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)

Diligent 01-12-2009 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish (Post 14411)

He's no longer "with us."

Steven Avery 01-12-2009 05:55 PM

John Hinton, complementary to Thomas Strouse
 
Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tandi
..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....
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.

And here are the John Hinton articles, hosted on this very website !

http://av1611.com/kjbp/ridiculous-kj...12-Part-1.html
Ridiculous KJV Bible Corrections: Psalm 12, Part 1

http://av1611.com/kjbp/ridiculous-kj...2-verse-7.html
Psalm 12 Part 2, verse 7


I used to think that maybe the verse could be properly seen with a dual application, 'ambiguous'. However when you simply read the full chapter (something that is rare in modernist exegesis, in the journal articles today they appear loath to even give the words of a verse ! much less a chapter or section) the context being the contrast of the purified as silver pure words of God and the vanity, flattering lips, double heart and proud tongue rings all through the section.

(please go to page one :

http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...89&postcount=8
Psalm 12 - contrast - God's word with lips of men

Also for the context of the NT as a whole.

http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...09&postcount=5
complementary scriptures to Psalm 12:6-7
)

While there had definitely been a historical split on the understanding of the verse, with some folks normally quite good supporting the poor understanding, I really believe that is a bit of a twig and forest thing. They got so enmeshed in the couple of verses (and on that their grammatical understanding is incomplete .. thank you Thomas and John) that they missed the simplicity and power and clarity of the word of God).

Any interpretation of the poor and needy being those preserved is only a minor auxiliary aspect of the majesty and power and purity of the word of God.

Shalom,
Steven

Bro. Parrish 01-12-2009 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diligent (Post 14413)
He's no longer "with us."

LOL, okay I thought it was a little quiet in here... :usa2:

MC1171611 01-13-2009 12:42 AM

On the whole "author of confusion" issue, I have a little thought that not many people have cared for, but it makes a whole lot of sense.

Mr. Banned-pants said that God "Authored" the confusion at Babel. Well, I didn't see God WRITE anything there, and since "author" by definition (not consistently throughout Scripture, though) means to "write" something, God doesn't "write" confusion. Of course the modern perversion morons don't like that, since that means their myriad perversions don't have God's power on them, since they're so utterly "confusing."

Tandi 01-13-2009 03:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Avery (Post 14420)


.......I used to think that maybe the verse could be properly seen with a dual application, 'ambiguous'. However when you simply read the full chapter (something that is rare in modernist exegesis, in the journal articles today they appear loath to even give the words of a verse ! much less a chapter or section) the context being the contrast of the purified as silver pure words of God and the vanity, flattering lips, double heart and proud tongue rings all through the section......

While there had definitely been a historical split on the understanding of the verse, with some folks normally quite good supporting the poor understanding, I really believe that is a bit of a twig and forest thing. They got so enmeshed in the couple of verses (and on that their grammatical understanding is incomplete .. thank you Thomas and John) that they missed the simplicity and power and clarity of the word of God).

Any interpretation of the poor and needy being those preserved is only a minor auxiliary aspect of the majesty and power and purity of the word of God.

Shalom,
Steven

Excellent points to ponder. I am beginning to see it clearly. Thank you, Steven!

Shalom,

Tandi

Just_A_Thought 01-22-2009 11:01 AM

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.

I must kindly disagree with you. When I am on this forum I use the KJV only. I must use some other versions here to show you how it was interpreted by others. The KJV is not wrong but easily misunderstood here. I will not use any AT Bibles. I will only use TR versions.

Psa 12:6 The wordes of the Lorde are pure wordes, as the siluer, tried in a fornace of earth, fined seuen folde.
Psa 12:7 Thou wilt keepe them, O Lord: thou wilt preserue him from this generation for euer. -Geneva

Psa 12:6 The wordes of God be wordes pure, as the siluer tryed in a furnace of earth: and purified seuen times.
Psa 12:7 [Wherfore] thou wylt kepe the godly, O God: thou wylt preserue euery one of them from this generation for euer. -Bishops

Both of these say the same thing as thier meaning, so does the KJV. It is simply miss read do to the working that the translators chose.

God Bless!

Diligent 01-22-2009 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just_A_Thought (Post 14759)
I must kindly disagree with you.

That's fine, however: your only argument offered is that an inferior translation agrees with your reading. When sticking to the superior KJV, and examining the plain English, as well as the doctrinal ramifications, it's clear to me that the other translations are simply wrong. Of course, this is the 87th post and still nothing new is being said. :rolleyes:

Just_A_Thought 01-22-2009 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diligent (Post 14761)
That's fine, however: your only argument offered is that an inferior translation agrees with your reading. When sticking to the superior KJV, and examining the plain English, as well as the doctrinal ramifications, it's clear to me that the other translations are simply wrong. Of course, this is the 87th post and still nothing new is being said. :rolleyes:

I think you would be hard pressed to prove that the Bibles I quoted are inferior. :jaw: (no reason to use this guy but I could not resist.)

Diligent 01-22-2009 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just_A_Thought (Post 14762)
I think you would be hard pressed to prove that the Bibles I quoted are inferior. :jaw: (no reason to use this guy but I could not resist.)

Their incorrect translation of this verse proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt!

The older English translations are inferior to the KJV for all of the reasons that the KJV was commissioned for. You may wish to examine http://av1611.com/kjbp for some more background on the KJV and translations of the Bible.

solabiblia 01-22-2009 09:35 PM

I think we deserve better than this
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Diligent (Post 14763)
Their incorrect translation of this verse proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt!

The older English translations are inferior to the KJV for all of the reasons that the KJV was commissioned for. You may wish to examine http://av1611.com/kjbp for some more background on the KJV and translations of the Bible.

This is classic circular reasoning combined with begging the question. Can't you come up with anything better for an argument? I think we deserve better than this.

George 01-22-2009 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by solabiblia (Post 14782)
"This is classic circular reasoning combined with begging the question. Can't you come up with anything better for an argument? I think we deserve better than this."

Solabiblia,

You have been on this Forum for less than a week and you are DEMANDING something "better than this" (from the "FORUM ADMINISTRATOR" - No Less? :eek:

Take some time and read through the HUNDREDS of Posts (& Threads) on the issue of WHICH BIBLE before you make your juvenile comments!:(

What is it with you anyway? This is an "AV1611 Forum" after all" - Why are you here If you don't like or agree with us? There are plenty of other "religious" forums on the net that you should feel right at home at.

It's a free country (for a little while longer) believe what you will, but don't make childish demands on us - we don't owe you any answers when you approach us with "attitude"! :(

Will Kinney 01-23-2009 06:53 AM

Psalm 12
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Diligent (Post 14761)
That's fine, however: your only argument offered is that an inferior translation agrees with your reading. When sticking to the superior KJV, and examining the plain English, as well as the doctrinal ramifications, it's clear to me that the other translations are simply wrong. Of course, this is the 87th post and still nothing new is being said. :rolleyes:

Right on, Brandon. I totally agree.

Will K

Diligent 01-23-2009 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by solabiblia (Post 14782)
This is classic circular reasoning combined with begging the question. Can't you come up with anything better for an argument? I think we deserve better than this.

Hm.

There are dozens of posts in this very thread alone that explain why only the reading in the KJV can be correct so the "begged question" has been answered already. There's nothing circular about pointing out that a translation that disagrees with the KJV translation in this case is inferior. The correct reading has already been proved here, so it can easily be used as a standard by which to judge other translations.

Now, to the rest of your message:

1. I'm not sure what it is you think you "deserve" from me. I am not in any way in your debt and I am not the type of person who responds positively to presumption on my time and will. You can take or leave what I say but I don't owe you anything.

2. This thread has over 90 posts in it now. This website (start at http://av1611.com/kjbp ) has tons of articles and more than one of them on this very passage. This forum has close to 15,000 posts. If you think you deserve (whatever that means) more than one argument, there is plenty here for your perusal.

Just_A_Thought 01-23-2009 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diligent (Post 14795)
Hm.

There are dozens of posts in this very thread alone that explain why only the reading in the KJV can be correct so the "begged question" has been answered already. There's nothing circular about pointing out that a translation that disagrees with the KJV translation in this case is inferior. The correct reading has already been proved here, so it can easily be used as a standard by which to judge other translations.

Now, to the rest of your message:

1. I'm not sure what it is you think you "deserve" from me. I am not in any way in your debt and I am not the type of person who responds positively to presumption on my time and will. You can take or leave what I say but I don't owe you anything.

2. This thread has over 90 posts in it now. This website (start at http://av1611.com/kjbp ) has tons of articles and more than one of them on this very passage. This forum has close to 15,000 posts. If you think you deserve (whatever that means) more than one argument, there is plenty here for your perusal.

I have yet to see one post that proves the KJV is superior to the Geneva or any other Bible of that time period. I am certainly no critic to the KJV. It is an outstanding Bible but I see no true argument against that which I posted. The KJV agrees with the Geneva and Bishops. It is easily misunderstood. That was my point. Hammer it if you like but you have little proof on this and I have other translation taken from the same text to back me up.

Just_A_Thought 01-23-2009 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by solabiblia (Post 14782)
This is classic circular reasoning combined with begging the question. Can't you come up with anything better for an argument? I think we deserve better than this.

Keep in mind that most KJVOs are hardcore individuals and mean well. There is, however, usually no way of changing thier minds or expecting a straight answer sometimes. If they have a good answer they are swift to give it. If they do not have a good answer they are gruff and sometimes very rude. They are good people though. They can have a love for God and feel they are doing His service by fighting those who disagree with them so gruffly.

MC1171611 01-23-2009 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just_A_Thought (Post 14809)
Keep in mind that most KJVOs are hardcore individuals and mean well. There is, however, usually no way of changing thier minds or expecting a straight answer sometimes. If they have a good answer they are swift to give it. If they do not have a good answer they are gruff and sometimes very rude. They are good people though. They can have a love for God and feel they are doing His service by fighting those who disagree with them so gruffly.

And we keep this joker around because why? :tsk:

The statement follows verse SIX, not verse FIVE. To say that verse SEVEN is talking about verse FIVE and not verse SIX is STUPID because that is a grammatical ERROR to do something so ignorant.

I hugged my wife.
I killed a man.
They put me in jail.

In effect, you're saying that they put me in jail for hugging my wife. That's the ludicrous ignorance that you're pushing here, and I'm flat tired of it, as are all the people that actually BELIEVE THE BIBLE. You don't believe the Bible, we understand; but go to a forum where you can talk with other apostates who believe like you do. You'll be much happier there, trust me.

Bro. Parrish 01-23-2009 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just_A_Thought (Post 14809)
Keep in mind that most KJVOs are hardcore individuals and mean well. There is, however, usually no way of changing thier minds or expecting a straight answer sometimes. If they have a good answer they are swift to give it. If they do not have a good answer they are gruff and sometimes very rude. They are good people though. They can have a love for God and feel they are doing His service by fighting those who disagree with them so gruffly.

LOL, well I've been taking a look at your past posts, and I'm starting to get a picture of exactly what YOU think about the Bible... I guess most CBDs like yourself are softcore individuals who wouldn't know truth from a shadow, as shown by your reply to Brother Tim below back in October... :cool:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Tim
Brother, I am just responding to your seemingly contradictory statement concerning the accuracy of the KJB. Either the TR family or the AT family is false or corrupted. They cannot be seen as mutually acceptable.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Just_A_Thought
I think that no one truly knows which ones are more accurate. Plus, non of the texts that make up either agree on everything. Which one is better? I don't think either but I could not say that I am right on that. You stand by the TR and others stand by the AT. I feel neither are wrong to translate from and both do have error.
These are your words from your silly thread here:
http://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=649

Just today, you have attempted to cast MORE doubt on God's KJV, by starting a new thread here:
http://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=917

And I think showing a little more of your leaven will put everything in perspective for the readers:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just_A_Thought
..."God did preserve His word...IN HEAVEN! ...we do not know which manuscripts are right. So we can not say which one is 100% accurate."
Quote:

Originally Posted by Just_A_Thought
"God's Word has always been and always will be. He never promised us we would always have it on paper or in the English tongue."
So there it is, like a dead fish on the beach.
No wonder you have a problem with preservation.
You appear to be just another confused Bible denier who thinks there is no such thing as an inerrant Bible on Earth. Your comments do nothing to build this forum, I am surprised they are allowed to remain here, since I'm afraid your views are part of the problem, not the solution. Old news. :cool:

Winman 01-23-2009 06:59 PM

Wow, quite a discussion. I have a family member who does not believe the KJB to be the Word of God, and come to realize you cannot really reason with these people.

I got saved when I was a young boy, but did not live in a Christian home. I was kind of on my own. But I wanted to know God's word. I had an Aunt who sent me a Revised Standard Version I believe (it was many years ago, I am not absolutely sure of the version). I would read it for hours every day and tried as best I could to understand it. But I was constantly troubled by all the footnotes that said things like "better manuscripts omit this verse" and so forth. Man, I hated that. I wanted to know the truth. I wanted to know God's word. I used to pray and pray for God to show me the truth. Then one day I read Matthew 4:4:

Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

That was it! I saw the word EVERY.

Jesus was saying that we must live by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Now think about it, would it be fair for God to demand that we live by every word that proceedeth out of his mouth, and then not give us every word?

Would it? Would that be a kind and loving God? Would God put us here in a world of confusion and give us no way to find him?

And then, if we did not find this truth, sentence us to Hell?

No way. I knew right then and there that God's true word was out there for me to find. If God expects and wants me to live by every word that proceedeth from his mouth, then I knew he provided that word for me.

And God did provide his Word to me. It is the King James Bible. Yessiree, I am one of those dreaded KJBO or KJVO or whatever you call it. That's why I came to this forum, I tried a few others where there were all the elite intellectual types trying to disprove God's Word. They have their reward coming to them. These folks do not believe God's Word, they are full of pride, they think themselves more intelligent than simple folks like me who take God at his word. Their only motive is to try to prove to you that they more intelligent than us. FOOLS!

Proverbs 23:9 Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.

You aren't going to get anywhere with these folks.

And that fellow who keeps writing about the poor doesn't understand his Bible. He also takes those verses out of context.

Matthew 26:7 There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat.
8 But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste?
9 For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.
10 When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me.
11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.

Jesus was not promising to preserve or keep the poor from generation to generation here. The disciples wanted to sell the ointment and give it to the poor. Jesus pointed out that he would be put to death in a short time, he would not be among them any longer, but the poor would always be around.

And God does not have to preserve the poor. There are many reasons for poverty. In this country most (but not all) are poor because they fail to work or save, or spend their money foolishly. Now, I know there are many who are poor because of sickness and even financial hardships not caused by themselves, but most of the poor are poor because of their own doings. We see immigrants who come here without a penny in their pocket and in a few short years are wealthy. So, in America anyway, there is no real reason to be poor. Other countries? Yes, war and corrupt govenments impoverish many.

But, I'm getting off the subject. Jesus was simply stating a FACT. The poor will always be here. He did not say "I will preserve the poor" or "I will keep the poor". This fellow is taking these verses completely out of context.

I am personally not too keen on elitist intellectual types. I believe in good old common sense. It is pretty easy to see where all these elitist folks are taking the economy right now. Yep, PhDs from Harvard and Yale, and they run a company into the ground. I am no scholar, but I have supported a family for many years and am not in debt whatsoever. These companies should hire some blue-collar types to run their companies, then maybe they would be making a profit. :)

George 01-23-2009 10:24 PM

Re: " Psalm 12:7 - the Promise of Preservation"
 
Aloha brother Winman,

Amen brother, I'm with you all the way! :amen:

These "intellectual", "pious", sweet talking "Christians" are the CURSE of Christianity! :eek:

They always appear (on the surface) to be so sweeeet :love: - but underneath that "slick veneer" is a gnat straining, camel swallowing, insincere hypocrite that has no more interest in the TRUTH, than the brightest Humanistic College professor you will meet on any Godless College Campus in America!

Have you ever wondered WHY they come on this Forum? {I have.} I have never had the desire to go on the dozens of so-called "bible" forums out there that don't profess to believe in any BOOK on earth being their "FINAL AUTHORITY"! I wouldn't be caught DEAD on those kind of Forums - would you? Then WHY do they come here? Hmmmm? :confused:

What is there about real Bible believers that just drives these guys bonkers? If they don't want to believe what we believe why do they bother with us?

I don't go on their forums and harass them! I don't seek out Bible "deniers" on those other forums and start an argument with them over their beliefs! I don't join their forums and agree to abide by their rules and then seek out (by subtefruge) brethren just to have a "debate" with them! I don't go on their forums and "insult" them! ("NICELY" :cool: - OF COURSE! No crude, coarse, or rough language for them - Oh No! Everything said has to be "couched" in a feigned, flattering, effeminate, clever, and P.C. manner - NO "PLAIN TALK" for them!)

WHY can't they just leave "sleeping dogs lie"? I believe I have the answer. They just can't stand that there are some Christians that are willing to take a stand on the Holy words of God; that there are some Christians that are willing to go outside of the camp and bear the "reproach of Christ" [Hebrews 13:13]; that there are some Christians that are willing to be labeled backward, ignorant, uneducated, illiterate, etc.; that there are some Christians that "embarass" them because they (genuine Bible believers) don't believe what they believe and are unwilling to "go along to get along" with "the pack" to keep the peace.

That is they cannot stand that we proclaim to the world (and to the "Christian" Bible "deniers") that we have a Book, the King James Bible, that is Holy, pure, and without error and that IT is our "FINAL AUTHORITY" in all matters of faith and practice!

They can't stand the fact that we WILL NOT FOLLOW THEM OR THE MEN THAT THEY ARE FOLLOWING, and so they must try at least, to talk us out of our faith in God's word and in God's PROMISE TO KEEP HIS WORDS!

We are an "embarrassment" to the whole "Christian" Academic establishment, and we must be stopped at all costs - just because they don't believe what we believe. Have you ever encountered such an INTOLERANT & BIGOTED ATTITUDE amongst Christians as that?

You can spot these charlatans a mile away by their sweeet demeanor; by their "enticing words of man's wisdom" [1Corinthians 2:4]; by their "good words and fair speeches" that are meant to "deceive the hearts of the simple" [Romans 16:18];

God's word has a commandment for us - that we are to follow when we encounter these kind of "Christian Skeptics":

1 Timothy 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.


I always do! I don't waste my time {or God's} once I discover WHO I am dealing with. :eek:

MC1171611 01-23-2009 10:47 PM

AMEN Bro. George! Let 'em have it!

:ban:

Winman 01-24-2009 11:11 AM

Amen Brother George!

Years ago I learned a valuable lesson. I used to go soul-winning on Saturday's with my pastor. I think he was the most godly man I've ever known, a terrific person, and smart too.

I remember one day we stopped at this house and a 30'ish lady invited us in. My pastor sat down with the lady and opened the Bible to show her verses on salvation. I sat quietly and observed. My job was to take care of kids and especially dogs. I used to laugh, my pastor said dogs worked for Satan, they will always try to distract you when leading someone to the Lord. :)

Anyway, no dogs or kids this day, but as my pastor showed the lady verses, a couple of times she said, "well, I don't believe that". Suddenly my pastor closed his Bible, stood up and very kindly thanked her for inviting us in. I was confused, because he had stopped short of leading her to the Lord.

When we got back out to the car, I asked my pastor why we had left so suddenly and why he hadn't tried to lead her to the Lord.

He said, "Didn't you hear her? She said she didn't believe the Bible. If you don't believe the Bible you cannot be saved."

He used to also say, "Those convinced against their will, are of the same opinion still."

I learned something important that day. You are just wasting your time trying to talk to people who do not believe the Bible. The best you can do is pray for them that the Lord will open their eyes and mind to believe.

And of course, the Lord said,

Matthew 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

These folks simply do not believe God's word.

George 01-24-2009 04:33 PM

Re:"Psalm 12:7 - the Promise of Preservation"
 
Aloha brother Winman,

Your Pastor sounds like a very wise man!

I have never heard: "Those convinced against their will, are of the same opinion still"; but I have believed that for about 40 years now, and I intend to use what he said, because I have never heard it said so succinctly.

Back in 1969-1972, I once was largely responsible for convincing an Independent Baptist Church on Kauai about the King James Bible being God's Final Authority and that statement was written into the "Constitution and By-Laws of the church. Within 3 short years (after Bob Jones University graduates came and joined the church) most of the people abandoned their "belief" in THE BOOK" and have been on a down-hill slide ever since.:eek:

That sure was a blow to my PRIDE, but I learned a huge lesson from that incident. You can't "force" people to genuinely believe anything, and you can't (on your own) "persuade" people to believe something.

If the belief does not come from an individual's own heart, it's NOT REAL GENUINE BELIEF! It's an assent, or an acceptance, or an acknowledgment, or an occurence (with the mind - NOT the heart) to someone's ideas or someone Else's beliefs - but it's NOT TRUE BELIEF!

Keep up the good fight brother, it's really good to have you on board. :wave:

Just_A_Thought 01-24-2009 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC1171611 (Post 14811)
And we keep this joker around because why? :tsk:

The statement follows verse SIX, not verse FIVE. To say that verse SEVEN is talking about verse FIVE and not verse SIX is STUPID because that is a grammatical ERROR to do something so ignorant.

I hugged my wife.
I killed a man.
They put me in jail.

In effect, you're saying that they put me in jail for hugging my wife. That's the ludicrous ignorance that you're pushing here, and I'm flat tired of it, as are all the people that actually BELIEVE THE BIBLE. You don't believe the Bible, we understand; but go to a forum where you can talk with other apostates who believe like you do. You'll be much happier there, trust me.

I was not aware that I was unhappy here. I enjoy reading the posts here. I may not agree but I grew up with the same beliefs you have for the most part. My parents are KJVO and I was until about a year ago. I understand the idea of preservation and I think there are better verses to try to prove it. I may not believe the Bible is preserved on earth but have nothing against those who do. I was not aware I was an apostate but thanks for pointing that out. I am glad to see you are throwing some punches at me after I did not insult or attack you in any way. Way to show a Christ-like attitude...:boxing:

Just_A_Thought 01-24-2009 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish (Post 14822)
LOL, well I've been taking a look at your past posts, and I'm starting to get a picture of exactly what YOU think about the Bible... I guess most CBDs like yourself are softcore individuals who wouldn't know truth from a shadow, as shown by your reply to Brother Tim below back in October... :cool:





These are your words from your silly thread here:
http://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=649

Just today, you have attempted to cast MORE doubt on God's KJV, by starting a new thread here:
http://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=917

And I think showing a little more of your leaven will put everything in perspective for the readers:





So there it is, like a dead fish on the beach.
No wonder you have a problem with preservation.
You appear to be just another confused Bible denier who thinks there is no such thing as an inerrant Bible on Earth. Your comments do nothing to build this forum, I am surprised they are allowed to remain here, since I'm afraid your views are part of the problem, not the solution. Old news. :cool:


Wow! I am not sure to people checking into me like this. It does not bother me though. I stand by all my previous posts.

Shadows are dark shadows created by light and an object blocking the light. Truth is something that is correct opposite of a lie or error. I do not, however, know what a CBD is.

I believe Jesus is the Word and He is in Heaven. I even have two verses to back my point. I am no Bible "denier".

They let me remain here because I do not name call or try to stir up trouble. Besides, if I was not here to challenge points then who would you have to criticize?

Just_A_Thought 01-24-2009 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winman (Post 14825)
I am personally not too keen on elitist intellectual types. I believe in good old common sense. It is pretty easy to see where all these elitist folks are taking the economy right now. Yep, PhDs from Harvard and Yale, and they run a company into the ground. I am no scholar, but I have supported a family for many years and am not in debt whatsoever. These companies should hire some blue-collar types to run their companies, then maybe they would be making a profit. :)

Thank you! I have never been called a "elitist intellectual" before. I guess there is a first time for everything.

Winman 01-24-2009 09:37 PM

Just a Thought

I wasn't necessarily speaking of you personally as an intellectual.

You say Jesus is the Word and he is in Heaven. I agree.

But look what Jesus said to Nicodemus in John 3:13

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Now, here was Jesus talking with Nicodemus face to face. And Jesus was clearly speaking of himself when he said "the Son of man". Then Jesus says that he is in heaven at that very moment (present tense).

How do you explain that? You do not seem to be able to believe that God's Word can be both in Heaven and on Earth at the same time, but Jesus said it was so.

MC1171611 01-24-2009 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winman (Post 14904)
Just a Thought

I wasn't necessarily speaking of you personally as an intellectual.

You say Jesus is the Word and he is in Heaven. I agree.

But look what Jesus said to Nicodemus in John 3:13

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Now, here was Jesus talking with Nicodemus face to face. And Jesus was clearly speaking of himself when he said "the Son of man". Then Jesus says that he is in heaven at that very moment (present tense).

How do you explain that? You do not seem to be able to believe that God's Word can be both in Heaven and on Earth at the same time, but Jesus said it was so.

AMEN BROTHER!

Unbelief is the bane of Christianity! Shine the Glorious Light of Truth (Jn. 17:17) and the rats scatter.

Here's something else for the apostates to choke on: Jesus Christ is called the Word of God; why? If God has a written word, why would Jesus need to be called the Word? Come on, hit 'em where it hurts!

Winman 01-24-2009 10:06 PM

Oh, there's more.

Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.


Matthew 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Bro. Parrish 01-25-2009 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just_A_Thought (Post 14896)
Truth is something that is correct opposite of a lie or error. I do not, however, know what a CBD is.

I believe Jesus is the Word and He is in Heaven. I even have two verses to back my point. I am no Bible "denier"..

A CBD is a "Confused Bible Denier."
I don't use it a lot, but it seems to fit when people like yourself come on here and start throwing around labels like "KJVO," back in post no. 95. One label deserves another.

And I'm sorry my friend, but you have already proven yourself to be a Bible denier, by spreading the false teaching that God's inerrant Word is not preserved on paper today in the KJV, and we do not know which manuscripts are correct. You not only deny the preservation of scripture, you are projecting your views as if they are FACT, as shown below in your own blunt statements. What else can we call you, a KJV DEFENDER? Come on now...

I'm not attacking you, and I hope you see fit to rise above your confusion, but let's be honest---you have positioned yourself on the opposite side of the very heart of this forum. That's not a good place to be, if you expect people to take you seriously.

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_A_Thought
..."God did preserve His word...IN HEAVEN! ...we do not know which manuscripts are right. So we can not say which one is 100% accurate."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_A_Thought
"God's Word has always been and always will be. He never promised us we would always have it on paper or in the English tongue."

Just_A_Thought 01-25-2009 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winman (Post 14904)
Just a Thought

I wasn't necessarily speaking of you personally as an intellectual.

You say Jesus is the Word and he is in Heaven. I agree.

But look what Jesus said to Nicodemus in John 3:13

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Now, here was Jesus talking with Nicodemus face to face. And Jesus was clearly speaking of himself when he said "the Son of man". Then Jesus says that he is in heaven at that very moment (present tense).

How do you explain that? You do not seem to be able to believe that God's Word can be both in Heaven and on Earth at the same time, but Jesus said it was so.

I agree that Jesus can be both in Heaven and on earth at the same time. He is omnipresent but I do not agree with the Word on man made paper and man made ink is Jesus. He is the Word but we can not create Him. I have heard that the KJV is a living, breathing book. It is not only the Word of God but it is God. I can not agree with this if that is where you are going with this.

Just_A_Thought 01-25-2009 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish (Post 14918)
A CBD is a "Confused Bible Denier."
I don't use it a lot, but it seems to fit when people like yourself come on here and start throwing around labels like "KJVO," back in post no. 95. One label deserves another.

And I'm sorry my friend, but you have already proven yourself to be a Bible denier, by spreading the false teaching that God's inerrant Word is not preserved on paper today in the KJV, and we do not know which manuscripts are correct. You not only deny the preservation of scripture, you are projecting your views as if they are FACT, as shown below in your own blunt statements. What else can we call you, a KJV DEFENDER? Come on now...

I'm not attacking you, and I hope you see fit to rise above your confusion, but let's be honest---you have positioned yourself on the opposite side of the very heart of this forum. That's not a good place to be, if you expect people to take you seriously.

I was not aware that being called a KJVO was an insult! I claimed that label proudly for over 15 years or more. It has no slander to the title. If I were to call you a KJV extremist or something like that I could see you being unhappy about that. I am certainly not here to name call. The name you have labeld me with is slander but I am not offended easily so I will move on.

Well, you are right I am not a KJV defender but I do promote the KJV. I believe it to be a very accurate translation. I find it rather odd that many people here find me so offensive on the issue. I read the Geneva and Tynsdale NT. Some of which the KJV was taken from. There are plenty of other Bible topics other than the KJV but here you are a heretic if you don't agree with KJVO'ism. I was not aware this was what Christianity was based on.

I have to have everyone elses views to be taken seriously? That would make for a shallow wolrd if everyone had to conform to someones beliefs. I am glad God gave us freedom of choice.

Bro. Parrish 01-25-2009 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just_A_Thought (Post 14922)
was not aware that being called a KJVO was an insult!

Well in your case it was packaged with a stereotypical wrapping and a judgmental ribbon, I don't think I was the only one to pick up on it, here are your words:

"Keep in mind that most KJVOs are hardcore individuals and mean well. There is, however, usually no way of changing thier minds or expecting a straight answer sometimes. If they have a good answer they are swift to give it. If they do not have a good answer they are gruff and sometimes very rude."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just_A_Thought (Post 14922)
The name you have labeld me with is slander but I am not offended easily so I will move on.

But how is it slander, when you indeed deny the nature of the Bible?
You deny the KJV is the INERRANT Word of God, do you not?
You deny the Word of God is PRESERVED ON EARTH, do you not?
You deny the Word of God is EXISTS ON PAPER, do you not?
Answer me straightly, or correct me if I am wrong about your doctrine, please.
You deny the very essence of the Bible, the nature of the Bible itself, thus it seems to me you are a Bible denier, and your rhetorical questions strike me as less than sincere. :cool:

Quote:

Well, you are right I am not a KJV defender but I do promote the KJV. I believe it to be a very accurate translation.
Really?
How can you say that, when everyone can see you already stated,
"we do not know which manuscripts are right."

If you have no idea which manuscripts are right, you have no idea which Bible is right. Sorry, but you nailed yourself to the wall on this, and you keep pushing it. :rolleyes:

Quote:

I was not aware this was what Christianity was based on. I have to have everyone elses views to be taken seriously? That would make for a shallow wolrd if everyone had to conform to someones beliefs. I am glad God gave us freedom of choice.
Well faith comes from hearing the Word of God, (Romans 10:17) so yes, it is very important that we identify and clarify exactly what that is. God did give us freedom of choice, but there is still only one way to Heaven and we have no other choices about that! But you wouldn't be able to agree, since you have no idea if any of the manuscripts are right, and the only Word of God is in heaven! I hope you can see my point, it's the 800 lb. gorilla sitting in the corner of your room. :rolleyes:

Here Am I 01-25-2009 07:46 PM

"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." (John 6:63)

God's words, the Bible, are life. God uses His words to reach people, to help them to understand Him, and to give His children a better glimpse of Who He is and what He wants us to do.

BTW, the 'Word' is Jesus Christ (John 1:1). Don't confuse the 'Word' with the 'word' of God, the Bible, which contains God's 'words'.

It's a lot easier once you are born again, and become a child of God, because, at that point, God will help you to understand His word:
"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." (1 John 2:27)

Just_A_Thought 01-25-2009 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish (Post 14925)
Well in your case it was packaged with a stereotypical wrapping and a judgmental ribbon, I don't think I was the only one to pick up on it, here are your words:

"Keep in mind that most KJVOs are hardcore individuals and mean well. There is, however, usually no way of changing thier minds or expecting a straight answer sometimes. If they have a good answer they are swift to give it. If they do not have a good answer they are gruff and sometimes very rude."




But how is it slander, when you indeed deny the nature of the Bible?
You deny the KJV is the INERRANT Word of God, do you not?
You deny the Word of God is PRESERVED ON EARTH, do you not?
You deny the Word of God is EXISTS ON PAPER, do you not?
Answer me straightly, or correct me if I am wrong about your doctrine, please.
You deny the very essence of the Bible, the nature of the Bible itself, thus it seems to me you are a Bible denier, and your rhetorical questions strike me as less than sincere. :cool:



Really?
How can you say that, when everyone can see you already stated,
"we do not know which manuscripts are right."

If you have no idea which manuscripts are right, you have no idea which Bible is right. Sorry, but you nailed yourself to the wall on this, and you keep pushing it. :rolleyes:



Well faith comes from hearing the Word of God, (Romans 10:17) so yes, it is very important that we identify and clarify exactly what that is. God did give us freedom of choice, but there is still only one way to Heaven and we have no other choices about that! But you wouldn't be able to agree, since you have no idea if any of the manuscripts are right, and the only Word of God is in heaven! I hope you can see my point, it's the 800 lb. gorilla sitting in the corner of your room. :rolleyes:

This is true in a lot of ways. I am sorry I stereo typed all KJVO's. This was my bad and I appologize. I did not mean to put it that way. I said it since the other poster was being slapped around. I still should not have stereo typed this way. It was not done on purpose. Again, I appologize.

You are correct on all three but this does not make me a Bible corrector in any way. Still even if you feel that this is correcting the Bible it is still slander. You are implying that I am correcting God and this is not the case.

I do stand up for the KJV. You have those who attack the KJV for being old and hard to understand. I find this argument poor. I do feel there are some parts that can be difficult to understand but not most of it. I also grew up with it. I may not be TRO but I am not ATO either. I use the Tynsdale NT, Geneva, KJV, and NKJV mostly. As you can see for the most part I use the TR. If I was so against it why would I use it? I wouldn't.

True...

Not true...you see, I compare scripture with scripture. I also pray the Holy Spirit will guide me. The Bible teaches salvation by grace through faith plus none minus none. This is very clear through the whole Bible.

Just_A_Thought 01-25-2009 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Here Am I (Post 14931)
"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." (John 6:63)

God's words, the Bible, are life. God uses His words to reach people, to help them to understand Him, and to give His children a better glimpse of Who He is and what He wants us to do.

BTW, the 'Word' is Jesus Christ (John 1:1). Don't confuse the 'Word' with the 'word' of God, the Bible, which contains God's 'words'.

It's a lot easier once you are born again, and become a child of God, because, at that point, God will help you to understand His word:
"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." (1 John 2:27)

In case you are wondering if I am saved or not, I am. I accept Christ as my Saviour when I was 6 years old. I say this because of your last paragraph. I am not sure if you were implying I am not saved or if you were trying to shoot down the lie that the KJV can not be understood today. The KJV can be understood and I agree with you.

The Word is Jesus which we agree on. I can not say that I completely agree with the rest but I do follow what you are saying. The problem with KJVOs as well as any other belief or denomination is that just because many people fall under the same name. My point, my family is KJVO and thier belief is having the KJV in hand is basically like holding Jesus in thier hand. Not every KJVO believes this but some do.

God Bless!

Bro. Parrish 01-26-2009 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish
But how is it slander, when you indeed deny the nature of the Bible?
You deny the KJV is the INERRANT Word of God, do you not?
You deny the Word of God is PRESERVED ON EARTH, do you not?
You deny the Word of God EXISTS ON PAPER, do you not?
Answer me straightly, or correct me if I am wrong about your doctrine, please. You deny the very essence of the Bible, the nature of the Bible itself, thus it seems to me you are a Bible denier, and your rhetorical questions strike me as less than sincere.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Just_A_Thought
You are correct on all three but this does not make me a Bible corrector in any way. Still even if you feel that this is correcting the Bible it is still slander. You are implying that I am correcting God and this is not the case.
Hmmm, no... I am suggesting you are a Bible DENIER, not corrector.
Thank you for admitting that I am correct on all three above, and be advised; the only slander being done here is YOUR slander against the Bible. I realize this is not a church, but just for perspective I can tell you at my church, any person who denies the Word of God EXISTS ON PAPER would never be allowed a position of leadership or teaching, nor would they be given a free platform to address the body with that doctrine. Yes, it's that serious. This is not a "grey area" like the Gap Theory or what have you. This is important.

No one is angry at you here, (as your poll suggests) but you started all this yourself, and sooner or later, all Bible deniers on this forum end up exposed, with their puppet strings revealed in the light of the truth. The members of this forum are serious about the Bible, and as long as you project your leaven as outlined in the denials above, you will never be taken serious on this subject of Biblical authority. Please understand, it just won't fly here. You need to pray about this and repent of your attitude about God's Word. Read through the material posted on this site and ask God's Spirit to create a change in your heart, I wish you the best as you seek His truth on this issue.

chette777 01-31-2009 04:28 AM

I don't feel like a hard core KJVO. But by faith and personal experience I believe the KJV is far more superior than any edition since 1890.

Steven Avery 02-01-2009 08:08 AM

Rashi on Psalm 12
 
Hi Folks,

This is brought over from the Isaiah 13:15 thread, where James Price and William Combs had attacked "joined unto them" as having no support in the "rabbinic traditions". And then we saw that Rashi, Ibn Ezra and Kimchi all supported "joined unto them" ! And that even in the alternative (mentioned by Kimchi as weak) the translation was not given as Price's modern version supposedly correct "captured" (which was unmentioned, off the radar).

Noting the positive reference to Rashi, the question was asked :

Quote:

Originally Posted by solabiblia
Steven: I notice that we share a respect for the commentary of RASHI. Have you looked at his exegesis of Psalm 12? If so, what do you think of it?

Hi sola. Also the King James Bible translators show a consistent respect for the Hebraics (especially the vocabulary and grammar of the three men above). Where those men tend to be weaker is Messianic interpretation, since on some verses a type of "circling the horses" had become more sophisticated in the rabbinics after the Talmud-Midrash period. (Even there you can find lots of good discoveries in the rabbinics.) Yet on general interpretation and word understanding and usage they are to be respected and considered. (Many of the more tedious attacks on specific words in the King James Bible, e.g. by Rick Norris, are defacto refuted by the rabbinic references that Norris studiously avoids finding and mentioning.) And as Hayim Sheynin pointed out, Rashi tends to be sensible and down-to-earth in interpretation.

In a general sense, these men knew ancient Hebrew on a level way beyond the modern lexicon scholars. Like the Christian Hebraists of the 16th and 17th century, they worked deeply with the ancient Hebrew and Aramaic texts daily, and their work was highly respected by the Christian Hebraists. They had a hands-on familiarity with the Hebrew Bible, the Targum, the Talmud and Midrash, and other writings including the earlier rabbinics. (Today's lexicon scholars are mostly oblivious to all this. And they especially do not like when clear explanations from these Hebrew giants have been translated to English, readable by the ploughman, and directly contradict their dubious assertions against the pure Bible !) And when Rashi, Ibn Ezra and Kimchi agree on the meaning of a word or phrase (Messianic passages being possible exceptions) you can have some confidence that their sense is true or at least worthy of very earnest consideration. And often this will be reflected in the King James Bible, against some nouveau-modernist translation, as in Isaiah 13:15 and Jeremiah 8:8 (a truly critical verse in Bible-apologetics). We run into these verses frequently (where the KJB and usually the Geneva and other Reformation sources agree with the historic Jewish understanding against modern translation corruptions). A nice study would be to catalog a dozen or so with explanations.

Now on Psalm 12 there is a split in the Hebraics, with Ibn Ezra taking the "words" position for Psalm 12:7. (This is a clear and strong refutation of the more belligerent accusations on this verse that the "words" understanding is some sort of KJB-defender invention. Such accusations are rather common-place, showing once again the deficient level of understanding of the anti-KJB crew.) The split in the rabbinics is one of the reasons that I tend to be not overly dogmatic against the "persons" view and do not rail at it harshly.

Remember this is translation, not text, the King James Bible text is pure and accurate for either interpretation. While the "us" translations, every common today, are most especially deficient. Another corruption in many modern versions. This is one of the oft-hidden aspects of the verse, one that John Hinton brought to light most clearly.

For awhile I tended to consider the possibility of an ambiguity, a dual application. However, simply reading the verse as a whole carefully:

http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...89&postcount=8
Psalm 12 - contrast - God's word with lips of men


has make my conviction sure that the primary and clear meaning is the words of the LORD, and preservation of people "from this generation for ever" (a key phrase) would only apply to the "poor and "needy" in a secondary, midrashic sense, if at all.

Psalm 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.


Now Rashi gives an interesting interpretation on the two verses. He first writes very nicely about Psalm 12:6. (Psalm 12:7 in the Hebrew Bible, as they include the verse header as a verse.) The Mayer Gruber translation is clearer generally, so if I indicate nothing, that is what I am using. The major difference in the Judaica Press edition I will put as from JP. Where JP is clearer, then (Gr) can give Gruber.

The promises of the Lord are pure promises

They are so for He has the ability to fulfill them, while the promises of people are not (valid promises) for they (people) die, and they have not the ability to fulfill them.

pure

clear and fulfilled (JP: permanent) He does all that He promises; Note that He promised me (David) vindication and kingship. (JP: salvation and the throne).

silver refined (Gr - purged)

They are like refined silver that is exposed to the entire land. (JP)

Note that they (the promises of the Lord) is like purged silver, which is manifest to the whole earth. (Gr)

(JP)
exposed Heb. בעליל, an expression of revealing; in the language of the Mishna (Rosh Hashanah 21b, see Gemara): “whether it was plainly (בעליל) visible or whether it was not plainly (בעליל) visible, etc.” Others explain בעליל as an expression of elevation, and this is its explanation: silver refined with the best earth. (snip more explanations) ... Targum Jonathan, too, renders it as an expression of lordship. He says that His sayings are like silver, refined by the Lord of the earth, Who is God, for He refined and clarified them.

Clarified sevenfold.

This part is clearly excellent. Rashi is strongly emphasizing the purity of the words of God and the temporality of man's words and promises ("from this generation for ever" is a critical part of the next verse). The one omission I notice is that while Rashi talks about the "sayings" or "promises" of the Lord he does not specifically identify the Scripture as the eternal vessel and container for the words of God to man. One reason for this lack might be the confusions in rabbinics where extra-scriptural writings (e.g Talmud-Midrash and later even the rabbinics themselves) are given a very high status as of divine origin. Thus in Jewish writings there is a tendency to avoid simple statements about the full specialness and authority and inspiration of the Scripture alone.

This became a bit longer than expected, time is short (I prefer my posts to be carefully done) so I will continue the next verse on a second post.

Note, when quoting the Jewish sources, they are often not clear about the distinction between Lord and LORD, using 'Lord' for both. In this case I follow their usage of 'Lord' -- which in this verse is LORD == Jehovah.

Shalom,
Steven

Steven Avery 02-02-2009 04:43 AM

Rashi on Psalm 12:7 - Midrash on Psalms
 
Hi Folks,

Now having discussed Rashi's mostly strength and some weakness on verse 6:

Psalm 12:6
The words of the LORD are pure words:
as silver tried in a furnace of earth,
purified seven times.


We go to verse 7.

Psalm 12:7
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD,
thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.


Working with the Mayer Gruber version, as the Judaica Press is lacking some of the text on this verse.

========

You, O Lord, Will Keep them.

Keep it in their hearts (Rashi)

Footnote: The midrash reads "Keep their Torah in their hearts"

=======


Hmmm... hold the presses !
So immediately we have fine new information, double the fun.

Rashi and the midrash (presumably Midrash on Psalms, which has not been referenced on this verse in the recent discussions) apparently both support Psalm 12:7a being about the words of the Lord. Rashi clearly so, in a straightforward manner. Midrash on Psalms needing to be checked. This is powerful information and afaik has never been noted before in the discussions.

We have some of the words from the midrash, however on verse 6. The context of the quote was different so it will be next helpful to look up the midrash, the William Braude translation would be fine, and see if we can find something akin to :

"Keep their Torah in their hearts".
(Readers: Feel free to check your local university library and report back.)

“The words of the Lord are . . . silver tried in the open before all men, refined seven times seven.” “Rabbi Yannai said: The words of the Torah were not given as clear-cut decisions. For with every word which the Holy One, blessed be He, spoke to Moses..."

The Midrash on Psalms, trans. by William G. Braude, vol. I (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959), p. 173.


The context given there is one of the oral law discussions, our of our loop. However based on what we see in Rashi there might be some fine parts in the Midrash.

Note: Now we have learned that Doug Kutilek wrote deceptively.

Rabbinic scholar Rashi (d. 1105) writes, “you will keep them -- this is said concerning the poor and afflicted who are persecuted by this generation."
(Why Psalm 12:6,7 is not a Promise of the Infallible Preservation of Scripture, Doug Kutilek)

Hmmm... oopps.. Doug Kutilek did not tell his readers that this is a part of the Rashi Psalm 12:7b section. By simply quoting "you will keep them..." Kutilek wants to give the reader the false impression that Rashi is referring to all of verse 7, with Doug Kutilek knowing full well that is the impression that will be received by most. Since the readers are familiar with "Thou shalt keep them" as Psalm 12:7a.

Yet the Psalm 12:7a section from Rashi is as above, God is keeping the word of God in their heart ! (In Jewish understanding Torah is a multi-dimensional word, with meanings that include the 5 Books of Moses and Scripture as a whole.)

So surprisingly enough, this will end up being at least a 3-part response ! The import of all this is far-reaching, since the "split understanding" is a very big fly in the ointment of the attack on the King James Bible defender understanding that Psalm 12 does refer to God's words.

Please remember one thing. There really is absolutely no doubt, even among the informed opposition, that the King James Bible translation is 100% sound and accurate, and that the "preserve us" translations are very dubious, ie. errant, not representing the Hebrew Bible.

And within the King James Bible accurate and proper translation there are three general interpretations.

1) The words of God kept and preserved
2) 7a is words, 7b is poor and needy
3) Poor and needy preserved from this generation for ever !


And then there are the dual and ambiguous interpretations that allow for both.

Having discovered that Rashi had been greatly misrepresented, and lines best with (2) and with Ibn Ezra being (1) and David Kimchi being (2) or (3) (research needed) really changes the dynamic of the rabbinic evidences. I had previously been surprised that the major early rabbinics would be majority for persons, that simply did not seem likely looking at the simple context of the verse and knowing their sense. Now we see that it is simply is not the case, the rabbinics had been misrepresented. Also we discover the Midrash on Psalms may want to weigh in as well.

Now to be fair, there is a distinction between the words of God being kept in the heart of the believer and being preserved for all generations. In fact, one irony in all this is that if a split was to be had -- "preserve them from this generation for ever" clearly is a better fit for words than people ! However we will go into this more, by the grace of the Lord Jesus, in a future post.

We will next look at Rashi on Psalm 12:7b.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery 02-02-2009 08:29 AM

Rashi on Psalm 12:7b
 
Hi Folks,

Before more discussion, let us give the Rashi commentary on Psalm 12:7b.

Preserve them from this generation that they do not learn from (this Generation's) behaviour to be informers. Another equally plausible interpretation (of v. 8 is the following). Keep them (ie. those poor and impoverished who are persecuted from (being victimized by) this generation, who are informers.
(Rashi's Commentary on Psalms - translated by Mayer I. Gruber - 2008)


Note what Doug Kutilek offered as the Rashi interpretation is actually his second, alternative interpretation. (The Judaica Press publication only gives the first interpretation, so that cannot be the reason, my conjecture is that Doug Kutileki looked up a translation from Old French to Hebrew or Aramaic and then deliberately parsed the information for his own purposes. If I am wrong on this I would be happy to be corrected and I acknowledge that this is all new as of yesterday and no effort has been made to check with Doug Kutilek.)

So we noticed that Doug Kutilek also simplified the Rashi interpretation in order to match his absurd attempt to paint "words" as preserved as some sort of "totally foreign" interpretation that would come from those who handle the word of God "deceitfully" and "dishonestly". The putrid accusation that David Cloud rightly characterized as a mouse attacking elephants ! -- since Kutilek had mentioned a number of excellent scholars who interpret the verse with an emphasis on words. Now we find that it appears that Kutilek had to quote "deceitfully and dishonestly" in order to try to make this case of deceitfulness against others ! Oh, what a web.

Ok, next we will look at the two competing interpretations. Neither one of which has very much pizazz .. however at least they come from a writer of competence and scriptural insight, who wrote quite interestingly about the verses. However, off to work for now.

Shalom,
Steven


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:29 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