Psalm 12 and KJVO misuse

[praise_yeshua]

Its rather difficult to deal with someone that ignores their errors as they never happened. The very fact "Matt" refuses to acknowledge his failure in properly understanding and applying the antecedent of a pronoun..... is just another indicator of how KJVOist continually lie and ignore their own mistakes.

 

[praise_yeshua]

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!

Most KJVOist have abandoned the silly position BP is seeking to prove/extend. They've realized that there is no rational way to extend Psalm 12 to refer to the KJV. Many of them have even taken to distance themselves from those who hold the position. Even within "his kind of people", he is in a shrinking minority.

 

[bibleprotector]

Most KJVOist have abandoned the silly position BP is seeking to prove/extend. They've realized that there is no rational way to extend Psalm 12 to refer to the KJV. Many of them have even taken to distance themselves from those who hold the position. Even within "his kind of people", he is in a shrinking minority.

Really? You speak as if giving a prophecy there. Where is the proof that your prophecy is true?

It is very telling the amount of propaganda comes from those who have at their every move the motive to reject the perfection of the KJB, and of faith in the Spirit's guidance to a proper understanding of the Scripture.

 

[FSSL]

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

I explained it. Like the Thomas quote, it went straight over your head.

You cannot accept that "them" has an antecedent.

The Subject of this thread has been firmly established: Psalm 12 and KJVO misuse

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

If you are unable to acknowledge the antecedent placed in the text by God, then it behooves me to reject what you say about this passage.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Most KJVOist have abandoned the silly position BP is seeking to prove/extend. They've realized that there is no rational way to extend Psalm 12 to refer to the KJV. Many of them have even taken to distance themselves from those who hold the position. Even within "his kind of people", he is in a shrinking minority.

Really? You speak as if giving a prophecy there. Where is the proof that your prophecy is true?

It is very telling the amount of propaganda comes from those who have at their every move the motive to reject the perfection of the KJB, and of faith in the Spirit's guidance to a proper understanding of the Scripture.

The KJB is decent translation. In fact, the KJV has something going for it many modern version do not. It regular considers/uses renderings from the LXX. I'm a fan of the LXX and believe it is invaluable to scholarly research of the Scriptures. So don't start bashing too bad. In many ways, I prefer the KJV in many areas over translation based solely on a 9th century Hebrew text.

I'm not dishing any propaganda at all. I've been fight the battle concerning the KJV for somewhere around 20 years. I've seen many KJVOist change their stance concerning Psalm 12. In fact, some KJVOist love to reference Thomas Cassidy's work.......

But, you might want to get an updated edition of his work.

 

[bibleprotector]

If you are unable to acknowledge the antecedent placed in the text by God, then it behooves me to reject what you say about this passage.

That's bizarre reasoning. I accept that the word "them" has as an antecedent. I accept that the "them" is referring to the "words". Since I accept every word in Psalm 12, then you have no grounds to reject what I say in this passage. But, of course, you are going to reject what I say.

By the way, the psalm begins by saying, "Help", and we find that the help for the people of God must be by trusting those words. So those who interpret that the word "them" means people are not entirely wrong. What is wrong is to reject the actual power of the words as being promised. In other words, to believe that the pure words are the power for the people.

But your view is wrong headed, always going for the opposite, always tending away from what is correct. Given enough time, it leads to the worst sort of atheism.

 

[FSSL]

That's bizarre reasoning. I accept that the word "them" has as an antecedent. I accept that the "them" is referring to the "words".

This is the FIRST time you have acknowledged this.

What is bizarre is your discussion. It is misleading, based on faulty reasoning and continues to twist around.

 

[bibleprotector]

This is the FIRST time you have acknowledged this.

I have been saying all along, that the word "them" refers to the words, which are the power for the godly people, in the prophetic interpretation.

Yet, all the time, I observe wilful blindness, twisting and accusations from your side.

 

[FSSL]

I have been saying all along, that the word "them" refers to the words, which are the power for the godly people, in the prophetic interpretation.

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

 

[subllibrm]

Well let's not forget that many of the original Apostles were also unlearned men.  8)

 

[Ransom]

Here is Jean Calvin:


... Some give this exposition of the passage, Thou wilt keep them, namely, thy words; but this does not seem to me to be suitable. David, I have no doubt, returns to speak of the poor, of whom he had spoken in the preceding part of the psalm.

So . . . on the side of people preservation, John Calvin.

Here is John Gill:

... not but God has wonderfully kept and preserved the sacred writings; and he keeps every word of promise which he has made; and the doctrines of the Gospel will always continue from one generation to another; but the sense is, that God will keep the poor and needy, and such as he sets in safety ... and this the psalmist had good reason to believe, because of the love of God to them, his covenant with them, and the promises of safety and salvation he has made unto them;

On the side of people preservation, John Gill.

Here is Adam Clarke:

God did bring forth the Israelites from Babylon, according to his word; he separated them from that generation. and reinstated them in their own land, according to his word; and most certainly he has preserved them from generation to generation to the present day, in a most remarkable manner.

On the side of people preservation, Adam Clarke.

Here is John Wesley:

Thou shalt keep them - Thy words or promises: these thou wilt observe and keep, both now, and from this generation for ever

On the side of words preservation, John Wesley.

Here is Matthew Poole:

Ver. 7. Thou shalt keep them; either,
1. The poor and needy, Ps 12:5, from the crafts and malice of this crooked and perverse generation of men, and for ever. Or,

2. Thy words or promises last mentioned, Ps 12:6. These thou wilt observe and keep (as these two verbs commonly signify) both now, and

from this generation for ever, i.e. Thou wilt not only keep thy promise to me in preserving me, and advancing me to the throne, but also to my posterity from generation to generation.

On the fence: Matthew Poole.

And Thomas Scott's Commentary:

when infidels and profligates triumph; then the believer thinks the times very bad, however otherwise peaceful and prosperous. ... He 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.

On the side of people preservation, Thomas Scott.

As can be easily discerned, KJBOs did not invent the "words" being preserved interpretation.

Nope. You've simply latched on to an inaccurate minority position because allegorizing Psalm 12 happens to suit your pseudo-bibliology.

 

[FSSL]

Yes. Vetting BP's information is tiring. We always end up finding his information is exact opposite (as above), entirely distorted or missing altogether.

We are being punked.

 

[bgwilkinson]

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).

You sure have a fixation on the father of lies.

You claim to know which Bibles belong to him.

 

[Ransom]

You sure have a fixation on the father of lies.

You claim to know which Bibles belong to him.

It's funny how the people putting on the biggest show of opposing Satan, always seem to be the ones most likely to have his phone number.

 

[bibleprotector]

Nope. You've simply latched on to an inaccurate minority position because allegorizing Psalm 12 happens to suit your pseudo-bibliology.

I highlighted quotes from the Protestant commentators which indicated reference to God's Word.

I also quoted them because they indicated that some folks believed in "words" preservation. For example, John Wesley indicated that.

But instead of these facts, or any honest analysis, you simply misrepresent, and make absurd accusations. What you are really saying is you won't believe because you do not want to believe.

 

[bibleprotector]

Yes. Vetting BP's information is tiring. We always end up finding his information is exact opposite (as above), entirely distorted or missing altogether.

We are being punked.

Actually, you find what you want to see. You are deceiving yourself.

 

[FSSL]

^ this guy cannot read.

 

[bibleprotector]

You sure have a fixation on the father of lies.

Mentioning Satan once equals a fixation? Again, massive distortion to make opposite of who I am and what I say.

 

[bibleprotector]

You claim to know which Bibles belong to him.

Really? I don't focus on "exposing" modern versions. See my materials.

 

[Steven Avery]

Really? I don't focus on "exposing" modern versions. See my materials.

And I similarly believe that a lot of the effort in exposing the new errors in more modern versions is only marginally helpful.

The operative principle is GIGO.  And all critical text editions can be seen as under that principle. It really does not matter much whether the translation is more or less literal, or if they are doing more stupid stuff like gender-neutral.

Even the best version based on the critical text will have to be extremely corrupt. 

(Although I do make efforts on showing the shared corruptions that come from the CT.  Matthew is not particularly involved in that effort.  And this is not a criticism.)

Steven Avery