Psalm 12 and KJVO misuse

[FSSL]

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?

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.

The verbs "kept safe" and "preserve" have only one object - the godly.

Psalm 12.7 is parallel. Two synonym verbs, same object - the godly poor of 12.6

 

[FSSL]

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

I have never advocated for two meanings.

 

[Steven Avery]

I have never advocated for two meanings.

Right, I know.
You wrongly claimed that a dual application is two meanings.

The verbs "kept safe" and "preserve" have only one object - the godly. Psalm 12.7 is parallel. Two synonym verbs, same object - the godly poor of 12.6

A nice circular fiat declaration.

It would be appreciated if you would answer the question about Robert L. Thomas above, since he is da man from your perspective.

If you are not going to continue to evade, I'll be willing to post his sections on Matthew and Isaiah.  Or you could read them directly and summarize.

Steven

 

[praise_yeshua]

Mathew 26:11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.
Deut 15:11 For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying , Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy,
1 Sam 2:8 He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, and he hath set the world upon them.
Matthew 11:5 The blind receive their sight , and the lame walk , the lepers are cleansed , and the deaf hear , the dead are raised up , and the poor have the gospel preached to them .
Luke 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted , to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised ,
Luke 6:20 And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said , Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.
2 Cor 9:9 (As it is written , He hath dispersed abroad ; he hath given to the poor: his righteousness remaineth for ever.
James 2:5 Hearken , my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?

and

2 Cor 8:9 9 For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor , that ye through his poverty might be rich .

 

[FSSL]

Right, I know.
You wrongly claimed that a dual application is two meanings.[/color]

show me.

I claim that each context has a single meaning. That singular meaning can have different applications.

A nice circular fiat declaration.

Prove otherwise.

It would be appreciated if you would answer the question about Robert L. Thomas above, since he is da man from your perspective.

Please state his point and your difficulty with it.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Please state his point and your difficulty with it.

You've dealt with Avery for a LONG time. Do you really expect him to do his own work?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Obviously, the perfectly preserved word means whatever you want it to mean in order to prop up KJVO. 

 

[FSSL]

Please state his point and your difficulty with it.

You've dealt with Avery for a LONG time. Do you really expect him to do his own work?

His comment about "are you going to continue to evade" was a nice touch of irony.

Especially since he is not willing to prove that 12.7 has two objects.

 

[bibleprotector]

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

Your question is incorrect, in that the prophecy is not fulfilled in the NT period, not that there is no prophecy in the NT about the same thing.

We find in the NT both ideas spoken of, that God keeps His Word, and that there is a specific time in history being prophesied of in this regard (where there is a specific conflict on this issue).

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

You are misreading. The words "this generation" are either perennial, as in the psalmists own time into the future; or, in the other mode of interpretation, prophetic about the future, lying generation.

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

Half way right. The promise is for continual preservation in one mode of interpretation, but, in the prophetic mode, is specifically speaking of a future (relative to the time of David) time, that time was also future to the NT apostles.

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

The subject is "thou", meaning God, and that is the same in both modes of interpretation. When it says God shall keep them, it emphasises the words, and when it says preserve them, it means the words and the people, the people who keep the words, the words which give power to keep the people. Thus, in both the perennial sense (i.e. from the time of David to for ever) it is true, and also, in the specific prophetic mode, (the specific time when God will arise, see verse 5), it is also to be fulfilled.


God preserves His people generally, and God preserves the people of

 

[bibleprotector]

The verbs "kept safe" and "preserve" have only one object - the godly.

Psalm 12.7 is parallel. Two synonym verbs, same object - the godly poor of 12.6

Actually, both the godly "poor" and the words are referenced from 12:5 and 12:6.

Multiple fulfilments understands the general promise for the godly poor and His words through history generally, which can be believed in any generation, and also, that there is a specific time in history when the prophecy of the Psalm is specifically fulfilled.

 

[bibleprotector]

Who are these poor?

Here is another passage referencing such a prophecy:

Isa 42:21 The LORD is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable.
Isa 42:22 But this is a people robbed and spoiled; they are all of them snared in holes, and they are hid in prison houses: they are for a prey, and none delivereth; for a spoil, and none saith, Restore.
Isa 42:23 Who among you will give ear to this? who will hearken and hear for the time to come?

 

[FSSL]

Since you believe "preserve" and "kept safe" refer to multiple objects, why do you not argue for the preservation and safe keeping of the furnace in vs. 6?

One could argue that the English rules of proximity would point to the furnace instead.

... for that matter, if these verbs could address multiple objects... why stopnat 2, 3 or 4... just pick any object in the text.

 

[FSSL]

You are misreading. The words "this generation" are either perennial, as in the psalmists own time into the future; or, in the other mode of interpretation, prophetic about the future, lying generation.

When you allow for two interpretations of the same passage, we must ask again "Why not 3 interpretations or 4 or 5?"

 

[bibleprotector]

Since you believe "preserve" and "kept safe" refer to multiple objects, why do you not argue for the preservation and safe keeping of the furnace in vs. 6?

The word "preserve" has only one meaning, which is, preserve, or somewhat synonymously, keep.

Where the multiplicity comes in is in the object, the "them". That is, whether it is the general or the specific. The general means the general truth of the psalm (as you interpret it); the specific is the prophetic interpretation of the psalm when those things come to pass as described in verses 1 to 5 (and 8 ). Even the specific time references "now" and "when" are used to indicate a specific moment/period in history.

The way to understand the Bible is not by mere proximity in syntax, as leads to your suggestion of "furnace"; but rather, that there is obviously a clear conceptual construct in the passage. Besides, grammatically, the furnace is singular, not a plural "them".

One could argue that the English rules of proximity would point to the furnace instead.

That is a postmodernistic argument, that one could argue anything, everything, nothing or something unknown. But the spiritual approach is to see structure, rigidity/consistency, and well defined bounds. Thus, the word "furnace" should no more be accepted as "them", than a willy-nilly of speculative, imaginative interpretations.

... for that matter, if these verbs could address multiple objects... why stopnat 2, 3 or 4... just pick any object in the text.

That is the usual argument of the singularist view (the other being the reference to the hyper-allegorical method). They dismiss the tight, specific structure of the fulfilments and their relationship, but suggest that it is not restricted and orderly, but that it is, or might be, a free-for-all.

Once again, let us think about the non-muzzling of the ox. God spoke by Moses in agricultural terms, which was indicating a higher principle, viz., that godly folks should care for their animals; so likewise, in Paul's higher, fuller interpretation, God was really saying, look after your ministers.

Did Paul then also say that the "ox" could represent Christ's humanity and his earthly ministry? That is, after all, a possible "hyper-allegorical" interpretation. But Paul did not say it. So then, we see that there is a strict boundary on interpretations, which disallows intrusion of other ideas other than what the Holy Ghost intended, and clearly a double sense, multiple sense, germinancy and/or fuller sense (sensus plenior) are possible.

I advocate multiple fulfilments, see my book on the subject, at www.bibleprotector.com/prophecy But I do not advocate random, numerous, subjective, "private interpretation" fulfilments.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

From the Robert L. Thomas paper:

They cite Isa 7:14 as an example of intended double meaning, as being fulfilled in the immediate future (Isa 8:1 -10) and in the distant future (Matt 1:23) ... Nothing in either context cited justifies the conclusion that the authors or Jesus, the speaker, intended a double meaning in these passages.  p. 38

Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;
Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,
and shall call his name Immanuel.

Matthew 1:22:-23
Now all this was done,
that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
Behold, a virgin shall be with child,
and shall bring forth a son,
and they shall call his name Emmanuel,
which being interpreted is,
God with us.

Where is Jesus the speaker in Isaiah or Matthew, (outside of placing Jesus as the author of all scripture) ?  And why would the writing of Matthew determine the dual meaning of Isaiah?

it is a violation of grammatical-historical principles to find double meanings in a context where no such indicators occur. No such signposts occur with ... Isaiah's prophecy of the virgin birth of the Messiah. p. 38

Isaiah 9:6 should be a signpost more than sufficient.

(Also there are difficulties in trying to assign Isaiah 7:14 as referencing Isaiah 8:1-10, however we can let that be a different discussion.)

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

Isaiah 42:6 comes up on p. 43. The section is similarly confusing from Thomas:

"The new meaning of the Old Testament prophecies applied to the church introduced by New Testament writers did not cancel out the original meaning and their promises to Israel. God will yet restore the nation of Abraham's physical descendants as He promised He would."

So the idea is that there is actually a dual meaning (although really we are talking application, not meaning) but that he wants to say that Isaiah only saw one meaning. So the whole exercise is one of mind-reading. Single meaning only means that the interpreter wants to limit what was in the mind of Isaiah, a very dubious exercise.

Then he simply denies the Messianic component of another Isaiah prophecy:

Zuck uses Psalm 78;2 .. two referents, Asaph and Jesus who applied the words to Himself in Matthew 13:35. Instead of saying the psalm has two referents, which in essence assigns two meanings to it, too say that the psalm's lone referent is Asaph, thereby limiting the psalm to one meaning, is preferable. Either Psalm 78:2 refers to Asaph or it refers to Jesus. It cannot refer to both.  It is proper to say that Psalm 78:2 refers to Asaph, and Matthew 13:35 refers to Jesus. By itself. Psalm 78:2 cannot carry the weight of the latter referent.

Psalms 78:2
I will open my mouth in a parable:
I will utter dark sayings of old:

Matthew 13:34-35
All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

Here at least Thomas is understandable.  Yet by what right does he limit the prophets from having a Messianic understanding of their own words?

Isaiah clearly envisioned Messiah in the suffering servant sections, including Isaiah 53. By what right would you say that Isaiah was ignorant of the Messianic application of Isaiah 7:14?  And the same child is referenced in Isaiah 9:6:

Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

As Matthew Henry summarizes about Isaiah 7:14:

... for of your nation, of your family, the Messiah is to be born, and you cannot be destroyed while that blessing is in you, which shall be introduced," (1.) "In a glorious manner; for, whereas you have been often told that he should be born among you, I am now further to tell you that he shall be born of a virgin, which will signify both the divine power and the divine purity with which he shall be brought into the world,—that he shall be a extraordinary person, for he shall not be born by ordinary generation,—and that he shall be a holy thing, not stained with the common pollutions of the human nature, therefore incontestably fit to have the throne of his father David given him." Now this, though it was to be accomplished above 500 years after, was a most encouraging sign to the house of David (and to them, under that title, this prophecy is directed, v. 13) and an assurance that God would not cast them off.

Steven Avery

 

[FSSL]

That is a postmodernistic argument, that one could argue anything, everything, nothing or something unknown. But the spiritual approach is to see structure, rigidity/consistency, and well defined bounds. Thus, the word "furnace" should no more be accepted as "them", than a willy-nilly of speculative, imaginative interpretations.

Since you have read into the text multiple objects, adding "furnace" would still require "them" in English.

I know you don't want to include "furnace," but your approach cannot eliminate it.

When you start down the road of multiple things into a singular context... the logic train cannot stop.

 

[FSSL]

I advocate multiple fulfilments, see my book on the subject, at www.bibleprotector.com/prophecy But I do not advocate random, numerous, subjective, "private interpretation" fulfilments.

The idea that a purification process leading to the KJV, based off Psalm 12.7 certainly is your private interpretation.

That is what makes it so curious.

 

[bibleprotector]

Since you have read into the text multiple objects, adding "furnace" would still require "them" in English.

Wrong, since the multiplicity is in the layers of the word itself, not in the multiplicity of other concepts in the rest of the psalm. For example, the "seed", where it says "it shall bruise thy head"  in Genesis 3 does not specifically refer to anything at hand, that is to say, that the word "it" means the seed, and the seed is where the multiple fulfilments are found.

So, likewise, in Psalm 12, the word "them" (the preserved) is has specific, generational application, not taking in concepts from through-out the psalm, like as if random words from the psalm are loaded horizontally: multiple fulfilments are separate iterations.

I know you don't want to include "furnace," but your approach cannot eliminate it.

My approach does not "eliminate" something which does not connect to it. Since the difference is in timeframe, then the furnace is not the "them", but rather, there are two or multiple different things being referred to by the furnace itself, i.e. the poetic language describing the nature of God's truth enduring, or else, to specific outworking in history regarding the purification of the Word of God, which is to say, the purification in regards to its exact form, not to its existence or nature, which is to say, that the Scripture is pure, but that the purification process of having its exact readings and translation in English was an outworking to purity in that regard.

When you start down the road of multiple things into a singular context... the logic train cannot stop.

There are severe limitations on what the Holy Ghost said and meant. When he said muzzle not the ox, he clearly had the literal agricultural meaning, but more importantly, and in His real design, the Christian meaning. These are two distinct interpretations, both correct, yet this is highly limited: the ox cannot be made to mean new things, such as Christ's humanity in that place. So, allowing multiple fulfilments etc. is a strictly limited, restrictive approach that brings out the full sense, and does not pile on new, random, arbitrary interpretations.

This is exactly what many good Protestants have argued, so that there is not some mountains of meaning and 72 interpretations of some place, but the very narrow restrictions of a single, a double, a threefold, or fourfold sense. That is it.

 

[bibleprotector]

The idea that a purification process leading to the KJV, based off Psalm 12.7 certainly is your private interpretation.

That is what makes it so curious.

It is not a "private interpretation" at all, for a few reasons:

1. Various folks have interpreted the purified seven times meaning quite independently of me, and some have varied exactly the specifics of each of the times.

2. That the same is found to be in the interpretation of another passage, Revelation 10, and this too as indicating a seven times scenario, with some traditional Protestant interpretors identifying the very same sort of thing.

 

[bibleprotector]

The following explains the Psalm 12 prophecy in an introductory way: http://youtu.be/Y7El6T00If8