Psalm 12 and KJVO misuse

[FSSL]

I cannot watch a 39 minute video (bandwidth limits). Why not just give us the verse in Rev 10 that is a prophetic fulfillment of Psalm 12?

 

[FSSL]

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

Since this is just interfering with the Psalm 12 discussion ans has absolutely nothing to do with that.. lets start a new thread. This will be a great topic to discuss.

 

[bibleprotector]

I cannot watch a 39 minute video (bandwidth limits). Why not just give us the verse in Rev 10 that is a prophetic fulfilment of Psalm 12?

The prophetic fulfilment of the Psalm 12 prophecy is in the future of the first century. The point is in Rev. 10 there is a prophecy to similar related things (the structure of Revelation is different). I have detailed this extensively in the book. This is the chapter dealing specifically with Rev. 10: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=UnAfBQAAQBAJ&lpg=PR1&pg=PA587#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[rsc2a]

I think I'm going to pick and choose a bunch of translations and end up with the Cottonpatch Bible on the end.  As long as the number of translations I pick and choose equals seven,  I'll be able to claim divine authority for my selection.

Then I'll make deific claims about myself to show how stalwart I am for God by my willingness to defend my chosen translation. 

Even better!  I'll write books about it and start a kawlege so I can avoid work and obtain honorary doctorates.  It is the absolute least that I could do given my vast outpouring of humility that the Anglican cult Bible correctors fail to acknowledge.

 

[FSSL]

I cannot watch a 39 minute video (bandwidth limits). Why not just give us the verse in Rev 10 that is a prophetic fulfilment of Psalm 12?

The prophetic fulfilment of the Psalm 12 prophecy is in the future of the first century. The point is in Rev. 10 there is a prophecy to similar related things (the structure of Revelation is different). I have detailed this extensively in the book. This is the chapter dealing specifically with Rev. 10: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=UnAfBQAAQBAJ&lpg=PR1&pg=PA587#v=onepage&q&f=false

Problem... there are far more than 7 important English Bibles.

Your "prophecy" is lacking NT support and is manufactured by eliminating evidences.

Rev 10 has no relationship to Psalm 12 in any manner.

 

[bibleprotector]

Problem... there are far more than 7 important English Bibles.

So you say, but now we are dealing with the Protestants' view, that is, the Historicist interpretation.

Your "prophecy" is lacking NT support and is manufactured by eliminating evidences.

"My" view is consistent with the Reformers' and Protestants' view into the 19th century. Unless you are accusing them of lacking NT support etc.

Rev 10 has no relationship to Psalm 12 in any manner.

Again, your vehement denial of the link does not match up with the Reformers' and Protestants' views regarding Rev. 10, of which even the non-prophetic interpretation of Psalm 12's subject matter finds at least general connection.

 

[bgwilkinson]

I cannot watch a 39 minute video (bandwidth limits). Why not just give us the verse in Rev 10 that is a prophetic fulfilment of Psalm 12?

The prophetic fulfilment of the Psalm 12 prophecy is in the future of the first century. The point is in Rev. 10 there is a prophecy to similar related things (the structure of Revelation is different). I have detailed this extensively in the book. This is the chapter dealing specifically with Rev. 10: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=UnAfBQAAQBAJ&lpg=PR1&pg=PA587#v=onepage&q&f=false

Well there you go again hawking your book, not interested, you have revealed yourself here.

 

[bibleprotector]

Well there you go again hawking your book, not interested, you have revealed yourself here.

I know your kind: faultfinders who will attack always and on any ground no matter what I say or don't say.

 

[FSSL]

"My" view is consistent with the Reformers' and Protestants' view into the 19th century. Unless you are accusing them of lacking NT support etc.

Again, your vehement denial of the link does not match up with the Reformers' and Protestants' views regarding Rev. 10, of which even the non-prophetic interpretation of Psalm 12's subject matter finds at least general connection.

Please quote them!

even the non-prophetic interpretation of Psalm 12's subject matter finds at least general connection.

Weasel words

 

[FSSL]

Problem... there are far more than 7 important English Bibles.

So you say, but now we are dealing with the Protestants' view, that is, the Historicist interpretation.

I can say... because they exist. Its not a point of view. It is factual data.

 

[bibleprotector]

Please quote them!

There are way too many to quote, but I will summarise from Steve Gregg's book, who summarises from a wide range of such sources:

The prophecies of chapters 10 and 11:1-15 are about the Reformation period in the early 16th century.

The book open ... is the Bible, which before the Reformation had been confined ... following the fall of the Byzantine Empire, the Bible became available (an open book) to the masses ...

(He then lists Reformation Bibles. The last in the list is the KJB.)

The eating of the little book (v. 10) represents the church's reception of the Bible at the time of the Reformation. For the first time, the Scriptures were available to the common man and printed in his own tongue. It was sweet as honey in the mouths of those who received it. Having been staved of God's Word for hundreds of years...

As John eats this book and receives a further commission, he stands for the ministers of the Reformation, who are thereby charged by Christ to preach (prophesy -- v. 11) His gospel to many nations and languages. The preaching of the Word was the principal power and distinction of the Protestant movement.

* * *

There are some who specifically link in the prophecy the King James Bible in particular:  A. J. Ferris (1941), J. S. Fox (1958), F. W. C. Neser (1974), R. Caringola (1995), C. A. Jennings (2001), R. W. Mills (2005).

 

[rsc2a]

Oh sheesh...

 

[bibleprotector]

The point is that just as Protestants identified Revelation 10 as relevant to the Reformation period, so it is consistent to view the prophecy of Psalm 12 as having some points of similarity.

 

[rsc2a]

Odd. I have read a great number of books of a theological nature, and until you just write that,  I have never seen anyone who taught the insanity you just described.

 

[praise_yeshua]

The point is that just as Protestants identified Revelation 10 as relevant to the Reformation period, so it is consistent to view the prophecy of Psalm 12 as having some points of similarity.

You've spent entirely too much time inventing ways to cover up your lies. I really can't much believe what I just read from you. You need to have a "Darwin stubby" and forget such nonsense.

 

[bibleprotector]

Odd. I have read a great number of books of a theological nature, and until you just write that,  I have never seen anyone who taught the insanity you just described.

1. You obviously have not read widely enough, and

2. You are calling the Protestant tradition "insane".

 

[praise_yeshua]

Odd. I have read a great number of books of a theological nature, and until you just write that,  I have never seen anyone who taught the insanity you just described.

You're not alone.... I have never read such an application being made in comparison to a Protestant view of Revelation...... Like there is even a standard Protestant view of Revelation. Even Calvin himself refused to comment on the matter.

 

[bibleprotector]

You've spent entirely too much time inventing ways to cover up your lies. I really can't much believe what I just read from you. You need to have a "Darwin stubby" and forget such nonsense.

What is really motivating you to accuse me of lying in connection to reporting the Protestant tradition? Surely, only the devil would tell someone to basically go get drunk.

 

[subllibrm]

Problem... there are far more than 7 important English Bibles.

So you say, but now we are dealing with the Protestants' view, that is, the Historicist interpretation.

I can say... because they exist. Its not a point of view. It is factual data.

If you were faithful to the prophecy, you would have stopped counting at 7.  8)

 

[FSSL]

There are some who specifically link in the prophecy the King James Bible in particular:  A. J. Ferris (1941), J. S. Fox (1958), F. W. C. Neser (1974), R. Caringola (1995), C. A. Jennings (2001), R. W. Mills (2005).

I was quite intrigued that you claimed to have sources that supported the idea that Protestant Tradition connects Revelation 10 to the King James Version.

I am no longer intrigued. I am amused.

If you think that these authors reflect Protestant traditional interpretation, then you do not know Protestant traditional interpretation. You scraped websites and found kooks. I tried to put it lightly, but these people are "off the wall!"

I was expecting you to reference the likes of John Gill, Spurgeon, Whitefield, JC Ryle, some Puritans. Maybe even some Protestants who had excessive views on the RCC church and end times.

You have NOT presented Protestant Tradition. You have given us spurious, modern mystics and tin foil hat conspiracy theorists.

The big problem is that you have entirely weaseled out over the connection of Psalm 12 to Revelation 10.