-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Doctrine verses "Versions"??
- Thread starter Plain ol' Ralph
- Start date
Plain ol' Ralph
New Member
You guys really ought to research the Rabbinic teachings considering what has been taught throughout the eons on Psalm 12:6,7, a good place to reference is John Gill's Expositor, he does try to be objective, and very informative.
For those of you "democrats"
If 99% are jumping off a 1000 foot cliff, you too would?
"Denigration", something the mv advo's love to exhibit.
For those of you "democrats"
If 99% are jumping off a 1000 foot cliff, you too would?
"Denigration", something the mv advo's love to exhibit.
Plain ol' Ralph
New Member
I'll stick with Ps 78:36 in the Nasv that tells the reader that they sucessfully "deceived" the LORD, instead of how the KJB shows emphatically that they only flattered Him, seems the KJB translators were onto something the mv advo's just can't seem to grasp: flattery means to deceive, but deceived shows the deception successful in it's action, that is false doctrine being taught in the Nasv, PERIOD!
Plain ol' Ralph
New Member
Yes, Psalm 12:6,7 are pretty plain, in simple English no one would ever think the subject would jump back and forth as you guys do, the flow of the sentences distinguish "words" and not people as yall suggest.
Show me where I "double-speak" thou double-speaker?
I don't have any "twisted theology", but that would be your gist, especially when the FACTS are clearly put in front of you!
Show me where I "double-speak" thou double-speaker?
I don't have any "twisted theology", but that would be your gist, especially when the FACTS are clearly put in front of you!
AVL1984
<img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>
You accuse me of double speak? I don't think so, Ralph. You talk about taking verses out of context, and then you do the same thing. Even the Geneva Bible tell us that it is talking about the righteous man. Now, show me where I have been guilty of doublespeak. It is clear to many here that you have twisted theology. It's been pointed out time and time again. I think you really should buy a hermeneutics book.
Plain ol' Ralph
New Member
Hermanuetics: man's device to make the Scripture fit his lifestyle.
Hermanuetics don't distinguish doctrine, they alter it, again, man's device to make the Scripture fit his lifestyle.
..and in those days, men did that which was right in their own eyes."
Hermanuetics don't distinguish doctrine, they alter it, again, man's device to make the Scripture fit his lifestyle.
..and in those days, men did that which was right in their own eyes."
POR: “You guys really ought to research the Rabbinic teachings considering what has been taught throughout the eons on Psalm 12:6,7, a good place to reference is John Gill's Expositor, he does try to be objective, and very informative.”
Yes, sir, POR! On this point you *are* correct -- and in point of fact it seems *very* necessary for *all* the KJVO advocates on this board to make a careful read of ***exactly*** what John Gill says about Psalm 12:6-7. Read Gill and enjoy:
===================
Ver. 7. "Thou shall keep them, O Lord," &c.] Not the words before mentioned, as Aben Ezra explains it, for the affix is masculine and not feminine; 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, as Kimchi rightly observes: they are not their own keepers, but God is the keeper of them; he keeps them by his power, and in his Son, in whose hands they are, and who is able to keep them from falling; they are kept by him from a total and final falling away; from the dominion and damning power of sin, and from being devoured by Satan, and from the evil of the world: 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;
"thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever"; or "thou shalt preserve him"; that is, everyone of the poor and needy, from the wicked generation of men in which they live, from being corrupted or intimidated by them; and who are described in the beginning of the psalm.
====================
POR: given this evidence, do you agree with John Gill (who used **ONLY*** the KJV as his basic English text during his lifetime (1697-1771)? If not, why did you recommend that we read him?
Yes, sir, POR! On this point you *are* correct -- and in point of fact it seems *very* necessary for *all* the KJVO advocates on this board to make a careful read of ***exactly*** what John Gill says about Psalm 12:6-7. Read Gill and enjoy:
===================
Ver. 7. "Thou shall keep them, O Lord," &c.] Not the words before mentioned, as Aben Ezra explains it, for the affix is masculine and not feminine; 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, as Kimchi rightly observes: they are not their own keepers, but God is the keeper of them; he keeps them by his power, and in his Son, in whose hands they are, and who is able to keep them from falling; they are kept by him from a total and final falling away; from the dominion and damning power of sin, and from being devoured by Satan, and from the evil of the world: 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;
"thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever"; or "thou shalt preserve him"; that is, everyone of the poor and needy, from the wicked generation of men in which they live, from being corrupted or intimidated by them; and who are described in the beginning of the psalm.
====================
POR: given this evidence, do you agree with John Gill (who used **ONLY*** the KJV as his basic English text during his lifetime (1697-1771)? If not, why did you recommend that we read him?
Plain ol' Ralph
New Member
Key: at the time of Psalm 12, no one was in Jesus to be preserved, now if you would quote the entirity of Gill's Expositor on these verses, then rightly divide the Word when you refer to the "poor" as in "poor in spirit", then you might discern the true meaning of the context; IOW, WORDS, not people, sir.
John Gill is not always right, just objective and informative.
And Gill used the KJB, but he also used much more than that to make his exposition.
John Gill is not always right, just objective and informative.
And Gill used the KJB, but he also used much more than that to make his exposition.
Plain ol' Ralph
New Member
No, just rightly divide the Word, friend, hermanuetics will fall by the wayside, and the common taters will eventually be turned into french fries.
AVL1984
<img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>
Please, show how they "alter doctrine" Ralph...we'd be interested in knowing how you twist this one.Originally posted by Plain ol' Ralph:
Hermanuetics: man's device to make the Scripture fit his lifestyle.
Hermanuetics don't distinguish doctrine, they alter it, again, man's device to make the Scripture fit his lifestyle.
..and in those days, men did that which was right in their own eyes."
Plain ol' Ralph
New Member
AVL, no one you disagree with can show you anything, not w/o your trying to say they twist scripture, but then you're duped by the teachings of mere men who wish to alter the doctrines of the Bible to fit their lifestyle
AVL1984
<img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>
POR, you can attack me all you like. It doesn't change the fact that you are not able to discern or get a truthful answer from you. You've still not shown how hermeneutics alters doctrines. You attack those who don't agree to your warped logic. In other words, you use typical evasion tactics because you have no answers. Now, please, get back to the question. How does hermeneutics alter doctrines?
POR-1: "You guys really ought to research the Rabbinic teachings considering what has been taught throughout the eons on Psalm 12:6,7, a good place to reference is John Gill's Expositor, he does try to be objective, and very informative.”
POR-2 (Spin Mode): "Key: at the time of Psalm 12, no one was in Jesus to be preserved, now if you would quote the entirity of Gill's Expositor on these verses, then rightly divide the Word when you refer to the "poor" as in "poor in spirit", then you might discern the true meaning of the context; IOW, WORDS, not people, sir."
Turning off the spin cycle: Sorry, POR, but Gill was quoted in *FULL* and *in CONTEXT* from his discussion of that particular phrase. Gill did *not* "refer to the 'poor' as in 'poor in spirit'" *anywhere* within his context.
Your original assertion suggested that we consult Gill as a "good place" to "research the Rabbinic teachings". Indeed, Gill did cite the Rabbinic scholar Aben Ezra as well as Kimchi, and *both* these men agreed that the meaning of the Hebrew text at this point was *not* the "words", but the "poor and needy". Gill's summary statement is beyond dispute at this point: "the sense is, that God will keep the poor and needy".
But lo and behold, once Gill -- whom you urged upon us to read to get *correct* information regarding "the Rabbinic teachings" concerning the meaning of this verse -- is shown *not* to agree with the KJVO interpretation of Ps 12:7, suddenly the spin becomes: "John Gill is not always right, just objective and informative"!
I suspect Gill would never have been recommended had you known that Gill would present the Rabbinic opinions in such a non-KJVO manner.
Most interesting in this unwillingness to accept the factual statements of Gill is the fact that (as I had noted), Gill was using the KJV as his English Bible. Gill wrote within 150 years of the original printing of the KJV, and clearly reflected the then-common understanding of the meaning of Ps 12:7 in the KJV in light of its underlying Hebrew text. This common understanding clearly was not only current in Gill's time, but -- as the original translators' footnote in the KJV pointed out -- was the prevailing understanding of that passage even 150 years earlier; yes, and even earlier than 1611, as the notes in previous English translations like the Geneva Bible equally demonstrate.
The point is clear: the misinterpretation of Ps 12:7 that focused on the "words" as opposed to the "poor and needy" was *unknown* from at least 1560 to 1611 and even during Gill's lifetime, which ended in 1771 (clearly beyond Blayney's "final" 1769 revision of the KJV, in case anyone might claim some "new" meaning only as of the latter date). It thus appears that the KJVO interpretation must be some sort of "advanced revelation" which no one could have known before the time of Gill.
POR-2 (Spin Mode): "Key: at the time of Psalm 12, no one was in Jesus to be preserved, now if you would quote the entirity of Gill's Expositor on these verses, then rightly divide the Word when you refer to the "poor" as in "poor in spirit", then you might discern the true meaning of the context; IOW, WORDS, not people, sir."
Turning off the spin cycle: Sorry, POR, but Gill was quoted in *FULL* and *in CONTEXT* from his discussion of that particular phrase. Gill did *not* "refer to the 'poor' as in 'poor in spirit'" *anywhere* within his context.
Your original assertion suggested that we consult Gill as a "good place" to "research the Rabbinic teachings". Indeed, Gill did cite the Rabbinic scholar Aben Ezra as well as Kimchi, and *both* these men agreed that the meaning of the Hebrew text at this point was *not* the "words", but the "poor and needy". Gill's summary statement is beyond dispute at this point: "the sense is, that God will keep the poor and needy".
But lo and behold, once Gill -- whom you urged upon us to read to get *correct* information regarding "the Rabbinic teachings" concerning the meaning of this verse -- is shown *not* to agree with the KJVO interpretation of Ps 12:7, suddenly the spin becomes: "John Gill is not always right, just objective and informative"!
I suspect Gill would never have been recommended had you known that Gill would present the Rabbinic opinions in such a non-KJVO manner.
Most interesting in this unwillingness to accept the factual statements of Gill is the fact that (as I had noted), Gill was using the KJV as his English Bible. Gill wrote within 150 years of the original printing of the KJV, and clearly reflected the then-common understanding of the meaning of Ps 12:7 in the KJV in light of its underlying Hebrew text. This common understanding clearly was not only current in Gill's time, but -- as the original translators' footnote in the KJV pointed out -- was the prevailing understanding of that passage even 150 years earlier; yes, and even earlier than 1611, as the notes in previous English translations like the Geneva Bible equally demonstrate.
The point is clear: the misinterpretation of Ps 12:7 that focused on the "words" as opposed to the "poor and needy" was *unknown* from at least 1560 to 1611 and even during Gill's lifetime, which ended in 1771 (clearly beyond Blayney's "final" 1769 revision of the KJV, in case anyone might claim some "new" meaning only as of the latter date). It thus appears that the KJVO interpretation must be some sort of "advanced revelation" which no one could have known before the time of Gill.