Psalm 12:5-7

OK, guys..... this was supposed to be a discussion about Psalm 12:5-7. What happened??

Pastor Bob 63,

I would also encourage you to obtain a Young's concordance, but also use Strong's. DocCas is right, if you are more familiar with the Greek NT.
Speaking of Greek (not speaking *in* Greek), I would suggest using J. Gresham Machen's "New Testament Greek for Beginners", published by MacMillan. It is horribly expensive, as I had paid over $50 for it when I was in college; I can't imagine how much it is now-- and hopefully cheaper! It is easier to learn Greek when usen Machen's book rather than Summer's book.... but to explain why right now would take time-- so just trust me about this.... get Machen's Greek grammar book; it's juuuuuust gooooood.

Gotta go.....

 

J. Gresham Machen's "New Testament Greek for Beginners" is available from www.amazon.com for $65 but can be bought for about $20, used, from amazon and other used book stores.

 

I got my third KJB recently.
Ordered it on-line. It is a KJV1873.
I already have a KJV1611 and
a stealth KJV(probably 1769).

My KJV1873 is packaged with
a NIV, a NLT, and a NASB.
It is a four barreled cannon

Really having a fun time with
"different is NOT the same"

 

Hello friends!

Say, do any of you mind if I take this thread back to the original subject???!!! I've done a little research, and want to disagree with most of you. In the following quote, LRL71 told us that the word "keep" (Hebrew: "shamar") in verse 7 could not apply to the "words" of verse 6, but must apply to the "poor" of verse 5:

I'm sorry, but I must disagree. Observe the following uses of this Hebrew word, "shamar":
And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep (shamar) it. (Gen 2:15)

Look! The object of "shamar" is here a garden, not a person!

And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep (shamar) my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. (Genesis 17:9)

Wow! Now a covenant isn't a person, is it???

And let them gather all the food of those good years that come, and lay up corn under the hand of Pharaoh, and let them keep (shamar) food in the cities. (Genesis 41:35)

Well, well, well. If God can use the word "shamar" to mean keeping food, then why can't he use it to mean keeping his words??? This allegation just doesn't stand up.

Again, LRL71 told us that the word "preserve" (Hebrew: "natsar") of verse 7 must refer to the poor of verse 5, not the words of verse 6:

But again, I disagree:

The eyes of the LORD preserve (natsar) knowledge, and he overthroweth the words of the transgressor. (Proverbs 22:12)

Look! God is the subject, but he's preserving knowledge. So if God can preserve knowledge here, why not words in Psalm 12? Again, many other examples could be quoted where this word is used to describe somebody keeping things that aren't people. This being so, I consider that the allegation that Psalm 12:7 cannot refer to God's words is totally erroneous. If the allegation is true, you must provide better evidence.

Finally, I think we should all remember the brilliance of the King James translators, the greatly superior understanding and learning of ancient languages in that time than now, and the far superior translation techniques applied to the Authorised King James Version than any other English version. These being so, I would say that if the AV phrases this passage so that it appears to refer to the very words of God, then who are we to correct that???

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

[ October 05, 2002, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: Bartholomew ]

 

Ok, folks, here is another example of how KJV-onlyists twist and distort things to make their (false) points! I shall reprove the lack of knowledge and understanding of the following critic's (Bartholomew's) ability with the text, as well as his 'hard and fast' handling of the facts and by taking what I had written out of context:

********************************************

I'm sorry, but I must disagree. Observe the following uses of this Hebrew word, "shamar":
And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep (shamar) it. (Gen 2:15)

Look! The object of "shamar" is here a garden, not a person!

And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep (shamar) my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. (Genesis 17:9)

Wow! Now a covenant isn't a person, is it???

And let them gather all the food of those good years that come, and lay up corn under the hand of Pharaoh, and let them keep (shamar) food in the cities. (Genesis 41:35)

Well, well, well. If God can use the word "shamar" to mean keeping food, then why can't he use it to mean keeping his words??? This allegation just doesn't stand up.


****************************************
Here, "Bartholomew" has not correctly quoted me. In reference to the Hebrew verb "shamar", the occurences that I had quoted are *only in the Psalms*, and not in reference to the book of Genesis! The Hebrew verb's usage in the *Psalms* is what I was referencing!
Secondly, the verb usages, from the passages that Bartholomew quoted from Genesis, is incorrect.
For example:
Genesis 2:15 uses an infinitive phrase, "to keep it", where the pronoun "him"-- having its antecedent in "man" (not God!)-- is the subject.
Therefore, the correct reading is:
And the LORD God took the man, and put him (the man, who is the subject of the infinitive phrase) into the garden of Eden to dress it and to (subject: "man")keep (shamar) it. God's intention here is that so the *man* would keep the garden of Eden. God is not commanding Himself to keep the garden of Eden!

The reference to Genesis 17:9 is patently sloppy work done by Bartholomew! Clearly, the subject of the verb is "Thou" (Abraham)! Even the English is clear about this one......

The third reference that Bartholomew quotes is from Genesis 41:35, where "them" is the subject. Where, from this text, is "God" being the subject?. Indeed, Bartholomew, you need to go back to elementary school and have the ruler slapped over your hand!

This kind of 'scholarship' from a KJV-onlyist is only typical of the what this kind produces!
***********************************************

Again, LRL71 told us that the word "preserve" (Hebrew: "natsar") of verse 7 must refer to the poor of verse 5, not the words of verse 6:

But again, I disagree:

The eyes of the LORD preserve (natsar) knowledge, and he overthroweth the words of the transgressor. (Proverbs 22:12)


**********************************
Ok, Bartholomew, again you have gotten the wrong word as the subject! "Eyes" is the subject of the verb, and not the subject of the prepositional phrase "of the Lord"! The "eyes of the Lord" is an idiomatic phrase that Solomon used. The subject therefore, is not the Lord, but the eyes of the Lord!

********************************************

Look! God is the subject, but he's preserving knowledge. So if God can preserve knowledge here, why not words in Psalm 12? Again, many other examples could be quoted where this word is used to describe somebody keeping things that aren't people. This being so, I consider that the allegation that Psalm 12:7 cannot refer to God's words is totally erroneous. If the allegation is true, you must provide better evidence.


*********************************************
Obviously, it is you who needs to provide more evidence. Your shallow understanding of proper Hebrew or English grammar is appalling! If you have "many other examples" to prove your point, then I suggest you do so, but don't be so incredibly sloppy in your analysis that I have to poke holes in your argument.
Also, you did not argue anything against the usage of Psalm 12's noun/pronoun antecedent relationships, so even if you were correct about your analysis of the verb usage, you still have to overcome the usage of the noun/pronouns in Psalm 12:5-7. You cannot have an antecedent of a pronoun that disagrees with the noun in gender! Get this straight, unless you ignorantly continue to twist and distort the very Word of God!
*******************************************

Finally, I think we should all remember the brilliance of the King James translators, the greatly superior understanding and learning of ancient languages in that time than now, and the far superior translation techniques applied to the Authorised King James Version than any other English version. These being so, I would say that if the AV phrases this passage so that it appears to refer to the very words of God, then who are we to correct that???

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew</font>[/QUOTE]
*****************************************

You may be a brother in Christ, and even a friend, but this kind of scholarship is not becoming of a Christian who desires to be honest with his arguments! I would agree that the translators of the KJV were very scholarly men, and I think that their product was a great translation, but to say that it is superior to another text based on your unscholarly attacks is merely superficial. I would demand upon you to beg my forgiveness for twisting something that I said into something that I clearly did not-- that is, that you 'deleted' the fact that I was using the Psalms and not any other part of the OT in my previous post. This kind of playing games with my words is intolerable and dishonest! You intentionally mis-represented my statements, and this is not consistent with a Christian attitude!

LRL


[ October 05, 2002, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: LRL71 ]

 

I did no twisting or distorting; only searching scripture. Please stop these personal insults - I levelled no such charges against you.

Look, your entire post is on this thread. I didn't quote all of it in order to stop the answer becomming too long. The context was available for all to read, and I just tried to identify those areas of your text where you summed up your point briefly. No attempt was made to hide the context. If we all quoted all of the posts we were answering, there'd be too much to read. (In my opinion). Besides, quoting too much makes it difficult to work out where to put the "quote" commands in the reply.

[Bartholomew: some more cut here]

Here, "Bartholomew" has not correctly quoted me.</font>[/QUOTE]I'm sorry - but this is just untrue. Please go and read your post on page 1. I quoted it exactly.

I never suggested otherwise! But so what? Just because the verb might not be used like that elsewhere in Pslams, doesn't mean it can't be used like that in Psalm 12. Like I showed, it is used like that elsewhere in the Bible; so why can't it be used like that in Psalms???

I agree! But you said: "The usage of this verb with the object being other than 'person' or 'people' would be foreign in its usage." Now, the object here is the garden; not the person. So this proves the "usage of this verb with the object being other than 'person' or 'people'" is NOT foreign to it's usage!

Look, your quote was about the object (go back and read it!), NOT the subject. The passage proves that again, the object doesn't have to be 'people'.

Now look here! I do not come to this board to be patronised! If you read your own post you will see that there is NOTHING in it about the subject of verses in relation to the discussion of "shammar" ("keep"). Before accusing me, try reading what you wrote! Take the plank out of your own eye!

I'll let the readers make their own minds up about this statement says about its author.

Ok, Bartholomew, again you have gotten the wrong word as the subject! "Eyes" is the subject of the verb, and not the subject of the prepositional phrase "of the Lord"! The "eyes of the Lord" is an idiomatic phrase that Solomon used. The subject therefore, is not the Lord, but the eyes of the Lord!</font>[/QUOTE]"The eyes of the Lord" refer to GOD. If "the eyes of the Lord" preserve knowledge, that means GOD preserves knowledge. And if God can preserve knowledge, he can also preserve words.

I will quite happily provide other examples when you stop being so nasty in your use of personal attacks, which, I have shown, are completely unfounded. I don't come here to be insulted.

That is because I was reading your first post, and decided to answer it. I was analysing one post, and commenting on it. But that's how I've always posted on here. I don't answer all the posts in a thread in one reply.

You haven't shown anything I wrote to be false.

Who's doing the attacking? I've been pretty much on the defensive the whole while!

I don't use swear words, but I'm tempted to use them here. "Demand" all you like, but your attacks on my character are plainly unfounded. I twisted nothing. So what if you were referring to Psalms? I never said you weren't! However, like most Christians, I believe Psalms is part of the Bible; so a word's use elsewhere in the Bible is relevant in a discussion about its use in Psalms. In fact, if anyone is being "dishonest" and "twisting words" it is you: for you imply that I said you weren't quoting Psalms. This is just plain wrong. If this what I will recieve from fellow Christians, I'll leave this board.

You obviously think I'm neither your friend, nor your brother,

Bartholomew

 

Ok, Bartholomew, I have your message.

I will accept your claim that you did not intentionally mis-state or mis-represent my previous posts. However, you must realize that I deal with KJV-onlyists (at least here in the USA) who are typically dishonest with dealing with the facts and consistently misrepresent or twist the statements of those who disagree with them. The appearance of not including the entire post I had placed here is what I know to be consistent with the typical treatment of those-- like yourself-- who are KJV-only. I cannot fathom the idea that your arguments would be so weak and superficial that you would resort to not quoting my entire argument, let alone stating to those who read these posts that I was *only referring to the book of Psalms*. For you to go happily along and not place my arguments-- from ONLY the book of Psalms-- within the correct context was careless-- at best-- on your part! Nothing I said about your sloppy and haphazard work was meant to demean you personally in any way, but your *work*-- especially how you presented your argument-- was entirely false, careless, and misleading. Quite frankly, I am angered sorely about how you mis-quoted and mis-represented *my* statements concerning this. You had made me out to be an idiot by with-holding my complete statements and arguments from my previous post *in their correct context*, and that the verb usage was only applicable to the Psalms. You obviously did not understand where I was coming from, and I made it clear that the context I was using was from the Psalms, but rather you ran right out of my clear contextual basis and said something that I had not used previously in my argument. I am sorry, but I must make my judgment against your *scholarship* and that it is sloppy. This was never meant to be taken against your personal character, although the appearance that you with-held my context from the Psalms makes me wonder whether your character is displaying some level of dishonesty. Taking shots without aiming, and especially missing the target completely, is not an excuse for you to be using a bow and arrow to begin with. Make sure, in the future, that you are not mis-representing another's argument lest someone else take you to task for your oversight! You should not develop a reputation with people that demonstrates your inability to state the facts straight, lest you become anathema to your detractors. This is why I had appeared to be overly harsh about your scholarly abilities, let alone your understanding of the English/Hebrew languages. Make sure that you know what you are talking about before making your arguments known, and make it clear to yourself that you are not stepping out of your ability to make good scholarly arguments. I think that you are able to do better than that!

 

LRL71,

I have a good background in Hebrew, and I saw no problem with any of Bartholomew's arguments about the usage of either shamar or natsar. The problem I did see, however, was with your continuing to jump to negative conclusions about someone who disagrees with you. And, frankly, I am tiring of your being so caustic and then trying to rationalize it by saying something like "you must realize that I deal with KJV-onlyists... who are typically dishonest". What you must understand is that it is both unscholarly and unchristian to keep assuming the worst about someone via gulit by association. You are the one who should apologize to Bartholomew for this kind of insenstitivity without any rationalizing or excuse making. Perhaps you could stand to learn not only a little better scholarship, but also grow up some as a Christian. Perhaps you haven't noticed that I have not been entering into any discussion with you recently? Now you know why. It is not because you have nothing good to contribute. Nor is it not because I think I cannot learn anything from what you have to say. It is because you almost always say it in an arrogant, condescending, and abrasive manner.

This is probably the strongest thing I have said to anyone on this board, but I think it is warranted.

Pastork

P.S. I agree that Bartholomew did not do justice to the argument you were really making, which you made very clear was usage in the Psalms. He did make it appear as though you were speaking of the usage of these words in general. However, this could have been dealt with much better by your having simply said, "Bartholomew, you have misunderstood me. I think you have taken my argument out of context." You could then have corrected the problem without getting so personal. His making an "unscholarly" mistake was no excuse for you to do the same, or to make accusations of dishonesty towards him.

[ October 08, 2002, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: Pastork ]

 

Bartholomew,

It is obvious to me that you are a knowledgeable guy who can contribute much to the discussion here, so I hope you will not allow LRL71's lack of maturity to make you want to leave. I, for one, appreciated your comments very much.

Pastork

 

*********************************************
Pastork,

My previous posts with my dialogue with Bartholomew were obviously not very clear to you, and I will make it known to you that I stand by what I had said to Bartholomew. I was not being 'personal' by 'attacking' him, but rather I was criticizing his sloppy workmanship in his ability to handle the text. I sense that he opened his KJV and a Strong's concordance to make his remarks, and with his weak understanding of even English grammar he said things that he should not have. If you don't like what (or how) I am saying things, then I'm sorry that you feel that way! I will not offer to him any apologies or beg forgiveness when I did no such thing wrong. My experience with KJV-onlyists, regardless of their stance within the issue, is that they are tireless twisters of truth. If you have read books from William Grady and G.A. Riplinger, you will find that their verbose poisoning of words about those who hold to the biblical position on KJV-onlyism is the norm, and I have never debased myself to use the language that they do. I sensed when I was reading Bartholomew's response to my earlier post, that it was a deliberate twisting (his 'deletion' of the fact that I was arguing from *only* the Psalms) of my earlier post. To overlook this fact is a typical game that KJV-onlyists use. Now, I did make it clear that I accepted Bartholomew's explanation that he meant no deceit when handling my argument, and at best his oversight was carelessness. Whether I believe him is irrelevant, but based on what I know of KJV-onlyists, it is best said to "trust-- but verify". It still baffles me that he completely overlooked my argument from the Psalms and went overboard to prove me wrong by going into the book of Genesis! I would only expect to see something like that from one who is as subtle in deceit than from a KJV-onlyist. Let it be known that those who hold to the biblical position on Bible versions, and have written books about the subject (James White & D.A. Carson), have never willfully deceived and twisted the statements of their detractors. Such men are honest when dealing with their opponents and do not take their words out of context. When Bartholomew 'mistook' my arguments from the usage of the verbs in the book of Psalms, I knew that I might be dealing with someone who is not going to be honest.

You said that you have knowledge of Hebrew, and by judging your statements of Bartholomew's analysis (that is, by saying that Bartholomew had good arguments on the usage of shamar & natsar), I'd have to say that you also don't know your Hebrew grammar, nor did you read the 'qualifications' of my analysis of the usage of these verbs in relation to the other words in their respective phrases (i.e., when God is the subject of the verb "natsar"). If you know so well in Hebrew, then you should have seen the errors Bartholomew made; he doesn't even know what a subject is. The toughest professors I had were ones who took me to task, knowing that I would make bad mistakes if I didn't have it made clear to me that I was being careless. My 'toughness' upon another like Bartholomew should not be meant to be 'caustic'. Such errors on his behalf was careless and sloppy, and like him, I was equally as sloppy in my analysis of the text (specifically Psalm 12) when I was KJV-only like him. My professors and friends were as equally 'caustic'-- in your words-- upon me when I was foolish and stupid when talking about KJV-onlyism.

Thirdly, your comments concerning my 'immaturity' upon me is more outwardly arrogant as you likewise made me to be. If you have a problem with what I had said, then I suggest you follow the example in Matthew 18-- and write to me personally as even Bartholomew did himself!

[ October 08, 2002, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: LRL71 ]

 

Let's get back to the topic without any further personal remarks or judgemental accusations. We can discuss our differences by quoting facts and our opinions of what those facts represent. We need to realize that a disagreeing post is not necessarliy a personal attack.

Future personal remarks will edited. Regardless of the poster.

Moderator

 

LRl71,

Perhaps I should point out that not only did I understand your qualifications regarding the usage of shamar and natsar in the Psalms, I also agreed with your assessment of that usage. However, I also agreed with the points made by Bartholomew about the usage of these terms outside of the Psalms, and with his view that the usage outside the Psalms was relevant. This was what I was referring to when I said that "I saw no problem with any of Bartholomews arguments about the usage of either shamar or natsar."

Now I would like to address the issue you have raised so many times regarding knowledge of the languages. You have frequently pointed out the "ignorance" of others in this respect, so I think it would not be out of line to ask further about your own training. I questioned you earlier in this thread about your statement that you had "about five years of Hebrew" and "nine years od Greek". In your response you backed off of the claim to nine years of Greek and reduced it to "seven and a half years-- not nine as my previous statement". I would request some more details. For example, you have asserted you took "three years of Hebrew in seminary". I would be interested in knowing which seminary, along with a list of the six semesters of Hebrew classes offered there. I am not familiar with a seminary that offers any more than three or four semesters in Hebrew courses, so I would really be glad to find one that offers more. Maybe I could go take another class myself. You have stated that "in regard to Greek, I had nine courses (4 and 1/2 years) in seminary". Again, I would be interested in the name of the seminary, along with a list of the nine courses they offer in Greek grammar. I have never met anyone who attended a seminary that offered any more than three or four semesters of Greek grammar courses. For example, I attended Covenant Theological Seminary, which offered a semester of beginning Greek, an intensive interterm Greek class, and then another semester of advanced Greek. In addition, at the time Dr. Robert Yarbrough offered an additional advanced Greek class for those who had completed all the other Greek courses and wanted to go even further. In addition to these I was able to take several elective courses focused upon exegesis of the Greek N.T. (with Dr. Robert Peterson). I took all that I could pack into a 102 semester hour M.Div., which by God's grace I completed. But I would jump at the chance for more courses that go beyond what I received at Covenant. I just didn't know there were any. Since I had already taken two full years of Greek grammar courses at Columbia Bible College, I was able to focus more intently on going deeper at covenant, but I would still covet another three or four courses that go beyond any of these. I just haven't ever heard of a seminary that offers them. I eagerly await your reply.

Pastork

 

Hello brothers!

Right, I'm a bit sick of the way I keep being accused by LRL71 of being "dishonest", but the following words (note: these words are NOT from Psalms! ) sprang to mind:

"Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing." (Matthew 5:23-26)

Well, I don't think I'll be agreeing with LRL71 in such a hurry[!], but I'll do my best to apply Jesus' words here. Let the whole world know:

I am genuinely sorry, LRL71, if I made it appear that your quotes were not from Psalms. With hindsight, it would have been better if I had noted this before giving the quotations I did. I can't make you believe me, but I honestly did not mean to give any false impressions. Now, please, would you stop going on about how I didn't quote everything you wrote??? I've appologized, and that's all I can do. The way you keep going on seems rather excessive. However, I can not appologize for anything else, since I honestly don't believe anything else I did was either misjudged or wrong. In your first post, after quoting lots of verses from Psalms, you made this statement (this is not a miss-quote):

However, I still disagree. Like I said, Psalms is a book of the Bible, and so I believe the usage of words elsewhere in the Bible is relevant when examining Psalms. Since the word is used in the Bible to mean keeping all kinds of things, I don't believe you can say it's applying to "words" in Psalm 12 is "foreign to its usage". Please tell me, if this word can be used to mean to keep practically anything elsewhere in the Bible, then why not in Psalms? I can't understand your reasoning. Does this method of interpretation apply everywhere else in the Bible? Is it wrong/irrelevant to look at how a word is used in another book? If you think so (I'm not saying you do, just "if"), then I'm certain you're uttrly wrong.

Now I hope the following won't be classed as a 'personal attack' (and consequently edited out), but I'd like to clear up a few of the accusations you made against me. You wrote:

What is misleading about showing people how a word is used in the rest of the Bible? Please back up the claim that my "work...was entirely false..." What was false? Surely this is slander? In fact, I think it is misleading of you to quote only from Psalms, and then conclude with the above statement. Did you know that "shammar" was used elsewhere in the Bible to refer to something other than people? Did you? Then why not tell us? To conclude, on the basis of Psalms alone that, "The usage of this verb with the object being other than 'person' or 'people' would be foreign in its usage", is at least misleading, and perhaps dishonest (in my opinion). Later you wrote:

However, in your next post you wrote,

May I ask if you read my first reply to you? In it, I answered this charge. Is this "stating the facts straight", or is this slander?

I mistook nothing. You were quoting from Psalms, and concluded "shammar" can't apply to words. I was quoting the Bible, and concluded it can.

As before, I answered this (false) charge earlier. I believe a "subject" is a noun which performs the verb in a sentance. Is that correct? Are you sure I don't know what a subject is? Was this remark a lie?

So, if we're to get back to the subject in hand, please explain why a Hebrew word's use in Psalms is relevant, but not it's use in the rest of the Bible. I've honestly never come across anyone else who argues like this, and wonder why you think like this. I hope we can stop making personal attacks, and just start arguing the facts.

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

P.S. Nice to meet you, Pastork!

 

I'm not KJO, nor am I sure what Ps12:7 means.. but I totally agree with Bartholomew here. The ultimate author of Scripture is the Holy Spirit and comparing word/phrase usages throughout scripture can be helpful in identifying a meaning in a particular place.

What would be the reason to restrict that search only to the psalms in term of seeking the meaning of a Hebrew word/phrase?

Perhaps I'm missing something

-kman

 

Perhaps I could shed some light upon why LRL71 focused his discussion of the usage of shamar and natsar to the Psalms. I think it may have been that, although other Biblical usages may be relevant, consistent usage within a particular genre or author does have great weight. Personally, I think he would have done better to argue the way David used the word (since he was the author of Psalm 12), rather than simply the way the Psalms used the word, because the Psalms were written by various authors. If, for example, it can be shown that David consistently used the term shamar to describe God's preservation of His people, then it is unlikely (though not impossible) that he would have used it in some other way in Psalm 12. So, though the usage of shamar outside of David's writings is relevant, it is not as relevant as David's own usage, especially if that usage is uniform. I hope I have accurately portrayed the kind of thinking that may have been in LRL71's mind and helped to clarify the hermeneutical issues.

Pastork

 

Pastork,

Your previous post is a good point, and one that really shed some light when I took Hermeneutics in seminary. Genre is an important usage that is used in the Bible where there is poetry, narrative, history, etc.... My seminary prof in Hermeneutics (not Hebrew--but the same prof did teach both) used an illustration that's common to our everyday lives: you get your mail from the mailbox and 'sort' each piece into a category (genre). If it looks like junk mail, then we sort it as junk mail; if it's a bill, then sort it into the bill pile; if it's a personal letter, then put it into the personal letter file. By looking at the piece of mail itself, we can decide what category (genre) it is to be put into.

In the case of the usage from Psalms, we have a category (genre) of poetry that is being used. The usage of the verbs "shamar" and "natsar" are being used differently in the Psalms than in Genesis (or any other part of the OT). Even the NT has word usages that differ according to genre. Pastork, this is a good point.

To answer your question as to my credentials, I graduated from Clearwater Christian College and attended (but did not graduate) from Calvary Baptist Seminary. Even in college, I had the opportunity to take extra classes in Greek and even elementary Hebrew. I finished all of my language courses in seminary and also took Greek and Hebrew classes instead of an English book study. This has been a blessing, although I wish I had taken Hermeneutics earlier than I had since I would have been able to understand genre in the Bible through the original languages. In college, I took the usual four semesters of Greek, two semesters of Hebrew (which was not required, but an elective) and in seminary there was eight Greek courses required and four Hebrew. I loved taking the original language courses and took more credits than required in Greek and Hebrew. I did not get the opportunity to study Aramaic in seminary, but will do so sometime in the future. I have been to Israel three times since 1995 and did studies over there, but I don't know exactly how that would fit into the scheme of college/seminary credit hours. Do I get credit for being able to read Israeli road signs in Hebrew and conversing with the locals, too?
Due to my recent move to Florida, and before I moved I sold my entire library, I have the severe handicap of not having any Hebrew text to rely on except from my notes and Doug Kutilek's pamphlet on Psalm 12:5-7 (see www.kjvonly.org). I only kept my leather-bound Greek NT (UBS 4th ed.) and a few Bibles (I burned my KJV-- ha,ha!), so from a library of over 300 hard-bound books to just a dozen or so is disheartening! I have no desire (see I Tim. 3:1) to enter the ministry, and through trials of me trying to put a square peg in a round hole, God showed me that this was not the direction for me to pursue. Would anyone here want me to be their pastor? I wouldn't think so!

 

I just got back from prayer meeting. BTW, the extra classes I took in seminary were studies on the book of James, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 'select' passages from the Gospels, 1 & 2 Timothy, 1,2,3 John & Jude. Textual criticism (which opened my mind) was in college, and I would encourage those who even have an elementary understanding of Greek to take this course.
I'm sorry that I hadn't posted here your earlier post, Pastor(k), but I can see that you went to some pretty good schools. Calvary Baptist has a 96-hour M.Div. program, although I know of friends who took more hours than that! Unfortunately, they don't have an M.A. in Biblical Languages; I could have gotten at least that. I only finished about two-thirds of my M.Div. before leaving seminary. Even after getting a diploma in Business Programming and Website Development from a computer school in PA, I didn't find myself totally burned out of learning in a school environment. The most stressful thing I had done was a 40-page paper for my Hebrew exegesis class (in seminary) on Deuteronomy 6:7. I'm single and have no children, and I can say that I already know everything about proper parenting!!!

[ October 09, 2002, 10:46 PM: Message edited by: LRL71 ]

 

Judging from your response, your background in Greek is not much different than mine, especially since the Greek text was the text for every N.T. course at Covenant, which placed a very heavy emphasis upon Hebrew and Greek exegesis in all the Old and New Testament courses. They just didn't list these courses as Greek or Hebrew grammar courses, but rather the title of the book or section of Scripture under study. Or in the case of the courses offered by Peterson (which I alluded to above) they were called by the title of the subject (e.g "Eternal Destinies" was a course which focused upon the exegesis of the Hebrew or Greek text of all the Biblical passages dealing with the subject matter, although it focused primarily on the Greek N.T.). It would be misleading, however, for me to imply that this was a course in Greek grammar, despite the constant focus upon Greek grammar it involved. If I were asked how much Greek study I have had, I would reply that I have had three full years of Greek grammar. I would not add up ten or twelve courses, not all of which were technically Greek grammar courses, and then say that I had "five or six years of Greek".

Pastork

[ October 09, 2002, 11:05 PM: Message edited by: Pastork ]

 

Hi,

Well, a friend of mine sent me this link, dealing with your arguments you brought up about the gender of the words. I thought rather than use its arguments myself, I'd just give you the link. It's not very long, so it's worth reading. It seems to me that there's no reason why the 'words' of God can't be preserved according to this verse.

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

http://www.fundamentalbiblechurch.org/Foundation/fbcpresv.htm