|
Eaton - the main Hebrew tradition
Hi Folks,
A little sidenote, a puzzle solved. http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...8&postcount=27 Psalm 12:7 - Commentaries J. H. Eaton - Torch Bible Commentaries (1967) "...but we may rather follow the main Hebrew tradition: "Thou O Lord shalt keep them (i.e. watch over the words to fulfill them, Jer. 1:12)..." Jeremiah 1:12 Then said the LORD unto me, Thou hast well seen: for I will hasten my word to perform it. The question was how John H. Eaton referenced the "main Hebrew tradition" if Rashi and Kimchi had both not applied keep to words. With Ibn Ezra taking the words side. Now we have the answer. Rashi had been misrepresented and in Psalm 12:7a does apply 'keep' to words, against most of the modernist weak interpretations. (And we will try to track down the fulness of Kimchi's interpretation.) Shalom, Steven |
Re: " Psalm 12:7 - the Promise of Preservation"
Aloha brother Steve,
Quote:
The deceitful manner in which these so-called "scholars" operate amounts to TREASON, and Almighty God hates "treachery" even more than "backsliding"! Isaiah 24:16 From the uttermost part of the earth have we heard songs, even glory to the righteous. But I said, My leanness, my leanness, woe unto me! the treacherous dealers have dealt treacherously; yea, the treacherous dealers have dealt very treacherously. Jeremiah 3:6 The LORD said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot. 7 And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it. 8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also. 9 And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks. 10 And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith the LORD. 11 And the LORD said unto me, The backsliding Israel hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah. The testimony of the Holy Scriptures is crystal clear: God HATES treachery! And these "Christian scholars" have dealt treacherously with God's Holy words! They do not have a "love of the truth", but instead are found to be fighting against God Himself! Jude 1:16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage. After dealing with these people for over 40 years I have come to the conclusion that nothing will change their minds. Their hearts are set in stone, and nothing short of the personal intervention of Almighty God is going to change the course of their erroneous and fraudulent "researches"; or influence their mistaken, misleading, and unfounded "conclusions". When it comes to the Holy word of God - they are REPROBATE! And I personally believe that God has given them over to a "reprobate mind" - at least as far as His Holy words are concerned. I greatly appreciate your painstaking research on these issues; it reinforces my own research into these issues back in the late 1960's, the 1970's, and the 1980's. I'm glad that someone has stepped up to contend with these disingenuous "scholars" - I have grown weary of dealing with these people after all of these years. :( Keep up the good work! :) |
thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Hi Folks,
Quote:
Before returning to Rashi and other items in process (hmm.. can I get to the University and look up William Braude Midrash on Psalms ? Even the Judaica store might have the book on the shelf :) ) I will share a tidbit of interest. Above I have been emphasizing : "thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever" As being particularly sensible for the words of God. And particularly awkward for the poor and needy. Delitzsch accidentally highlights this in his modernist commentary when he says, with a straight face: The "preserving for ever" is so constant, that neither now nor at any future time will they succumb to this generation. (Bible Commentary on the Psalms - Franz Delitzsch p. 197) :) By the later 1800s many translation theories had changed, often under modernist German (often unbelieving or facade-believing) influence. e.g. Delitzsch was one of the primary movers in changing Isaiah 13:15, which has its own thread. By this period the quality of the Commentaries had generally gone way downhill, which you can see by .. simply reading. As a little aside Arno Clement Gaebelein (The Annotated Bible, 1921) tests us that: "The great Leipzig professor, Franz Delitzsch, also joined the band of 'scientific butchers,' and declared that the second part of Isaiah is of post-exilic authorship." Thus such a scholar, sans a solid Bible-believing base, could write about "nor at any future time will they succumb to this generation" without any concern that the logic is upside-down. Shalom, Steven |
Rashi on Psalm 12:7b - thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever
Hi Folks,
Now we move to Rashi on Psalm 12:7b. Psalm 12:7 thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. 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) Clearly this is an unusual commentary. The reason is explained in an article by Avi Baumol which discusses the commentaries of Rashi, Radak and Malbim. The Avi Baumol commentary itself is interesting, mixed, yet it really explains the Rashi context. Tehillim: The Book of Psalms by Avi Baumol. Psalm 12, in a word, is about words. Our greatest medium of expression is indeed King David's most precious vehicle for connecting to his creator. However, there is a grave danger that surrounds the use, or rather abuse, of words ... Psalm 12 represents a significant change in David's attitude in his Psalms. It is an enclosed unit devoted almost entirely to one topic: words. It does not have to do with David's suffering, or his despair. Nor is there a plea for salvation in general. Rather, David has one thing on his mind: "Save O God, for honesty, integrity is gone, trustworthiness has been stripped from man. Lies and deceit speaks one to the other, a language of smoothness, superficial communication. Let God obliterate all who smooth talk, those who speak with high-flouting language. Let God obliterate those who brazenly state, our words will strengthen us, we are our own masters. They who prey on the downtrodden, they who embezzle from the simple. I shall arise, says God, wage war against those who breathe out erring air. God's words are pure, as molten silver, glowing from the furnace. You God (alone) will guard the downtrodden, watch over this generation." ... Rashi ... remains true to the tradition and maintains that the psalms were written by David, and are about David. As David was dodging King Shaul's spear, he experienced an eerie alliance from people living in the wilderness of Zif. They accepted him and offered him peace. At the same time, using their 'other hearts,' they went to Shaul and betrayed David's hideout, waiting for a reward for David's ultimate demise. It was not the people of Zif who were killing David; they merely spoke words to Shaul, informing on David, and causing a near tragic ending to David's life. Against them, David speaks out, 'where are the honest and wholehearted people in the world? Why must I encounter smooth talkers who speak with one heart but adhere to the other? Let God strike down those who talk with such haughtiness...' Rashi finds an historical background to trace the motivation for David's psalm. Thus we can well understand the Rashi emphasis on "informers". Rashi is looking through a historical lens with David at the center. This is something he does on many Psalms, an interesting example being Psalm 2 where Rashi avoids the powerful Messianic interpretation that is later given by Ibn Ezra. Within his lens, Rashi offers two interpretations. Both bump up against the difficulty mentioned in the last post. from this generation for ever. Rashi A) Preserve them from this generation that they do not learn from (this Generation's) behaviour to be informers. B) Keep them (ie. those poor and impoverished who are persecuted from (being victimized by) this generation, who are informers. Neither of these are not really preservation in our traditional positive sense, and our protective sense, they are more "keep away from .." in the sense of separation. The first is close in sense to : 1 Corinthians 15:33 Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners. While the second is to avoid the evil done by informers. (This is closer to our traditional sense, albeit with the imposed limitations of the informer context.) Thus Rashi has to simply bypass: from this generation for ever. So while Rashi's interpretation of Psalm 12:7b can be seen as an interesting midrashic attempt, it is not really strong as the pshat, the simple and clear reading of the Bible text. Rashi is working with a limited Davidic lens and he even has to omit discussing the salient "for ever" (such as we saw in the Delitzsch flying-in-time leap). In order to try to work the verse into being about not becoming informers and being protected from informers, the needs of those around David. Fascinating, yet not of great significance. The Rashi usage of Psalm 12:7a for keeping Torah on the hearts of men and the Midrash on Psalms full reference (to track down) are the main elements of interest. And the Rashi interpretation of Psalm 12:6 is quite nice. Now, it might be good to mention that there is nothing at all in these Hebraic studies that even remotely allows for the common error of translating Psalm 12:7b as "preserve us" rather than the correct "preserve them". From a strictly translation point-of-view this is the major error made on the verses in the modern versions. Do the modern versions mistranslate deliberately in order to avoid the application of Psalm 12 to the preservation of the words of God ? Returning to Rashi ... solabiblia, I hope this has been helpful in answering your question. Shalom, Steven Avery |
Tehillim (Psalms) - 2 recent translations
Hi Folks,
Remember how John H. Eaton discussed the "main Hebrew tradition" . "But we may rather follow the main Hebrew tradition: "Thou O Lord shalt keep them (i.e. watch over the words to fulfill them, Jer. 1:12)" (Torch Bible Commentaries, 1967). Having discussed the Rashi commentary, I would like to look at a couple of more recent Jewish translations of Psalm 12. More from the religious Jewish publications as the less religious tends to simply follow modern scholarship ideas. These two recent publications of Psalms will give an idea of the translations. First: Psalm 12:6-7 (KJB) 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. Next the Hebrew traditional understanding expressed in recent translation. http://books.google.com/books?id=TXKbHVSAy60C Tehillim: Eis ratzon : a time of favor - translated Yaakov Yosef Iskowitz, 2004 The words of the Eternal are pure words; like purified silver, revealed to the world, refined seven times. You, O Eternal, will guard them; You will protect them from a generation such as this, forever. http://www.chabad.org/library/articl...Chapter-12.htm Tehilllim Ohel Yoseph Yitzchok -Y.B. Marcus, Nissen Mangel and Eliyahu Touger (1994) The words of the Lord are pure words, like silver refined in the finest earthen crucible, purified seven times. May You, O Lord, watch over them; may You forever guard them from this generation, [in which] the wicked walk on every side; when they are exalted it is a disgrace to mankind. In both cases it is easy to see that the flow of the verses, the simple and clear meaning, is the watching, guarding, protecting of the words of the LORD. Here is another, on the web. http://www.freewebs.com/jewish-spiri...l/Tehillim.pdf In The Morning: Selected Psalms translated by Yaacov Dovid Shulman The words of God Are pure words. They are silver refined From a caldron onto the ground And filtered seven times. You, God, guard them. Keep them from this generation Constantly, From the evil-doers who prowl in a circle, When depravity is exalted amidst all men. Shalom, Steven |
Psalm 12 in poetic form
Hi Folks,
There is a powerpoint presentation on the Psalms, entertaining and reasonably informative, albeit with some mishegas, paying attention to the deficient form critics. Yet also good material. Rollin J. Blackburn prepared this for teaching in seminary and uses the NKJV in the text (oops) .. what is fascinating is that Psalm 12 is laid out in a poetic fashion, which highlights the true interpretation. Possibly they forgot to check with the modernist interpreters :) and took the simple and clear path. And the two verses are put in their own stanza. http://www.romans12two.net/downloads/Poets/Psalms.pdf The Psalms http://www.romans12two.net/downloads/Poets/Psalms2.pdf Sepher Tehillim (p.39) The words of the LORD are pure words, .............Like silver tried in a furnace of earth, .............Purified seven times. You shall keep them, O LORD, You shall preserve them from this generation forever. The same poetic style would look very nice with the pure KJB words, (putting aside not using indent HTML). Shalom, Steven |
Hi Steve. Thanks for these additional sources.
Will K |
Sfar Emes - Yehudah Aryeh Leib Alter
Hi Folks,
Quote:
Here is another one of some interest and strength, that is complementary to Samson Raphael Hirsch. Sfas Emes is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yehudah_Aryeh_Leib_Alter Yehudah Aryeh Leib Alter (1847–1905), also known by the title of his main work, the Sfas Emes, was a Hasidic rabbi who succeeded his grandfather, Rabbi Yitzchak Meir Alter, as the av beis din (head of the rabbinical court) and Rav of Góra Kalwaria, Poland (known in Yiddish as the town of Ger), and succeeded the Rebbe, Reb Heynekh of Alexander, as Rebbe of the Gerrer Hasidim ... Rabbi Yehudah Aryeh Leib was one of the greatest Torah scholars of his generation, http://www.torah.org/advanced/sfas-e...5/shavuos.html Sfas Emes Shavuos By Nosson Chayim Leff ... the Sfas Emes quotes from Tehillim (12:7-8): "Imros HaShem imaros tehoros ... " (ArtScroll: "The words of HaShem are pure words; like purified silver ... refined sevenfold ("shiva'sayim") ... The pasuk continues: "May, You, HaShem, protect them ...". The Sfas Emes explains that the "them" which the pasuk is asking HaShem to protect refers to the words of Torah. Their purity will be preserved by their being kept in the purity of our hearts. The Zohar (and the Sfas Emes) are telling us is that now, at our Matan Torah, we too should prepare our hearts to be vessels suitable for preserving the Torah in its purity. .... The Medrash explains that Dovid Hamelech composed that perek (chapter) (Tehilim, 12) in a very specific historical context. .... Dovid Hamelech prayed to HaShem to protect them (the bright scholars and their Learning). Clearly there is a lot of emphasis in the hasidic interpretation that is mystical, arcane and away from our Christian perspective. It is likely that Samson Hirsch is more down to earth, reflecting the streams of Jewish thought, hasidic and mitnagdim (which would be the more traditional 'orthodox'). From Leib, we see clearly that "protect them" is, as with Rashi, applied to protecting the words of God (Torah) so as to be efficacious and lasting in the hearts of the people. In the section above, we cannot tell if Lieb specifically discusses the second part of the verse, however we can see once again that the main Hebrew tradition is that : Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, "them" Is a direct reference to the immediately preceding subject : The words of the LORD Shalom, Steven |
whither the preservation opponents belligerance ?
Hi Folks,
Now I would like to emphasize that the belligerence against the King James Bible defender understanding of Psalm 12 has always been a curious, even dark, phenomenon. First, these men are usually quick to proclaim the truth of the preservation of God's word (what they would call "the message") yet they are insistent that we are not supposed to see this in the beautiful Psalm ! 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. Yet the simple read of Psalm 12 (if the translation is not tampered to "preserve us" or in other ways, another critical trick of deception) clearly fits extremely well the preservation of the word of God. In three complementary yet distinct ways: a) localized flow of the words - verse 6 to verse 7 b) the theme of the whole Psalm (post #8) c) theme of the Bible as a whole. (post #5) Remember that many of the most complementary verses are in the NT and would be out of the perspective of the recent discussion of Jewish commentary. Worthy of special emphasis is : 1 Peter 1:23-25 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 word of the Lord endureth for ever Which very neatly ties together the very same themes as our verses. On page one of this thread is a partial list of complementary verses. The belligerent adversary has to go so far as to claim a total disconnect between : The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. And: Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, This is prima facie a very difficult and dubious position to take. And on closer examination it becomes that much more dubious. One of the ironies though is that they have to take the belligerent position. After all, when you look at the two phrases : Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. It is hard to see how anyone, with a straight face, can claim that the two "thems" have totally different referents ! Another irony is that it is the second "them" that contextually most clearly refers to the words of God. The critical phrase that shows this is "from this generation for ever". In fact, the commentators who fell for the "only people" view will comment, in their more lucid moments, on the awkwardnesses in their understandings. We see them giving strained attempts to account for the "from this generation for ever", a phrase which simply does not fit well to comfort for the poor and needy. Those commentators also struggle with the strangeness of the Psalm moving (in their interpretation) from victory and comfort in preservation of the poor and needy unto despair over the wicked and vile who oppress the poor and needy at the end of the Psalm. Later I hope to put together a couple of posts shortly showing those awkwardnesses, using mostly the words of the commentators themselves, even the ones stuck with the awkward and ill-fitting "only persons" interp. (The problems are easy to see, but in their zeal to attack the preservation of God's word, the modern version proponents operate on a very low scholastic level.) Granted these are in a sense secondary issues, however in the context of this thread and study they are worthy of note. Another point that would be good to review are the various interpreters who give a dual or mixed interpretation, how they try to take that position, what makes sense, what does not, and more. Shalom, Steven |
Augustine on Psalm 12
Hi Folks,
The first example of an awkward interpretation is early and interesting. Although the following is shared for more general purposes. We have Augustine, around 420 AD. Giving us an historical window for our multi-dimensional study :) . Now remember Augustine was stuck with the deficient Greek text with "preserve us" - so we know he has to have a "persons" interpretation. http://books.google.com/books?id=zqBaAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA104 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1801012.htm Exposition on Psalm 12 - Augustine The words of the Lord are pure words. This is in the person of the Prophet himself, The words of the Lord are pure words. He says pure, without the alloy of pretence. For many preach the truth impurely; (Philippians 1:16) for they sell it for the bribe of the advantages of this life. Of such the Apostle says, that they declared Christ not purely. Silver tried by the fire for the earth. These words of the Lord by means of tribulations approved to sinners. Purified seven times: by the fear of God, by godliness, by knowledge, by might, by counsel, by understanding, by wisdom. (Isaiah 11:2) For seven steps also of beatitude there are, which the Lord goes over, according to Matthew, in the same sermon which He spoke on the Mount, Blessed are the poor in spirit, blessed the meek, blessed they that mourn, blessed they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness, blessed the merciful, blessed the pure in heart, blessed the peacemakers. (Matthew 5:3-9) Of which seven sentences, it may be observed how all that long sermon was spoken. For the eighth where it is said, Blessed are they which suffer persecution for righteousness' sake, (Matthew 5:10) denotes the fire itself, whereby the silver is proved seven times. And at the termination of this sermon it is said, For He taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes. (Matthew 7:29) Which refers to that which is said in this Psalm, I deal confidently in Him. You, O Lord, shall preserve us, and keep us from this generation to eternity: here as needy and poor, there as wealthy and rich. The irony of saying the poor are preserved as wealthy is itself a rich irony, showing one awkwardnesses of the "persons" interpretation. By no means probative, yet indicative of the difficulties. Augustine apparently smooths it a bit by "to eternity" - implying preserved unto salvation, one of a number of interpretations that are given when Psalm 12:7b is applied to persons. This above is also given to the thread for the purpose of showing our first known exegesis on Psalm 12. Well, when we have the Midrash on Psalms text we will have a similar early text (with a less exact date). The first section about silver tried and words is quite interesting. Shalom, Steven |
the oppo text-version and argument ? all over the map
Hi Folks,
Hmm.. I was preparing a post to show a major flaw in the opponents arguments, and then I realized the terrible truth .. We don't know what are the opponents arguments, nor their text and version. You can read long articles that they write, and you will never find out what is the actual Bible (in their view). Amazing. Now some claim the King James Bible is mistranslated, others not at all. Some claim that Psalm 12:6-7 have nothing to do with the preservation of the word of God. Some claim that limitation only for verse Psalm 12:7b. Some claim that Psalm 12:6 is only about God keeping one promise earlier in the verse. Some claim that the problem is not really translational, or even conceptual in the idea of preservation, simply our interpretation - applying the promise of Psalm 12 to the specific tangible, readable Bible in our hands, the King James Bible. And there are more variations on their themes. So I realized that I had to understand what the specific opponent accepted as the text and I thought that might be fairly easy. Yet a review of the version babel and their articles shows something very different. You simply never know what they claim is the true Bible text and when it comes to their actual kvetch against the King James Bible, they are all over the map. The opponents of Psalm 12:6-7 against the King James Bible as being the preserved word of God have a hodge-podge of translations with very different meanings, even on just the one fulcrum verse, Psalm 12:7. So this post will be simply a review of ... who says what. Then we can try to unravel the various opponents confusions. 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. Thus we read the pure Bible .. with 'them and them'. The cornfuseniks read four very different major possibilities and then some other ones. No wonder they don't even know what position they are taking ! The following list is of course not complete. However it gives the picture. Oppo Variety-Pack Us and Us Them and Us Them and Him Them and Them Them and Each Them and Me Them and Us (paraphrase - them=needy) Them and Them (paraphrase - them=Oppressed) Here is the alphabet soup. ================================== US and US HCSB - Holman Christian Standard Bible You, Lord, will guard us; You will protect us from this generation forever. NIV - New International Version O Lord, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever. NRSV - New Revised Standard Version You, O Lord, will protect us; you will guard us from this generation forever. RSV - Revised Standard Version Do thou, O LORD, protect us, guard us ever from this generation. GNT - Good News Translation Keep us always safe, O Lord, and preserve us from such people. NCV - New Century Version Lord, you will keep us safe; you will always protect us from such people. TEV - Today's English Version Keep us always safe, O LORD, and preserve us from such people. Message (Paraphrase) God, keep us safe from their lies, From the wicked who stalk us with lies, New Life Bible O Lord, You will keep us. You will keep us safe forever from the people of this day. NAB - New American bible LORD, protect us always; preserve us from this generation. === GREEK AND LATIN TEXTS - US & US LXX (Brenton) Thou, O Lord, shalt keep us, and shalt preserve us, from this generation, and for ever. Rheims Thou, O Lord, wilt preserve us: and keep us from this generation for ever. ================================== THEM AND US English Standard Version You, O Lord, will keep them; you will guard us* from this generation forever. * Or guard him Young's Literral Thou, O Jehovah, dost preserve them, Thou keepest us from this generation to the age. Amplified You will keep them and preserve them, O Lord; You will guard and keep us from this [evil] generation forever. JPS-1917 Thou wilt keep them, O LORD; Thou wilt preserve us from this generation for ever. Soncino Thou wilt keep them, O LORD Thou wilt preserve us from this generation for ever. DSS Bible You, O LORD, will protect them; you will preserve us from this generation forever ================================== THEM AND HIM NASV - New American Standard You, O LORD, will keep them; You will preserve him from this generation forever. EMPHASIZED - Rotherdam Thou, O Yahweh, wilt keep them, --Thou wilt guard him, from this generation unto times age-abiding. GENEVA Thou wilt keep them, O Lord: thou wilt preserve him from this generation for ever. JUDAICA PRESS You, O Lord, shall guard them; You shall guard him from this generation forever. AINSWORTH Thou Jehovah wilt keep them, will preserve him * from this generation for ever. ie. every one of them ================================== THEM and EACH JPS-1985 & 2004 You, O LORD, will keep them, guarding * each from this age * evermore. * Meaning of Heb. uncertain ================================== THEM AND ME Peshitta (Lamsa from Aramaic) Thou shalt keep them, O LORD; thou shalt preserve me and save me from this generation for ever. ================================== THEM and US - (Paraphrase - Defining THEM as the needy) TNIV - Today's New International Version You, Lord, will keep the needy safe and will protect us forever from the wicked ================================== THEM and THEM -- (Paraphrase - Defining THEM as Oppressed) NLT - New Living Translation Therefore, LORD, we know you will protect the oppressed, preserving them forever from this lying generation, ================================== THEM AND THEM - (Similar to KJB, often with other weaknesses) NKJV - New King James Version You shall keep them, O Lord, You shall preserve them from this generation forever. ASV - American Standard Version Thou wilt keep them, O Jehovah, Thou wilt preserve them from this generation for ever. Webster Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. BBE = Bible in Basic English You will keep them, O Lord, you will keep them safe from this generation for ever. ERV - English Revised Version Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. Darby Thou, Jehovah, wilt keep them, thou wilt preserve them from this generation for ever. Or 'him:' see end of ver. 5. LITV - MKJV Jay Green Literal You shall keep them, O Jehovah; You shall preserve them from this generation forever. NJB - New Jerusalem Bible You, Yahweh, will watch over them, you will protect them from that brood for ever. World English Bible You will keep them, Yahweh, You will preserve them from this generation forever. The Book of Tehillim - Moses Greenfield (1985) Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. Tehillim: Eis ratzon -Yaakov Yosef Iskowitz, (2004) You, O Eternal, will guard them; You will protect them from a generation such as this, forever. Tehilllim Ohel Yoseph Yitzchok -Y.B. Marcus, Nissen Mangel and Eliyahu Touger (1994) May You, O Lord, watch over them; may You forever guard them from this generation, In The Morning: Selected Psalms translated by Yaacov Dovid Shulman You, God, guard them. Keep them from this generation ================================== In future posts I hope to highlight the slipperiness of the opposition multi-positions, and various contradictions. However for now, I just want to make it clear the babel version aspect of the cornfuseniks. Look at the most vocal opponents, and try to get a clear idea of what the word of God actually says (even before interpretation) and you will find .. mud. By contrast, we can be most thankful for God's sure word. Psalm 119:140 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it. Shalom, Steven |
one more for the road - NETBible
Hi Folks,
And we can add the NETBible (Daniel Wallace presiding) to the oddball "Them and Each" (which could be considered as a strange offshoot to "Them and Him", one of the four common translations). NET Bible You, LORD, will protect them; you will continually shelter each one from these evil people, Notice the unique strangeness, transforming "for ever" (le`olâm) to "continually" and dropping "this generation" (min-haddor). "Continually" is a mistranslations meant to smooth away one the contextual awkwardness problems. We see a lot of this type of translation junque in the recent push for an 'all persons' translation and interpretation, pretending it is supported by the Masoretic Hebrew text. (Clearly if somebody wants to say they are following the Greek OT or Vulgate a "persons" translation with implied interpretation would be consistent. From the corrupt text. Although you would have to have "us" and "us".) We have the NETBible dropping "this generation" with this note: "The noun דוֹר (dor, “generation”) refers here to the psalmist’s contemporaries, who were characterized by deceit and arrogance (see vv. 1-2)." The note is lame because it is used as an excuse and it offers no reason to drop the word. And replace "generation" with an out-of-place "from these evil people". This is paraphrase translation at its worse, dictating in the text your personal interpretation. When that occurs it is very likely the interpretation itself is deficient. In this NETBible case the two textual tamperings and one very dubious translation ("each one") were combined in order to deceive the NETBible reader. To try to subtilely fight against the pure Bible words and understanding. Psalm 12:6-7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. Shalom, Steven Avery PS. Dear reader, bear with me and sharpen your multi-tasking skills. The main problem now is .. a wealth of new and interesting material and analysis and discussion to share. |
Martin Luther's commentary and hymn
Hi Folks,
Martin Luther is referenced in the Psalm 12 discussion. Today we have the English translation of the commentary and the full text of the hymn (which is usually the only reference). http://books.google.com/books?id=TUYEAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA41 A manual of the Book of psalms: or, The subject-contents of all the Psalms by Martin Luther - translated by Henry Cole (1837) This is a prayer containing a heavy complaint against them, who, introduce human doctrines instead of the word of God, and who, afterwards, by various new traditions and forms of worship disturb the church, and fill all things with a white-wash show of religion, and with the outward daubing of Pharisaism and hypocrisy, so that wicked men and hypocrites reign on every side, as the last verse complains. For when human doctrines have once invaded the church, they go on to rage far and wide, and spread in all directions like a cancer; there is no end to their corruption and destructive influence ; they take possession of all things and wonderfully vex and torment consciences: so that the number of the true saints and of those that truly fear God is few and small indeed : of this the infinite variety of papistical hypocrisy affords a manifest example. But we are consoled and comforted under all these afflictions by the consideration that God always raises up in his church, sometimes in this place and sometimes in that, his salvation; that is, his word and gospel ; which, while the prophets, apostles, and other ministers throughout the world, boldly and plainly teach against all heresy, they detect and bring to light false doctrines, and overturn all false worship; for where the salvation of God is, (that is, the saving word of Christ and his gospel) it burns up and consumes, like a suddenly-kindled fire, all the chaff and straw of human traditions, and delivers oppressed consciences. This, however, never takes place without afflictions, and the cross in various forms. But as gold and silver are proved by the fire, so the true knowledge and purity of the word is not preserved in the church but by means of the truly spiritual and godly, who for the word's sake are exercised without and within by Satan, with various temptations: for these, like gold, are proved in the fire, and thus grow daily and flourish in the knowledge of the gospel, and the great things of God. Now Luther's commentary is not the softest, clearest read, yet it is sensible. Here are the two critical phrases for our discussion of his application. we are consoled and comforted ... God always raises up in his church, sometimes in this place and sometimes in that, his salvation; that is, his word and gospel ; the true knowledge and purity of the word is not preserved in the church but by means of the truly spiritual and godly Note especially that Martin Luther is discussing how the purity of the word is preserved. And here is what is said about the Martin Luther hymn, again with the truth being preserved. http://www.wayoflife.org/otimothy/tl040003.htm Psalm 12:7 and Bible Preservation - David Cloud (from Peter Van Kleeck) "Martin Luther's German Bible ... Following the arrangement of this Psalm, Luther penned a hymn, two stanzas of which reflect his understanding of verse 6 and 7: ... "Thy truth thou wilt preserve, O Lord, from this vile generation..." In poetic form, Luther grasps the significance of this verse both for the preservation of those who are oppressed and for the Word of God. The two-pronged significance of this interpretation to both people and God's words in Luther's Psalter was to have wide-ranging significance in the English Bible tradition. And in fact, the hymm is a very pleasant and solid hymn, with application to our current discussions ! The first link is for the musically inclined. http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=c...html&Itemid=27 Ach Gott, vom Himmel sieh’ darein. Look down, O Lord, from Heaven behold. http://books.google.com/books?id=RCtIBt5q_7QC&pg=PA42 Hymns of Martin Luther http://www.ctsfw.edu/etext/luther/hy...ml/behold.homl "Look down, O Lord, from heaven behold" by Martin Luther, 1483-1546 Text From: THE HYMNS OF MARTIN LUTHER (New York: Charles Scribner'sSons, 1883), p. 7 1. Look down, O Lord, from heaven behold, And let thy pity waken! How few the flock within thy fold, Neglected and forsaken! Almost thou'lt seek for faith in vain, And those who should thy truth maintain Thy Word from us have taken. 2. With frauds which they themselves invent Thy truth they have confounded; Their hearts are not with one consent On thy pure doctrine grounded; And, whilst they gleam with outward show, They lead thy people to and fro, In error's maze astounded. 3. God surely will uproot all those With vain deceits who store us, With haughty tongue who God oppose, And say, "Who'll stand before us? By right or might we will prevail; What we determine cannot fail, For who can lord it o'er us?" 4. For this, saith God, I will arise, These wolves my flock are rending; I've heard my people's bitter sighs To heaven my throne ascending: Now will I up, and set at rest Each weary soul by fraud opprest, The poor with might defending. 5. The silver seven times tried is pure From all adulteration; So, through God's word, shall men endure Each trial and temptation: Its worth gleams brighter through the cross, And, purified from human dross, It shines through every nation. 6. Thy truth thou wilt preserve, O Lord, From this vile generation; Make us to lean upon thy word, With calm anticipation. The wicked walk on every side When, 'mid thy flock, the vile abide In power and exaltation. __________________________________________________ __________ Notes: Text: Psalm 12-"Salvum me fac, Domine. Hymn II from "The Hymns of Martin Luther" Author: Martin Luther Translated by: Frances Elizabeth Cox Titled: "Ach Gott, vom Himmel sich' darein" 1st Melody: "Es ist das Heil uns kommen her,", 1524 Harmony: A. Haupt, 1869 2nd Melody: from Klug's Gesanbuch, 1543 Harmony: A. Haupt, 1869 1st Published in:"Eight Songs" Town: Wittenberg, 1524 __________________________________________________ _________ Shalom, Steven |
Pure Words Integrity Award
Hi Folks,
To finish up the morning, we will give the : Pure Words Integrity Award To .. a modern version translator ! For his willingness to speak clearly and accurately about the translation and interpretation of Psalm 12. William D. Barrick has translated a smidgen here and there :). For over two decades. In Bangladesh and the USA .. working on the English Standard Version .. and .. the NETBible !? Hmm..... http://www.drbarrick.org/Website%20Files/Ps%20012.pdf Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs: The Master Musician’s Melodies Adult Sunday School Placerita Baptist Church (2003) by William D. Barrick, Th.D. Professor of OT, The Master’s Seminary William Barrick gives the Psalm with NKJV verses !? And he references the excellent Martin Luther hymn. Hmm... This is one section. 5.0 Praying Psalm 12 Lord, help me! [v. 1] Help the godly person to stand and prevail. [v. 1] Oh, God, shut the mouths of the wicked. [vv. 3-4] Thank You, Lord, for Your pure and precious Word. [v. 6] Give me a greater desire for Your Word, Father. [v. 7] Cleanse me with Your Word. [vv. 6-7] Now, hold on to your seats. Commentary on verse 6 and 7. v. 6 “Like silver tried in a furnace of earth, Purified seven times.” * Figure of smelting and refining. * Implications for bibliology (doctrine concerning the Word of God): Authenticity and integrity of God’s Word: The Bible is truly God’s revealed truth and is dependable. Cf. Daniel 10:21; Psalm 119:160; John 17:17. Inerrancy and infallibility of God’s Word: The Bible does not contain error and does not deceive or lead astray. Cf. Psalm 19:7; Proverbs 6:23; 1 Thessalonians 2:3; 2 Timothy 3:16; 1 John 4:6. Preciousness of God’s Word: The Bible is dear to the believer and extremely profitable for spiritual nourishment and growth. Cf. Psalm 19:10; 1 Peter 2:2. v. 7 “You shall keep them” The “poor and needy” of v. 5? The “words” of v. 6 This is the better view. Thank you, Professor Barrick. We present you with the : Psalm 12 Pure Words Integrity Award ! This is irrespective of your overall views on the King James Bible and textual and translational theory. And whatever the pluses and minuses of your overall body of work. Note: there is very interesting creationary writing from Professor Barrick and much of his material is an edifying read eg. the Psalm 22 article. We appreciate your understanding Psalm 12 and we thank you for putting your views out for the public, for any and all to read. We realize that you were directly referencing. "Thou shalt keep them, O LORD" (KJB) And not specifically, directly referencing : "thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." By your usage of the NKJV (them..them) and the lack of any stated counterpoint and limitation, and especially the included teachings above and the Martin Luther hymn reference, it does appear that your comment is reasonable to understand as your view of the whole verse 7. Either way, it is such a refreshing breath of fresh air for a scholar today (outside of the King James Bible defenders) to speak as you do above about the beautiful Psalm 12 and the preservation of the word of God that the award stands - even if your view on Psalm 12:7b is nuanced or different :) . Shalom, Steven PS. The verse references from above are deserving of a separate post. |
Authenticity and integrity of God’s Word
Hi Folks,
The Psalm 12 verse references from William D. Barrick :) . Authenticity and integrity of God’s Word: The Bible is truly God’s revealed truth and is dependable. Cf. Daniel 10:21; Psalm 119:160; John 17:17. Daniel 10:21 But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince. Psalms 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. Inerrancy and infallibility of God’s Word: The Bible does not contain error and does not deceive or lead astray. Cf. Psalm 19:7; Proverbs 6:23; 1 Thessalonians 2:3; 2 Timothy 3:16; 1 John 4:6. Psalms 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. Proverbs 6:23 For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life: 1 Thessalonians 2:3 For our exhortation was not of deceit, nor of uncleanness, nor in guile: 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 1 John 4:6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error Preciousness of God’s Word: The Bible is dear to the believer and extremely profitable for spiritual nourishment and growth. Cf. Psalm 19:10; 1 Peter 2:2. Psalms 19:10 More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. 1 Peter 2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: Shalom, Steven Avery |
Quote:
Shalom, Tandi |
sololoquy
Hi Folks,
Thanks so much, Tandi, appreciate the encouragement ! What is surprising for me is how a thread like this unfolds while in process. One question leads to a challenge that leads to an idea unto some research over to a concept resulting in a refutation which leads to a defense of the word of God ! Very edifying for me to be a vessel for finding and sharing info. The only "problem" is that ... while I may have thought I was almost "done" a lot earlier, the more I have researched, the more insights and vistas opened up ! A nice problem. Here is the planned itinerary for the next few posts, an outline, (usually I simply seek to follow the Holy Spirit post by post). Psalm 12 Excellent Neale - Littledale source Michael Ayguan An interesting point made by .. Doug Kutilek ! Oops, a problem in the writings of .. Doug Kutilek And interweaved. Accurately relating translation to interpretation Various awkwardnesses of the "poor and needy" for ever Kutilek vs. White vs Combs vs ... This may change overnight, or over-hour, however I think you will find each point of interest. When involved in a study like this, I simply have the ideas at first, based on reading, then the posts have to be developed. For those who know inventory control, this is the JIT (Just-in-Time) concept of production. Oh, one more point of interest. There is as excellent book that we discussed on these topics .. the one by Kent Brandenburg. Also the article by Peter Van Kleeck. Everyone should read them. Except .. I haven't read them yet :) . (Small excepts on the web excepted, which may or may not be a major part of the Peter Van Kleeck paper and are a small part of Kent's book.) Yep, I am looking forward to getting the material, most especially Kent's. However in a certain sense, I feel I can better dedicate, and better consecrate, the studies, by simply first developing the concepts from the research clearly and then, later .. comparing notes and references and ideas. And I will also thank an opponent of the King James Bible, one who used to post on this very forum, for bringing forth the scaffolding harumphs and confused arguments and various nonsense diversions and lack of sense and false accusations that really spurred me to get much more involved in Psalm 12 -- to learn more about the beautiful verses. Quite often, what is meant for ill, God turns to good, when the love of the Lord Jesus Christ is in our hearts and we seek to do the will of God. And I also appreciate that we have a forum where we can research formally and informally with support and counterpoint maintained on a high level. Shalom Steven |
Psalms: From Primitive and Mediaeval Writers - Neale & Littledale
Hi Folks,
An interesting book on the Psalms by John Mason Neale and Richard Frederick Littledale, involving rather incredible scholarship. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mason_Neale John Mason Neale (January 24, 1818 - August 6, 1866), was an English divine, scholar and hymn-writer. http://books.google.com/books?id=HNgpAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA364 Littledate, Richard Frederick (1833-1890), Anglican controversialist, These two men wrote an unusual Commentary on the Psalms. http://www.andrewespress.com/neale.html A Commentary on the Psalms http://books.google.com/books?id=B_U2AAAAMAAJ A Commentary on the Psalms: From Primitive and Mediaeval Writers : and from the Various Office-books and Hymns of the Roman, Mozarabic, Ambrosian, Gallican, Greek, Coptic, Armenian, and Syriac Rites - John Mason Neale, Richard Frederick Littledale You can see some of the sources they referenced http://books.google.com/books?id=CD77u9SRGx4C&pg=PA84 S Augustine, Michael Ayguan, Bruno of Aste, Cassiodorus, Balthazar Corderius, Dionysius the Carthusian, Gerhohus, Hilary, Lorinus, Ludolphus, Parez, Remigius of S. Germanus, Euthymius Zigabenus. And the section describing their commentaries starts at p. 75. Psalm 12:6-7 begins on p.180 (verse numbers offset by 1, our verse 5 counts as their v.5 & 6) and goes to p. 181. http://books.google.com/books?id=CD77u9SRGx4C&pg=PA180 You will see the Augustine Commentary from above given, also Ambrose Lorinus, Parez, Chrysostom and more, plus verse references. And here is the text for verse 7. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord : thou shalt preserve him from this generation for ever. ===== COMMENTARY Keep them: that is, not as the passage is generally taken, Keep or guard Thy people, but Thou shalt keep, or make good, Thy words: and by so doing, shalt preserve him--him, the needy, him, the poor--from this generation. Thou shalt keep Thy word , -- "Cast thy burden upon the Lord, and He shall nourish thee;" Thy word, "I will inform thee, and teach thee in the way wherein thou shalt go" Thy word, "Fear not, little flock ; it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom;" and so, preserving him from this generation, shalt hereafter give him a portion with that happier generation, the general assembly of the First-born which are written in heaven. . ===== We will look at this more shortly, this little commentary has had a surprisingly central role in the current debate, and at the very least it can be a springboard for studies. Shalom, Steven |
Michael Ayguan
Hi Folks,
From this book, we learn who is Michael Ayguan, rather impressively. http://books.google.com/books?id=CD77u9SRGx4C&pg=PA81 A Commentary on the Psalms - Neale & Littledale (11.) To my own mind the Commentary of Michael Ayguan. (+ 1416) is on the whole, the best of those that have been contributed to the treasury of the Church; though wanting the unction of Gerhohus and Dionysius, and the marvellous Scriptural knowledge of S. Augustine. To me it has been, as it were, a dear companion for the last fifteen years: during that period I have read it through three times, and each time with a higher admiration of its marvellous depth, richness, and beauty. While he draws unsparingly on the treasures of those who preceded him, more especially on S. Augustine, S. Jerome, Cassiodorus, S. Gregory, and Venerable Bede, he has much that is original,—surprisingly much, considering how many authors have devoted themselves to the same task. I employ the Lyons edition of 1673, a noble folio, of more than 1100 pages in closely printed double columns. The work long went under the title of that of the Auctor Incognitus: its writer being unknown. Michael Ayguan, a native of Bologna, was born about 1340, and entered at an early age into the Carmelite Order, of which he subsequently became General. In the Great Schism he was a strenuous supporter of the party of Urban VI., and, after a long and laborious life, died in the place of his birth, Dec. 1, 1416. Fully two-ninths of the following pages are derived, directly and indirectly, from this great work. Charles Spurgeon references this Commentary some and Neale and Littledale are probably our one main source for English translation of the Latin work of Ayguan today. I always get a bit puzzled and concerned when names are bandied about that we do not recognize. (As could happen when Michael Ayguan was quoted on Psalm 12.) Now we know who is Michael Ayguan, the name has a background. And here we have one of the very top historical commentators on the Psalms, and who even recognizes his name ? Yet modern commentators get involved in the most arcane and oddball theories, without the base of historic writer commentaries and history. Next we will try to connect a couple of dots. Try to bear with, dear reader. The hope, the goal, is to make the Psalm commentary history come alive, we don't just need dry facts, we need to sense the life and heart of the men who shared the word of God. (This aspect is something I have learned studying the Johannine Comma and I believe it has wide application.) Shaom, Steven Avery |
Michael Ayguan commentary verse refs & context
Hi Folks,
Thou shalt keep them, O Lord : thou shalt preserve him from this generation for ever. Now we review the commentary with the verse references in the margin added. ===== COMMENTARY Keep them: that is, not as the passage is generally taken, Keep or guard Thy people, but Thou shalt keep, or make good, Thy words: and by so doing, shalt preserve him--him, the needy, him, the poor--from this generation. Thou shalt keep Thy word, -- "Cast thy burden upon the Lord, and He shall nourish thee;" Psalm 55:22 (#23 in text) Cast thy burden upon the LORD, and he shall sustain thee: he shall never suffer the righteous to be moved. Thy word, "I will inform thee, and teach thee in the way wherein thou shalt go" Psalm 32:8 (#9 in text) I will instruct thee and teach thee in the way which thou shalt go: I will guide thee with mine eye. Thy word, "Fear not, little flock ; it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom;" Luke 12:32 Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom. and so, preserving him from this generation, shalt hereafter give him a portion with that happier generation, the general assembly of the First-born which are written in heaven. . Hebrews 12:23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect ===== The sharp reader will notice that this is the commentary of Michael Ayguan (Ay. in margin). This commentary is referenced in: http://www.wayoflife.org/otimothy/tl040003.htm The Translational And Exegetical Rendering Of Psalm 12:7 Primarily Considered In The Churchly Tradition Of The 16Th And 17Th Centuries And Its Expression In The Reformation English Bibles: THEE GENIUS OF AMBIGUITY, By Peter Van Kleeck This essay will show the diversity of the textual and exegetical tradition of Psalm 12:6-7 ... By so doing, the inadequacy of modern renditions of Psalm 12:7 will be exposed... "Michael Ayguan (1340-1416) ... On Psalm 12:7 Ayguan comments, Keep them: that is, not as the passage is generally taken, Keep or guard Thy people, but Thou shalt keep, or make good, Thy words: and by doing so, shalt preserve him--him, the needy, him, the poor--from this generation..." Reasonable enough. Not sure if Peter Van Kleeck says much more from the David Cloud extract. Now we know the Ayguan reference in more fulness. Michael Ayguan shows us that the inferior understanding "keep or guard thy people" was general in his time. However this would be no surprise at all in 1400, when the OT Latin text was often the center of Christian attention (in fact, it is rather surprising that Michael Ayguan saw what he did nonetheless.. did he read both the Hebrew and Latin ? were there variants in the Latin ? All this I am not sure .. my conjecture will be for now that he worked with the Hebrew text as primary, Latin as secondary. This may be discoverable within Neale and Littledale.) All this changed when the Reformation in the 1500s moved to the direct translation from the Hebrew Bible, until then most non-Jewish commentators were actually working with "us and us", thus "people" or "poor and needy". Until the 1500s the bulk of "words" understanding was Jewish commentators, Ibn Ezra fullly and Rashi partially, and a Psalms midrash to research. The times were changing in the 1500s, where we go to Luther and Calvin and the Geneva Bible as primary sources, along with John Rogers and Becke, Coverdale and Matthew. Maybe we should summarize all those pre-KJB Reformation evidences in one post, including Ainsworth around 1610, although to a large extent that is exactly what is done in David Cloud quoting Peter Van Kleeck. So we are ok on that for now. We also know that Michael Ayguan wrote a very strong commentary that views Psalm 12:7a, but not Psalm 12:7b as applying to the words of God ("split interpretation"). No huge revelations in these three posts, yet some fascinating history, blanks filled in, dots connected. Next we will watch the scholarly reaction of Doug Kutilek. Get your dunce-caps ready. And remember Doug Kutilek is the 'premier' anti-Psalm-12-preservation writer, the only one we know that actually wrote a full paper to try to deny the connection, the one that is quoted by others. We already saw he pulled a real slick deception on Rashi, next Doug Kutilek on .. the above. Shalom, Steven |
Doug Kutilek - an observation of some merit
Hi Folks,
In looking at the quotes above, Doug Kutilek makes an observation of some merit, one that deserves careful consideration. He says that to: sunder apart the synonymously parallel clauses of verse 7a, applying the “you will keep them” to the words and “you will preserve him” to the believer, shows a lack of understanding of the basic feature of Hebrew poetry -- parallelism of thought. Hebrew poetic structure demands that both clauses “you will keep them” and “you will preserve him” be applied to the same object. Well, "demands" is a very strong word in poetry and grammar, one which some may find objectionable. However in English as well we can see the basic point, you don't even have to have an MHP (Masters in Hebraic Poetry). Any split interpretation has to jump over real difficulties. It simply does not make much sense, it is not very comfortable, to have the two phrases applying to differing objects. (Sidenote: Doug Kutilek morphs "poor and needy" to "believer" as a political tool. To speak too truthfully about the Psalm does not suit his purposes.) Now .. looking at the verses in the simple and clear read. 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. Yet, let us reason together .. doesn't this cut in two directions ? Anyone can see that Psalm 12:7a has a very natural sense as "words". And there is less of a grammar objection (the plural agrees, thus only the relatively minor gender discordence, easily understood by the 'priority of the masculine', with the similar verse example in Psalm 119 involving the words of God) the word flow is far more direct to "keep them" than to the "preserve him" clause (proximity PLUS sentence flow -- something that Thomas Strouse possibly could emphasize, proximity is only one of 4 complimentary aspects -- proximity, sentence flow, consistency, context). And the manuscript evidence more certain. And the second pronoun is subordinate, the first primary. Remember that Rashi applied this first clause to preserving Torah, not people, a point that Kutilek craftily hid. Thus by the reasoning of Doug Kutilek, the split commentators, like Rashi, when they start with "words" in Psalm 12:7a, should really be consistent and strongly lean to "words" in Psalm 12:7b ! This is a sound point from Doug Kutilek, even if he did not realize he was making it. Split interpretations (12:7a words, 12:7b people) should tend strongly to be "words" interpretations, barring (non-existent) compelling reasons to resist this, or to make the second, auxiliary pronoun primary. In fact there is a compelling contextual reason to be added to making the full interpretation "words" from considering the "split" position -- the "for ever" clause in 12:7b (the one hid by NETBible) applies very beautifully to words (remember 1 Peter and many other verses) and very awkwardly, if at all, to the poor and needy. 1 Peter 1:23-25 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 word of the Lord endureth for ever So Doug Kutilek has, after you unravel his own deceit (or slipperiness if you want to use the more cordial and forgiving word) on Rashi and think about his sensible (while slightly overstated) assertion above, given us strong support for the full "preservation of the words of God" interpretation. Thanks, Doug. However, wait. There is also another little issue of the Doug Kutilek competence and integrity and fairness and objectivity in research and writing, coming forth in this very section we are studying. Has it been picked up by any of our readers ? Granted, you may have to track down his little paper to see the problem. And remember, from the last post, keep the dunce-caps ready. (Pause :) ) Shalom, Steven Avery |
Symon Patrick - Doug Kutilek - dunce-cap #1
Hi Folks,
We know that a numbers game of commentators means little. Often they simply write as lemmings (see "strain at a gnat" if you have any doubt about the capabilities of lemming-gnats). However, if you are going to be reviewing the commentators you should at least do it fairly and accurately. You should try to read the commentators and learn from them, enjoy and appreciate. learn and study. We saw above that perhaps the single most critical commentator, Rashi, was severely misrepresented by Doug Kutilek. (Also other significant later Hebraic commentators and versions supporting "words" were simply omitted, although that might be more Doug Kutilek unfamiliarity with the material.) Now we will be considering another situation, while challenging our readers with "how many things are wrong with this picture" re: Doug Kutilek on the Michael Ayguan discussion above. While we await, let us look at how easy it is for Doug Kutilek to misrepresent and blunder. http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_why_psalm_pr.htm Why Psalm 12:6,7 is Not a Promise of the Infallible Preservation of Scripture "the promise of preservation applies to the persecuted people of God... Among 19th century authors who concur are Adam Clarke, Symon Patrick..." Wait a minute. Hmmm. Symon Patrick in the 19th century ? Symon Patrick is in the 17th century, and quite a fine writer (and a strong supporter of the 'heavenly witnesses' verses). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Patrick Simon Patrick (1626 – 1707) was an English theologian and bishop. Here is a writing sample. Notice that 1 John 5:7-8 starts the book, and is the theme of the whole work ! http://www.archive.org/details/witne...rist01patruoft The witnesses to Christianity, or, The certainty of our faith and hope : in a discourse (1675) Now that is pretty bad, two centuries off, however Doug Kutilek also misrepresents Symon Patrick on the Psalms verses at the same time ! http://books.google.com/books?id=pIMXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA87 A Commentary Upon the Old and New Testaments, with the Apocrypha - Symon Patrick Ver. 6. The words of the LORD sre pure words ; as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. For the promises of God are not deceitful like yours, but sincere, and void of all guile: the purest silver, refined to the greatest perfection, is not more free from dross, than they are from all mixture of falsehood. Ver. 7. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shall preserve them from this generation for ever. I am confident, O Lord, thou wilt perform them, and not suffer thy words to fail. Thou wilt ever preserve him that,confides in thee, from this perverse generation, how oft soever they renew their attempts against him. Notice that Symon Patrick is giving a similar type of split interpretation as we just saw from Michael Ayguan. For Patrick Keep them == perform them (words) Perserve them = protect them - from this generation. "For ever" is given the very awkward sense of "how oft soever" straining the language, much like the NETBible "continually". There really is only a type of current protection, not true preservation for ever. And using the Doug Kutilek theory of single interpretation, properly applied, the correction to Symon Patrick should be to preserving words. However, to be fair, Symon Patrick really missed the concept of "preservation" altogether, even though it is totally clear in the verse ! Nonethess despite the split interpretation, despite the lack of preservation, Kutilek, after the strange blunder of missing two centuries (remember this paper could have been changed and updated over the years, Kutilek may still not know !) Doug Kutilkek also misrepresents the position of Symon Patrick ! Yoiks. Double-blunder. Kutilek researched these commentaries in a very shoddy one-dimensional manner. (Something we often find from those without the pure Bible.) It is very hard to get Symon Patrick's date wrong ! You have to simply grab the date of an 1800s edition of his writing. You have to be totally uninterested in the man, his depth and insight. You must be a technocrat without deep heart and soul when "studying" the Bible. And you also have to be a bit slow, and miss the fact that his name in that spelling (Symon .. he is referred to both ways) is earlier English ! Very strange. Then on top of that Doug Kutilek reads with superficial one-dimensional glasses, to misrepresent what Symon Partick actually says. You have to read for agenda, not insight. Kutilek's deception on Rashi looked deliberate, not dunce-cap capable. However here we have a large dunce-cap for placing a man with a Puritan heritage, living around 1650 and writing some very sweet books, in the 1800s. Plus on top of the dunce-cap, we add the misrepresentation of the Symon Patrick position. And we learn a bit more about Doug Kutilek. Shalom, Steven Avery |
Samuel Horsley - "Keep them," that is, keep thy words, thy promises
Hi Folks,
Ok, I grant that looking at the errors of Doug Kutilek can be a smidgen tedious, so we will break for a couple of small tidbits. Samuel Horsley was quite a respected Christian writer, well known for his controversies with the scientist Joseph Priestley. Priestley was actually an ebionite, denying the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus Christ. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Horsley Samuel Horsley (1733–1806) was an English divine. Horsley commented with a clear "split interpretation" translation and commentary of Psalm 12. http://books.google.com/books?id=ZBRVAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA30 The Book of Psalms - Samuel Horsley, The words of Jehovah are pure words, Silver assayed in a crucible of earthy Gold purified seven times. Thou wilt keep them, O Jehovah ; Thou shalt preserve us for ever from this generation. "Pure words," free of all untruth deceit or insincerity. "Keep them," that is, keep thy words, thy promises; . Notice that Horsely has no doubt at all about the first phrase, it means to keep thy words. This is such a smooth reading that in a certain sense anything else is very, very strained. Many, many translators and interpreters, Jewish and Christian alike, show this. As long as they do not have to deal with the Greek OT "us" corruptions in Psalm 12:7a. The second phrase Horsley makes no comment, yet since he is using the deficient "us" translation the implication is preservation of people. Yet if he had the correct translation, "them", it is very likely that Samuel Horsley would have been consistent, with preservation of God's words for ever. What is very clear is that Kutilek's Theorem applies here. Since Samuel Horsley saw the very clear and accurate application of Psalm 12:7a to words, without a smidgen of doubt or translation alternative, and since the common sense understanding is that all of verse 12 has the same object, the best adjustment is to have all of verse 12 apply to "words". Shalom, Steven |
Hi Folks,
Here is a very similar split understanding to that of Samuel Horsley right above, quite recent. And thus the same application of Kutilek's Theorem can apply. Quite interesting is that this is in an ... NIV Commentary (!) series. (The NIV has the decrepit "us..us" translation.) Sometimes the meaning of the verses is so clear that all the obfuscation and mistranslation attempts flounder. The commentator has a heart for the word of God and does not allow himself to be totally misled. He still understands the preservation of the words of God in Psalm 12. http://books.google.com/books?id=q2lKzCtKGmMC&pg=PA153 Psalms - The College Press NIV Commentary Vol 1. - S. Edward Tesh, Walter D. Zorn (1999) God's word endures. It was so in David's time, and for 3000 years it has continued to be so, having withstood every assault made against it. That Word has met successfully the test of time. While not a direct verse-by-verse reference, clearly such an interpretation of the chapter is applying at least part of verse 7 to the words of God. (Ironically elsewhere in the Psalm, verse 5, these commentators went off into a flight of Ugaritic emendation fantasy to try to shore up a NIV mistranslation.) Shalom, Steven Avery |
George Campbell Morgan - His words - Jehovah will "keep them" and "preserve them."
Hi Folks,
Next, a discussion of one a solid commentator on Psalm 12. http://www.theoldtimegospel.org/017_index.html G. Campbell Morgan (1863-1945) "A gifted Preacher and Teacher" http://www.preaching.com/resources/p...7269/archive7/ George Campbell Morgan: A Man of the Word By John Bishop The question often arises where did the revival of the full and complete "words" view arise in the 20th century. The various opponents often try to paint this as an oddball King James Bible interpretation. Or they try to place it as a quirk of Benjamin Wilkinson around 1930 who as a Seventh Day Adventist (SDA) can be a 'genetic fallacy' target. (Note, the SDA establishment generally rejected Wikinson's sound defense of the King James Bible.) For this they have to ignore the historical evidence through the Reformatin and the rabbinics. In 1906 George Campbell Morgan had given a clear and straightforward commentary with the true interpretation. Even while he himself struggled with the inferior modern versions like the ASV ! Thus this was not coming forth from a King James Bible defender, just a believer who read the Psalm properly. http://books.google.com/books?id=5LaTe6d0GewC&pg=PA663 Record of Christian Work (1906) Jehovah's Rule In The Midst Of Ungodliness. Out of a consciousness of the terrible evil of his times the worshiper cries to Jehovah for help. The failure of godly men and faithful souls is always the gravest peril which can threaten a nation or an age. There is no trouble which more heavily afflicts the heart of the trusting. The note here is more characterized by faith than that of Psalm x. There, is a cry for help, but no suggestion that God is indifferent. Indeed there is an immediate affirmation of confidence in the interest and interference of God. It is very beautiful to notice how in answer to the cry and the affirmation of confidence, Jehovah speaks, so that the singer hears Him, and is able to announce His declaration in response ere the song ceases. This answer of Jehovah is most precious. It promises the preservation .of .the trusting. The psalmist breaks out into praise of the purity of His words, and declares that Jehovah will "keep them" and "preserve them." The "them" here refers to the words. There is no promise made of widespread revival or renewal. It is the salvation of a remnant and the preservation of His own words which Jehovah promises. Thus the psalm ends with a description of the same condition which it at first describes. It is the cry of a godly soul amid prevailing ungodliness, for help; and it is answered. Usually this is attributed to the posthumous : (Notes on the Psalm, Revell Comp. (1947) p.32). As in the Thomas Holland article where he properly references G. Campbell Morgan. Doug Kutilek simply says: "Later supporters of the “words” position include ... G. C. Morgan (1947)" Before launching his strange, imbalanced attack on all such interpreters. Now we have a bit more context, some background on George Campbell Morgan and the earlier date ! Shalom, Steven Avery |
For a review of Kutilek's article, see
This blog. |
Psalm 12 - 1983 Kutilek article, Lackey, Moorman responses
Hi Folks,
The Doug Kutilek article goes back to 1983 (The Biblical Evangelist, 17:21, October 14, 1983) so he has had over 20 years to find the simple errors we are pointing out on this thread ! (Yes, there are more.) Quote:
That is one of the direct responses to the Doug Kutilek article. Another is given by David Cloud, relating his correspondence to Bruce Lackey (1930-1988) in 1984. David Cloud moves around his URLs, so here it is in archive.org. http://web.archive.org/web/200802121...ervationis.htm Fundamentalists Following Textual Critics in Denying/Questioning Biblical Preservation This next Jack Moorman paper was also largely in response to the Doug Kutilek article denying preservation in Psalm 12. http://www.feasite.org/foundation/fbcpresv.htm Psalm 12:6-7 and Bible Preservation by Jack Moorman - Foundation Magazine - March-April 1994 And Kent Brandenburg works directly with a few of the Kutilek claims, at least in some forums and blogs, perhaps in the book. Two examples. http://www.sharperiron.com/showthrea...79&page=1&pp=7 Exegesis and Admitting Error - Sharper Iron Forum http://fundyreformed.wordpress.com/2...debate-part-4/ The Promise Argument - Fred Butler Blog (opponent of Preservation in Psalm 12) All of these responses to Doug Kutilek make good, solid points. Some could be more assertive for the best "words" interpretation and there are some weaknesses as well in the above. Hopefully, as the thread moves along, we will be able to coalesce the best of the best, plus more, in a summary of the articles. Even specifically looking at least at : Doug Kutilek article Jack Moorman article Bruce Lackey comments blog comments above For the opposition Kutilek at least does not make the tawdry blunder of attacking the King James Bible translation. Kutilek only opposes our interpretation. Some use the deficient translation to make their points (James White and Mark Phillip Purchase of New Zealand). And while there are other "Psalm 12 preservation of the words of God" opponents to note and comment upon (e.g. James Price, W. Edward Glenny, Lim Seng Hoo) most of the issues can be reached through the articles above. Shalom, Steven |
Francis Bacon - split poetic interpretation
Hi Folks,
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. While we keep some other items on the warm burner, tonight we have a very unusual "split interpretation". Remember, by Kutilek's Theorem Enhanced we understand that any writer who sees Psalm 12:7a as clearly referring to the words and promises of God (the obvious and clear and simple flow of the verses) becomes a strong support for 'words' for the whole verse. Clearly the beginning of verse seven 'drives' the verse, not the reverse. (Granted, this is not easy to 'prove' and there are a number of factors, yet it is common sense plus .. with one of the pluses being 'for ever', matching Bible teaching well.) Looking at the Hebrew it is similarly hard to see, as with the English of our Holy Bible, how split interpretations can easily arise. Although dual interpretations can fit a bit more easily, driven by the first phrase and the verse flow. Tonight we go right back to the early days of the King James Bible, into merry England, and we read ... Francis Bacon ! (We will bypass theories that he was William Shakespeare, or he wrote the King James Bible). http://books.google.com/books?id=x9dk9hl4LMgC&pg=PT21 The Poet's Book of Psalms - Laurence Wieder (1999) Francis Bacon Lord Verulam, (1561-1626) son of Queen Elizabeth's Lord Keeper, rose to be Lord Chancellor (1618) ... Bacon dedicated A Translation of Certain Psalms into English Verse, which he wrote during a sickness in 1624, to George Herbert. Sir John Davies (1569-1626) ... And here is the Psalm section, whole Psalm in the book. http://books.google.com/books?id=x9dk9hl4LMgC&pg=PT44 The Twelfth Psalm And sure the word of God is pure and fine, ....And in the trial never loseth weight; Like noble gold, which, since it left the mine, ....Hath seven times passed through the fiery straight. And now thou wilt not first thy word forsake, ... Nor yet the righteous man that leans thereto; While very much a paraphrase, we see in the early 1600s that "keep them, O LORD" was seen as referencing the words and promises of God. Shalom, Steven |
Thomas Francis Cheyne - jigsaw puzzle textual adjustment
Hi Folks,
The Reformation high view of the words of God changed in the 1800s, when the criticisms came forth, strongly influenced by the German scholarship, which became the cutting edge of a dull knife. And only in the last decades has there been a revival of understanding of Psalm 12 more fully for the words of God. (Early strong exceptions being George Campbell Morgan in 1906 and Benjamin Wilkinson around 1930.) In the late 1800s Thomas Francis Cheyne : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kelly_Cheyne Thomas Kelly Cheyne - Wikipedia (1841-1915) English divine and Biblical critic ... Oxford University ... studied German theological methods at Göttingen... joint editor of the Encyclopaedia Biblica (London, 1899–1903), a work embodying the more advanced conclusions of English biblical criticism. In the introduction to his Origin of the Psalter (London, 1891) he gave an account of his development as a critical scholar. His publications include translations, commentaries, and supplemental research ... became a member of the Bahá'í Faith by 1914. was one of the big names in techie textual circles. And even wrote an interesting letter about some of the other attempted retranslations (tamperings - e.g. changing "a furnace of earth") with our verses in the Expository Times in 1897. Issues which we have not made our focus in this thread, yet are quite fascinating as an adjunct learning course ! :) However when it came to his own version of Psalm 12 Cheyne is an excellent example of the awkwardness of the modern translations/interps. In order to deal with the problem of the 'generation for ever' not fitting smoothly (with his interp) Cheyne even went so far as to move verses around to 'smooth' the difficulties ! http://books.google.com/books?id=9vrwGw99qy4C&pg=PA14 The Book of Psalms - Thomas Kelly Cheyne (1884) The words of Jehovah are pure words, silver smelted, seven times refined. All around, the ungodly walk to and fro, Thou, Jehovah, shalt keep us, and shalt guard us from this generation for ever. Ver. 8 is placed before ver. 7, because " this generation " points back to "the ungodly. (p.219) Error begets error. Shalom, Steven |
Albert Leverett Gridley
Hi Folks,
We should be well aware that those who see Psalm 12 as referring to the preservation of the words of God are often those who believe in and defend the tangible, pure word of God. No surprise there. :) And not surprisingly, those who believe the Bible today is corrupt and unreliable, faulty and errant, are very unlikely to see Psalm 12 declaring the preservation of what they do not believe. Albert Leverett Gridley was an early defender of the word of God against the errors of evolution, science so-called. And against the criticisms, especially the higher criticisms that ran rampant in his day. Such ideas, like two or three Isaiahs, virtually ruled the scholastic establishment. Daniel and Psalms and other books as very late writings, even post-Malachi or in the Maccabean period. Evolution as a supposed science was influencing many. Albert Gridley was a defender against many of these deceptions. Even today, often the same 'scholars' who foisted the decrepit criticism arguments are the origin or primary sources for the anti-pure-KJB attacks that we see. They will be quoted approvingly by evangelicals for their technical interpretations, often convoluted, confused and contradictory. Without concern for their overall unbelief about the word of God. As a defender of the Bible the simple and true understanding of Psalm 12 came to Albert Gridley very naturally. http://www.archive.org/details/first...rgen02gridgoog http://books.google.com/books?id=q9E0AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA181 The First Chapter of Genesis as the Rock Foundation for Science and Religion By Albert Leverett Gridley (1913) The voice of God comes to us in remembering or reading the written word of God, the Bible. An incident to illustrate the latter. On one occasion I had been reading Dr. Behrends' book, "The Old Testament Under Fire." I was myself a little disturbed in mind as to the outcome of recent criticism and was about to retire for the night. I had gone about half way up stairs when a strong inward impulse came, "Go back and read a passage of scripture." I was about to disregard it and go on, but it came again, "Go back and read a passage of scripture." I returned asking myself what message there was for me. Opening my Bible at random my eyes fell upon the twelfth Psalm. I read the first few verses and thought that there was nothing in particular there, but in the 6th and 7th verses I read, "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, 0 Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever." There was my message. The words were a revelation and an assurance. Why, I thought, it was no new thing, even in David's time for the word of God to be under fire, to be tried as in a furnace of earth. And, by the way, there may be a good deal of the earthly element now in the trying of the word of God. But the assurance that sustained the Psalmist is encouraging still. "Thou shalt keep them, 0 Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever." These are a few instances of a great many in which the printed word has been not only a guide but a source of encouragement, of hope and instruction. The word of God in its simplicity, as it reads, is an authority for instruction. It is more, it is life giving. I am assured by my own experience that it is not dogmatism to say that the Bible is God's word. And my experience is not unique. It is the testimony of the experience of multitudes in all ages and climes. The Bible not only contains God's word, mixed up with a mass of verbiage of human authority, leaving to each reader the responsibility of picking out God's part, but as a whole it is God's message to men. We can see how even Albert Gridley's view was watered down under the onslaught of the day. (This was also true of some of the strong textual defenders.) Nonetheless, Gridley fought well, and the clearest and simplest and true understanding of Psalm 12 came to him very naturally, seeking the wisdom of God. And Albert Gridley adds some interesting thoughts for our consideration. Shalom, Steven Avery |
plethora of Kutilek errata
Hi Folks,
The debate on the preservation of God's words in Psalm 12 became sharper in modern times with the Doug Kutilek article (1983) mentioned upthread which aggressively attacked the "preservation of words of God" position. We saw above that Kutilek was very deceptive on the significant interpretation of Rashi (post #119). And he misrepresented Patrick Symon and apparently had no idea who Symon actually was, missing his life and writings by two centuries ! (#142). And we briefly discussed the history of the discussions back and forth (#147) between Kutilek, Moorman, Lackey and others. Shortly we hope to place a "Top Resources - both sides" list in one post, with short reviews, showing the modern history of the debate. Returning to the Doug Kutilek article, there are a total of about 10 factual errors in his own hand-picked resource list. Rather an astounding number for a short, published Journal article. Granted, most are minor, yet at least three are major. Generally the dates and names are garbled. Even 20+ years after first publication. This does not say much for the heart of Doug Kutilek towards actually trying to understand these commentaries and seek the depth of the writings and lives of these men. Nor for his AQ (Accuracy Quotient). These errors are on top of the usually abbreviated references. (Often lacking publication name, page numbers, etc.) ===================================== NEW KUTILEK ERRATA (in addition to Rashi misrepresentation and Symon misrepresentation and wrong century) WRONG CENTURY "George Horne" - dates were 1730 -1792 - not 19th century "(Alexander) Maclaren" - Psalm publication is 19th century, not 20th "(Thomas Kelley) Cheyne" - Psalm publication is 19th century, not 20th SPELLING CORRECTIONS OF NAMES "Joseph Excell in Biblical Illustrator"...Joseph Samuel Exell "Arno Gabelein"................................Arno Clemens Gaebelein - Annotated Bible "W. O. E. Oesterly" ..........................William Oscar Emil Oesterley "W. Randolf Thompson" ............................. W. Ralph Thompson STRANGE "George Murphy" (?) James Gracey Murphy - A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalm (1875) - if this is meant, the name is very wrong, if there is a George Murphy, who is it ? ==================================== ADDITIONAL NOTES "W. E. Barnes" - William Emery Barnes "C. B. Moll in Lange’s" - this is only a quote from Perowne without comment. http://books.google.com/books?id=l4U...J&pg=RA1-PA107 A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures - Johann Peter Lange Cohen is likely Abraham Cohen, the Soncino Press edition of Psalms. It is a bit surprising that Mitchell Dahood is included, considering that he is the originator of many absurd cognate theories. G. C. Morgan (1947) .. we showed above this is actually earlier (1906) Two others, "F. B Meyer" and "J. M. Neale and F. R. Littledale" will receive individual study. =============================== The Doug Kutilek list is far from complete (upthread I mention many commentaries and translations that he neglected) however it was generally a decent referencing .. other than 3 huge problems (Rashi and Symon above are two) and the bumbling on the most basic facts. It is definitely true that the majority of the interpreters work with "poor and needy" or some "persons" interp, at least for Psalm 12:7b, less so for Psalm 12:7a. It is also true that "Counting scholarly noses does not constitute proof". (Kutilek). I would take that one step further. Counting noses, on any widely split interpretation, by itself is barely a minor evidence. Remember, this list was chosen by Doug Kutilek, so you would think he would get the names and dates right ! (Doug Kutilek is notorious for harumphing at others on small issues, assuming his own projections.) Most, not all, of these above are qualitatively small errors. We show all these errors to help the scholarship along. And they indicate that Kutilek's apparent familiarity with these sources is a chimera, he simply tried to quickly extract from them for a one-dimensional and oft-distorted presentation. And his level of academic expertise and accuracy in submitting this to a journal and then to the public with a plethora of errors was grossly deficient. We can see this example where Doug Kutillek, who does not see God's word today as pure and perfect, not surprisingly had a low standard for his own words. Psalm 119:140 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it. Shalom, Steven Avery |
Frederick Brotherton Meyer
Hi Folks,
One of the more interesting commentators mentioned is "F. B Meyer". This is a commentator who was not simply a technocrat, he looked at the Bible and the Psalms with a devotional heart. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Brotherton_Meyer Frederick Brotherton Meyer Meyer wrote many books on Psalm topics, most of which would take some effort to track down, so we do not know yet what he says that may place him on the "people" side of the table. "The Christian" Bible readings: the Psalms (1891) David : shepherd, psalmist, king - (1910) Psalms, notes and readings - (1912) Through the Bible Day by Day: (1918) "Bible Commentary" Published in 1984 by Tyndale House, and it is unclear what was the original source. So it would be helpful to see what he wrote on the interpretation. What is clear is that Meyer had a true heart for the basic theme of the Psalm, even in the time of the confusion caused by the decrepit Revision. http://www.apibs.org/devotions/homily/hom.htm Our Daily Homily by F B Meyer (1847-1929) "A Homily," says an authority, "is distinct from mere exegesis or exposition; because the latter is addressed to the understanding, while the Homily is meant to affect the heart also, and to persuade those who hear to apply the lessons of Scripture for the reformation of their lives." Our Daily Homily - 5 vols were first completed / published between 1898-1899. http://www.gotothebible.com/Meyer/da...ilypsalms.html http://www.soulwinning.info/books/fb_meyer/odh/19.htm Our Daily Homily, Psalms by F.B. Meyer The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth - Psalm 12:6 What a contrast is presented in this Psalm between God's words and man's! "They speak vanity, with flattering lip and double heart." God never flatters; his words are absolutely pure because they have passed through the furnace of his holiness, but they are therefore absolutely reliable and trustworthy. As silver enriches its owner, so does the Word of God enrich its lovers. Nothing so strengthens the intellect, clears the judgment, enlarges the views, purifies the taste, quickens the imagination, and educates the whole man. The humblest daylabourer who imbibes the Bible becomes rich in thought and speech, and able to dispense his riches to others. As silver is beautiful to the eye, so fair is the Word of God. After a boy born blind had been suddenly possessed of sight through an operation by a skilful oculist, his mother led him out-of-doors, took off the bandages, and gave him his first view of sunshine, sky, and flowers. "Oh, mother," he cried, "why did you never tell me it was so beautiful?" With starting tears, she said, ""I tried to tell you, my dear, but you could not understand me." We need opened eyes, and then the Bible is more to be desired than fine gold. As silver is pure, so is the Word of God; and it purifies. It has been the main purifying agent of the world. Though it deals with the corruptions of the human heart, it does so in such a delicate and holy manner as to excite within us something of the abhorrence of the Holy God. Like the passage of water through a sieve, it cleanses the heart and life. Shalom, Steven Avery |
Neale/Littledale -- Michael Ayguan -- Kutilek blunderama
Hi Folks,
The remaining blunderama scholarship reference from Doug Kutilek is a bit of a doozy. Let us go to his article: http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_why_psalm_pr.htm Why Psalm 12:6,7 is Not A Promise of the Infallible Preservation of Scripture - Doug Kutilek J. M. Neale and F. R. Littledale are the most emphatic in insisting on this position: “Keep them: that is, not as the passage is generally taken, keep or guard Thy people, but thou shalt keep, or make good, Thy words: and by so doing, shalt preserve him -- him, the needy, him, the poor -- Thou shalt keep thy work” (p. 181). Much bold assertion, but not evidence! That Neale and Littledale sunder apart the synonymously parallel clauses of verse 7a, applying the “you will keep them” to the words and “you will preserve him” to the believer, shows a lack of understanding of the basic feature of Hebrew poetry -- parallelism of thought. Hebrew poetic structure demands that both clauses “you will keep them” and “you will preserve him” be applied to the same object. Note also that they acknowledge that the usual interpretation is that the reference is to preservation of God’s people. The first problem is very simple, as we discussed in post #138, 139, 140. http://av1611.com/forums/showthread....5248#post15248 Psalms: From Primitive and Mediaeval Writers - Neale & Littledale Neale and Littledale, as the title of their book shows, are simply quoting the historical commentaries ! And they are quoting Michael Ayguan -- from 450 years earlier ! A rather amazing commentary in its own right. And the reference is 100% clear in their book. So Doug Kutilek somehow misses the most basic fact -- and then goes into a rant, totally weird and out-of-place, against Neale and Littledale ! Even if the quote had been theirs, the tirade was insipid. They were not involved in the Kutilek anti-preservation-of-words debate. And to write against them from your own misperceptions is a tawdry type of writing. Yet this is made even far worse by not even noticing the simple and obvious aspect of the writing -- Neale and Littledale are simply referencing Michael Ayguan. Likely they even translated his Latin. Their purpose of the book is in the title of the book, in the long explanation called Dissertation II in the front of the book, and Ayguan's name is right on the page ! What more do you need ? This was such insipid writing from Doug Kutilek that even I was amazed. The irony is that Kutilek's Theorem about one object for Psalm 12 is actually a sensible consideration, as I discussed above. (And it actually undercuts a lot of his own position.) However not as an awkward, misplaced, stumbling rant. Surely not against Michael Ayguan. And just as bad when used to attack the wrong writers. Neale and Littledale, who wrote a fine, accomplished work many centuries later. Many interpreters use the "split interpretation" idea, some mixing it with a "dual interpretation" -- if we want to point out a potential weakness in that position, fine. There is no reason to go haywire in rigged rant, as Doug Kutilek does above. Made even worse by his own scholarly incompetence. So incompetent that he could not even recognize that Michael Ayguan from the 1400s was the quote source. Kutilek was so quick to falsely accuse that he didn't even have the most basic facts straight. Sound familiar ? As for Neale and Littledale, they are not even taking a position. They quote all sorts of early church writers, the good, the bad, the excellent, and possibly some ugly. They were scholars who wrote a fine historical commentary, at a time when resources were far less easy to collate than today. They wrote an excellent book and are to be commended for giving us an excellent resource, even a century and more later. These men are not here to speak in their own behalf, yet they are owed an apology from Doug Kutilek. Shalom, Steven Avery |
Summary of Doug Kutilek scholarship problems
Hi Folks,
In summary, Doug Kutilek has three major blunders that effect the evidence evaluation in his short section on references. They are listed in terms of significance to his argument. And a fourth is included separately in this summary because it is so strange. For more details on each one it is necessary to go back to the posts. Although I am not putting post numbers here, I plan to make up an index that can be bookmarked shortly. ============================= SCHOLARSHIP PROBLEMS THAT AFFECT ARGUMENTATION 1) Rashi PROBLEM Doug Kutilek craftily misrepresented his position, and this gives every appearance of being a deliberate, conscious deception. CONSEQUENCE This was very significant since the only "commentator by numbers" argument of any real weight was the apparent agreement of Kimchi and Rashi against Ibn Ezra in terms of the ancient highly respected rabbinics, along with the related general "Hebraists" argument. (e.g. general Christian commentators often deal with the influence of the mistranslations of the Greek and Latin.) With Rashi seen to have been misrepresented, this ancient rabbinics evidence becomes essentially even. (With much modern religious Jewish interpretation emphasizing "words".) Thus the argument that "words" is somehow a strange or unusual or just a KJVO understanding must be seen as a fabrication of convenience. Plus we learn that Doug Kutilek pulled a crafty deception / misrepresentation in one of the most vital commentators in the artic. 2) Neale and Littledale - (Michael Ayguan) PROBLEM This one shows that Doug Kutilek really cannot read without huge doctored glasses. To miss the 1400's writer, a solid Psalms commentator, who is very significant is rather amazing, especially as the information was right in front of Kutilek's eyes. This was combined with a puerile rant against -- the wrong people ! Amazing. CONSEQUENCE This was very significant to the argumentation since Michael Ayguan is an early "words" proponent for the first part of the verse. A highly respected commentator, who would be working largely with the Latin and Greek traditions of us-us. Plus we learn a bit about the competence of Doug Kutilik. 3) Patrick Symon PROBLEM Misrepresented as simply a "persons" proponent. Placed in the the 1800s instead of 1600s. CONSEQUENCE The Christian Hebraist movement was very strong in the late 1500s and 1600s. Thus the handful of commentators from that period are of special interest, also as a window to the King James Bible understanding. Plus we learn more about the superficial source management from Doug Kutilek. ============================= 4) George Murphy PROBLEM Did Doug Kutilek actually get a commentator's name completely wrong ? If so, that tells us a lot about his competence and understanding of the works and men he is referencing. If not, we would like to know who is this commentator. Bonus Scholarship Issue #5 Omissions. Samson Hirsch and other rabbinics and Jewish translations shown on this thread indicate, especially after the Rashi adjustment, that the claim that top Hebraics supports "people" over "words" is simply not true. Historic Jewish exegesis tends to support the words of Torah being kept (Psalm 12:7a) with the split occurring more in the preservation for ever (Psalm 12:7b). While Historic Christian exegesis from the Hebraists tends more toward "people", yet also with the split. There are also omissions throughout the thread of others who support the words for part or all of the verse. A list is planned shortly. Generally Doug Kutilek is not faulted on this account (fully comprehensive lists are very difficult) -- i.e. beyond the misrepresentations above and a lack of familiarity with the Hebraics. ============================= Then we have seven other problems in spelling and dates and including a reference that simply quotes another reference without comment. Although these are minor they are rather an astounding number of errors in a short article for publication, However, like #4 above, these do not effect the overall argumentation. They should definitely be remembered whenever Doug Kutilek takes another writer to task on claimed minor scholarship problems. Ten errors in a short summary on a Journal paper still being presented to the public after 20 years is a bit mind-boggling. This takes care of the scholarship problems that were shown by my research, now we can discuss more the actual debate and do some overall summary and reference posts as well. While always seeking to dig out more fascinating material, especially from the stronger Christian commentators. Shalom, Steven Avery |
Hi Folks,
One other point needs to be highlighted. The aggressive, belligerent attack stance of Doug Kutilek in his paper. This was rebutted with grace and pizazz by Bruce Lackey and belongs here, after the many Kutilek misrepresentations and scholarship difficulties have been highlighted. http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_why_psalm_pr.htm Why Psalm 12:6,7 Is not a Promise of the Infallible Preservation of Scripture - Doug Kutilek Conclusion Based on clear evidence from grammar and context and confirmed by the best Bible expositors, it can only be concluded that Psalm 12:6, 7 has nothing at all to do with the preservation of God’s Word. It says nothing for or against it. It does not speak to the issue at all. It is, therefore, wholly irrelevant to the discussion and must not be appealed to as a proof text regarding Bible preservation. We can understand how some through ignorance have misapplied this text, but with the above evidence in hand, to continue to apply these verses to any doctrine of Bible preservation is to handle the Word of God deceitfully and dishonestly, something unworthy of any child of God. Let the Scriptures speak, and let us follow them wherever they lead us. Bruce Lackey responds. No need to add anything, I will place one highlight. http://web.archive.org/web/200802121...ervationis.htm Fundamentalists Following Textual Critics In Denying/Questioning Biblical Preservation 4. In the last paragraph, he [Kutilek] says that those who apply these verses ‘to any doctrine of Bible preservation’ are guilty of handling ‘the Word of God deceitfully and dishonestly, something unworthy of any child of God.’ But earlier, he admitted that such illustrious interpreters as John Wesley, Henry Martyn, G. Campbell Morgan, and Kidner, agreed with the preservation interpretation. Sounds like a mouse attacking elephants! They might have been wrong on some points, but they were certainly not deceitful and dishonest. Now granted, Kutilek tried to cover his attack-tracks some by claiming that he had conclusively proven his position and acting as if he was only chastising unnamed future writers (rather a tawdry writing style, trying to cut off rebuttal from those who know the Hebrew and the heart of the Psalm with more skill and understanding than Doug Kutilek has demonstrated). Yet of course many of the commentators supporting words knew all about the other commentators, the Hebraics and the grammatical issues -- so Kutilek is accusing them as well. Bruce Lackey is right as Kutilek really adds nothing new other than a distorted historical summary. (Along with what I will fondly call - Kutilek's Theorem of One Object - which actually works against his position.) In fact, we may summarize the Kutilek position in one or two paragraphs, easier now that the fluff is gone. Shalom, Steven PS. From this perspective of arrogance it is no surprise that Doug Kutilek thinks very highly of his performance, and then quotes himself (!) as the main authority in writing against others. Wilkinson ... misapplies Psalm 12:6-7, incorrectly presuming the verses are a promise of Divine preservation of the Scriptures, when in fact they are a promise of Divine protection for persecuted saints of v. 5. (I established this latter interpretation as certainly correct ...) Wilkinson’s Incredible Errors - Doug Kutilek [Baptist Biblical Heritage, Vol. I, No. 3; Fall, 1990] Not surprisingly, the Doug Kutilek article that had that quote was itself rife with more errors and misrepresentations (as is his Johannine Comma article, reviewing the Michael Maynard book, which is especially needing of review of the review). |
historic summary - words for Psalm 12 - part 1
Hi Folks,
Here is a quick summary of those supportive of the words understanding, either of the whole verse or for Psalm 12:7a, God keeping his words. Dates are not exact, yet always close, And other historical important folks are added, such as comments about others that had the words view. This is part 1 -- up to a bit after 1800. Rashi.......................1090 keep (Torah) in their hearts (split) Ibn Ezra...................1150 words Michael Ayguan.........1415 Thou shalt keep, or make good, Thy words (split) Coverdale.................1535 words are kept, 'us' perserved John Rogers..............1535 recognizes Ibn Ezra, prefers Kimchi (Matthew Bible) ............... similar to Coverdale, words are kept John Calvin...............1540 some give thy words (Calvin is pro-persons) Luther.....................1540 hymn 'thy truth thy will preserve' Becke......................1550 'some understand here certain men, some others word." King James Bible........1611 Francis Bacon...........1624 thou wilt not first thy word forsake (split) Henry Hammond........1650 Thou, О Lord, shalt keep, or perform those words (split) Symon Patrick...........1675 I am confident, O Lord, thou wilt perform them (split) Matthew Poole..........1685 poor and needy .. or thy words or promises John Wesley.............1775 keep them - Thy words or promises .. this generation for ever. Herny Martyn............1805 words Alexander Geddes......1807 Jehovah, then, will be their guardian (split) To research more: Midrash on Psalms Gilbert Ironside - sermon on Psalm 12 (1691) Shalom, Steven |
Henry Hammond
Hi Folks,
From the list above. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Hammond Henry Hammond (1605 - 1660) ... His writings, published in 4 volumes. fol. (1674 - 1684), consist mostly of controversial sermons and tracts ... four volumes of his Miscellaneous Theological Works (1847 - 1850) ..his Paraphrase and Annotations on the New Testament ... He read widely, and was a diligent scholar. Henry Hammond is usually mentioned indirectly in this discussion. Referenced in Studies in the Book of Psalms - William Swan Plumer (1867). The John Calvin editor, James Anderson, mentions his view in the 1845 edition of Calvin's writings. http://www.biblestudyguide.org/comme...m/xviii.iv.htm John Calvin - Psalm 12:7-8 Some give this exposition of the passage, Thou wilt keep them, namely, thy words ** ** This is the view adopted by Hammond. He refers the them to the words of the Lord mentioned in the preceding verse, and the him following to the godly, or just man, and explains the verse thus: ”Thou, O Lord, shalt keep, or perform, those words, thou shalt preserve the just man from this generation for ever.” The Chaldee version reads, “Thou wilt keep the just;” the Septuagint, Vulgate, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions read, “Thou wilt keep us;”: The actual note is quite interesting and more complete. It includes the Hebrew, Greek and Syriac fonts as well. Note that the 1850 editor (Thomas Brancker) offers a disagreement. Looking at the Hammond learned commentary, we see that he, along with many, see an awkwardness in the "persons" interpretation. I will only include a smidgen here, the link is available for the full read. First Henry Hammond emphasizes the wide diversity of conflicting translations and interpretations on "persons" (the just, them, us.. I would add the poor and needy of v.5 rather than the just of v.1). http://books.google.com/books?id=VYANAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA53 A paraphrase and annotations upon the Books of the psalms, by Henry Hammond (1850 edition) "that which removes all difficulty is, to understand the them of the words of the Lord .. the him following will certainly be the godly or just man... Thou, O Lord, shalt keep, or perform these words, thou shalt preserve the just man from ---" Original edition. http://www.worldcat.org/wcpa/top3mset/12226539 The works of the reverend and learned Henry Hammond, D.D. The fourth volume containing A paraphrase & annotations upon the Psalms : as also upon the (ten first chapters of the) Proverbs : together with XXXI sermons : also an Appendix to Vol. II. (1684) Thus Hammond gives us a learned split interpretation. (Note: this was totally unmentioned by Doug Kutilek, despite Henry Hammond being clearly referenced by others, including the same John Calvin commentary.) Shalom, Steven Avery |
John Johnson - Holy David and His Old English Translators Clear'd:
Hi Folks,
The next is an addition to the list above. This next Psalm book utilizes the respected scholarship of Henry Hammond (#156) and Symon Patrick (#142) (as discussed in the preface). http://www.trinity.utoronto.ca/Libra...hors/part2.htm John Johnson (1662-1725) Johnson was vicar of St. John’s, Margate, then Cranbrook, Kent ...His major theological work was The Unbloody Sacrifice and Altar Unvailed and Supported. (1714-18) http://books.google.com/books?id=LP6WLewwax8C&pg=PA8 John Johnson .. a paraphrase, with notes, on the Book of Psalms http://books.google.com/books?id=nBZWAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA984 John Johnson ..His works display the highest scholarship, a mastery both of the Greek and Hebrew languages, and a deep research into the Holy Scriptures And this is from the book, which actually is defending the Great Bible translation. And especially the Book of Common Prayer, which maintained the historic Great Bible reading rather than updating to the Authorised Version. http://books.google.com/books?id=TIAOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA19 Holy David and His Old English Translators Clear'd: Containing, I. Directions for the More Devout Use of Psalms, and a Short Historical Account of the Translation and Translators. : II. The Psalter Or Psalms of David, After the Translation of the Great Bible; Pointed as They are to be Sung Or Said in Churches; with large Explanatory Notes III. A General Defence of this Old Translation, in answer to all the Objections and Cavils that have been rais'd against it. By John Johnson (1706) 8 Thou fhalt keep [them,] O Lord: thou shalt preserve * him from this generation for ever. 8 [Thy Promises} * Him: that is, the upright Man, against whom the enemy swells ver. 6 Thus John Johnson's book (quite an interesting book) is added to our split interpreters above. Shalom, Steven |
Brady & Tate- Psalms of David - Book of Common Prayer
Hi Folks,
The next is another addition to the list above. http://books.google.com/books?id=JwsVAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA13 (1754) http://books.google.com/books?id=CSAp5tj-2PUC&pg=PA20 (1839) http://www.archive.org/details/newversionofpsa00brad (1751) A New version of the Psalms of David : fitted to the tunes used in churches Brady, Nicholas (1659-1726) and Tate, Nahum (1652-1715) http://www.cgmusic.com/workshop/newver_frame.htm This psalter was first published in England in 1696. It was the work of two men, Nahum Tate and Nicholas Brady. Tate was poet laureate of England, as well as being a playwright and an adapter of other's plays. Brady was an Anglican clergyman, poet and author. You will also find this directly given in the Book of Common Prayer, in many editions. http://books.google.com/books?id=0e0OAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA311 The Book of Common Prayer (1822) 6 The word of God shall still abide, and void of falsehood be, As is the silver, seven times tried, from drossy mixture free. 7 The promise of his aiding grace shall reach the purposed end; His servants from this faithless race he ever shall defend. Shalom, Steven |
Alexander Geddes - New Translation o fhte Psalms
Hi Folks,
Also from above. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Geddes Alexander Geddes (14 September 1737 – 26 February 1802) was a Scottish theologian and scholar...A translation of Psalms was published in 1807. http://books.google.com/books?id=iX0VAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA16 A New Translation of the Book of Psalms By Alexander Geddes (1807) The words of Jehovah are words sincere, silver tried in an earthen crucible; seven-times refined! Jehovah, then, will be their guardian; will preserve them for ever from this race of men; * In ver.8 (our 7) are some various readings, which I notice not here; as I think the common readings are preferable. The various readings would mainly be the "us-us" attempts. Shalom, Steven |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:08 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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.
