Psalm 12 and KJVO misuse

[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.

It is clear enough that you single meaning idea, referencing Robert L. Thomas, is extremely weak, and that this was the basis of your accusation against any dual application interpretations.  Beyond that, some of the Thomas difficulties are documented in the post.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I repeat with more detail:

If the "perfectly preserved Word of God" can be so loosely interpreted that you can claim it includes prophecy about the KJV, then it's hardly a perfectly preserved Word of God.  Anything that can be so vague as to be applied to predicting there will be a certain English translation in ~1600 years is fundamentally worthless. 

 

[praise_yeshua]

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.

I thought a Darwin stubby might clear your mind. It certainly isn't Christian like to tell lies concerning the Scriptures. It's rather interesting that you would draw a line at a tall beer but it doesn't bother you at all to make up the nonsense you're peddling as the Truth.

The again, I wouldn't expect much of anything different from someone who basically claims apostolic authority for lies. I've dealt with many men such as yourself over the years. I wouldn't put much of anything past you. If you can lie concerning the Truth, as you have done, you can do pretty much do anything.....

Get over yourself and your illusion of a "call" and come back to reality. There is nothing greater than being a simple humble Christian. A child of God, free from the selfish desires of being a "champion" for anything.

 

[FSSL]

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.

It is clear enough that you single meaning idea, referencing Robert L. Thomas, is extremely weak, and that this was the basis of your accusation against any dual application interpretations.  Beyond that, some of the Thomas difficulties are documented in the post.

Oh well... if you are not up for the discussion, then don't start the new thread.

 

[bibleprotector]

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.

The Protestant tradition links Revelation 10 to the Protestant period and the Protestant Bible. This is witnessed by very many eminent mainstream sources: C. Daubuz, E. B. Elliott, A. Barnes, B. W. Johnson, etc.

I am no longer intrigued. I am amused.

I referenced some who specifically mention the KJB. However, do not use that to reject the notion that others point to the Reformation and Reformation Bible dissemination in general.

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!"

While there are various folks who base themselves off the Protestant Tradition, that does not nullify the Protestant tradition, just because recent authors may have diverged in some ways (this is evident today).

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.

Your bias toward Calvinistic authors is evident, but even so, the witness to the Protestant tradition is upheld. John Gill, for example, specifically mentions this view, "as Mr. Daubuz thinks, Luther, with the rest of the reformers, is intended, and especially since the prophecy of this chapter respects the Reformation". I have not found much at all of Spurgeon's or Whitefield's teachings on Revelation. As for Ryle, he didn't specifically teach about Revelation 10 in his writings. As for Puritans, there are many, and not a consensus of views among them, but the Protestant tradition developed from those times.

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

I have indeed presented the Protestant tradition, which is also attested to by lesser authors who have doctrinal errors (e.g. British Israelism).

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

The connection is there. I did not claim that previous commentators made the connection.

1. Eminent Protestants have interpreted Revelation 10 as regarding the Reformation.

2. Psalm 12 is a prophecy, which touches on some similar subject matter.

Therefore, since (1) be fact, it is used as precedent for (2).

 

[bibleprotector]

A child of God, free from the selfish desires of being a "champion" for anything.

That's your wrong theology. I am sure that both the New Testament and godly men through the centuries have indeed rightly been champions of God without the pride you accuse them of.

 

[FSSL]

Bibleprotector... where is the evidence that any of the Protestants connected Rev 10 to the KJV? Remember... that is the question.

I don't accept vague generalities. Weasel words do not make an argument. "touches on similar subject matter..." Balderdash and nonsense!!

 

[bibleprotector]

Bibleprotector... where is the evidence that any of the Protestants connected Rev 10 to the KJV? Remember... that is the question.

They connected it to the Reformation and Bible, which includes the KJB: and then, if you look at Steve Gregg, whose word you should accept, he definitely states the KJB.

 

[FSSL]

The absurdity is that not one Reformer knew about the KJV. They were all dead.

There  is no Protestant Tradition that makes that connection. Even throughout this discussion you use weasel words to defend your own viewpoint.

Whoever Steve Gregg is... that would not change this fact one iota.

 

[prophet]

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.

Face value is primary for interpretation.

God said:
Rev 3:15-16
15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Despite a multitude of interpretations to the contrary, the text does not allow for any dispersions cast against "cold", or any exaltation of "hot".
It places them as equals.

2Pe 1:20
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Primacy established.

Please discontinue your claim to adhere to some "Protestant"(private) interpretation of this passage, it makes any salient point you have to offer to be of none effect.

 

[prophet]

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.

The Protestant tradition links Revelation 10 to the Protestant period and the Protestant Bible. This is witnessed by very many eminent mainstream sources: C. Daubuz, E. B. Elliott, A. Barnes, B. W. Johnson, etc.

I am no longer intrigued. I am amused.

I referenced some who specifically mention the KJB. However, do not use that to reject the notion that others point to the Reformation and Reformation Bible dissemination in general.

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!"

While there are various folks who base themselves off the Protestant Tradition, that does not nullify the Protestant tradition, just because recent authors may have diverged in some ways (this is evident today).

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.

Your bias toward Calvinistic authors is evident, but even so, the witness to the Protestant tradition is upheld. John Gill, for example, specifically mentions this view, "as Mr. Daubuz thinks, Luther, with the rest of the reformers, is intended, and especially since the prophecy of this chapter respects the Reformation". I have not found much at all of Spurgeon's or Whitefield's teachings on Revelation. As for Ryle, he didn't specifically teach about Revelation 10 in his writings. As for Puritans, there are many, and not a consensus of views among them, but the Protestant tradition developed from those times.

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

I have indeed presented the Protestant tradition, which is also attested to by lesser authors who have doctrinal errors (e.g. British Israelism).

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

The connection is there. I did not claim that previous commentators made the connection.

1. Eminent Protestants have interpreted Revelation 10 as regarding the Reformation.

2. Psalm 12 is a prophecy, which touches on some similar subject matter.

Therefore, since (1) be fact, it is used as precedent for (2).

This all sounds interesting....
For White people.

The rest of the planet is chopped liver?

 

[bibleprotector]

The absurdity is that not one Reformer knew about the KJV. They were all dead.

That sounds like an excuse... Protestants for decades and centuries have known the

There  is no Protestant Tradition that makes that connection. Even throughout this discussion you use weasel words to defend your own viewpoint.

The Protestant tradition does indeed interpret Revelation 10 as related to the Reformation, and to the Bibles of the Reformation.

Whoever Steve Gregg is... that would not change this fact one iota.

He is one of those guys like C. Marvin Pate and the rest. I am surprised at your flippant attitude.

 

[bibleprotector]

Face value is primary for interpretation.

God said:
Rev 3:15-16
15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Despite a multitude of interpretations to the contrary, the text does not allow for any dispersions cast against "cold", or any exaltation of "hot".
It places them as equals.

2Pe 1:20
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Primacy established.

Please discontinue your claim to adhere to some "Protestant"(private) interpretation of this passage, it makes any salient point you have to offer to be of none effect.

The Protestant tradition is attested to by both Historicist and Futurists, i.e. many years, majority witness, etc. Your alternative view is an extremely minority (mainly Calvinist) and new view (i.e. post-1950s). If anyone has "private interpretation" it is those who changed the interpretation of the word "cold".

 

[bibleprotector]

This all sounds interesting....
For White people.

The rest of the planet is chopped liver?

That is absurd, in that the Protestant agenda is world evangelism.

 

[rsc2a]

Lessons from the BP school of debate:

1. Make an absurd claim.
2. Redefine words so that only you are using it "correctly"
3. Tell others how wrong they are.

 

[praise_yeshua]

A child of God, free from the selfish desires of being a "champion" for anything.

That's your wrong theology. I am sure that both the New Testament and godly men through the centuries have indeed rightly been champions of God without the pride you accuse them of.

You're not being a champion for God. Not even close. You're promoting your own flavor of an early 17th century English translation of your choice in the canon as the one and only choice for all of Gods children. You're just another control freak looking for praise from others. A seemingly self abasing martyr with a desire to find uniqueness among God's own. Uniqueness as the "eye" of the body..... Pride isn't easily hidden among apostate men such as yourself. You claim power and authority when you have none.

 

[FSSL]

The Protestant tradition does indeed interpret Revelation 10 as related to the Reformation, and to the Bibles of the Reformation.

I have scanned this thread and compiled all of the sources that support your idea that Protestant Tradition teaches that Rev 10 prophetically applies to the KJV.

Bibliography of Protestant Tradition Resources
Verschuur, various YouTube videos
Verschuur, google docs
Verschuur, www.bibleprotector.com

There is a noticeable circularity.

He is one of those guys like C. Marvin Pate and the rest. I am surprised at your flippant attitude.

Because if they claimed that Rev 10 is prophetic about the KJV, they would no longer be credible.

Congratulations... you have at least garnered the support of one KJVO on this board... Steven Avery. I don't see anyone else convinced.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Lessons from the BP school of debate:

1. Make an absurd claim.
2. Redefine words so that ugly you are using it "correctly"
3. Tell others how wrong they are.

It really is ridiculous. Apostle Matt at your service.....

 

[bibleprotector]

I have scanned this thread and compiled all of the sources that support your idea that Protestant Tradition teaches that Rev 10 prophetically applies to the KJV.

Clearly, you are being wilfully ignorant, because I listed a number of eminent Protestant writers, including John Gill, who mention or uphold the interpretation that Revelation 10 pointed to the Reformation period and the Bible in that period, with some lesser interpretors specifically naming the KJB.

Because if they claimed that Rev 10 is prophetic about the KJV, they would no longer be credible.

Bizarre... so, you basically are using an a priori bias to eliminate the majority of Protestant interpretors between the 16th and 20th centuries.

That's wilful ignorance.

(Note: this is in reference to the general view that Revelation 10 was about the Reformation period and the Bible in the Reformation.)

 

[FSSL]

... or it is not being convinced when you are not so sure yourself.

Your continued use of weasel words about your own position reveals a reluctance that has me curious.

No one connects Psalm 12 to Rev 10. No Reformer knew of the KJV. Protestant Tradition does not suggest that Rev 10 prophecies the KJV.

Some real problems above with zero support. You just continue to argue with non specifics.