Interpretations of Psalms 12:7

[Logos1560]

"KJV onlyist?" I thought REAL "KJVonlyists" believe that the King James is the only true word of God in any language and even, go so far as to say that it is "double inspired"? .

The KJV is an English translation. It would be accurate to assert that the term KJV-only would apply to the making of exclusive, only claims for one English translation--the KJV. The term does not necessarily have to apply to claims concerning other Bible translations in other languages.

Even Peter Ruckman accepted Bible translations in other languages, especially Luther's German Bible; therefore, Peter Ruckman would not be KJV-only according to your suggestion. Peter Ruckman even suggested that he would not condemn the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

First of all the prevailing rule of Hebrew grammar demands that the antecedent of "them" (in the KJV) or "us" in the Hebrew, cannot be "words" as they don't match in case, number, and gender.

The antecedent of "them" (in the KJV) or "us" in the Hebrew must be, according to the rules of Hebrew grammar, the "poor" and the "needy" of verse 5. (As I pointed out earlier even the KJV says, in the margin "him: every one of them" - IE "every one of us who are oppressed, poor, and needy.")

The Hebrew characters are not showing up for the copy and paste so I will put the link to the original article at the end of this post.

"It is important for the careful exegete of the Hebrew Scriptures to recognize the biblical phenomenon wherein the biblical writers employed masculine pronouns in reference to feminine antecedent nouns when those feminine nouns were synonyms for the Words of God (cf. Ps. 119). Since the words of Jehovah are an extension of this strong patriarchal God, the OT writers occasionally seemed to use masculine pronouns for the following synonyms. The Hebrew words Law (torah hr'AT), Testimony (`eduth tWd[e), Commandment (mitzwah hw"c.mi), Statute (chuqqah hQ 'xu), and Word ('imrah) hr'm.ai ) are feminine in gender. The normal Hebrew grammatical pattern is that concordance occurs between the gender and number of the pronoun with its respective antecedent noun. For instance, a masculine singular (m.s.) noun would take a masculine singular pronoun, and a masculine plural (m.p.) noun would take a masculine plural pronoun. However, the biblical writers deviated from this "grammatical norm" for theological purposes, emphasizing specific truths. The inspired Scripture is the only authority for the biblical languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek), including their respective vocabulary and grammar. There are examples in all three divisions of the Tanak illustrating this Scriptural Hebrew phenomenon of gender discordance for theological purposes. The following are examples of the phenomenon: Law (torah) 1. "That thou mayest observe to do according to all the law (torah--f.s.)…turn not from it (mimmennu--WNM ,mi m.s.)," (Josh. 1:7). 2. "For he established a testimony (`eduth--f.s.) in Jacob, and appointed a law (torah-- f.s.) in Israel, which he commanded our fathers, that they should make them (lehodiy`am- -~['ydIAhl . m.p. suffix) known to their children" (Ps. 78:5).

1. Ps. 78:5 (see above) 2. "Thy testimonies (`edoth--f.p.) have I taken as an heritage for ever: for they (hemmah--hM 'h e m.p.) are the rejoicing of my heart" (Ps. 119:111). 3. "Thy testimonies (`edoth--f.p.) are wonderful: therefore doth my soul keep them (netzaratham--~t;r 'c'n> m.p. suffix)" (Ps. 119:129). 4. "Concerning thy testimonies (`edoth), I have known of old that thou hast founded them (yesadtam--~T'd>s ;y > m.p. suffix) for ever" (Ps. 119:152). 5. "My soul hath kept thy testimonies (`edoth--f.p.), and I love them (wa'ohavem-- ~beh ]aow" m.p. suffix) exceedingly" (Ps. 119:167). Commandment (mitzwah) 1. "Therefore shall ye keep my commandments (mitzwoth--f.p.), and do them ('otham-- ~t'ao m.p.): I am the LORD (Lev. 22:31). 2. "If ye walk in my statutes (chuqqoth--f.p.), and keep my commandments (mitzwoth-- f.p.), and do them ('otham--~t'ao m.p.)" (Lev. 26:3). 3. "And remember all the commandments (mitzwoth--f.p.) of the LORD, and do them ('otham--~t'ao m.p.)" (Num. 15:39). 4. "If thou wilt walk in my statutes (chuqqoth-f.p.), and execute my judgments (mishpat-- m.p.), and keep all my commandments (mitzwoth--f.p.) to walk in them (bahem--~h ,B' m.p. suffix)," (I Ki. 6:12). Statute (chuqqah) 1. "And you shall keep my statutes (chuqqoth--f.p.), and do them ('otham--~t'ao m.p.)" (Lev. 20:8). 2. Lev. 26:3 (see above). 3. I Ki. 6:12 (see above). 4. "For they have refused my judgments (mishpat--m.p.) and my statutes (chuqqoth--f.p.), they have not walked in them (bahem--~h ,B' m.p. suffix)" (Ezk. 5:6). 5. "And hath kept all my statutes (chuqqoth--f.p.), and hath done them ('otham--~t'ao m.p.)" (Ezk. 18:19). 6. "They shall also walk in my judgments (mishpat--m.p.); and observe my statutes (chuqqoth--f.p.), and do them ('otham--~t'ao m.p.) " (Ezk. 37:24). Word ('imrah) 1. "The words ('imroth--f.p.) of the LORD are pure words ('amaroth--f.p.)…thou shalt keep them (tishmerem--~r em.v.Ti m.p. suffix), O LORD, thou shalt preserve them (titztzerennu--WNr ,C.T i m.p. suffix) from this generation for ever" (Ps. 12:6-7)....

Although "words" is feminine plural and the suffix on the verb is masculine plural, this gender discordance is not unusual in other psalms dealing with God's Words (see above). For instance, in the great psalm on the Words of God, Ps. 119,16 the psalmist deliberately masculinized the verbal extension of the patriarchal God of Scripture. As this phenomenon exists throughout the Tanak, the interpreter has been prepared for gender discordance in this psalm. Furthermore, the examples set forth in Ps. 119 preclude the exegete from moving prior to the closest antecedent for the sake of gender concordance. It would be ridiculous to seek gender concordance where this phenomenon occurs in Ps. 119:111, for then the gender concordance would teach that the psalmist rejoiced in his heart for the masculine plural "wicked" (v. 110).

http://bbc-cromwell.org/Seminary_Articles/Psalm-12-Expanded.pdf

I ask that you please not defer to ad hominid attacks on the author of the article, because he has a Masters in Biblical Languages, 2 Doctorates in Theology, and he teaches both Greek and Hebrew in his Seminary.

It's one thing if you want to take a position against the KJVO position, but please reconsider using the whole gender discorance argument about Psalm 12 because it is a seriously flawed argument considering all the above examples of gender discordance in the Old Testament.

I will let the readers decide for themselves whether or not your argument is valid or not Dr. Cassidy. Respectfully I think you should reconsider your position on this particular text of scripture and it's interpretation.

 

[rsr]

If you're interested, this is a short treatment of Strouse's analysis by William D. Price, Old Testament general editor of the NKJV:

King James Onlyism

 

[TCassidy]

I think that work is by Jim (James D.) Price. Long time Professor of Hebrew at Temple Baptist Seminary in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

He received a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from Purdue University in 1947

M.Div. Los Angeles Baptist Theological Seminary, 1957

Ph.D. Hebrew and Cognate Languages, Dropsie University, 1969

My nephew took Hebrew from him, and I was a member of a church pastored by his son in Minneapolis many, many years ago.

I didn't bother replying to Jordan's copy and paste job as he has posted it in several places previously and it has been so completely refuted nobody takes it seriously any more.

 

[TCassidy]

PS, the entire book can be downloaded free from Dr. Price's web page:
The Life and Research of James D. Price

 

[rsr]

Ah, typo. Yes, James Price.

 

[Logos1560]

Respectfully I think you should reconsider your position on this particular text of scripture and it's interpretation.

You and other KJV-only advocates have not demonstrated soundly from the Scriptures that Psalm 12:6 supports a modern, man-made KJV-only view.

You should follow your own advice and reconsider your inconsistent, unsound, non-scriptural KJV-only position.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

You and other KJV-only advocates have not demonstrated soundly from the Scriptures that Psalm 12:6 supports a modern, man-made KJV-only view.

You should follow your own advice and reconsider your inconsistent, unsound, non-scriptural KJV-only position.

I do not believe Psalm 12:6-7 explicitly teaches a KJVO Position. But the argument that the words "them" in vs 7 are not the words of the Lord are absurd. Of course that also depends on what you think is KJVO, depending on how you define it I may or may not be King James Only:

I borrow this next list from David Cloud:

"If “King James Only” defines one who believes modern textual criticism is heresy, call me “King James Only.”

if “King James Only” defines one who rejects the theory that the “preserved” Word of God was hidden away in the Pope’s library and in a weird Greek Orthodox monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai (a monastery which has a room full of the skulls of dead monks) for hundreds of years, call me “King James Only.”

If “King James Only” defines one who believes that it is necessary to have one biblical standard in a language as important as English and who believes that the multiplicity of competing versions has created confusion and has weakened the authority of the Word of God, call me “King James Only.”

If “King James Only” defines one who believes that the KJV was given by inspiration, I am not“King James Only.” The authority of the King James Bible is the product of preservation, not inspiration. The term “inspiration” refers to the original giving of the Scripture through holy men of old (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20-21). At the same time, I agree with the Pulpit Commentary when it says, “We must guard against such narrow, mechanical views of inspiration as would confine it to the Hebrew and Greek words in which it was written, so that one who reads a good translation would not have ‘the words of the Lord.’” To say that the King James Bible is the inspired Word of God in the English language because it is an accurate translation of the preserved Hebrew and Greek is not the same as saying that it was given by inspiration.

If “King James Only” defines one who believes the English KJV is superior to the Hebrew and Greek texts upon which it was based, I am not “King James Only.” In fact, I believe such an idea is pure nonsense, as it would mean the pure and preserved Word of God did not exist before 1611.

If “King James Only” defines one who believes that the King James Bible is advanced revelation over the Hebrew and Greek texts that God gave through inspiration to holy men of old, I amnot “King James Only.”

If “King James Only” defines one who believes that we do not need to study Greek and Hebrew today or that it is not important to use lexicons and dictionaries, I am not “King James Only.” God’s people should learn Greek and Hebrew, if possible, and use (with caution and wisdom) study tools. When the Bible says that “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,” we know that the words they spake were Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words. But foundational to the study of the biblical languages is a thorough understanding of the textual issue. We must study the right Greek and Hebrew, and we must also be careful of original language study tools, because many of them were produced from a rationalistic perspective and with great bias against the God-blessed Received Text.

If “King James Only” defines one who believes the preserved Word of God is available only perfectly in English, I am not “King James Only.” The Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament and Greek Received New Testament translated correctly into any language is the preserved Word of God in that language, whether it is German, Spanish, French, Korean, or Nepali.

If “King James Only” defines one who believes that translations in other languages should be based on English rather than (when possible) Greek and Hebrew, I am not “King James Only.”

If “King James Only” defines one who believes that a person can only be saved through the King James Bible, I am not “King James Only.” It is the gospel of Jesus Christ that is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16), and even a Bible that is textually corrupt contains the gospel.

If “King James Only” defines one who believes that the King James Bible’s antiquated language is holy or who believes the KJV could never again be updated, I am not “King James Only.” I doubt the KJV will ever be replaced in this apostate age, but to say that it is wrong to update the language again after the fashion of the several updates it has undergone since 1611 is not reasonable. Having dealt extensively with people who speak English as a second or third language, I am very sympathetic to the very real antiquation problem in the King James Bible. At the same time, I am not going to trade an excellent Bible with a few problems due to old language for a Bible filled with error due to a corrupt text and/or a corrupt translation methodology (e.g., dynamic equivalency).

If “King James Only” defines one who believes that he has the authority to call those who disagree with him silly asses, morons, and jacklegs, and to treat them as if they were fools because they refuse to follow his (or her) peculiar views, or if it defines one who threatens to sue those who challenge him (or her), I am not “King James Only.”

 

[Logos1560]

Of course that also depends on what you think is KJVO, depending on how you define it I may or may not be King James Only:

Since the KJV is an English translation, the term KJV-only view would be used soundly and correctly to describe a certain viewpoint concerning English Bible translations, not concerning Bible translations in other languages. The accurate term KJV-only is used to define and describe any view that accepts or makes some type of exclusive, only claims for one English translation—the KJV.

Holders of a KJV-only view would in effect attempt to suggest, assume, or claim that the KJV is the word of God in English in some different sense than any other English translation is the word of God in English.

While perhaps admitting the fact that the KJV is a translation, holders of a KJV-only view attempt in effect to treat the KJV as though it is in a different category than all other English translations or as though it is not a translation in the same sense (univocally) as other English Bibles. It is not reading only the KJV that would be considered to constitute a KJV-only view. It is not using only the KJV in teaching or preaching that would be considered to constitute a KJV-only view. A KJV-only view would concern a person’s beliefs, opinions, and claims concerning the KJV, not his reading only it or using only it in teaching or preaching. Someone can accept the Hebrew Masoretic text and the Textus Receptus and still be KJV-only if they make any exclusive, only claims for the KJV. Any view that suggests or implies perfection, inerrancy, or inspiration for the KJV and any view that supposes or assumes that its translating is the word of God in a different sense (equivocally) than any other English Bible would be KJV-only. The subjective opinion or unproven assumption that the KJV alone is a perfect English translation or that the KJV is the final authority would be a KJV-only view. The subjective opinion that the KJV is the only faithful and true English translation would qualify as being a KJV-only view.

 

[robycop3]

All the arguments are moot, as Psalm 12 does NOT mention the KJV in any manner whatsoever.

There's simply NO Scriptural support for the KJVO myth at all, so it CANNOT be valid!

 

[HankD]

All the arguments are moot, as Psalm 12 does NOT mention the KJV in any manner whatsoever.

There's simply NO Scriptural support for the KJVO myth at all, so it CANNOT be valid!

Agreed 100%.

I have had only 2 semesters of Hebrew (3 of Greek) - graduated 1972 (Calvary U) and have kept up with biblical language studies.

I am no scholar but say this because I see no inconsistencies with Hebrew mixing of gender and number even with my limited studies as it can be shown from other text(s).

Personally I believe the object of preservation of Psalm 12 is indeed the words of the LORD.

He has indeed preserved His words upon the earth with manuscripts of all kinds, millions of complete bibles (KJV, NKJV, ASV, RSV,NIV,ESV, on and on...). Other language translations as well.

From an insignificant tribe of nomads to the entire inhabited world!

What is the value of the proliferation of English bibles?

In this the 21st century one can take any given passage and show the various translations of the passage on an electronic screen and in most cases discern the nuance of any given word of the passage.

But above and beyond that:

I don't see why we let the KJVO error hold us hostage from this precious truth.

IMO the advent of the Renaissance (14th - 17th century) brought forth the printing press which ultimately put the bible into the hands of most of the inhabited world. That along with the birth of the English speaking Missionary Movement (yes we know AwsomeMachine) is now fulfilling the Great Commission which Israel had been commissioned to preach first - this word of the LORD, the gospel of salvation given to the gentile nations - yes, Israel first.

Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

NIV Psalm 96:1 Sing to the LORD a new song; sing to the LORD, all the earth.
2 Sing to the LORD, praise his name; proclaim his salvation day after day.
3 Declare his glory among the nations, his marvelous deeds among all peoples.
4 For great is the LORD and most worthy of praise; he is to be feared above all gods.
5 For all the gods of the nations are idols, but the LORD made the heavens.
6 Splendor and majesty are before him; strength and glory are in his sanctuary.
7 Ascribe to the LORD, O families of nations, ascribe to the LORD glory and strength.
8 Ascribe to the LORD the glory due his name; bring an offering and come into his courts.
9 Worship the LORD in the splendor of his holiness; tremble before him, all the earth.
10 Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns." The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity.
11 Let the heavens rejoice, let the earth be glad; let the sea resound, and all that is in it;
12 let the fields be jubilant, and everything in them. Then all the trees of the forest will sing for joy;
13 they will sing before the LORD, for he comes, he comes to judge the earth. He will judge the world in righteousness and the peoples in his truth.

for he comes, he comes to judge the earth. He will judge the world in righteousness and the peoples in his truth.

Soon LORD.

HankD

 

[Katarina Von Bora]

The Hebrew characters are not showing up for the copy and paste so I will put the link to the original article at the end of this post.



I ask that you please not defer to ad hominid attacks on the author of the article, because he has a Masters in Biblical Languages, 2 Doctorates in Theology, and he teaches both Greek and Hebrew in his Seminary.

It's one thing if you want to take a position against the KJVO position, but please reconsider using the whole gender discorance argument about Psalm 12 because it is a seriously flawed argument considering all the above examples of gender discordance in the Old Testament.

I will let the readers decide for themselves whether or not your argument is valid or not Dr. Cassidy. Respectfully I think you should reconsider your position on this particular text of scripture and it's interpretation.

Most of the text snipped for brevity.

The fact that one has attained and/or achieved top academic success, means not one whit if his conclusion aren't correct.

Peter Ruckman had a legitimate doctorate degree, and he was profoundly wrong, abusive, foul mouthed and wicked.

Martin Luther shows the folly of such bragging.

“If your papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word sola (alone), say this to him: "Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and he says that a papist and a donkey are the same thing." …For we are not going to be students and disciples of the papists. Rather, we will become their teachers and judges. For once, we also are going to be proud and brag, with these blockheads; and just as Paul brags against his mad raving saints, I will brag against these donkeys of mine! Are they doctors? So am I. Are they scholars? So am I. Are they preachers? So am I. Are they theologians? So am I. Are they debaters? So am I. Are they philosophers? So am I. Are they logicians? So am I. Do they lecture? So do I. Do they write books? So do I.”

“I will go even further with my boasting: I can expound the psalms and the prophets, and they cannot. I can translate, and they cannot. I can read the Holy Scriptures, and they cannot. I can pray, they cannot. Coming down to their level, “I can use their rhetoric and philosophy better than all of them put together. Plus I know that not one of them understands his Aristotle. If any one of them can correctly understand one preface or chapter of Aristotle, I will eat my hat! No, I am not overdoing it, for I have been schooled in and have practiced their science from my youth. I recognize how deep and broad it is. They, too, are well aware that I can do everything they can do. Yet they treat me as a stranger in their discipline, these incurable fellows, as if I had just arrived this morning and had never seen or heard what they teach and know. How they do brilliantly parade around with their science, teaching me what I outgrew twenty years ago! To all their noise and shouting I sing, with the harlot, "I have known for seven years that horseshoe nails are iron.”

Quote from Beggars All.

 

[Katarina Von Bora]

I do not believe Psalm 12:6-7 explicitly teaches a KJVO Position. But the argument that the words "them" in vs 7 are not the words of the Lord are absurd. Of course that also depends on what you think is KJVO, depending on how you define it I may or may not be King James Only:

I borrow this next list from David Cloud:

"If “King James Only” defines one who believes modern textual criticism is heresy, call me “King James Only.”

if “King James Only” defines one who rejects the theory that the “preserved” Word of God was hidden away in the Pope’s library and in a weird Greek Orthodox monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai (a monastery which has a room full of the skulls of dead monks) for hundreds of years, call me “King James Only.”

If “King James Only” defines one who believes that it is necessary to have one biblical standard in a language as important as English and who believes that the multiplicity of competing versions has created confusion and has weakened the authority of the Word of God, call me “King James Only.”

If “King James Only” defines one who believes that the KJV was given by inspiration, I am not“King James Only.” The authority of the King James Bible is the product of preservation, not inspiration. The term “inspiration” refers to the original giving of the Scripture through holy men of old (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20-21). At the same time, I agree with the Pulpit Commentary when it says, “We must guard against such narrow, mechanical views of inspiration as would confine it to the Hebrew and Greek words in which it was written, so that one who reads a good translation would not have ‘the words of the Lord.’” To say that the King James Bible is the inspired Word of God in the English language because it is an accurate translation of the preserved Hebrew and Greek is not the same as saying that it was given by inspiration.

If “King James Only” defines one who believes the English KJV is superior to the Hebrew and Greek texts upon which it was based, I am not “King James Only.” In fact, I believe such an idea is pure nonsense, as it would mean the pure and preserved Word of God did not exist before 1611.

If “King James Only” defines one who believes that the King James Bible is advanced revelation over the Hebrew and Greek texts that God gave through inspiration to holy men of old, I amnot “King James Only.”

If “King James Only” defines one who believes that we do not need to study Greek and Hebrew today or that it is not important to use lexicons and dictionaries, I am not “King James Only.” God’s people should learn Greek and Hebrew, if possible, and use (with caution and wisdom) study tools. When the Bible says that “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,” we know that the words they spake were Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words. But foundational to the study of the biblical languages is a thorough understanding of the textual issue. We must study the right Greek and Hebrew, and we must also be careful of original language study tools, because many of them were produced from a rationalistic perspective and with great bias against the God-blessed Received Text.

If “King James Only” defines one who believes the preserved Word of God is available only perfectly in English, I am not “King James Only.” The Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament and Greek Received New Testament translated correctly into any language is the preserved Word of God in that language, whether it is German, Spanish, French, Korean, or Nepali.

If “King James Only” defines one who believes that translations in other languages should be based on English rather than (when possible) Greek and Hebrew, I am not “King James Only.”

If “King James Only” defines one who believes that a person can only be saved through the King James Bible, I am not “King James Only.” It is the gospel of Jesus Christ that is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16), and even a Bible that is textually corrupt contains the gospel.

If “King James Only” defines one who believes that the King James Bible’s antiquated language is holy or who believes the KJV could never again be updated, I am not “King James Only.” I doubt the KJV will ever be replaced in this apostate age, but to say that it is wrong to update the language again after the fashion of the several updates it has undergone since 1611 is not reasonable. Having dealt extensively with people who speak English as a second or third language, I am very sympathetic to the very real antiquation problem in the King James Bible. At the same time, I am not going to trade an excellent Bible with a few problems due to old language for a Bible filled with error due to a corrupt text and/or a corrupt translation methodology (e.g., dynamic equivalency).

If “King James Only” defines one who believes that he has the authority to call those who disagree with him silly asses, morons, and jacklegs, and to treat them as if they were fools because they refuse to follow his (or her) peculiar views, or if it defines one who threatens to sue those who challenge him (or her), I am not “King James Only.”

I have read David Cloud before. I confronted him regarding the blatant errors in his book: The Modern Bible Version Hall of Shame

In his haste to belittle Wescott and Hort, he has provided NO proper citation. Not even a footnote. I contacted him regarding the statements he made and his proof for such statements. He admitted that he had taken the information from other KJVO's. He made no effort to research the accuracy of the statements. He also told me that there was no internet when he wrote the book. Fair enough. EXCEPT if you are going to use others for source materials, you are obligated to research it.

Next, I provided him with actual proof, that those statements were in error. He knows he was wrong, but there has been no retraction of his words.

Bearing false witness is sinful. Not correcting his writings is sinful.

 

[robycop3]

I have read David Cloud before. I confronted him regarding the blatant errors in his book: The Modern Bible Version Hall of Shame

In his haste to belittle Wescott and Hort, he has provided NO proper citation. Not even a footnote. I contacted him regarding the statements he made and his proof for such statements. He admitted that he had taken the information from other KJVO's. He made no effort to research the accuracy of the statements. He also told me that there was no internet when he wrote the book. Fair enough. EXCEPT if you are going to use others for source materials, you are obligated to research it.

Next, I provided him with actual proof, that those statements were in error. He knows he was wrong, but there has been no retraction of his words.

Bearing false witness is sinful. Not correcting his writings is sinful.

Yes, he's often a Cloud without rain. His most-correct work is his denunciation of Gail Riplinger.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Most of the text snipped for brevity.

The fact that one has attained and/or achieved top academic success, means not one whit if his conclusion aren't correct.

Peter Ruckman had a legitimate doctorate degree, and he was profoundly wrong, abusive, foul mouthed and wicked.

Martin Luther shows the folly of such bragging.

“If your papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word sola (alone), say this to him: "Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and he says that a papist and a donkey are the same thing." …For we are not going to be students and disciples of the papists. Rather, we will become their teachers and judges. For once, we also are going to be proud and brag, with these blockheads; and just as Paul brags against his mad raving saints, I will brag against these donkeys of mine! Are they doctors? So am I. Are they scholars? So am I. Are they preachers? So am I. Are they theologians? So am I. Are they debaters? So am I. Are they philosophers? So am I. Are they logicians? So am I. Do they lecture? So do I. Do they write books? So do I.”

“I will go even further with my boasting: I can expound the psalms and the prophets, and they cannot. I can translate, and they cannot. I can read the Holy Scriptures, and they cannot. I can pray, they cannot. Coming down to their level, “I can use their rhetoric and philosophy better than all of them put together. Plus I know that not one of them understands his Aristotle. If any one of them can correctly understand one preface or chapter of Aristotle, I will eat my hat! No, I am not overdoing it, for I have been schooled in and have practiced their science from my youth. I recognize how deep and broad it is. They, too, are well aware that I can do everything they can do. Yet they treat me as a stranger in their discipline, these incurable fellows, as if I had just arrived this morning and had never seen or heard what they teach and know. How they do brilliantly parade around with their science, teaching me what I outgrew twenty years ago! To all their noise and shouting I sing, with the harlot, "I have known for seven years that horseshoe nails are iron.”

Quote from Beggars All.

The only reason I made that statement is because everytime I post about this Dr Cassidy always refers to some scholar and touts his degrees and experience in language. Personally I would rather see and read the actual grammatical arguments relating to the issue rather than having to accept "Dr so and so says it this" and "Dr so and so dealt with this in his book".

One book was already mentioned here and I looked at it and couldn't find any place where Psalm 12 is actually discussed.

 

[HankD]

The only reason I made that statement is because everytime I post about this Dr Cassidy always refers to some scholar and touts his degrees and experience in language. Personally I would rather see and read the actual grammatical arguments relating to the issue rather than having to accept "Dr so and so says it this" and "Dr so and so dealt with this in his book".

One book was already mentioned here and I looked at it and couldn't find any place where Psalm 12 is actually discussed.

I believe it was John of Japan who made a very good point - these scholars with all these degrees - most of them made great sacrifices of time and resource to achieve these degrees - we should consider that IMO.

I don't read too many commentaries anymore (apart from preparing Sunday School material) but those authors with linguistics studies are the ones which appeal to me the most knowing the cost in terms of study time to learn a language.

HankD

 

[TCassidy]

The only reason I made that statement is because everytime I post about this Dr Cassidy always refers to some scholar

Where did I do that?

touts his degrees

Where did I do that?

experience in language

That is the whole point! An exegesis of the Hebrew proves the KJVO position is wrong and violates the rules of Hebrew grammar.

I would rather see and read the actual grammatical arguments relating to the issue

That's what I posted.

 

[TCassidy]

One book was already mentioned here and I looked at it and couldn't find any place where Psalm 12 is actually discussed.

You should have actually clicked on the URL I gave you and you might not have made such a grievous and public error.

King James Onlyism: A New Sect
By
James D. Price

Chapter: Dealing with Uncertainty, Page 417

Psalm 12:6-7
“The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” Advocates of the King James Only view or of the Textus Receptus theory misinterpret this verse to mean that the autographic text of the Bible will be providentially preserved throughout all generations.33

Most fundamental scholars do not deny the providential preservation of the Biblical text, but they disagree with their Christian brothers on how the text has been preserved. They also disagree, on grammatical grounds, that this passage teachesthis truth. The word translated “words” is the Hebrew word  , which is the plural form of the feminine noun , meaning “word or saying,” often referring to God’s Word.34 It occurs 36 times in the Bible, being translated in the KJV as “speech” seven times,35 the “word” [of God or the Lord] 28 times,36 and “commandment” once.37

The grammatical problem in this text is that the Hebrew pronouns translated “them” in verse 7 are masculine plural, not feminine plural as required by Hebrew grammar if the antecedent of the pronouns is the feminine plural tArm'a ] “words.” Thus, grammarians conclude that the antecedent of these pronouns must be the “poor” and the “needy” of verse 5, both of which are masculine plural and qualify as antecedents of the pronouns, both grammatically and contextually. The theme of the psalm is the providential preservation of the poor and needy among the godly remnant of Israel in a time of extreme oppression. The psalmist mentions the tested purity of God’s word as the basis for his confidence that the Lord will preserve the poor and needy, now and throughout future generations, as in Psalm 37:28.

Thomas M. Strouse, Dean of Emmanuel Baptist Seminary, Newington, Connecticut, and an advocate of the Textus Receptus theory . . .

And on and on through page 419.

http://www.jamesdprice.com/images/33_King_James_Onlyism.pdf

 

[robycop3]

The only reason I made that statement is because everytime I post about this Dr Cassidy always refers to some scholar and touts his degrees and experience in language. Personally I would rather see and read the actual grammatical arguments relating to the issue rather than having to accept "Dr so and so says it this" and "Dr so and so dealt with this in his book".

One book was already mentioned here and I looked at it and couldn't find any place where Psalm 12 is actually discussed.

KJVOs use those Psalm verses as "proof texts" for the KJVO myth because that argument appears in the "foundation book" of the current KJVO myth, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated (1930) by Dr. Ben Wilkinson, a 7TH DAY ADVENTIST teacher/official. Almost all contemporary KJVO literature still draws intel from that book.

However, those verses don't refer to the KJV by any stretch of the imagination, so that argument is wrong.

 

[Tim71]

Hi Tim,

I am a former KJVO but now KJVP (preferred).

Even at that I need to say that I am TRP (Textus Receptus Preferred) - Scrivener 1894 who made a distillation of the several contemporary TR's of the KJV translators to stand behind the beautiful Elizabethan-Jacobean English used by the KJV translators.

A TR that is probably 99% equivalent of the Byzantine considering the volume of words.

There is nothing wrong with the KJB, the preferred bible of the English speaking world for about 250 years.

But Tim you have to live with the provable fact that the KJV translators did not have the power of prophet/apostle inspiration at any level as Peter Ruckman suggested.

As you continue to educate yourself in the history of the bible you will see that God has indeed preserved His word.
Scribal errors are not God's fault and almost everyone of them is repairable and is shown in the provided apparatus.

A few you will need to pray and study the facts : e.g. 1 john 5:7 and decide for yourself.

Just being honest Tim.

God bless you in your endeavor :

NIV 2 Timothy 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

HankD

Thank you so much Hank for the kind and encouraging words.