Originally Posted by Diligent

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

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

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

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

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

[Josh]

Amen to Brothers Diligent, Parrish, and Debau!

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

Originally Posted by Josh

Amen to Brothers Diligent, Parrish, and Debau!

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

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

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

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

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by llthomasjr

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

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

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

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

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

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

However in this case .. he simply erred.

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

Shalom,
Steven Avery

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

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

[COLOR="Navy"]Hi Folks,

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

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

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

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

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

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

.NET Bible

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

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

However in this case .. he simply erred.

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

I disagree. I think Gill is as qualified as any scholar to attest to the use of the Hebrew text. In the end.... you simply have one scholar against another. You can say that one had his agenda and I can say the other does as well.

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

Steve....

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

[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

[Diligent]

Amen, Bro Parrish!

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

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish

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

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

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

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

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

Christ said....

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

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

Originally Posted by llthomasjr

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

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

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

Originally Posted by llthomasjr

Christ said....

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

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

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

Originally Posted by llthomasjr

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

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

Meditate on these verses, and pray for wisdom:

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

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

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

I don't eat anything people call the "Word of Goid" unless it is in fact such. You have attested it is from Diligent. So I weighed it and found it wanting.

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

Confusing? Sometimes the truth confuses people. Doesn't it?

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

Meditate on these verses, and pray for wisdom:

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

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

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