Psalm 12 and KJVO misuse

[subllibrm]

Hi,

The word "them" is in no way derivative of anything, and therefore does not have an antecedent. The word "them" is a pronoun, meaning that it stands for something previously mentioned in the text.

The something previously mentioned is the antecedent of the pronoun.

And so, as we interpret the Scripture by actually believing what is stated in the KJB, we understand that God has preserved the words which are power for the believers, since it is those words which therefore have the preserving affect onto the believers.

Thus the words are the antecedent, which is the most consistent to the sense of the chapter and the scriptures.  Or we can have a dual application, as given by some fine commentators.

Steven

Ruh roh! Avery corrected the aussie Apostle's engrish.

Popcorn time!

 

[subllibrm]

The word "them" is a pronoun, meaning that it stands for something previously mentioned in the text.

You have just described an antecedent!!!

The word "them" is in no way derivative of anything, and therefore does not have an antecedent.

You have got to be kidding us..... Are you really this dense? You say them is not derivative of anything and then say its a pronoun? Come on....

But, but he wrote a book.

And a bunch of other stuff too.

And if he says "them" has no antecedent, who are you to question the Apostle?

With scholarship like his how can we doubt his conclusions?  :

 

[bibleprotector]

How can you say it is not parenthetical when you have not settled on the antecedent?

I am not the one talking about parenthetical, you are, si we are waiting for your explanation on that.

One thing is strikingly clear... you do not wish to examine the language of the text.

That does not ring true, since pointing at the KJB is pointing at an exact set of words.

Until you identify the antecedent... you have no cogent argument.

So you say, all the while trying to get the heat off your lack of identifying the reason for what you term the parenthetical sixth verse. And of course, I have answered, over and again, showing what is the meaning of verse 7. I've gone into detail, expressing exactly, referred to Protestant commentators and even repeated myself a few times.

I sense evasion tactics from you, as you know full well that any scrutiny of your position does not actually give any answer.

 

[bibleprotector]

You say them is not derivative of anything and then say its a pronoun?

Pronouns have a direct, synonymous standing with what concept they are representing. They are not derivative.

 

[bibleprotector]

As a discernible thread in the Protestant tradition even indicates, the words are meant, with the promise for the people:

1. The immediate interpretation, when David saw the evil men around him, and yet He trusted in God's tried Word (having the nature of being fully pure), that would establish him for God's greater cause (Covenant)

2. The prophetic interpretation, when in Infidel times evil men surround God's people, yet they trust the KJB (the seventh purification), that would enrich and aid the believer for God's greater cause of latter days evangelism (Gospel)

Here is evidence that I already answered the question. As you can tell, the word "them" = the words of the LORD. The implication is the words as power for the people of God.

 

[praise_yeshua]

You say them is not derivative of anything and then say its a pronoun?

Pronouns have a direct, synonymous standing with what concept they are representing.

This, in no way, changes anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

Singular they is the use of they, or its inflected or derivative forms, such as them, their, or themselves, to refer to a single person or an antecedent that is grammatically singular.

 

[bibleprotector]

This, in no way, changes anything.

I have already answered the question. Now, it is up to FSSL to explain what purpose verse 6 has in the context of verses 5 and 7.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Just an observation.

Reading Bible-Burners drivel can cause ones brain to turn into mush.

His drivel is endless. It's incoherent drivel, to be sure, but it's also insulting drivel. This is the most inconsequential drivel I have ever seen. How does he keep a following dispensing this drivel?

How can a guy that constantly blasphemes the Holy Spirt be a competent interpreter of the Scriptures?

This is my humble opinion.

 

[praise_yeshua]

As a discernible thread in the Protestant tradition even indicates, the words are meant, with the promise for the people:

1. The immediate interpretation, when David saw the evil men around him, and yet He trusted in God's tried Word (having the nature of being fully pure), that would establish him for God's greater cause (Covenant)

2. The prophetic interpretation, when in Infidel times evil men surround God's people, yet they trust the KJB (the seventh purification), that would enrich and aid the believer for God's greater cause of latter days evangelism (Gospel)

Here is evidence that I already answered the question. As you can tell, the word "them" = the words of the LORD. The implication is the words as power for the people of God.

You're pulling this out of the context of the discussion. You were asked for the antecedent and proceed to say there wasn't one. You did this for several posts. When you were called on it..... you go back to a previous post that had nothing to do with the discourse of the discussion immediately relating to the question of the antecedent. You're being entirely dishonest.

At least, NOW, you're somewhat admitting that "them" does have an antecedent.

Can you admit to your mistake or are you impeccably endowed with absolute knowledge? 

 

[FSSL]

You're pulling this out of the context of the discussion. You were asked for the antecedent and proceed to say there wasn't one. You did this for several posts. When you were called on it..... you go back to a previous post that had nothing to do with the discourse of the discussion immediately relating to the question of the antecedent. You're being entirely dishonest.

Yep! So now that he has finally had to admit that he views the antecedent as the word of God... he has to ignore the KJV translators marginal note.

Why does it take post after post? Why the constant dishonesty?

 

[FSSL]

The word "them" is in no way derivative of anything, and therefore does not have an antecedent. The word "them" is a pronoun, meaning that it stands for something previously mentioned in the text.

Here is evidence that I already answered the question. As you can tell, the word "them" = the words of the LORD. The implication is the words as power for the people of God.

Dishonesty... or does Bibleprotector not know what "antecedent" means?

Either way... for all practical purposes... this discussion is over. He is not competent to understand the language of Scripture.

We are just being punked.

Remember, he also said he had a 233 page paper which discussed Psalm 12 at length. When I went through the paper, it was not there.

Yes. Verse 6 is a parenthetical statement giving the REASON why God's truth is trustworthy. It is pure. Bibleprotector thinks this view is irrelevant. Perhaps Bibleprotector rejects the purity of Scripture or does not understand what that even means.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Hint, Hint.

BP could just copy John Gills material, as it is out of copyright, and claim it as his own.

Then he wouldn't have to do any work on Psa 12 dissertation.

Gill would beat BP any day.

 

[FSSL]

Lol... it does not match BPs assumptions.

In fact... I have never seen an interpretation like BP

The prophetic idea... too bad the godly in Psalm 12 days were told that Gods Word was being preserved while they wouldn't be.

 

[bibleprotector]

Remember, he also said he had a 233 page paper which discussed Psalm 12 at length. When I went through the paper, it was not there.

Wrong. I said that 1260 page document describes a view of how to interpret. It mentions Ps. 12, but was never given as a specific on that passage. I then made a video to give some intro on that, plus posts on this forum with specific info on Ps. 12.

Yes. Verse 6 is a parenthetical statement giving the REASON why God's truth is trustworthy. It is pure.

I am asking you to explain what relevance does that have with what is mentioned in verses 5 and 7. Okay, God's word is reliable. What does that have to do with verse 7?

Bibleprotector thinks this view is irrelevant.

Do I, or is that just what you claim?

Perhaps Bibleprotector rejects the purity of Scripture or does not understand what that even means.

That's obviously a silly statement.

Now, if the psalmist was just writing in relation to what he knew, then it would not be very prophetic.

But since it is actually the Holy Ghost's words, then what He is saying is prophetic, and so the very form of the Scripture goes through the process of the furnace.

 

[bibleprotector]

In fact... I have never seen an interpretation like BP

The problem is that your view is tainted with the leaven of Infidelity. Also, refer to the portion of Thomas Scott's commentary I quoted previously.

The prophetic idea... too bad the godly in Psalm 12 days were told that Gods Word was being preserved while they wouldn't be.

Wrong on several counts:

1. The Holy Ghost speaks to all generations with the Scripture, but this does require that the first generation had knowledge of its multiple fulfilments.

2. The godly were told that preservation of God's words was integral to the empowering/rising up of the believers from bad times.

3. What was true then (in David's time) is on a larger scale and specificity being fulfilled in these times.

 

[Steven Avery]

So now that he has finally had to admit that he views the antecedent as the word of God... he has to ignore the KJV translators marginal note.

And I pointed out your error in a false conclusion on this margin note question before.  The learned men frequently put in a note to show the technical grammatical form in the Hebrew (in this case, singular).  The analogy with Isaiah 52:9 can be helpful.

Steven Avery

 

[FSSL]

So now that he has finally had to admit that he views the antecedent as the word of God... he has to ignore the KJV translators marginal note.

And I pointed out your error in a false conclusion on this margin note question before.  The learned men frequently put in a note to show the technical grammatical form in the Hebrew (in this case, singular).  The analogy with Isaiah 52:9 can be helpful.

Steven Avery

What I find curious is that you think this kind of tripe works outside of KJVO administrated forums.

The translators told us that they added the notes for clarification of the text. They were not simply dropping lit. Hebrew notes just for the sake of dropping in Hebrew marginal notes.

 

[bibleprotector]

The translators told us that they added the notes for clarification of the text.

No they didn't. That's just your misinterpretation of what they said. They actually said that they provided notes indicating other varieties of translation, where they had chosen what they thought was correct out of some variations.

 

[FSSL]

The problem is that your view is tainted with the leaven of Infidelity.

Your "go to" answer whenever you are unable to counter salient points.

The Holy Ghost speaks to all generations with the Scripture, but this does require that the first generation had knowledge of its multiple fulfilments.

Accirding to your view, they didn't have the knowledge of their own preservation.

The godly were told that preservation of God's words was integral to the empowering/rising up of the believers from bad times.

Too bad these people, according to your imterpretation, were told a book would be kept safe and they were simply going to get some empowerment.

 

[FSSL]

Remember, he also said he had a 233 page paper which discussed Psalm 12 at length. When I went through the paper, it was not there.

Wrong. I said that 1260 page document describes a view of how to interpret. It mentions Ps. 12, but was never given as a specific on that passage. I then made a video to give some intro on that, plus posts on this forum with specific info on Ps. 12.

Yes. Verse 6 is a parenthetical statement giving the REASON why God's truth is trustworthy. It is pure.

I am asking you to explain what relevance does that have with what is mentioned in verses 5 and 7. Okay, God's word is reliable. What does that have to do with verse 7?

They have trust that God is going to preserve them.

The problem is not a parenthetical statement. My parentheses is v 6. Your parentheses is vv 6-7. Your interpretation leaves verse 8 dangling.

Besides... if you are unable to understand what an antecedent is, why are you compelled to say "them" = word of God?