Psalm 12 and KJVO misuse

[FSSL]

• KJVOs typically use Psalm 12 to suggest that it is speaking about the preservation of Scripture, namely the KJV. Bibleprotector takes this to a wholly more absurd level. He suggests that Psalm 12 teaches that there is a 7 step purification process in 12.7 regarding the KJV. I won't worry about dismantling the idea that there are more than 7 major English translations before the KJV. Logos has done a great job with that before. I will just interpret Psalm 12.
  
  Parameters:
  We know that Bibleprotector has his own limitations. He does not want me to use the Hebrew language and he does not want me to cite people like Stuart & Fee. I don't know why a fellow Pentecostal would spook him.
  
  Since Bibleprotector thinks these two things would give me an upper hand in the discussion, I will just do so using only the KJV.
  
  So... my parameters for Bibleprotector is the same ONLY use the KJV. No medieval rabbis or commentaries. Leading KJVOs make up rules in Hebrew.
  
  Three initial exegetical points that should easily get a good discussion going here...
  
  • The KJV translators, themselves, rejected the notion that the passage was talking about the preservation of Scripture. They included a marginal note that explained what was being preserved (i.e., "us")
  • The KJV NEVER uses the word "preserve" to refer to the preservation of Scripture. It only uses that word in connection of preserving people.
  • Psalm 12.7 CANNOT mean that "people" and "scripture" is preserved. See above point. If English words mean two things in a given context, then English means nothing. Scripture is unequivocal. It is not filled with double-entendre. It has to mean EITHER "people" or "scripture." We already noted that it cannot refer to "scripture."

 

[Citadel of Truth]

KJVOs typically use Psalm 12 to suggest that it is speaking about the preservation of Scripture, namely the KJV.

Regardless of what else it may mean, it is definitely not referring prophetically to the KJV. Scripture was preserved for millennia prior to 1611.   

Bibleprotector...suggests that Psalm 12 teaches that there is a 7 step purification process in 12.7 regarding the KJV.

I never understood why they would rely on such weak arguments. This position presupposes that, should the Lord tarry for another 1,000 years, there will never be the need for another English version regardless of how the language evolves. 

 

[bibleprotector]

Three initial exegetical points that should easily get a good discussion going here...

    The KJV translators, themselves, rejected the notion that the passage was talking about the preservation of Scripture. They included a marginal note that explained what was being preserved (i.e., "us")

We are to interpret Scripture, not speculate as to what KJB translators thought. But more directly, we are to follow Scripture, not the marginal notes which are NOT Scripture.

    The KJV NEVER uses the word "preserve" to refer to the preservation of Scripture. It only uses that word in connection of preserving people.

This is just a bias based on misinterpretation, since the KJB does indeed use the word "preserve" for all kinds of things, including knowledge, Pr 22:12 The eyes of the LORD preserve knowledge, and he overthroweth the words of the transgressor.

Psalm 12.7 CANNOT mean that "people" and "scripture" is preserved. See above point. If English words mean two things in a given context, then English means nothing. Scripture is unequivocal. It is not filled with double-entendre. It has to mean EITHER "people" or "scripture." We already noted that it cannot refer to "scripture."

Of course, FSSL has built up a syllogism of incorrect assumptions, so he thinks that Psalm 12:7 cannot refer to the words of God.

But actually, various Scripture passages may be found to have two meanings or senses.

1Co 9:9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
1Co 9:10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. 

 

[Ransom]

We know that Bibleprotector has his own limitations. He does not want me to use the Hebrew language and he does not want me to cite people like Stuart & Fee. . . .

Since Bibleprotector thinks these two things would give me an upper hand in the discussion, I will just do so using only the KJV.

If BP feels that he needs to handicap his opponent by denying him certain lines of argumentation, it really doesn't say much for his own case.

 

[bibleprotector]

We know that Bibleprotector has his own limitations. He does not want me to use the Hebrew language and he does not want me to cite people like Stuart & Fee. . . .

Since Bibleprotector thinks these two things would give me an upper hand in the discussion, I will just do so using only the KJV.

If BP feels that he needs to handicap his opponent by denying him certain lines of argumentation, it really doesn't say much for his own case.

The Fee-Stuart book and others like them hardly give an upper hand in such discussions. In fact, if you were to use them, they would tilt interpretation dangerously away from what is right. So by all means follow those men who have been affected by Infidelity in their approach to theological matters. Greater is he that is in [me], than he that is in the world. 1 John 4:4b.

 

[FSSL]

We are to interpret Scripture, not speculate as to what KJB translators thought. But more directly, we are to follow Scripture, not the marginal notes which are NOT Scripture.

No speculation... just what they wrote. Ignore the marginal note. That will not make it go away. It clarifies the "them" of 12.7

Just a key point: The KJVO is NOT aligned with what the translators believed about their own work.

This is just a bias based on misinterpretation, since the KJB does indeed use the word "preserve" for all kinds of things, including knowledge, Pr 22:12 The eyes of the LORD preserve knowledge, and he overthroweth the words of the transgressor.

Scripture? Where is that in this passage? You have divorced the meaning out of the context.

The whole chapter contrasts the fate of the godly man with that of the ungodly.

Prov 22:12 is a personification. The one "who has knowledge" will be preserved. God preserves the knowing one and frustrates the transgressor.

"All kinds of things?" Yea... like preserving souls, people, life, David, city of Jerusalem... but not preserving Scripture.

But actually, various Scripture passages may be found to have two meanings or senses.

The analogy between the ox and minister does not have two meanings. It is clear in vs 10 that the meaning has shifted to no longer refer to the ox.

When you argue for a double-entendre... you argue against the equivocable nature of Scripture. You can make it mean whatever you want it to mean. God warned us against those who wrest the Scripture.

You deny the perpescuity of Scripture. THAT is the realm of modernism.

 

[Steven Avery]

• The KJV translators, themselves, rejected the notion that the passage was talking about the preservation of Scripture. They included a marginal note that explained what was being preserved (i.e., "us")

Error. There is no "us" in the AV text or the AV margin note. 

Plus the purpose of the margin note was simple, to show the technical Hebrew grammatical form.  See Isaiah 52:9 for a very interesting similar note example.

Double-entendre?  You mean dual meaning.  Since there are two verses involved, your theory is obviously wrong.  Especially since God's words are connected as the source of preservation (i.e. the dual meanings would be related.)

Steven Avery

 

[bibleprotector]

You have divorced the meaning out of the context.

The exact accusation, almost word for word, what I predicted you would say.

The analogy between the ox and minister does not have two meanings. It is clear in vs 10 that the meaning has shifted to no longer refer to the ox.

Epic fail. Even your own "grammatical-historical" view has to say that the word ox in Moses must mean the literal beast.

When you argue for a double-entendre...

Which theological book did you take that terminology from?

you argue against the equivocable nature of Scripture.

The Scripture has set meanings, therefore non- and anti-equivocal.

You can make it mean whatever you want it to mean.

How do you explain Paul's understanding of muzzling the ox, since that did not seem to appear as the meaning back in Moses? And how can having two or a few set and structured meanings equal making the Scripture say whatever/anything?

God warned us against those who wrest the Scripture.

Yes, but let's look at that verse, and find out what Peter was talking about:

2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

The apostle's meaning of unlearned was not a reference to formal religious education, but to being ignorant of the believing view of Scripture. And the unstable means those without absolutes and certainty, which describes exactly the doubting and wavering positions of those who reject proper interpretation.

You deny the perpescuity of Scripture.

No, I hold that the full truth is available, which is a view rejected by your side and you. Where do you claim a perfect text? A perfect translation? Do you allow that it is possible to gain perfect interpretation and hold the full counsel of God? No, you reject those ideas, because you have the modernist view that error prevails.

THAT is the realm of modernism.

Of course, that is just your rhetoric, whereas, those who trace the history of ideas can find direct and compelling links between rationalism, higher criticism and all that with your views on textual criticism, translation and interpretation methodology.

 

[FSSL]

Here we are... I now find myself defending the Protestant hermeneutics view of a singular meaning in a passage.

Bibleprotector claims to hold to the Protestant view of interpretation. YET... he argues that the word "preserve" has dual meanings.

Protestants overthrew the medieval practice of finding multiple meanings for a given word in a passage.

Guys... "double-entendre" is common in conservative Protestant hermeneutic literature. Your unfamiliarity with the term shows great lack in your understanding of historical, conservative, Protestant hermeneutics.

Only one thing is being preserved in Psalm 12.7... the people of God from an evil generation.

 

[FSSL]

The exact accusation, almost word for word, what I predicted you would say.

You could predicted it because you know you took it out of context. Scripture is not in that passage. It is a contrast between a truth-teller and a liar.

 

[FSSL]

Error. There is no "us" in the AV text or the AV margin note.

Thanks! You are correct.



The image shows the margin and clearly references a person, not Scripture.

Plus the purpose of the margin note was simple, to show the technical Hebrew grammatical form.

Not just for the purpose of showing the technical Hebrew form but to CLARIFY. Here is one of their purposes for using such marginal notes (in their own words) "so diversitie of signification and sense in the margine, where the text is not so cleare, must needes doe good, yea is necessary"

Double-entendre?  You mean dual meaning.  Since there are two verses involved, your theory is obviously wrong.  Especially since God's words are connected as the source of preservation (i.e. the dual meanings would be related.) Steven Avery[/color]

Yes. In English, "dual meaning" is the synonym of "double-entendre." The phrase "double-entendre" and "double meaning" are used in the same manner in hermeneutical literature and in English.

 

[FSSL]

Epic fail. Even your own "grammatical-historical" view has to say that the word ox in Moses must mean the literal beast.

The failure on your part is that you did not read my post correctly. I addressed verse 10 NOT verse 9. In verse 10, the ox is longer addressed. It has become an analogy for the minister.

The absurdity of your position is glaring. If we can read multiple meanings into the words of Scripture, you twist it to your own disadvantage.

All we have seen so far, in this thread, is a knee-jerk reaction AGAINST my points. We have not seen you POSITIVELY declare and support the proper understanding of Psalm 12.

 

[bibleprotector]

Here we are... I now find myself defending the Protestant hermeneutics view of a singular meaning in a passage.

Actually, that is not the Protestant view. It does, however, tend to be a modernist-affected view, though unleashed modernism and postmodernism go the total opposite way and say no meaning, all meanings, any meaning. Protestant interpretation includes those Calvinists who say, "Israel" meant the Jews, then meant the Church.

Bibleprotector claims to hold to the Protestant view of interpretation. YET... he argues that the word "preserve" has dual meanings.

Wrong again. Preserve has one meaning. The duality comes in whether the passage is read as literal, or whether it is applied spiritually. Remember the unmuzzled ox?

Protestants overthrew the medieval practice of finding multiple meanings for a given word in a passage.

Actually, Protestantism did not overthrow double sense, etc., they just overthrew the Roman Catholic model of its four meanings. The Protestant view does not change the meaning of a word, like "preserve", it will just change the application of it, whether it is immediate or literal, or whether it is spiritual: there are lots of different kinds of illustrations of double reference. Even typology bears this out too.

Guys... "double-entendre" is common in conservative Protestant hermeneutic literature. Your unfamiliarity with the term shows great lack in your understanding of historical, conservative, Protestant hermeneutics.

I have not seen that term in all the hermeneutic books I have looked at. Your logic seems flawed, you are saying not having found the term "double-entendre" in hermeneutic literature equals lacking understanding in (what you term) "historical, conservative, Protestant hermeneutics".

Now, I realise that that phraseology is present in several works (R. L. Thomas, E. E. Ellis, E. E. Johnson), but in the many I have looked at and have copies of, it wasn't there. I only found those other names by doing a google search.

In reality, I think what you define as "historical", "conservative" and even "Protestant" are flawed. "Historical", in the proper sense here means the true tradition, therefore leading to the rejection of many hermeneutical works from the 19th century on. The word "Conservative" should mean believing, but we find the taint of unbelief in much of the scholarship since about the French Revolution. And the word "Protestant" should mean of the true religion, not modernism.

Seeing then, that this phraseology of "double-entendre" is yours, I would be happy to use it if I may define it as follows:

The Spirit of God, in inspiring Scripture, did not always speak with just one sense or meaning, but sometimes or often had another more distant, prophetic, spiritual sense, as distinct as the Old Testament to the New.

It is not "preserve" then which specifically has the double meaning, but what is the intention (the object), where the distinctness is observed: God who promises to preserve His people in a literal interpretation also promises to preserve His words in a prophetic/spiritual one. This can quite easily be seen in Psalm 12.

Only one thing is being preserved in Psalm 12.7... the people of God from an evil generation.

That is wrong. While you are right to identify that one interpretation, you have neglected the other. Your approach is that the prophecy of this passage basically does not exist. Your much learning (i.e. hyper-doubt) has made you mad (narrowed your scope of vision to just the distant past, non-applicable meaning). That is, your doubt on the passage even undermines and skews your interpretation of even the promise of the people of God being preserved from an evil generation.

When did that promise apply or happen, and how true is it today?

 

[bibleprotector]

The exact accusation, almost word for word, what I predicted you would say.

You could predicted it because you know you took it out of context. Scripture is not in that passage. It is a contrast between a truth-teller and a liar.

You said that the Scripture speaks of preserving people, and I showed a passage where it says God preserves knowledge.

Then you wrongly say that I am taking the passage out of context or something. How? Are you saying the Bible does not say that "The eyes of the LORD preserve knowledge"? Did you white-out/liquid-paper that out of your Bible?

 

[FSSL]

You said that the Scripture speaks of preserving people, and I showed a passage where it says God preserves knowledge.

Then you wrongly say that I am taking the passage out of context or something. How? Are you saying the Bible does not say that "The eyes of the LORD preserve knowledge"? Did you white-out/liquid-paper that out of your Bible?

Your failure to understand the passage may just have to continue. If you think that the abstract "knowledge" is being preserved and not the knowledge-bearer, then there is nothing more that I can say. Read the chapter and you will see.

 

[bibleprotector]

The failure on your part is that you did not read my post correctly. I addressed verse 10 NOT verse 9. In verse 10, the ox is longer addressed. It has become an analogy for the minister.

Your interpretation is way off because he actually says that Moses wrote what he wrote for our sakes. How can you explain that away? The reference to the ox is still in Moses' writing, despite your tricky division between having the ox mean one thing in verse 9 and another in verse 10.

Clearly, there is a dual meaning of what Moses wrote. That is where the duality is. What Paul wrote only has one meaning. When he references the literal meaning in verse 9, that's the literal ox, and when he talks about the minister in verse 10, that's the spiritual ox.

So your rejection of a double meaning does not work, because the only way to approach Moses is with the double meaning model which Paul explains.

The absurdity of your position is glaring. If we can read multiple meanings into the words of Scripture, you twist it to your own disadvantage.

This is the sign that you are of error in this, because you deny the PROPER double or multiple meaning, but your excuse is that basically anyone could make any passage mean anything.

Look back at Paul. He had two very distinct meanings of the ox passage. That's it: two. And he did not say that the ox was some symbol of Jesus' humanity or something. No, the meanings are regulated. And that is true to all places where the double or multiple meaning/fulfilment method applies.

Your religious modernism does not allow people to be absolutely correct with even a single meaning (i.e. no one is fully right, is able to have perfect interpretation), so how much less is it possible in your system to have potentially two meanings of various passages, both of which are absolute, both of which are perfectly correct?

And when the double meaning is something which you expressly have a doctrine (actually, an ideological bias) against, then of course you are wishing to reject such a thing. But it is not just the particular interpretation you reject, but the entire system of double fulfilments ... something which various Protestant witnesses actually upheld and uphold to this day.

All we have seen so far, in this thread, is a knee-jerk reaction AGAINST my points.

Rather, all we see continually is a knee-jerk against all my points, to where it has been admitted by FSSL and others, that if I say something, they would doubt and question it. Very often disputes are made about things which are almost like two different religions are being contested for, both calling the name PROTESTANT as a banner, both claiming the Lord God, and yet differences upon meanings of words and viewpoints in almost every particular.

We have not seen you POSITIVELY declare and support the proper understanding of Psalm 12.

Your approach is not "proper".

To say this all another way:

You are not entirely wrong in your particular interpretation, but since you neglect the spiritual/prophetical side, what rightness you might have soon is tainted.

The issue arises from your presuppositions which taint your interpretation.

 

[bibleprotector]

You said that the Scripture speaks of preserving people, and I showed a passage where it says God preserves knowledge.

Then you wrongly say that I am taking the passage out of context or something. How? Are you saying the Bible does not say that "The eyes of the LORD preserve knowledge"? Did you white-out/liquid-paper that out of your Bible?

Your failure to understand the passage may just have to continue. If you think that the abstract "knowledge" is being preserved and not the knowledge-bearer, then there is nothing more that I can say. Read the chapter and you will see.

And yet you reject my view of preservation of abstract words, accepting only preservation of the people in Psalm 12.

My very point about Psalm 12 was that preservation was interlinking the abstract words with the people, and people for the sake of the words, and words as power to keep the people. But you would not have it.

And now you use that kind of reasoning, though for ill, to try to "correct" my better view. (Not arrogantly superior, but fuller, sensus plenior).

 

[FSSL]

Why do you say you subscribe to a Protestant approach to interpretation and hang on to the medieval error of multiple meanings?

 

[bibleprotector]

Why do you say you subscribe to a Protestant approach to interpretation and hang on to the medieval error of multiple meanings?

That is a false statement. Just because the medieval folk had a wrong model of four does not mean that having double or multiple meanings is wrong. Even the medieval way, if used by manner of application, is not entirely wrong.

But the Protestant view, as witnessed by Protestant sources, is in favour of the potential of double or multiple meanings.

After all, we find them in the Scripture themselves.

So we have the Apostle Paul saying it about the ox, as just one example of many.

We find it in the theoria method of the Antiochian school.

We find it in the scholastic period.

We find it in the Reformation period Protestantism.

We find it in developed Protestantism, even today. There are plenty of examples, such as how Dispensationalists view the seven churches of Revelation, or how Covenant Theology views "Israel". It is right through Protestantism.

There's plenty of works which support such ideas, here's just a few names of folks who did and do: Jortin, Bp Warburton, Jones, Nares, Bp Lowth (1700), Bp Sherlock (1725), Sir I. Newton (1727), Bp Thomas Newton (1754), Bp Hurd (1772), Granville Sharp (1775), East Apthorp (1786), Bp Horsley (1796), Henry Kett (1799), Bp Faber (1804), J. C. Woodhouse (1805), Adam Clarke (1810), E. Smith (1814), William Girdlestone (1820), John Davison (1824), Henry Drummond (1828), E. Bickersteth (1835), T. H. Horne (1835), Albert Barnes (1852), M. P. Baxter (1863), J. W. Burgon (1861), Christopher Wordsworth (1860), Albert Close (1917), H. H. Halley (1957), Howard B. Rand (1962), Harry Whittaker (1969), Desmond Ford (1978), Rand Winburn (1999), Scott T. Brown (2010).

 

[rsc2a]

Thinking about this...

"bibleprotector" understands this passage to be saying God has preserved the Scripture.  Given his moniker,  isn't "bibleprotector" seeing himself equal to God? :-D