Psalm 12 and KJVO misuse

[FSSL]

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

With skills like yours... Psalm 12 could be viewed as prophetic and precedent for its subject matter includes conceptual similarities to the use of furnaces used to heat homes today.

I say that with "tongue in cheek," but you have done two things:

1) Not recognized that Psalm 12.7 only addresses one object. You see two objects even when there are more than two. What's stopping you? Could it be that seeing three objects would make you even appear more absurd?
2) Your words are weasel words. "Conceptual similiarites" (even when there are none), opens a Pandora's box of things you can read into Revelation 10.

 

[bibleprotector]

Of course, that hardly makes him some sort of official spokesman for Protestantism.

Your side is always misreading and (deliberately) missing the point. The point is that in his commentary on the four views, he lists one of the views as the Historicist view, and in the Historicist view of Revelation 10, the interpretation is of the Reformation and the Bible.

 

[bibleprotector]

1) Not recognized that Psalm 12.7 only addresses one object. You see two objects even when there are more than two. What's stopping you? Could it be that seeing three objects would make you even appear more absurd?

The words point to one object, which is the word "them".

2) Your words are weasel words. "Conceptual similiarites" (even when there are none), opens a Pandora's box of things you can read into Revelation 10.

What you are actually saying is that you don't accept the Protestant interpretation of Revelation 10, besides the fact that you are unwilling to accept that Psalm 12 could be prophetic.

 

[Ransom]

Your side is always misreading and (deliberately) missing the point.

No, the point is that you are putting the cart before the horse. You list as spokespersons for Protestantism those commentators who support the Historicist view of Revelation, which you have already concluded is the correct one. Talk about arguing in circles!

 

[bibleprotector]

opens a Pandora's box of things you can read into Revelation 10.

And yet I have said, over and again, that there is very strictly, limitedly, narrowly, the meaning of the Spirit. In the rigid, structured pattern of having two or three or four possible fulfilments, it is limited to the limits of them, and that's it. This is not a free for all. This is not to say that anything could be made to create any interpretation: rather, the opposite.

Whereas, you seem to be arguing that there can be only one interpretation, and that's it (though you actually admitted at some stage you accepted multiple fulfilments?!?). In my book, you will notice that I argue strictly on the lines of accepted interpretations, and do not venture anywhere near the postmodern whatever-I-want plethora of interpretations.

You have given no reason to reject a proper prophetic interpretation of Psalm 12, which should be quite easily be understood to be written as a prophecy. I suspect you resist the prophetic interpretation on the grounds that it exposes you as being on the wrong side of the law (so to speak).

 

[FSSL]

What you are actually saying is that you don't accept the Protestant interpretation of Revelation 10, besides the fact that you are unwilling to accept that Psalm 12 could be prophetic.

That is correct. I do not believe Psalm 12 is prophetic. It is an ongoing promise. My "willingness" to see something that is not there would be twisting Scripture.

Your willingness to suspend normal language rules and establish a scheme NOT supported by anyone else has been pretty well rejected.

 

[bibleprotector]

No, the point is that you are putting the cart before the horse. You list as spokespersons for Protestantism those commentators who support the Historicist view of Revelation, which you have already concluded is the correct one. Talk about arguing in circles!

I don't hold the Historicist view as "the correct one" (singular), but a multiple fulfilments view which includes Historicism.

Psalm 12 is prophetic in nature, and therefore is consistent with what broadly is called "multiple fulfilments".

Content wise, Psalm 12 in the prophetic interpretation will therefore find similarity to what is found with Revelation 10.

 

[FSSL]

Content wise, Psalm 12 in the prophetic interpretation will therefore find similarity to what is found with Revelation 10.

EVEN when it is not supported by Protestant Tradition.

It is clear... Bibleprotector scavenges for various quotes from people, puts them together, and says that they all agree with him.

He has YET to produce one author willing to say that Psalm 12 is connected to Revelation 10. He just wants it that way.

 

[bibleprotector]

That is correct. I do not believe Psalm 12 is prophetic.
It is an ongoing promise.

Yes, it is an ongoing promise.

But, are you therefore going to disallow any specificity, e.g. it says "now" and it says "when".

Your willingness to suspend normal language rules and establish a scheme NOT supported by anyone else has been pretty well rejected.

False again. The modernist hermeneutic "language rules" about reading in their meanings to original languages words is not "normal", as it is not the way Christians commonly and normally read their Bible.

Whereas, and it is very obvious with the view of upholding the PCE of the KJB, the very language is upheld to be very precise, so your accusation of "suspending language rules" is just way wrong.

The scheme of multiple fulfilments or other such related forms or methodology (e.g. double sense, germinancy and/or sensus plenior) are indeed upheld by Protestants (though not all). Therefore, it is wrong to say that such a scheme is "NOT  supported by anyone else", when it clearly is supported.

So to conclude that such a view has been "pretty well rejected" is actually quite untrue, and would be a hasty presumption.

 

[bibleprotector]

EVEN when it is not supported by Protestant Tradition.

I have shown how the Protestant tradition (not, of course, universally) viewed Revelation 10. And I have also shown that there is a readiness to uphold more than a singular fulfilment/interpretation to various passages, as testified by eminent witnesses.

It is clear... Bibleprotector scavenges for various quotes from people, puts them together, and says that they all agree with him.

This is false indeed: in fact the reverse. I pointed out the tradition, and then viewed in the outworking and conclusion of that approach. That is the building up of Protestant tradition, not something newfangled.

He has YET to produce one author willing to say that Psalm 12 is connected to Revelation 10. He just wants it that way.

You willingly avoid all the facts. If I recall correctly, you said that there was not connection or link between those two passages. That's mighty presumptive.

But the point is really not so much about their connection (I have not found any commentator making any specific link that I can recall), but rather, that the prophetic side of Psalm 12 and part of the interpretation of Revelation 10 both point in part to the same events.

 

[FSSL]

You willingly avoid all the facts. If I recall correctly, you said that there was not connection or link between those two passages. That's mighty presumptive.

So far... you have not given us any proof to the contrary. NO commentator.

But the point is really not so much about their connection (I have not found any commentator making any specific link that I can recall), but rather, that the prophetic side of Psalm 12 and part of the interpretation of Revelation 10 both point in part to the same events.

You haven't found anyone that agrees... but you will run with it anyways. How is this not "newfangled?"

Your continued inability to prove Psalm 12 using the KJV alone and this running ad nauseum idea of Psalm 12 being prophetically connected to Revelation 10 demonstrates that this is more about the self-preservation of Bibleprotector's ideas than it is about understanding the Bible.

 

[bibleprotector]

opens a Pandora's box of things you can read into Revelation 10.

Just to reiterate, once again, for the willingly ignorant. I am not reading into Revelation 10 the Historicist interpretation. I am pointing to the existing interpretations of Revelation 10.

Whereas, with Psalm 12 being prophetic, yes, I am interpreting that psalm specifically unlike how I have ever seen it interpreted before.

But to justify this, so as to not be accused of anything untoward, I am specifically pointing to the way in which other passages are interpreted, and using that same method in Psalm 12; and secondly, the fact that Revelation 10 has been interpreted to have similarity to what what is being prophesied in Psalm 12.

 

[bibleprotector]

So far... you have not given us any proof to the contrary. NO commentator.

a. in regards to linking together Ps. 12 and Rev. 10 passages, I have seen no commentator.
b. in regards to interpreting Ps. 12 prophetically I have seen no commentator.

Those two facts do not make it wrong.

Of course, I know your view is that I am wrong, therefore my view of (a.) and (b.) above must also be wrong (according to you).

In response I would say that thank God ultimately truth is not established by commentators (i.e. the will of man) but by the Holy Ghost (who is not against godly commentators). Therefore, whether one or a thousand say something, whatever is right should be established. (Remember, that truth is under assault in Infidel times, so discernment is required.)

Now, considering how you are enemies, of course, your rejection of my points in regard to (a.) and (b.) above can hardly constitute a sound and spiritual examination.

You haven't found anyone that agrees... but you will run with it anyways. How is this not "newfangled?"

Because:

1. The historicist interpretation of Rev. 10 was not invented by me, and
2. The multiple fulfilments view, which allows the possibility for Ps. 12 to be discovered to be prophetic, was not as a principle invented by me.

Your continued inability to prove Psalm 12 using the KJV alone and this running ad nauseum idea of Psalm 12 being prophetically connected to Revelation 10 demonstrates that this is more about the self-preservation of Bibleprotector's ideas than it is about understanding the Bible.

Wrong. Psalm 12 can be taken as Psalm 12 (without reference to Rev. 10). Ps. 12 is not prophetically connected to Rev. 10 specifically, but in what method any passage might be considered as having a secondary sense, and in touching on some of the same events of history.

The only "connection" I am making is that:

a. since the principle of multiple fulfilments is used in Rev. 10 like many other places, so in Ps. 12 (though not an identical practice of it, unless a Preterist, Historicist and Futurist meaning of Psalm 12 be insisted upon)
b. since Rev. 10 is pointing to the Reformation and the Bible, so is there some touching on those similar concepts in Ps. 12 (though with very different focuses, since Psalm 12 addresses the Infidel period in particular)

 

[FSSL]

So far... you have not given us any proof to the contrary. NO commentator.

a. in regards to linking together Ps. 12 and Rev. 10 passages, I have seen no commentator.
b. in regards to interpreting Ps. 12 prophetically I have seen no commentator.

Those two facts do not make it wrong.

Of course, I know your view is that I am wrong, therefore my view of (a.) and (b.) above must also be wrong (according to you).

In response I would say that thank God ultimately truth is not established by commentators (i.e. the will of man) but by the Holy Ghost (who is not against godly commentators). Therefore, whether one or a thousand say something, whatever is right should be established. (Remember, that truth is under assault in Infidel times, so discernment is required.)

Hey! Wait a minute! What happened to your Protestant Tradition?

We understand. This is your own teaching. Just say that at the beginning and stop trying to suggest that you have multiple support.

 

[bibleprotector]

Hey! Wait a minute! What happened to your Protestant Tradition?

Protestant tradition is right in this regard.

We understand. This is your own teaching. Just say that at the beginning and stop trying to suggest that you have multiple support.

It is right to say that Protestant tradition did lead to the naming of the King James Bible as part of the interpretation of Revelation 10.

KJBOs have done the same with Psalm 12.

 

[subllibrm]

30+ years in a conservative baptist church and have never heard until this thread that the bible predicted the reformation. Wow!

 

[bibleprotector]

30+ years in a conservative baptist church and have never heard until this thread that the bible predicted the reformation. Wow!

It is what most Protestants believed before Dispensationalism took over.

 

[subllibrm]

30+ years in a conservative baptist church and have never heard until this thread that the bible predicted the reformation. Wow!

It is what most Protestants believed before Dispensationalism took over.

Sounds like a plausible explanation except mine is not a dispy church.

 

[rsc2a]

30+ years in a conservative baptist church and have never heard until this thread that the bible predicted the reformation. Wow!

It is what most Protestants believed before Dispensationalism took over.

Sounds like a plausible explanation except mine is not a dispy church.

Buncha modernists!

 

[subllibrm]

30+ years in a conservative baptist church and have never heard until this thread that the bible predicted the reformation. Wow!

It is what most Protestants believed before Dispensationalism took over.

Sounds like a plausible explanation except mine is not a dispy church.

Buncha modernists!

I guess.  :-\