjr 01-09-2009 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diligent (Post 14216)
Yes. He's wrong, for the reasons I already explained. My final authority is not John Gill, so this doesn't bother me much.

I suppose I could retort "are you saying John Wesley was wrong" since he agrees with my reading of the passage. But John Wesley is not my final authority either.

Did the Lord say the poor would be preserved forever? No, there is no conflict with what I said and what the Lord said. There is no problem here because those to whom the Lord was speaking always had poor people around them. That doesn't mean the Lord preserved all of them. Can you tell me where the poor of Jesus' time are now? I'm pretty sure none of them were preserved. The poor couldn't usually afford good mummification services.

1. John Gill is not my final authority as well, but I would say he knows the hebrew language better than you or I both. That is what I meant by you consider him to be wrong.

It doesn't matter how elborate a senerio you put forth to explain that verse 7 is not speaking of verse 5.... if them... is in fact.... him.... in the verse.....your scenerio means nothing.

2. Do you mean to tell me that Jesus was only speaking about the poor that lived during his advant on this earth when He said.

Mat 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

????

If you do not... then why can we not consider that Jesus was also talking about the poor of all generations upon the earth when He said

Joh 12:8 For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.

I am trying to understand your logic but I'm not getting it.

George 01-09-2009 05:41 PM

Re: "Psalm 12:7 - the Promise of Preservation"
 
Lewis (llthomasjr):

Quote:

"1. Diligent....

John Gill was one of the most seasoned hebrew expert of his day. He wrote extensively about the hebrew language. He wrote about Psalms 12:7


thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever; or "thou shalt preserve him" (p); that is, everyone of the poor and needy, from the wicked generation of men in which they live, from being corrupted or intimidated by them; and who are described in the beginning of the psalm. Some take these words to be a prayer, "keep thou them, O Lord, and preserve them", &c. (q); and so the following words may be thought to be a reason or argument enforcing the request.

(p) תצרנו "custodies eum", Pagninus, Montanus, Gejerus, Michaelis; so Ainsworth. (q) "Custodi eum", Tigurine version, Vatablus, "custodito eorum quemque", Junius & Tremellius, Piscator.


He say that the text says "him" and not "them". He give the reasoning of such when be speaks of "custodies eum"

Are you saying that John Gill is wrong.

2. Did not our Lord say.


John 12:8 For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.

How can you say that our Lord is wrong and that the poor are not preserved?

I am interested to read your responses.

Sincerely
Lewis
"
You are neither truly "sincere" nor are you genuinely "interested" in Diligent's response! You are simply one more "Christian" Sophist that is looking for an argument and showing off your supposed "knowledge" about an issue. If you were a "seasoned" sophist you would know better than to spell the word Hebrew - ("hebrew"), since even the most "unseasoned" NOVICE knows that you always CAPITALIZE the word Hebrew!

For your information: John Gill (or any of the other numerous Reformers) is not a genuine Bible believer's "FINAL AUTHORITY"! He certainly is NOT my "final authority"!:( John Gill may be your "final authority" (which is your privilege and prerogative), but when you twist someone else's words to say something that they DID NOT SAY - you reveal just exactly the kind of person you are (A GENUINE SOPHIST!)

I have known Diligent for over 15 years and he would NEVER, I REPEAT, NEVER say what you have twisted and wrested his words to say! :eek:

Lewis' Quote:
Quote:

"How can you say that our Lord is wrong and that the poor are not preserved?"
I can suffer a lot of different people, but a word twisting "Christian" who is a Sophist and a liar, is someone I cannot bear!

If you cannot produce the exact "quote" (i.e. the very words) that you say (claim) Diligent has said - I would suggest that you go back to whatever hole (Forum) you crawled out of and return as quickly as you can. Because "Christian" Sophists don't do very well here.

I have been aware of your argument (John Gill's & many other "seasoned" Hebrew "experts") about Psalms 12:6 & 7 since 1969 (some of us weren't "born yesterday"). I rejected his position then, as I still do today!

John Gill was wrong then, and all who have followed him since then are wrong! Believe what you want - it's a "free country" (for a little while longer), but don't try to "bulldoze" your way onto this Forum with lies (misquotes) and misrepresentations of what other people have said, and expect to get a warm Christian welcome or the right hand of fellowship, because I for one cannot abide someone who is so dishonest as to misrepresent and misquote a fellow Christian! :mad:

Diligent 01-09-2009 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by llthomasjr (Post 14218)
1. John Gill is not my final authority as well, but I would say he knows the hebrew language better than you or I both. That is what I meant by you consider him to be wrong.

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.
Quote:

It doesn't matter how elborate a senerio you put forth to explain that verse 7 is not speaking of verse 5.
Ah, well then, I can safely regard this as totally disingenuous:

Quote:

I am trying to understand your logic

llthomasjr 01-09-2009 06:05 PM

I didn't mis quote him. I quoted what Jesus said. That is all I quoted. There is no need to get so upset.

The KJV says the "poor" in verse 5. Diligent said this can not be the object of reference for verse 7. One of the arguments he presented was that of the poor not being preserved.

Here is the exact quote.

Quote:

The meaning of Psalm 12 is perfectly plain. The chapter is a contrast between David's love of God's words and the vanity of men's words. Incorrectly reading verse 7 to refer to a promise to preserve the poor forever ruins the praise of God's promises David is offering. It also leaves us with the strange, untenable position that God is promising the preservation of the poor in perpetuity -- a tenet not to be found elsewhere in Scripture.
Yes that tenant is to be found elsewhere in the scriptures.

I did not misrepresent anything.

Sorry I didn't captilize Hebrew. Certainly you can't consider me a novice because I wrote such. I never have read where a novice was defined by his punctuation skills.

llthomasjr 01-09-2009 06:16 PM

One of my posts got lost in posting...

I'll try to remember what I said :)

1.. Diligent....

It doesn't matter what explanation of the verse you gave if..... the word is "him" and not "them" as mentioned. That is what I was talking about considering Gill to be wrong.

No.... Gill is not my final authority. Certainly He knew more about hebrew than you or I.

Here is a more detailed explanation of the hebrew

Quote:

The third person plural pronominal suffix on the verb is masculine, referring back to the “oppressed” and “needy” in v. 5 (both of those nouns are plural in form), suggesting that the verb means “protect” here. The suffix does not refer to אִמֲרוֹת (’imarot, “words”) in v. 6, because that term is feminine gender.

This is from the NET translation notes.....
The jist of the issue is verse 5 and verse 6 can not meet because of the feminine gender of "words" in verse 6.


2. There are verses that talk about the preservation of the poor. For example..

Mat 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

I would call that preservation. Here the poor are talked about eternally. Why can we not consider that the poor mentioned in....

John 12:8 For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.

Is talking about more than the poor that where on the earth during Our Lords advent?

Why can we not consider verse 7 is talking about the poor throughout all generations? I know our Lord loves the poor. He commanded the rich to give to the poor. He even told John the Baptist that the poor had the gospel preached to them. Lazarus was a poor man.....

I honestly believe that the poor have been preserved through all generations just like verse 7 says. Our Lord has keep them and served them for generation to generation.

George 01-09-2009 06:42 PM

Re: "Psalm 12:7 - the Promise of Preservation"

Lewis,

You "sidestepped" the issue! {S.O.P. for all Sophists!}

You SAID:
Quote:

"How can YOU SAY that our Lord is WRONG and that the poor are not preserved?"
And I SAID:
Quote:

"produce the exact "quote" (i.e. the very words) that you say (claim) Diligent has said."
And like all Sophists - You cannot produce the quote that YOU SAID Diligent said! So you try to "wiggle out of the hole that you are in", by misdirection and changing the subject.

I'm not mad at you - just disgusted! After dealing with "Christians" like you for over 50 years, I have no more patience for dishonest and crooked people.

This will be my last Post to you - I do not wish you well. :( I learned long ago to avoid trouble makers and people who either cannot, or will not, be honest in their dealings with others.

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

llthomasjr 01-09-2009 07:14 PM

Sorry its your last post to me. I was not trying to be dishonest.

I am sorry you do not have patience for me. Patience is one of the virtues 2 Peter says would make you would never be barren or unfruitful. Paul also said..

Quote:

2Ti 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
2Ti 2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

Debau 01-09-2009 07:59 PM

Quote:

I honestly believe that the poor have been preserved through all generations just like verse 7 says. Our Lord has keep them and served them for generation to generation.
__________________
Lloyd Lewis Thomas Jr.
Popish jibberish!

John 12:8 For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.

This verse is a repudiation of the social gospel, not the "preservation"( eternal opression) of the poor. This is what Rome has confused the masses with.
This is why Rome is HAPPY with the NIV and other regurgitated renderings(wresting) of a presrved "proletariat" in Psalm 12:7. :puke:

Matthew 5. Read that again.

Matthew 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

This is a poverty of spirit, not of substance.

You need to read your KJB Bible in a similar manner to grasp these easy truths.

Isaiah 66:2 For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.

Bro. Parrish 01-10-2009 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diligent (Post 14216)
Yes. He's wrong, for the reasons I already explained. My final authority is not John Gill, so this doesn't bother me much.

I suppose I could retort "are you saying John Wesley was wrong" since he agrees with my reading of the passage. But John Wesley is not my final authority either.

Well said, amen brother.
The only thing that is "poor" on this thread is the understanding of those who have been blinded to the Truth by teachers who seem to deny the preservation of God's Word. I'm always sorry to see people who have a "poor" grasp of the most important verse in the Bible. God is most certainly preserving his Words!

The problem with suggesting the poor (or any other "class") are auto-preserved and ushered into heaven is: all poor people do not go to heaven. That is a dangerous teaching. There are plenty of evil lower income sinners who rape, pillage, steal and murder just like middle class folks and CEO's. In fact, I can show you any number of "poor folks" here in my town who will be happy to steal your car at gun point, molest your children and take all your money so they won't be "poor" any longer.

Hell is not populated only with rich folks, and being "poor" does not get you a pass to heaven. God is no respector of persons, and He will preserve ANYONE who trusts in Christ, not just the poor. (Col. 3: 25, I Thes. 5:23, 24)

Josh 01-10-2009 11:11 AM

Amen to Brothers Diligent, Parrish, and Debau!

To answer your queston very simply: Yes, we believe Gill is WRONG, as is anyone, or argument which states that anything(sentence, word, phrase, or punctuation) in the King James Bible is in error in any way whatsoever.

Diligent 01-10-2009 11:11 AM

Amen, Bro Parrish!

As I said in my original post, making the preservation promise for "the poor" contradicts the first three verses of the chapter and destroys the wonderful song David wrote. David knew God's promises and that they (the promises! esp. the promise in verse 5) would be sure for eternity!

llthomasjr 01-12-2009 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diligent (Post 14230)
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.

llthomasjr 01-12-2009 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Josh (Post 14275)
Amen to Brothers Diligent, Parrish, and Debau!

To answer your queston very simply: Yes, we believe Gill is WRONG, as is anyone, or argument which states that anything(sentence, word, phrase, or punctuation) in the King James Bible is in error in any way whatsoever.

Gill is wrong about alot of things... but you should consider his skill with the hebrew language. Gill is not the only hebrew expert that makes the case verse 7 can not be associated with verse 6.

Its a bold statement to say that any translation is one hundred percent word for word perfect... punctuation and all.....

What about all those words in italic in the KJV. Why are they in italic? and the others are not?

llthomasjr 01-12-2009 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish (Post 14271)
Well said, amen brother.
The only thing that is "poor" on this thread is the understanding of those who have been blinded to the Truth by teachers who seem to deny the preservation of God's Word. I'm always sorry to see people who have a "poor" grasp of the most important verse in the Bible. God is most certainly preserving his Words!

The problem with suggesting the poor (or any other "class") are auto-preserved and ushered into heaven is: all poor people do not go to heaven. That is a dangerous teaching. There are plenty of evil lower income sinners who rape, pillage, steal and murder just like middle class folks and CEO's. In fact, I can show you any number of "poor folks" here in my town who will be happy to steal your car at gun point, molest your children and take all your money so they won't be "poor" any longer.

Hell is not populated only with rich folks, and being "poor" does not get you a pass to heaven. God is no respector of persons, and He will preserve ANYONE who trusts in Christ, not just the poor. (Col. 3: 25, I Thes. 5:23, 24)

First.... I never said the poor where "auto-preserve"d.

They do exist throughout all generations. Don't you not think they are? This is their preservation.

Christ said....

Mar 14:7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.

God has preserved that the poor will be in all generations. Just like He has preserved the heavens, the oceans, and etc...

llthomasjr 01-12-2009 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Debau (Post 14243)
Popish jibberish!

John 12:8 For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.

This verse is a repudiation of the social gospel, not the "preservation"( eternal opression) of the poor. This is what Rome has confused the masses with.
This is why Rome is HAPPY with the NIV and other regurgitated renderings(wresting) of a presrved "proletariat" in Psalm 12:7. :puke:

Matthew 5. Read that again.

Matthew 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

This is a poverty of spirit, not of substance.

You need to read your KJB Bible in a similar manner to grasp these easy truths.

Isaiah 66:2 For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.

I never said that Matt 5:3 was talking about all the poor literally. I mentioned it to show the value of the poor. Whether it is those poor in purse as Gill says or the poor in spirit.

I noticed you ingnored the other verses I mentioned.

What about Jesus saying.

Mar 14:7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.

Bro. Parrish 01-12-2009 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by llthomasjr (Post 14372)
First.... I never said the poor where "auto-preserve"d.

They do exist throughout all generations. Don't you not think they are? This is their preservation.

I understand exactly what you are saying, you are saying the poor are automatically PRESERVED from generation to generation. In other words, God is forcing them to remain poor, He is preserving them that way. God didn't say that, you did. That is not a Biblical teaching, that is not in the Bible and as I have explained, it's a dangerous teaching for the reasons I already explained. Sorry my friend, I think the entire concept is based on confusion. Diligent already speared this fish, scaled and filleted it on the first page of this thread. But you won't be able to enjoy the "meat of the Word," until you clear those clouds in your head regarding the Word of God.

Quote:

Originally Posted by llthomasjr (Post 14372)
Christ said....

Mar 14:7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.

God has preserved that the poor will be in all generations. Just like He has preserved the heavens, the oceans, and etc...

Well, let's be clear: Christ said the first part, but you ADDED the second part. This is simply your attempt to make it say what you want it to say, so it does not say what it means. Many have been blinded to the Truth by teachers who seem determined to deny the preservation of God's Word. I'm always sorry to see this because it is almost always accompanied by confusion and comments like this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by llthomasjr (Post 14372)
Its a bold statement to say that any translation is one hundred percent word for word perfect...

And there it is, sadly revealed in the daylight.
The paint has flaked off. We now see the hollow wood of your position has crumbled, and the termites are crawling out in droves. :(

Meditate on these verses, and pray for wisdom:

"Heaven and earth shall pass away,
but my words shall not pass away." -- Matthew 24:35

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you." 1 Peter 1:23-25

Steven Avery 01-12-2009 09:31 AM

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by llthomasjr
Gill is wrong about alot of things... but you should consider his skill with the hebrew language. Gill is not the only hebrew expert that makes the case verse 7 can not be associated with verse 6.

However John Gill's case in this instance is based on one (somewhat superficial) point only,

"Not the words before mentioned, as Aben Ezra explains it, for the affix is masculine and not feminine"


I'm quite sure that John Gill was well aware that Aben Ezra was well aware of grammatical gender :) . So he should have thought a bit more deeply before being dismissive.

Overall this is a very thin reed of rejection and Thomas Strouse and John Hinton have gone into probably the most depth on the grammatical issues, giving multiple reasons, grammatical and contextual, why the gender is masculine and not controlling the translation into the poor rather than the words. And, significantly, giving analagous verse examples, even involving the words of God. Have you read carefully their analyses ? Do you have cogent responses for their and our consideration ?

The fact that John Gill gave a superficial analysis on this verse does not negate his overall expertise. Gill is to be respected and considered in exegesis and he is generally miles above the modernists in his understanding of the word of God, including the Biblical languages and grammar.

However in this case .. he simply erred.

And you can see by simply reading his section that he did not really tangle with the issues.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

George 01-12-2009 10:03 AM

Re: " Psalm 12:7 - the Promise of Preservation
 
llthomasjr,

You stated:
Quote:

"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."
Do you know the number of translators on the AV 1611 translating committee? Do you know their names? Do you have any idea of their training or abilities in languages? - "....I think not." {You said it - not me!}

Why do you judge a matter (and the men on the AV 1611 translating committee), when you obviously don't know very much about them? Hmmm? [Proverbs 18:13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.]

Quote:

"Gill is wrong about alot of things... but you should consider his skill with the hebrew language. Gill is not the only hebrew expert that makes the case verse 7 can not be associated with verse 6."
So - you "cherry-pick" what you will accept from your "final authority" (John Gill) and decide for yourself what you will accept from him as being true and "reject" the rest?

You see - we have a FINAL AUTHORITY {the King James Bible} which we rely on and do not "cherry-pick" only those things that we agree with or understand. Our Bible is our 'FINAL AUTHORITY" in ALL matters of faith and practice!

The question arises in my mind: Why are you here - on a "AV1611 Bible Forum"? If you don't accept what we believe - fine. If you "think" that we don't know what we are talking about - fine. But if you "think" that your sophomoric arguments are going to dissuade a genuine Bible believer from his faith in the King James Bible - you've got another "thought" coming!

Believe what you will. Accept John Gill, Hebrew scholars, or anyone else as your "final authority" (with "reservations" - of course! Since your real "final authority" is really and truly your own "opinions"). But you are going to have to do a whole lot better than you have demonstrated so far on this Forum before anyone is even going to take you seriously.

I always marvel at those people who come to this Forum bent on trying to talk others out of their faith in God's Holy word! Why does it bother you so much that we take God at His word? If we are "wrong" - God will straighten us out {for honoring and glorifying His words}! But if you are "wrong" - you will have spent a portion of your life trying to talk Christians out of their faith in God's word. What do you think that God will SAY about that? Hmmm? :confused:

It is obvious to me that you (like many others before you) have come to this Forum - NOT to edify or be edified, but to argue and debate. I would suggest that there are many other Forums out there where you will feel "right at home" amongst many of your kind. Most of the members of this Forum are genuine Bible believers, and as such, when it comes to the issue of the AUTHORITY of the King James Bible we have very little in common with Bible "skeptics". :eek:

2 Timothy 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

llthomasjr 01-12-2009 10:16 AM

Quote:

Bro. Parrish;14374]I understand exactly what you are saying, you are saying the poor are automatically PRESERVED from generation to generation. In other words, God is forcing them to remain poor, He is preserving them that way. God didn't say that, you did. That is not a Biblical teaching, that is not in the Bible and as I have explained, it's a dangerous teaching for the reasons I already explained. Sorry my friend, I think the entire concept is based on confusion. Diligent already speared this fish, scaled and filleted it on the first page of this thread. But you won't be able to enjoy the "meat of the Word," until you clear those clouds in your head regarding the Word of God.
I don't eat anything people call the "Word of Goid" unless it is in fact such. You have attested it is from Diligent. So I weighed it and found it wanting.

Quote:

Well, let's be clear: Christ said the first part, but you ADDED the second part. This is simply your attempt to make it say what you want it to say, so it does not say what it means. Many have been blinded to the Truth by teachers who seem determined to deny the preservation of God's Word. I'm always sorry to see this because it is almost always accompanied by confusion and comments like this:
Confusing? Sometimes the truth confuses people. Doesn't it?


Quote:

And there it is, sadly revealed in the daylight.
The paint has flaked off. We now see the hollow wood of your position has crumbled, and the termites are crawling out in droves. :(

Meditate on these verses, and pray for wisdom:

"Heaven and earth shall pass away,
but my words shall not pass away." -- Matthew 24:35

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you." 1 Peter 1:23-25
I believe the Word of God endureth forever. Every Word of God is true and lives forever. That does not mean that it lives in the pages of some complete book called the KJV. I've never read that in the bible anywhere.

llthomasjr 01-12-2009 10:37 AM

Hi Steve. I don't know if you remember me or not but we meet at Bible.org several months or years ago. Its been so long... I can't remember. Thank you for replying and not simply one to start calling names.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Avery (Post 14375)
[COLOR="Navy"]Hi Folks,

However John Gill's case in this instance is based on one (somewhat superficial) point only,

"Not the words before mentioned, as Aben Ezra explains it, for the affix is masculine and not feminine"


I'm quite sure that John Gill was well aware that Aben Ezra was well aware of grammatical gender :) . So he should have thought a bit more deeply before being dismissive.

Overall this is a very thin reed of rejection and Thomas Strouse and John Hinton have gone into probably the most depth on the grammatical issues, giving multiple reasons, grammatical and contextual, why the gender is masculine and not controlling the translation into the poor rather than the words. And, significantly, giving analagous verse examples, even involving the words of God. Have you read carefully their analyses ? Do you have cogent responses for their and our consideration ?

I don't think Gill was superficially nothing. I disagree strong on many many things Gill wrote but he was never superficial. I don't think you can take a small note in his commentary to mean that he didn't consider Aben Ezra lacking in Hebrew grammar skills. You can be certain his comments was one of great thought. I have never read Hinton or Strouse. If you will supply the links, I'll read through them. Yet, it does not dismiss to the work of others that have done the opposing work to show.....

Quote:

tn The third person plural pronominal suffix on the verb is masculine, referring back to the “oppressed” and “needy” in v. 5 (both of those nouns are plural in form), suggesting that the verb means “protect” here. The suffix does not refer to אִמֲרוֹת (’imarot, “words”) in v. 6, because that term is feminine gender.
.NET Bible

This is witnessed by many scholars and we can review anyone you like. It should be noted that the greek texts of Psalm 12 attest to verse 7 is in reference to verse 5.

Quote:

The fact that John Gill gave a superficial analysis on this verse does not negate his overall expertise. Gill is to be respected and considered in exegesis and he is generally miles above the modernists in his understanding of the word of God, including the Biblical languages and grammar.

However in this case .. he simply erred.

And you can see by simply reading his section that he did not really tangle with the issues.
I disagree. I think Gill is as qualified as any scholar to attest to the use of the Hebrew text. In the end.... you simply have one scholar against another. You can say that one had his agenda and I can say the other does as well.

The issue is that you will not agree that Gill's comments are a possibility... because.... if they are then you lose what hold you have on what you consider preservation.

Steve....

Will you admit that it is possible that the scripture in verse 7 is talking about the poor?

Josh 01-12-2009 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by llthomasjr (Post 14377)
Confusing? Sometimes the truth confuses people. Doesn't it?


John 14:6 says - Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 17:17 says - Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

1 Corinthians 14:33 says - For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

According to the Bible God is Truth, and He is not the author of confusion. If your god is confusing, he's not my God.

The only ones confused by God's truth are those who reject Christ.

llthomasjr 01-12-2009 10:49 AM

Quote:

George;14376]llthomasjr,

You stated:Do you know the number of translators on the AV 1611 translating committee? Do you know their names? Do you have any idea of their training or abilities in languages? - "....I think not." {You said it - not me!}
I have read about them. Which book do you say that I should read? That way it will please you that I know what I am talking about..... or maybe that is an impossibility?

Quote:

So - you "cherry-pick" what you will accept from your "final authority" (John Gill) and decide for yourself what you will accept from him as being true and "reject" the rest?
I weigh what everyman says. The source does not matter. It matters if it is the truth. I believe what the centurion said in...

Mat 27:54 So when the centurion and those with him guarding Jesus, when they saw the earthquake and the things that had happened, they were greatly afraid, saying, "Truly this was the Son of God!"

even though he wasn't a good source of information....

Quote:

You see - we have a FINAL AUTHORITY {the King James Bible} which we rely on and do not "cherry-pick" only those things that we agree with or understand. Our Bible is our 'FINAL AUTHORITY" in ALL matters of faith and practice!
There is only One Final Authority. His name is Jesus Christ. He is your Master. Not the KJV.

Quote:

The question arises in my mind: Why are you here - on a "AV1611 Bible Forum"? If you don't accept what we believe - fine. If you "think" that we don't know what we are talking about - fine. But if you "think" that your sophomoric arguments are going to dissuade a genuine Bible believer from his faith in the King James Bible - you've got another "thought" coming!
I am hear to discuss the truth. Are you threatening me or something?

Quote:

Believe what you will. Accept John Gill, Hebrew scholars, or anyone else as your "final authority" (with "reservations" - of course! Since your real "final authority" is really and truly your own "opinions"). But you are going to have to do a whole lot better than you have demonstrated so far on this Forum before anyone is even going to take you seriously.

I always marvel at those people who come to this Forum bent on trying to talk others out of their faith in God's Holy word! Why does it bother you so much that we take God at His word? If we are "wrong" - God will straighten us out {for honoring and glorifying His words}! But if you are "wrong" - you will have spent a portion of your life trying to talk Christians out of their faith in God's word. What do you think that God will SAY about that? Hmmm? :confused:
If you are wrong you have made a lie the truth. Don't you see the danger in such? God is going to straighten everyone out. That neither helps your or me.


Quote:

It is obvious to me that you (like many others before you) have come to this Forum - NOT to edify or be edified, but to argue and debate. I would suggest that there are many other Forums out there where you will feel "right at home" amongst many of your kind. Most of the members of this Forum are genuine Bible believers, and as such, when it comes to the issue of the AUTHORITY of the King James Bible we have very little in common with Bible "skeptics". :eek:

2 Timothy 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

The truth edifies doesn't it? That is what I am here to seek. Certainly you haven't arrived in so much your stand can't take the test of discussion?

llthomasjr 01-12-2009 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Josh (Post 14380)
John 14:6 says - Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 17:17 says - Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

1 Corinthians 14:33 says - For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

According to the Bible God is Truth, and He is not the author of confusion. If your god is confusing, he's not my God.

The only ones confused by God's truth are those who reject Christ.

I say Amen about the truth confusing the lost.....

Who was Jesus talking to in John 14? Lost people or His Own. They seems pretty confused to me....

God wasn't the author of the confusion at Corinth.... but he certainly was the author of confusion at Babel wasn't He?

Quote:

Gen 11:7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

llthomasjr 01-12-2009 11:05 AM

Quote:

Mar 14:7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.

John 12:8 For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.

Mat 26:11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.

I would like for someone to tell me why Mar 14:7, John 12:8, and Mat 26:11 does not mean that poor extend through all generations?

Steven Avery 01-12-2009 11:07 AM

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by llthomasjr
I don't think Gill was superficially nothing. I disagree strong on many many things Gill wrote but he was never superficial.

98% of the time Gill was not superficial in what he wrote, he was far more thorough than most commentators. A number of times he slips up. Luke 3:36 is a good example of where he took a strange, unbalanced stance (as I recall) and with a spot of effort I could probably give a number of examples. An expert like Gill would know for sure that grammatical gender agreement is not anything like an iron-clad controlling factor in complex verses. John Gill may have thought deeply on this verse, however he wrote superficially.

Quote:

Originally Posted by llthomasjr
I have never read Hinton or Strouse. If you will supply the links, I'll read through them.

Thomas Strouse and John Hinton sections I will try to give you when I am home tonight. They actually emphasize different yet complementary aspects of the grammar.

btw, My view of the writings of Daniel Wallace on Bible issues is quite low and frequently his 'logic' is abysmal. He appears to be controlled by forces that make him fight the purity of the word of God, whether it is "strain at a gnat" or the resurrection account of the Lord Jesus Christ in Mark or other. If you want to give his writing to show a grammatical factoid, fine, however beyond that .... expect very, very little.

Quote:

Originally Posted by llthomasjr
It should be noted that the greek texts of Psalm 12 attest to verse 7 is in reference to verse 5..

With its own oddball language, preserving "us". Thus of virtually no evidentiary value whatsoever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by llthomasjr
The issue is that you will not agree that Gill's comments are a possibility... because.... if they are then you lose what hold you have on what you consider preservation.

This is the ho-hum circularity argument reduxified. Actually I came to my understanding of the purity of the King James Bible precisely by a process that included studying the details of many verses like Psalm 12. Leaving my previous positions when I saw how excellent was the majestic text and scholarship. btw, I wrote a little post upthread highlighting the chapter contextual issues that may be helpful.

In the not-to-distant past I used to allow for a secondary meaning of preserving of people, the more I study and understand the verse, the more I question whether that is really sensible at all, except pehaps in a midrashic strectch. (See my post above for the one main reason why.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by llthomasjr
Will you admit that it is possible that the scripture in verse 7 is talking about the poor?

See right above.
(I generally write my dialogue posts while doing a vertical read.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by llthomasjr
I believe the Word of God endureth forever. Every Word of God is true and lives forever. That does not mean that it lives in the pages of some complete book called the KJV. I've never read that in the bible anywhere.

"the bible" ?

So please share with us what is "the bible" that you read or know of (if it is in a foreign or difficult or archaic language) where the "Word of God endureth forever".

Shalom,
Steven

Bro. Parrish 01-12-2009 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by llthomasjr (Post 14382)
"There is only One Final Authority. His name is Jesus Christ. He is your Master. Not the KJV."

"Every Word of God is true and lives forever. That does not mean that it lives in the pages of some complete book called the KJV. I've never read that in the bible anywhere."

LOL, wow Ruckman really hit the nail on the head when he described you perfectly in his first three points. See below, have a look in the mirror my man... :rolleyes:

THE CREED OF THE ALEXANDRIAN CULT
by Peter Ruckman

1. "There is NO FINAL AUTHORITY but God."

2. "Since God is a SPIRIT, there is NO FINAL AUTHORITY that can be seen, heard, read, felt or handled."

3. "Since all books are MATERIAL, there is NO BOOK ON THIS EARTH THAT IS THE FINAL AND ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY on what is right and what is wrong; what constitutes TRUTH and what constitutes ERROR."


llthomasjr: The strings on your puppet show have been revealed.
You may want to choose your words carefully, I can tell you people who try to spread your snake oil are not tolerated very well on this site. It isn't that we don't like you personally, but your doctrine is usually treated like poop in the swimming pool around here.

Steven Avery 01-12-2009 12:09 PM

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by llthomasjr
I would like for someone to tell me why Mar 14:7, John 12:8, and Mat 26:11 does not mean that poor extend through all generations?

Are the poor and the needy (you left them out) "as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times". Is that your understanding of the Biblical teaching ?

Are they preserved "from this generation for ever" unto eternal life with the Lord Jesus Christ ? Are some "preserved" unto damnation and separation from God ? Would that be Biblical preservation ? Is each individual and generation passing away, to be replaced with new individuals and generations.

Now, can you allow that the words of God could be purified and preserved from this generation for ever ? Endureth forever. It looks above that you agree that this is true Bible, yet are you adamant that this is not the teaching of Psalm 12 ? Very curious. While you have to do an exegetical flying leap to try to convince someone that God's "preservation" and purification is only the poor (and please don't ferget the needy, they should not be cast aside for the poor) not the words of God.

Simply because John Gill or Daniel Wallace tells you there is a grammatical gender issue, for that reason you are sure that the word of God is not preserved in Psalm 12 ? Even after looking at the whole verse in context (see page 1 of this thread). Or are you concerned that the King James Bible might have this true and right and that is what a smidgen discomfiting ?

Now, you say you believe the word of God is preserved, taught elsewhere in the Bible. What are your favorite verses for teaching your view that the word of God "endureth forever" and "lives forever" ? Please share with us the source of this belief and how you express it from the word of God.

And how do you know the verses you share are themselves pure -- if you do not recognize the pure Bible anywhere in the world today ? Could they be mistranslations or redactions or interpolations or other smasheroos ?

Shalom,
Steven

Josh 01-12-2009 12:40 PM

God not being the author of confusion is not only refering to Corinth. Babel is not even a relevant issue. They rebelled against God, and He punished them. Just like God will allow those left behind after the Rapture to believe a lie. Don't try to take God's words out of context to prove a hopelessly false point. Espescially not to those of us who believe the Bible.

llthomasjr 01-12-2009 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish (Post 14388)
LOL, wow Ruckman really hit the nail on the head when he described you perfectly in his first three points. See below, have a look in the mirror my man... :rolleyes:

THE CREED OF THE ALEXANDRIAN CULT
by Peter Ruckman

1. "There is NO FINAL AUTHORITY but God."

2. "Since God is a SPIRIT, there is NO FINAL AUTHORITY that can be seen, heard, read, felt or handled."

3. "Since all books are MATERIAL, there is NO BOOK ON THIS EARTH THAT IS THE FINAL AND ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY on what is right and what is wrong; what constitutes TRUTH and what constitutes ERROR."


llthomasjr: The strings on your puppet show have been revealed.
You may want to choose your words carefully, I can tell you people who try to spread your snake oil are not tolerated very well on this site. It isn't that we don't like you personally, but your doctrine is usually treated like poop in the swimming pool around here.

Poop in the swimming pool? Somehow I think that is pretty low to say to someone. But.... I have noticed on a lot of boards people can say what they want as long as they are in agreement with the moderators and administration of a site. Ethics keep me from dealing the same way with your comments as you do with mine. If the admin wants me to leave... I will . Till then, don't take it personally if I keep posting.

Ruckman and his advanced revelation must be your final authority?

llthomasjr 01-12-2009 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Josh (Post 14391)
God not being the author of confusion is not only refering to Corinth. Babel is not even a relevant issue. They rebelled against God, and He punished them. Just like God will allow those left behind after the Rapture to believe a lie. Don't try to take God's words out of context to prove a hopelessly false point. Espescially not to those of us who believe the Bible.

Just trying to keep things in context. You take what was said at Corinth too far. To take to mean in every situation. That is what is out of context. I have shown you example where the truth lead to confusion. Whether it was the lost or saints alike.

Tandi 01-12-2009 01:01 PM

Quite a discussion going here....on the very topic I am interested in and searching for clarity. Here is a link I came across to the "genius of ambiguity" argument (Van Kleeck), as well as a link to the Strouse article. Strouse makes an excellent case for verse 7 teaching the preservation of Scripture. I really like Strouse. Where can I find more of his teachings?

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns/fbns88.html

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/strouse-psalm127.html

Yet Van Kleeck makes a point worthy of consideration.

Shalom,

Tandi

llthomasjr 01-12-2009 01:18 PM

Hi Steve. I did notice that you didn't stay around too long at bible.org. It was sorta a hit and run thing. Now I remember treating your ethically and sincerely. Hope you do the same.

There are lot of things that Wallace says that I do not like but he sure has been a thorn in the side of many a KJVO supporter. I remember reading somewhere here about someone must use a Oxford dictionary.... I thought that was very good point that Wallace began..... Till such, all you ever heard out of the KJVO believers was ....Webster this and Webster that....

I always couldn't quite grasp someone promoting the definitions of a man that produced his own version of the bible... and then these same people calling those who believe different horrible names. I mean if Webster did it and you like his definitions... then why fuss at anyone else?

By the way... Wallace wasn't the exclusive commentator on the OT for the .NET version.

Steve wrote;

Quote:

Are the poor and the needy (you left them out) "as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times". Is that your understanding of the Biblical teaching ?

Are they preserved "from this generation for ever" unto eternal life with the Lord Jesus Christ ? Are some "preserved" unto damnation and separation from God ? Would that be Biblical preservation ? Is each individual and generation passing away, to be replaced with new individuals and generations.
What God said about the poor is sure. Pure as silver tried in the furnace of the earth. What Jesus said about the poor being with us always is pure and true.

Quote:

Now, can you allow that the words of God could be purified and preserved from this generation for ever ? Endureth forever. It looks above that you agree that this is true Bible, yet are you adamant that this is not the teaching of Psalm 12 ? Very curious. While you have to do an exegetical flying leap to try to convince someone that God's "preservation" and purification is only the poor (and please don't ferget the needy, they should not be cast aside for the poor) not the words of God.
No need to try to put words in my mouth. I never said it was only to the poor. I said here it is talking about the poor and I'll add needy...so as to not leave them out. I gave scripture that witness that very truth.

Quote:

Simply because John Gill or Daniel Wallace tells you there is a grammatical gender issue, for that reason you are sure that the word of God is not preserved in Psalm 12 ? Even after looking at the whole verse in context (see page 1 of this thread). Or are you concerned that the King James Bible might have this true and right and that is what a smidgen discomfiting ?
First of all....I never said that God has not preserved His word. Second, just because I believe He has.... doesn't confine me to believe that is only found exclusively in the KJV. Such is not one in the same. I am not concerned at all about being discomforted by the KJV.

Quote:

Now, you say you believe the word of God is preserved, taught elsewhere in the Bible. What are your favorite verses for teaching your view that the word of God "endureth forever" and "lives forever" ? Please share with us the source of this belief and how you express it from the word of God.

And how do you know the verses you share are themselves pure -- if you do not recognize the pure Bible anywhere in the world today ? Could they be mistranslations or redactions or interpolations or other smasheroos ?
Did I say... taught else where in the bible? Nope... Could you provide the quote where I said it?

The Word of God is not bound to any written form. It is true no matter if they world passes away and all the things therein are burned with a fervant heat. They will and shall endure forever. They are true and they endure forever because the Son of God is alive forever more.

Can you explain how the word of God in the KJV will survive forever? I mean you take all these verses to literally be fulfilled in a text that will burn up in the fire mentioned in 2 Peter chapter 3. Is God going to salvage the KJV from the fire? What about what Jeremiah foretold and the writer of hebrews spoke about in


Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

The Word of God will endure forever because it will be written on the hearts and in the minds of the eternal saints of God. Your belief in that preservation talking place only the KJV doesn't stand the test of the scriptures themselves.....

Tell me me how the KJV is going to survive all these things?

Josh 01-12-2009 01:26 PM

Perhaps it is not I who take God's Word too far, but this watered down modern "Christianity" that doesn't take it far enough, or literally enough.

Revelation 3:15-19 - I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and [that] the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

Bro. Parrish 01-12-2009 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by llthomasjr (Post 14392)
Ethics keep me from dealing the same way with your comments as you do with mine. If the admin wants me to leave... I will . Till then, don't take it personally if I keep posting.

Well somehow I think my comments may be tolerated more than yours. Why? Because my comments don't seek to destroy the believer's faith in the Bible, yours do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by llthomasjr (Post 14392)
Ruckman and his advanced revelation must be your final authority?

Not at all, actually I'm one of those people who has a real Bible to serve that purpose. :)

Now I have a feeling my comments about your teaching are 100% correct and true, but let's confirm it. So let me ask you, do you agree with the three statements below?

1. "There is NO FINAL AUTHORITY but God."

2. "Since God is a SPIRIT, there is NO FINAL AUTHORITY that can be seen, heard, read, felt or handled."

3. "Since all books are MATERIAL, there is NO BOOK ON THIS EARTH THAT IS THE FINAL AND ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY on what is right and what is wrong; what constitutes TRUTH and what constitutes ERROR."

Bro. Parrish 01-12-2009 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by llthomasjr (Post 14396)
Can you explain how the word of God in the KJV will survive forever? I mean you take all these verses to literally be fulfilled in a text that will burn up in the fire mentioned in 2 Peter chapter 3. Is God going to salvage the KJV from the fire? ... Tell me me how the KJV is going to survive all these things?

Easy. God is going to PRESERVE IT.
That would be the same God who kept Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego from getting destroyed in a furnace of fire that was made seven times hotter than usual, without so much as the smell of smoke on their clothes. That would be the same God who created you and the Earth and everything that is on it.
Come on now, do you honestly not think the God who inspired it is powerful enough to preserve it? :rolleyes:

Forrest 01-12-2009 02:16 PM

Psalms 119:130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Matthew 7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

Psalms 12:6-7 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.

Bro. Parrish 01-12-2009 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish (Post 14401)
Easy. God is going to PRESERVE IT.
That would be the same God who kept Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego from getting destroyed in a furnace of fire that was made seven times hotter than usual, without so much as the smell of smoke on their clothes. That would be the same God who created you and the Earth and everything that is on it.
Come on now, do you honestly not think the God who inspired it is powerful enough to preserve it? :rolleyes:


http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l2...ng_cricket.gif


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:11 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

Website AV1611.Com.
Posts represent only the opinions of users of this forum and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the webmaster.

Software for Believing Bible Study