Psalm 12 and KJVO misuse

[FSSL]

Sure... lets discuss each passage as its own thread as to not distract from this one.

 

[Steven Avery]

Sure... lets discuss each passage as its own thread as to not distract from this one.

It is a simple discussion. 

And you did make single meaning your basis for accusation on Psalm 12, citing Robert L. Thomas as presenting your position.  I'll leave it up to you if you want to examine the unusual position your presented.  If so, I have the introductory question.

Would you agree that if his position is weak and/or does not support limiting the application of Psalm 12:6-7, your case against preservation of people and words being referenced in the two verses goes kaput?

Steven Avery

 

[FSSL]

The nature of English demands that we assign one meaning to each word in each context.

Unless you are speaking in puns and riddles.

Is Psalm 12.7 an obvious paranomasia? Nope.

I'm not going to chase rabbits.

 

[FSSL]

As far as your silliness about a supposed "accusation" of Psalm 12... you once said it may have a dual meaning... then you allow for a singular meaning.

I am not the one having difficulty with the English language and consistency of interpretation.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi

FSSL, I was willing to really have a research discussion on your position.  I found Thomas interesting, a spur to study, however rather weak.  Anyway, I respect his position, although the singular meaning concept has often been used to limit away messianic understandings. 

One problem is that there are a number of very different things that can be placed into the discussion of singular and dual meaning.  There are eschatological ideas of patterns and fulfillments occurring more than once, there are Old Testament prophecies that were originally seen as having a contemporary sense as the time of writing, there are additional senses of meaning that can all be part of one greater sense, and there are totally distinct meanings. And that is simply to get started. 

Plus Psalm 12:6-7 has the unique situation of two distinct phrases referring to preservation.

Psalms 12:6-7
The words of the LORD are pure words:
as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD,
thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

As to whether Psalm 12:6-7 preservation can refer to singular words or people, I am not adverse to that possibility.  And  believe in context words fits far better.  For that, see the posts on the first page of AV1611.

===============

Thanks to bibleprotector for the information on p.2.  This is not an area where I am particularly familiar with the historic dialog.  Sylvester Burnham has an article False Methods of Interpretation in 1888.  Like Robert L. Thomas, he tries to take a strict single interpretation line, and ends up crippling his own position on the intergrity of scripture.

Steven Avery

 

[bibleprotector]

consistency of interpretation

There is a consistency I note among the MacArthurites, and worse among others, which is the consistent lurch toward a doubtful interpretation. Their "cold is good and refreshing" interpretation of Revelation 3 epitomises the hypocracy of their position: they chide others for "modernism", novelty and recently developed interpretations, yet they uplift a very 20th century interpretation of the hot or cold dichotomy in Revelation 3.

How can the MacArthurites be trusted as the vanguard for the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture, when their doctrine only applies it really to the original autographs? This is doubt, and there is a consistent leavening of it, of Infidel ideology, in their thinking. Now maybe the leavening is only relatively light among these folks in comparison to many others, but still, it is there.

 

[FSSL]

Medieval interpreters sought multiple meanings for words in Scripture. Reformers saw language as univocal. They rejected the older approach which we see here with the dual meaning nonsense of Psalm 12.7

This should not be surprising to us to see medieval Rabbis taking this approach.

 

[FSSL]

FSSL, I was willing to really have a research discussion on your position.  I found Thomas interesting, a spur to study, however rather weak.  Anyway, I respect his position, although the singular meaning concept has often been used to limit away messianic understandings.

Language has natural limits. Your difficulty has to do with understanding fulfillments/prophetic realizations, not meaning.

Even fulfillments have a singular meaning.

If words have more than one.meaning in a given context, then confusion abounds. That is what makes puns/paranomasia interesting. They humorously upset the natural expectations of language.

 

[rsc2a]

Reading this thread is a lesson in punnish-meant.

 

[Steven Avery]

Language has natural limits. Your difficulty has to do with understanding fulfillments/prophetic realizations, not meaning. Even fulfillments have a singular meaning.

This sounds like you are making an exception clause.  Which is why I asked you about Thomas and the Isaiah and Matthew verses, where his presentation is very difficult.   

As for any "difficulty" on my end, that would only be trying to follow your vague presentation.
Do you think there are two different meanings of keep and/or preserve involved in a dual application?

Psalms 12:6-7
The words of the LORD are pure words:
as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD,
thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Steven

 

[FSSL]

Do you think there are two different meanings of keep and/or preserve involved in a dual application?

No. There are no dual meanings.
The application to the BC believers is still the same for us today.

If there are two meanings.. why not 3, 4 or even more?

 

[FSSL]

This sounds like you are making an exception clause.  Which is why I asked you about Thomas and the Isaiah and Matthew verses, where his presentation is very difficult.

I find Thomas was clear. Bomberg.Klein.Osborne are confusing.

 

[FSSL]

If we step back and look at this again... the issue is not about a single meaning versus dual meaning.

This is about how many subjects are connected to this verb. We don't have the Bible using the word "and," so there is only one subject allowed.

 

[bibleprotector]

Medieval interpreters sought multiple meanings for words in Scripture. Reformers saw language as univocal. They rejected the older approach which we see here with the dual meaning nonsense of Psalm 12.7

This should not be surprising to us to see medieval Rabbis taking this approach.

There is definitely a prophetic element to Psalm 12; it is definitely a prophesy psalm.

Some Scriptures (e.g. Bible prophecies) do have 2, 3 or even 4 fulfilments. The strict meaning of words does not change, as in a verb is always a verb, but their fulfilment does differ. Thus, there is not dual "meaning", but certainly possibly multiple fulfilment.

And certainly not, as the detractors try to then accuse on a strict PROTESTANT system, mountains of meaning, 72 different meanings, etc.

 

[bibleprotector]

The nature of English demands that we assign one meaning to each word in each context.

God, in His wisdom, can have communicated multiple reference: common examples of this are the Elijah prophecy which clearly has more than one fulfilment; the example of muzzling the ox; and many other instances.

Is Psalm 12.7 an obvious paranomasia?

There is no hidden, double or other special meaning only in the originals.

To be clear: the same double or multiple fulfilments in English are the same in the originals; and the claimed "paronomasia" are irrelevant to the sense, including claims of acrostic psalms, etc.

 

[bibleprotector]

There are no dual meanings.

But there are multiple fulfilments.

The application to the BC believers is still the same for us today.

Really? What about Paul's view of Moses' command to muzzle not the ox?

 

[FSSL]

We must be 2 ships passing in the night.

I have, all along, argued that a context has a single meaning with multiple applications/fulfullments.

My question for you is how you get two subjects connected to the single verb "preserve" in Psalm 12.

THEN where is the stated fulfillment of Psalm 12.7 in the NT?

 

[bibleprotector]

My question for you is how you get two subjects connected to the single verb "preserve" in Psalm 12.

That is how multiple fulfilments work, in that there is the specific prophetical view of this Psalm.

THEN where is the stated fulfillment of Psalm 12.7 in the NT?

Obviously, it is a future prophecy to the time of the NT (1st century), but we find related prophecies in the NT.

 

[FSSL]

oh... so you do not have an allusion or even a NT quote that addresses this?

If this is a prophectic statement... then why do the godly have to wait for the future to be preserved from their current generation?

This is a PROMISE of continual preservation... not a promise of something yet future.

You have not explained how "preserve" in Psalm 12.7 has two subjects.

 

[Steven Avery]

a single meaning with multiple applications/fulfullments. My question for you is how you get two subjects connected to the single verb "preserve" in Psalm 12.

Trying to parse your logic, aren't the two objects being preserved, with the same meaning involved for keep and preserve, simply a multiple application?

Why are remote and distant applications acceptable yet not close and connected applications? 

Btw, I think you can now accept that there is only one meaning involved, and your original claim of two meanings is now inoperative.

This is about how many subjects are connected to this verb. We don't have the Bible using the word "and," so there is only one subject allowed.

Actually there are two verbs, with two objects invovled.

(The distinction between subject and object is not very relevant, except that in the verse involved there are two objects.  What is kept and preserved is both subject and object in the context of the chapter.)

I find Thomas was clear.

Then you should have an easy time explaining  his position, in the paper, on the Matthew and Isaiah verses.  He references them twice, as I remember.  Do you need the quotes?  Will you work with them if I put the quotes in the thread?

Steven Avery