Psalm 12 and KJVO misuse

[FSSL]

KJBOs have done the same with Psalm 12.

Yep. However, KJVOs are not consistent. There is an attempt to isolate the object as "scripture" being preserved in Psalm 12.7.

You see two objects being preserved.

KJVOism get more fractured over the years. That is a tradition we notice.

 

[bibleprotector]

Yep. However, KJVOs are not consistent. There is an attempt to isolate the object as "scripture" being preserved in Psalm 12.7.

Going to the Hebrew lexicon today addles interpretation. The reason why you reject the KJBO view is because of your modernistic commitment to incorrect understanding of Hebrew.

You see two objects being preserved.

Actually not: the words and the people are conjoined.

Jas 1:21 Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.

The engrafted word that is received means it must exist. We are told it exists as pure. And we are told that there are people whom God is moving in this regard for.

Your way of reading Psalm 12 makes verse 6 entirely parenthetical and irrelevant.

 

[FSSL]

Your way of reading Psalm 12 makes verse 6 entirely parenthetical and irrelevant.

You say that the scriptures and the godly are both objects of preservation.

You must abuse language... for in one case, the godly, verse 6 is parenthetical. Since you say Scripture is being preserved as well, you deny the parentheses.

I haven't even had to use Hebrew to show that your dual interpretation is nonsensical and cannot make sense of the passage. Either verse 6 is a parentheses, or not. It cannot be both. Talking about addled!

 

[FSSL]

Your way of reading Psalm 12 makes verse 6 entirely parenthetical and irrelevant.

Since when are parenthetical statements in the Bible irrelevant?

 

[Steven Avery]

Yep. However, KJVOs are not consistent. There is an attempt to isolate the object as "scripture" being preserved in Psalm 12.7. You see two objects being preserved. KJVOism get more fractured over the years. That is a tradition we notice.

Since the Psalm 12 issue is simply a matter of interpretation, and varied interpretations have existed for a millennium, you are using lose-lose argumentation. If all AV defenders took one position on Psalm 12:6-7, you would criticize the uniformity. 

As for the Hebrew, the truly fluent Hebraistis like Ibn Ezra and Kimchi and Rashi overall tended to see the words being preserved in a similar variety of viewpoints.  (Here you can put in your little obligatory rant against the traditional Hebraic understandings.)  The common fascination today with piddle Greek and piddle Hebrew seems to do the holders far more harm than good.

Steven Avery

 

[bibleprotector]

You say that the scriptures and the godly are both objects of preservation.

You are misreading or misrepresenting.

The "object" is in relationship with a verb and a subject. So, the verb would be in the "keep" or "preserve", but the object is the word "them". The word "them" is the object.

Consider the command not to muzzle the ox. How many "objects" are there to the non-muzzelling? Only one. The word "ox".

Again, consider the prophecy about the seed of the woman. What object is referenced there? The word "seed".

So then, in Psalm 12, the word "them" is specifically the object in grammatical terms.

You must abuse language... for in one case, the godly, verse 6 is parenthetical. Since you say Scripture is being preserved as well, you deny the parentheses.

I don't deny parentheses, I deny pointless ways of interpreting that treat whole verses as if they might have been garbage. Why is that verse (Psalm 12:6) there then? Proper parenthetical structure is with purpose, because there is a purpose for every word, verse and passage in the Bible.

Since you are championing that the "them" means the godly-preserved people, you need to explain the Psalm, particularly the relevance of verse 6, that is, why this parenthetical mention of pure words of God?

I haven't even had to use Hebrew to show that your dual interpretation is nonsensical and cannot make sense of the passage. Either verse 6 is a parentheses, or not. It cannot be both. Talking about addled!

Your accusation does not make any sense. I am not the one saying it is or isn't parenthetical. I am saying it is relevant. Your view is the one which seems to have no need for that verse to be there.

 

[bibleprotector]

Your way of reading Psalm 12 makes verse 6 entirely parenthetical and irrelevant.

Since when are parenthetical statements in the Bible irrelevant?

Why are you asking me that? You need to explain the relationship of verse 6 with verses 5 and 7. No verse is irrelevant, so you need to explain structurally why there is a parenthetical statement there, and what purpose it serves.

 

[bibleprotector]

By the way, here is one from your side who knows that the KJBOs did not make up their interpretation: http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_why_psalm.htm

Here is Jean Calvin:


... Some give this exposition of the passage, Thou wilt keep them, namely, thy words; but this does not seem to me to be suitable. David, I have no doubt, returns to speak of the poor, of whom he had spoken in the preceding part of the psalm.

Here is John Gill:

... not but God has wonderfully kept and preserved the sacred writings; and he keeps every word of promise which he has made; and the doctrines of the Gospel will always continue from one generation to another; but the sense is, that God will keep the poor and needy, and such as he sets in safety ... and this the psalmist had good reason to believe, because of the love of God to them, his covenant with them, and the promises of safety and salvation he has made unto them;

Here is Adam Clarke:

God did bring forth the Israelites from Babylon, according to his word; he separated them from that generation. and reinstated them in their own land, according to his word; and most certainly he has preserved them from generation to generation to the present day, in a most remarkable manner.

Here is John Wesley:

Thou shalt keep them - Thy words or promises: these thou wilt observe and keep, both now, and from this generation for ever

Here is Matthew Poole:

Ver. 7. Thou shalt keep them; either,
1. The poor and needy, Ps 12:5, from the crafts and malice of this crooked and perverse generation of men, and for ever. Or,

2. Thy words or promises last mentioned, Ps 12:6. These thou wilt observe and keep (as these two verbs commonly signify) both now, and

from this generation for ever, i.e. Thou wilt not only keep thy promise to me in preserving me, and advancing me to the throne, but also to my posterity from generation to generation.

And Thomas Scott's Commentary:

when infidels and profligates triumph; then the believer thinks the times very bad, however otherwise peaceful and prosperous. ... He waits, till his people are sufficiently tried, and till his enemies have filled up their measure: but he hears the sighs and prayers of his afflicted people; and he will defend their cause, and deliver them from the generation of the wicked, and from the wicked one, and that for ever. He will also rise to revive his church from the ruins, with greater glory: he hath promised, and his Word is more pure and precious than the finest silver. Let us rest upon it, and comfort our souls with it; though we cannot but grieve to see the degeneracy of the times, and the abounding of iniquity and infidelity. And even should we witness the advancement of the vilest of men to the highest dignities in church and state, and the consequent triumphs of error and wickedness over the cause of truth and holiness still let us wait and pray: the Lord will yet make his cause triumphant; and the prayers of the remnant of his people are an appointed means of ushering in those better and more glorious days, which cannot now be very far distant.

As can be easily discerned, KJBOs did not invent the "words" being preserved interpretation.

As can more importantly be observed, it is possible to link the words and people together.

And therefore, by taking what Matthew Poole said further, two fulfilments.

And finally, take careful note of Thomas Scott's interpretation.

 

[FSSL]

The "object" is in relationship with a verb and a subject. So, the verb would be in the "keep" or "preserve", but the object is the word "them". The word "them" is the object.

Who/what is the antecedent of "them?"
1. Scripture
2. Poor
3. Scripture and Poor

 

[bibleprotector]

The "object" is in relationship with a verb and a subject. So, the verb would be in the "keep" or "preserve", but the object is the word "them". The word "them" is the object.

Who/what is the antecedent of "them?"
1. Scripture
2. Poor
3. Scripture and Poor

Antecedent in the passage is Thou, i.e. God.

 

[FSSL]

lol... do you even know what an antecedent is?

Why do I even bother?

Try it again... let me try to make it clearer to you.

"shall keep them" and "preserve them"

Who is "them?" Certainly NOT God.

 

[bibleprotector]

lol... do you even know what an antecedent is?

Why do I even bother?

Try it again... let me try to make it clearer to you.

"shall keep them" and "preserve them"

Who is "them?" Certainly NOT God.

As a discernible thread in the Protestant tradition even indicates, the words are meant, with the promise for the people:

1. The immediate interpretation, when David saw the evil men around him, and yet He trusted in God's tried Word (having the nature of being fully pure), that would establish him for God's greater cause (Covenant)

2. The prophetic interpretation, when in Infidel times evil men surround God's people, yet they trust the KJB (the seventh purification), that would enrich and aid the believer for God's greater cause of latter days evangelism (Gospel)

 

[bibleprotector]

You have not answered the question of the purpose of the parenthetical statement in verse 6 in context of the psalm. Otherwise, the psalm may as well jump from verse 5 to verse 7.

 

[FSSL]

lol... do you even know what an antecedent is?

Why do I even bother?

Try it again... let me try to make it clearer to you.

"shall keep them" and "preserve them"

Who is "them?" Certainly NOT God.

As a discernible thread in the Protestant tradition even indicates, the words are meant, with the promise for the people:

1. The immediate interpretation, when David saw the evil men around him, and yet He trusted in God's tried Word (having the nature of being fully pure), that would establish him for God's greater cause (Covenant)

2. The prophetic interpretation, when in Infidel times evil men surround God's people, yet they trust the KJB (the seventh purification), that would enrich and aid the believer for God's greater cause of latter days evangelism (Gospel)

No wonder you reject a grammatical-historical approach. You are unable/unwilling to discuss what the text says.

You will never be able to tell us what the text means and why it means something if you cannot discern what the text says.

Again... Beginning with the grammmar of the text, who/what is the antecedent of "them?"

 

[subllibrm]

lol... do you even know what an antecedent is?

Why do I even bother?

Try it again... let me try to make it clearer to you.

"shall keep them" and "preserve them"

Who is "them?" Certainly NOT God.

As a discernible thread in the Protestant tradition even indicates, the words are meant, with the promise for the people:

1. The immediate interpretation, when David saw the evil men around him, and yet He trusted in God's tried Word (having the nature of being fully pure), that would establish him for God's greater cause (Covenant)

2. The prophetic interpretation, when in Infidel times evil men surround God's people, yet they trust the KJB (the seventh purification), that would enrich and aid the believer for God's greater cause of latter days evangelism (Gospel)

No wonder you reject a grammatical-historical approach. You are unable/unwilling to discuss what the text says.

You will never be able to tell us what the text means and why it means something if you cannot discern what the text says.

Again... Beginning with the grammmar of the text, who/what is the antecedent of "them?"

Go easy. Just because the antecedent is the object (noun) referred to by the pronoun in American English, does not automatically mean that rule is in play in other versions of English.  ;D

 

[FSSL]

Perhaps some mystical "Biblish" language where all antecedents refer to "God."

 

[bibleprotector]

No wonder you reject a grammatical-historical approach. You are unable/unwilling to discuss what the text says.

And you are avoiding answering the question, which is what relevance does verse 6 have which you deem parenthetical?

You will never be able to tell us what the text means and why it means something if you cannot discern what the text says.

A strange accusation, since we actually have the text, the KJB, and believe it.

Again... Beginning with the grammmar of the text, who/what is the antecedent of "them?"

The word "them" is in no way derivative of anything, and therefore does not have an antecedent. The word "them" is a pronoun, meaning that it stands for something previously mentioned in the text. And so, as we interpret the Scripture by actually believing what is stated in the KJB, we understand that God has preserved the words which are power for the believers, since it is those words which therefore have the preserving affect onto the believers.

 

[FSSL]

No wonder you reject a grammatical-historical approach. You are unable/unwilling to discuss what the text says.

And you are avoiding answering the question, which is what relevance does verse 6 have which you deem parenthetical?

How can you say it is not parenthetical when you have not settled on the antecedent?

One thing is strikingly clear... you do not wish to examine the language of the text.

Until you identify the antecedent... you have no cogent argument.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

The word "them" is in no way derivative of anything, and therefore does not have an antecedent. The word "them" is a pronoun, meaning that it stands for something previously mentioned in the text.

The something previously mentioned is the antecedent of the pronoun.

And so, as we interpret the Scripture by actually believing what is stated in the KJB, we understand that God has preserved the words which are power for the believers, since it is those words which therefore have the preserving affect onto the believers.

Thus the words are the antecedent, which is the most consistent to the sense of the chapter and the scriptures.  Or we can have a dual appplication, as given by some fine commentators.

Steven

 

[praise_yeshua]

The word "them" is a pronoun, meaning that it stands for something previously mentioned in the text.

You have just described an antecedent!!!

The word "them" is in no way derivative of anything, and therefore does not have an antecedent.

You have got to be kidding us..... Are you really this dense? You say them is not derivative of anything and then say its a pronoun? Come on....