Psalm 12 and KJVO misuse

[subllibrm]

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

The rest of the planet is chopped liver?

Get it right. It is English speaking white people. 

Even Luther knew that Rev. 10 meant there was a perfect English bible coming in another 100 years or so.  8)

 

[prophet]

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".

My "alternative view" is taking the Scripture at face value.

It is as old as when I read it, most recently a few minutes ago.

I could care less what some Protestant like Calvin thinks of the Scripture...

Any interpretation of "cold" as any other meaning than one of the acceptable temperature ranges of a beverage, fit for consumption, is private, by definition. It is not available in the text, therefore "private" to those in the know (Protestant tradition, in your mind, which I care not for, since many of these Protestants fail the John 16 test).

You are a modern Nicodemus, unable to grasp the earthly side of the parable...
A man picks up a mug of tea, expecting hot tea, but sadly, it has cooled to room temperature due to neglect...he spits it back out, disgusted.
The same man, fancying a quaffing of his thirst on a hot day, picks up his lemonade, only to find that it has set for hours and warmed to room temperature, and again, he spits it out.
Hot drinks refresh.
Cold drinks refresh.
Room temperature drinks disgust.

There is not one shred of a hint of a gleam of any inference to the contrary of this acceptable face value of this passage, in this passage.

Call on whichever dead Romish waif you may, to testify from the grave, still there is FIRST no private interpretation.

The wind blows through the trees, and you can't see it, but the evidence that it exists is plain, Nicky.

 

[praise_yeshua]

... 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.

Even a blind man can see he is conflating the two interpretations as if they are one in the same. None of the reputable references he mentions names the KJV edition. Not one. Only a lunatic would would conflate the two. A lunatic with an agenda.

 

[bibleprotector]

... 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.

This is a catalogue of your ignorance:

1. The fact that the Protestant tradition interpreted Revelation 10 as pointing to the Reformation and the Bible.

2. The fact that a respectable author (by modernist standards) has, in his summary, laid out the very same thing (Steve Gregg in Revelation: Four Views).

3. The fact that some in the Protestant tradition specifically named the KJB, including by Steve Gregg.

If there's any reluctance, blinkers and wilful ignorance, proceed to a looking glass.

 

[praise_yeshua]

... 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.

This is a catalogue of your ignorance:

1. The fact that the Protestant tradition interpreted Revelation 10 as pointing to the Reformation and the Bible.

2. The fact that a respectable author (by modernist standards) has, in his summary, laid out the very same thing (Steve Gregg in Revelation: Four Views).

3. The fact that some in the Protestant tradition specifically named the KJB, including by Steve Gregg.

If there's any reluctance, blinkers and wilful ignorance, proceed to a looking glass.

Are really so blind???? You argue for a majority view and then say "some" named the KJB?

Do you know how silly that is? This is logic 101.

By the way, I noticed you've ignored my challenge concerning the use of the word "simple" in the KJB in reference to Christ. Take up the challenge.

 

[bibleprotector]

My "alternative view" is taking the Scripture at face value.

Really? Then, you would be agreeing with me, and with the majority of others, who think that "cold" means indifferent and bad.

Any interpretation of "cold" as any other meaning than one of the acceptable temperature ranges of a beverage, fit for consumption, is private, by definition. It is not available in the text, therefore "private" to those in the know (Protestant tradition, in your mind, which I care not for, since many of these Protestants fail the John 16 test).

I actually believe that the word "cold" means "cold".

Hot drinks refresh.
Cold drinks refresh.
Room temperature drinks disgust.

But the passage has cold as a bad thing. This is how lots of people, lots of people traditionally, have properly interpreted it. To suggest a new meaning (i.e. the cold is good) in this context is wrong.

There is not one shred of a hint of a gleam of any inference to the contrary of this acceptable face value of this passage, in this passage.

You better tell that to all the folks who hold the traditional view, including plenty of Dispensationalists, etc.

 

[bibleprotector]

Even a blind man can see he is conflating the two interpretations as if they are one in the same. None of the reputable references he mentions names the KJV edition. Not one. Only a lunatic would would conflate the two. A lunatic with an agenda.

What are you talking about? Which two interpretations are being conflated? And did you not read that I said even Steve Gregg, who is a modernist who summarised the Historicist view of Revelation 10, did mention the KJB specifically?

 

[praise_yeshua]

Even a blind man can see he is conflating the two interpretations as if they are one in the same. None of the reputable references he mentions names the KJV edition. Not one. Only a lunatic would would conflate the two. A lunatic with an agenda.

What are you talking about? Which two interpretations are being conflated? And did you not read that I said even Steve Gregg, who is a modernist who summarised the Historicist view of Revelation 10, did mention the KJB specifically?

You're conflating the interpretation of the "little book" by reformers with those who later try to name the specific edition of the "little book". You mention the first as being a majority view and then point to a minority of people who have extended the the interpretation to mean the KJB.....you're thus threat the minority interpretation as the majority.

You're immorally associate the two as if they are one in the same. You are trying to give validity to your minority view with the credibility of the majority.

This is both immoral and unethical.

 

[prophet]

My "alternative view" is taking the Scripture at face value.

Really? Then, you would be agreeing with me, and with the majority of others, who think that "cold" means indifferent and bad.

Any interpretation of "cold" as any other meaning than one of the acceptable temperature ranges of a beverage, fit for consumption, is private, by definition. It is not available in the text, therefore "private" to those in the know (Protestant tradition, in your mind, which I care not for, since many of these Protestants fail the John 16 test).

I actually believe that the word "cold" means "cold".

Hot drinks refresh.
Cold drinks refresh.
Room temperature drinks disgust.

But the passage has cold as a bad thing. This is how lots of people, lots of people traditionally, have properly interpreted it. To suggest a new meaning (i.e. the cold is good) in this context is wrong.

There is not one shred of a hint of a gleam of any inference to the contrary of this acceptable face value of this passage, in this passage.

You better tell that to all the folks who hold the traditional view, including plenty of Dispensationalists, etc.

I gladly tell this to whoever will hear it.


Now, let us get to the nuts and bolts of this:

The english language uses modifiers known as adjectives and adverbs, to enlighten words within the sentence structure.
In the passage in question, 'cold' and 'hot' are playing the role of a compound predicate adjective, modifying  the pronoun subject 'thou'.  As grammar rules apply, they are equal.
There is a glaring lack of modification of 'cold' or 'hot'..
glaring because they are repeated thrice.
I say, submit the evidence.  Do tell which word(s) in Rev. 3 allow us to assign bad to hot or cold?
Prove that they are not equal.

And I won't stand for any mealy-mouthed blaming those long dead, or those alive and dishonest, for their tradition. You, who claims to have the Guide within, and a grasp of English, show me, an English speaker, which word(s) infer negative connotation on "cold".

I await your studied answer.

 

[Steven Avery]

you have at least garnered the support of one KJVO on this board... Steven Avery. .

And I have long considered it proper to see the PCE as a Received Text edition of the AV. As to various prophetic interpretations from Matthew, for the most part I have not been involved in those discussions.  Only here in the thread on the general topic of dual meanings and applications and OT prophesy, where I countered your ultra-limited argument that dances around meanings and applications on Psalm 12.

Steven Avery

 

[subllibrm]

I would rather you be cold (lost) or hot (saved) instead of lukewarm (?) because lukewarm makes me puke. - paraphrase of one popular dispensational position.

So Jesus would rather someone got to hell than vomit? I seem to recall Him suffering much more than stomach distress.

 

[subllibrm]

you have at least garnered the support of one KJVO on this board... Steven Avery. .

And I have long considered it proper to see the PCE as a Received Text edition of the AV. As to various prophetic interpretations from Matthew, for the most part I have not been involved in those discussions.  Only here in the thread on the general topic of dual meanings and applications and OT prophesy, where I countered your ultra-limited argument that dances around meanings and applications on Psalm 12.

Steven Avery

Ah, but bibleprotector claims to know that the PCE is "the" purest version. What say ye to him about his "apostolic authority" to make such a claim?

 

[bibleprotector]

You're conflating the interpretation of the "little book" by reformers with those who later try to name the specific edition of the "little book".

So you admit that the Protestant view identified the little book as the Protestant Bible. That's my point.

 

[bibleprotector]

I would rather you be cold (lost) or hot (saved) instead of lukewarm (?) because lukewarm makes me puke. - paraphrase of one popular dispensational position.

So Jesus would rather someone got to hell than vomit? I seem to recall Him suffering much more than stomach distress.

Actually, Jesus will spue out the lukewarm, but what he wants is people for Him, not half for Him.

 

[FSSL]

...where I countered your ultra-limited argument that dances around meanings and applications on Psalm 12.

If by "countering" you have spun off to Isaiah 7 (which you do not want to discuss), then your counter was truly effective

 

[bibleprotector]

Ah, but bibleprotector claims to know that the PCE is "the" purest version. What say ye to him about his "apostolic authority" to make such a claim?

Wrong. There is only one version being upheld, and it is the King James Version. The Protestants upheld the KJB for years, so it hardly requires "apostolic authority" to stick with the Protestant way.

 

[bibleprotector]

You argue for a majority view

I am not arguing for or against a majority view, except that I said that the "cold" of Rev. 3 is seen by many to be bad.

and then say "some" named the KJB?

Some do. That's true.

By the way, I noticed you've ignored my challenge concerning the use of the word "simple" in the KJB in reference to Christ. Take up the challenge.

What challenge, I don't know what you are talking about. I haven't ignored something I am not aware of in the first place.

 

[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.

Creating a strawman does not get you out of your weaseling.

I have been very clear all along and the thread is about Psalm 12. NO, ZERO, NADA Protestants connect Psalm 12 to Revelation (which you finally admitted). This is NOT Protestant Tradition... it is your fanciful hope to develop a connection.

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]

words

So, let's be clear, once again, since there is a barrage of ignorance from the other side:

1. Eminent Protestant commentators interpreted Revelation 10 to be the Reformation and the Bible.

2. Some lesser interpretors specifically name the King James Bible.

3. In his summary of the traditional Protestant position of Historicism, Steve Gregg records that Protestant commentators interpret Revelation 10 to be the Reformation and the Bible, including specifically listing the King James Bible.

4. Psalm 12 can be viewed as prophetic, and precedent for its subject matter includes conceptual similarities to the information in Revelation 10.

 

[Ransom]

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

He's written an excellent parallel commentary on Revelation, comparing and contrasting the major views of its interpretation.

Of course, that hardly makes him some sort of official spokesman for Protestantism. (Remember when Avery tried to do the same thing with Louis Berkhof? Good times!)