[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by llthomasjr

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

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

Originally Posted by llthomasjr

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

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

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

Originally Posted by llthomasjr

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

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

Originally Posted by llthomasjr

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

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

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

Originally Posted by llthomasjr

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

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

Originally Posted by llthomasjr

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

"the bible" ?

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

Shalom,
Steven