Psalm 12 and KJVO misuse

[bibleprotector]

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

Wrong. The Scriptures that already existed in the time of David were true, and God's promises were reliable then.

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.

Again you misinterpret. The people were not told that "a book" was kept safe, but the very words of God: words which would be the safety of the godly: words which would empower them to prevail against and despite the vilest, wicked men.

 

[FSSL]

So... how do you go from not understanding the basic English idea of an antecedent to erecting this false prophetic idea of 7 purifications attended by 7 more purifications?

 

[bibleprotector]

They have trust that God is going to preserve them.

The godly are able to believe that only as knowledge is restored. Restoration of the knowledge of God's preserved Word is integral for this in these times.

The problem is not a parenthetical statement. My parentheses is v 6.

I never said the problem was a paranthetical statement. I said that you have not explained why verse 6 is there: verse 5 speaks about the people whom God saves, and verse 7 speaks of keeping them. But in your view, you have not explained why verse 6 intervenes.

That is why the proper view is to regard verse 6 as related to how or what is happening in verse 5, and then, verse 7 makes sense. The keeping of God's words is for the triumph of His people. But you have no such explantion, but avoid it.

Your parentheses is vv 6-7.

Incorrect. In my view, verse 6 is an explanation of the victory prophesied in verse 5, and verse 7 therefore shows the conclusion of the victory. Verse 8 shows when verse 5 is going to happen, and therefore verse 6 is understood, verse 7 comes together, and thus, the implication is that the verse 8 situation is the "present evil" which is overcome.

Your interpretation leaves verse 8 dangling.

Actually, it is dangling in yours, because your view implies perpetual evil and makes a nonsense of the promise of verse 7, and makes verse 6 irrelevant.

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

I am not compelled to say that, and I don't say that. I said that the "them" are the words of God which are the power which gives victory for the godly. They are the weapon which both links to God's providence and to the overcoming of what prophetically may be termed the fulness of transgression.

The very same prophetic scenario means:

1. Corruption has vastly affected the Church in these times where lukewarmness prevails.
2. There is a providential move of God in the restoration of the knowledge of His promises, and an understanding of His counsel
3. When things look the worst, with widespread attacks on the Word and faith, there is then a change.

 

[bibleprotector]

So... how do you go from not understanding the basic English idea of an antecedent to erecting this false prophetic idea of 7 purifications attended by 7 more purifications?

How do you go about minimising Psalm 12:6 to its context, and making this Scripture have only have one fulfilment alone even though you also imply it to be continually true?

 

[bibleprotector]

The reality is that Psalm 12 as being fulfilled today has every sign of being fulfilled in these times, that is, as a specific prophetic fulfilment.

Let me also remind you once again of an excerpt of Thomas Scott’s interpretation of Psalm 12 from the 19th century:

… when infidels and profligates triumph; then the believer thinks the times very bad, however otherwise peaceful and prosperous. … He [God] waits, till his people are sufficiently tried, and till his enemies have filled up their measure: but he hears the sighs and prayers of his afflicted people; and he will defend their cause, and deliver them from the generation of the wicked, and from the wicked one, and that for ever. He will also rise to revive his church from the ruins, with greater glory: he hath promised, and his Word is more pure and precious than the finest silver. Let us rest upon it, and comfort our souls with it; though we cannot but grieve to see the degeneracy of the times, and the abounding of iniquity and infidelity. And even should we witness the advancement of the vilest of men to the highest dignities in church and state, and the consequent triumphs of error and wickedness over the cause of truth and holiness still let us wait and pray: the Lord will yet make his cause triumphant; and the prayers of the remnant of his people are an appointed means of ushering in those better and more glorious days, which cannot now be very far distant.

 

[FSSL]

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

Bibleprotector: I am not compelled to say that, and I don't say that. I said that the "them" are the words of God...

FSSL: Why do you skip over the text and run right into an interpretation?

 

[bibleprotector]

FSSL: Why do you skip over the text and run right into an interpretation?

I do not skip the text, but accepted the KJB first as true (which you well know).

After having accepted it, then understanding what it was saying.

After study, I came to accept the Protestant teaching of mutliple fulfilments.

After that, I came to understand that Psalm 12 does indeed have a specific prophetic fulfilment, besides the Davidic general reading of it.

 

[bibleprotector]

idea of 7 purifications attended by 7 more purifications?

Your actual question should be, how can one passage/verse have two different interpretations, and both be right?

Now, I wrote a whole book explaining that.

My previous explanations (as introductory as they are) give an idea of how the words "purified seven times" do have two interpretations, because Psalm 12 is being viewed as having two fulfilments.

 

[FSSL]

I do not skip the text, but accepted the KJB first as true (which you well know).

Why do you work hard at spinning away from the question?

Last time I read the KJV, I accepted its words as from God Himself AND found pronouns and antecedents.

Why do you reject the grammar?

 

[bgwilkinson]

FSSL: Why do you skip over the text and run right into an interpretation?

Because the text does not agree with his private interpretation.

He stakes his whole reputation among his followers upon his private interpretation.

If one of his private interpretations fail, his whole theology collapses like a house of cards.

 

[FSSL]

Because the text does not agree with his private interpretation.

Bingo! BTW: You probably also noticed that the Thomas Scott interpretation doesn't say the same thing as BP.

It is purely dishonest. To not accept simple English grammar of the text means that he does not accept the text.

 

[bibleprotector]

Why do you work hard at spinning away from the question?

Last time I read the KJV, I accepted its words as from God Himself AND found pronouns and antecedents.

Why do you reject the grammar?

I have been abundantly clear to you, so I am not spinning anything.

When you say you "read the KJB", in fact, not only do you reject its perfection of its text and translation (which is because of your acceptance of the leaven of Infidelity), but also your modernistic interpretation methodology is a filter which keeps you from properly interpreting it. Even if you accepted the KJB, you have the massive problem of your grammatical-historical hermeneutics.

Whereas, I accept the words of the KJB as they stand, and so that should also indicates the same dichotomy of where we stand on interpretation methodology.

So, when the KJB says "them", I not only accept the word "them", but I accept that there is a proper interpretation: and the manner of a believing view of Scripture and multiple fulfilments is the Spirit led position. Whereas, your servitude to meanings being ascribed to the Hebrew and your reading in of present day ideas into the past milieu is anti-Holy Ghost.

 

[bibleprotector]

Because the text does not agree with his private interpretation.

You are imposing your false interpretation of "the text" as being the correct standard, but it is not. Even your own kind say, “The interpretation of Scripture has been something of a battleground for centuries. It is all very subjective, or so it seems. Doesn’t everyone have his own view and isn’t one view as valid as another? Not necessarily.” (J. MacArthur, 1980, Take God’s Word For It, Regal, pg 144).

He stakes his whole reputation among his followers upon his private interpretation.

You have an active imagination. I do what Psalm 12 actually says, and that is, when evil, prideful men are puffing, to trust in the Lord who has supplied His Word, which promises are true despite the evil accusations in this evil generation.

If one of his private interpretations fail, his whole theology collapses like a house of cards.

That is Satan's strategy: that is why your kind always tries to find some fault in the KJB, and why many modernists may doubt Genesis 1's young earth six day creation view (some modernists are more leavened with infidelity than others).

 

[bibleprotector]

Bingo! BTW: You probably also noticed that the Thomas Scott interpretation doesn't say the same thing as BP.

What is shows is someone who understood things relatively clearly and who specifically applied the fulfilment (or "application") to the present timeframe.

It is purely dishonest.

How can we trust the grammatical interpretation of one who questions the proper use of the the word "pure"?

To not accept simple English grammar of the text means that he does not accept the text.

I accept the English text, what I reject is the modernistic imposition of other ideas. In this case, the modernist actually believes that the Hebrew means something else than what the English states. They want to "wrest" the English to their modernistic, twisted use of Hebrew.

(They also will go to the margin of the KJB to try to change the Scripture.)

 

[rsc2a]

"your kind"? ???

 

[bibleprotector]

"your kind"? ???

Small "m" modernists. Ones who have been leavened to some degree with Infidelity. This (reference to MacArthur) is nothing to do with a debate about Calvinism or Dispensationalism as such, but much to do with what a person believes in regards to the actual power of God to:

1. Supply a perfect text and a prefect translation of Scripture in English for the world today.
2. Aid to provide proper interpretation.

And really, these two together.

Your kind regularly fails on these points.

 

[FSSL]

How can we trust the grammatical interpretation of one who questions the proper use of the the word "pure"?

A pronoun has an antecedent. You don't even recognize an antecedent.

You can get away with your silliness on KJVO forums... We will just let you know when your silliness is absurd.

I accept the English text...

No you don't. You cannot even accept English.

(They also will go to the margin of the KJB to try to change the Scripture.)

Those dastardly KJV translators and their dirty little marginal notes! How dare they clarify their own word "them!" LOL! They told us they were going to do it and they ACTUALLY did it!

 

[rsc2a]

"your kind"? ???

Small "m" modernists. Ones who have been leavened to some degree with Infidelity. This (reference to MacArthur) is nothing to do with a debate about Calvinism or Dispensationalism as such, but much to do with what a person believes in regards to the actual power of God to:

1. Supply a perfect text and a prefect translation of Scripture in English for the world today.
2. Aid to provide proper interpretation.

And really, these two together.

Your kind regularly fails on these points.

I don't think I've ever referred to another human as "your kind".

 

[bibleprotector]

We will just let you know when your silliness is absurd.

So, you are unwilling to explain the relevance of Psalm 12:6 to the rest of the psalm?

Those dastardly KJV translators and their dirty little marginal notes! How dare they clarify their own word "them!" LOL! They told us they were going to do it and they ACTUALLY did it!

You seem to misread and misapply everything: what I say, what the KJB men said, and (most dangerously of all) what God said.

 

[bibleprotector]

I don't think I've ever referred to another human as "your kind".

I've never been to a tropical kind of island. So what.