Psalm 12:7

[Askjo]

STROUSE SAYS PSALM 12:7 TEACHES PRESERVATION OF SCRIPTURE
-- Click here:

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/strouse-psalm127.html

 

[tinytim]

Amen! I second that. Preach it, Rufus!

He can preach it all he wants.. it doesn't make it true though....
Why encourage false preaching?

Hmmm?

 

[TCGreek]

The gender matching idea is interesting. How does it match (or not match) in the Septuagint? I think it might be interesting how the Septuagint translators viewed this.

This is answering your question on the Septuagint:

1. συ κυριε φυλαξεις ημας και διατηρησεις ημας απο της γενεας ταυτης και εις τον αιωνα (Ps. 11:8 in LXX).

2. You, O Lord, will guard us and keep us from this generation, indeed forever (TCG).

3. "You, O Lord, will protect us; you will guard us from this generation forever" (NRSV).

4. "You, Lord, will protect them; you will continually shelter each one from these evil people," (NET).

This verse is not a prooftext for written preservation. There are solid grammatical and contextual reasons for the translations above.

 

[Askjo]

He can preach it all he wants.. it doesn't make it true though....
Why encourage false preaching?

Hmmm?

False???? Well, if you believe in the preservation of the Holy Scriptures that refers to Psalm 12:7, you must reject Brian Tegart's comment against God's Words and favoring "people" on this passage. On other hand, if you believe in the preservation of the Holy Scriptures that refers to Psalm 12:7, you agree with Brian's comment then you obviously contradict yourself between your belief and his favor of "people" instead of "words" on this passage.

 

[TCGreek]

A recent issue of the Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary Journal contained an article on “The Preservation of Scripture” by Academic Dean William Combs. While gently rejecting the view of some fundamental Baptists, such as Edward Glenny* (former professor at Central Baptist Seminary), who say the Bible nowhere promises the preservation of Scripture, Combs himself doesn’t go much farther, claiming that the Bible does not tell us in what manner or how purely the Scriptures will be preserved. It is apparent that the man has spent far too much time reading the unbelieving works of modern textual critics, such as Bruce Metzger. If a child of God follows Combs’ advice about the Bible, he would be forced to master many ancient languages as well as the “science” of textual criticism in order to sift through the entire documentary evidence in an attempt to somehow reconstruct the “original autographs.” This is a task that 99.9% of born against Christians are not equipped to do, even assuming that modern textual criticism is a true and exact and believing science (which it is not). As Combs examines various Bible passages that have traditionally been used to support the doctrine of preservation, he sees only a vague, ill-defined promise that is almost meaningless in practice. When he comes to Psalm 12:6,7, Combs takes the position which has become popular in recent years that this Psalm does not promise pure preservation of God’s canonical words.

1. I wonder if this issue is not over a particular translation of Psalm 12:6, 7.

2. I believe in the preservation of God's Word, both the Old and New Testament in toto. But I am not going to build that doctrine on Psalm 12:6, 7, if it is not clear.

3. It is an either/or fallacy to suggest that if one doesn't accept a particular translation of Psalm 12:7, that he doesn't believe in the preservation of God's Word.

4. Precisely because scholarship is what it is, other possibilities must be taken into consideration, if there are available data to investigate.

5. God has not called all Christians to be experts in the biblical languages or the ANE languages. However, God has equipped some Christians for that particular purpose.

6. In every age, every translation of the Scripture has always utilized some form of textual criticism. Should we just discard MSS discoveries because of some a priori position? Certainly not!

7. Rationalism has failed as an definitive epistemology. Empiricism has failed as a definitive epistemology. But God's Special Revelation of what true knowledge is, has never failed us. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever" (Isaiah 40:8, NASB).

8. We have the written Word of God preserved for us. God has providentially preserved it through the efforts of men and women who have given their lives to its preservation.

 

[npetreley]

This is answering your question on the Septuagint:

1. συ κυριε φυλαξεις ημας και διατηρησεις ημας απο της γενεας ταυτης και εις τον αιωνα (Ps. 11:8 in LXX).

2. You, O Lord, will guard us and keep us from this generation, indeed forever (TCG).

3. "You, O Lord, will protect us; you will guard us from this generation forever" (NRSV).

4. "You, Lord, will protect them; you will continually shelter each one from these evil people," (NET).

This verse is not a prooftext for written preservation. There are solid grammatical and contextual reasons for the translations above.

Wow, thank you very much. Well, I guess we know how the Septuagint translators viewed this.

 

[Keith M]

I read it and I gave us much credence to it as I do most of the information on that site.

So then are you admitting you don't give credence to information, Rufus? Okay, that's quite obvious when you continue to spread your misinformation despite what the facts prove.

We're agreed then. If we're English speaking people, reading from the English Holy Bible, we'll conclude that it means what it says.

The English Bible means what it says only when it is a correct translation or interpretation of what was originally written. When the English causes confusion as it has for you, then it cannot be taken at face value or at what you interpret as face value and one must return to what was meant by the inspired writer. If you believe Psalm 12:7 refers to the preservation of God's word in English then yhou believe your interpretation of the English is correct while the original Hebrew is wrong. Or do you believe the Holy Spirit was confused and inspired a different meaning in English than what was originally meant in Hebrew?

I guess it comes down to whether or not you believe God was involved in the English Bible and whether or not the English Bible is Holy. If He was involved and it is Holy, I'm gonna believe that He knew to use English rules for His English Bible (He's smart like that and they're His rules). If it is unholy and corrupt the way that you are suggesting it is, then I'm going to go learn Hebrew.

Rufus, that is a false accusation and you know it. I did not say nor did I suggest in any way that the Holy Bible is unholy or corrupt. Those are words you put in my mouth, and that is very dishonest of you. Of course God was involved in the translation of the Bible into English. However, man was also involved, and because man was involved there have been errors along the way. The translators of the original KJV even placed a footnote for verse 7 indicating the true antecedent of the verse to try to avoid the confusion you show.

It would allegedly show a great deal of ignorance about Hebrew grammar which is not a source of pride for me. However, I do like to believe I understand English and in English the Holy Bible says what it says and means what it says. The passage is about "the Words of the LORD". The only way to get people to think otherwise, is to get them to deny that there is a Bible in the English language and we must go to the Hebrew.

That is an absurd opinion, Rufus. By this statement you show that you believe the English as you interpret it actually corrects the Hebrew of the original. So are you suggesting God was confused when He inspired David to write that the people would be preserved? And are you further suggesting that God corrected His error when the passage was tanslated into English? That borders on heresy, Rufus.

I don't recall indicating that I was confused. I believe the passage to be quite clear and easy to understand. I read, speak, write, understand and believe that God gave me His word in my language. Sounds like you're confused as to whether or not you are English or Hebrew.

No, Rufus, you didn't actually say you are confused, but you don't need to verbalize your confusion when you so ably demonstrate your confusion. And you demonstrate your confuion extremely well, Rufus! I am not "confused as to whether I am English or Hebrew" as you quite absurdly suggest, Rufus. But you are obviously confused whether God inspired the writer of the Psalm or whether He inspired the translators of the Psalm to correct what was originally written. Since the English meaning you suggest contradicts the Hebrew meaning that was inspired by God through the Holy Spirit, I'll stick with the original over your errant interpretation of the translation any day!

You share my "opinion" in English. You are opposed to it in your understanding of Hebrew.

No, Rufus, that is another false accusation. You really are confused, aren't you??? I share, along with countless others, the belief that God knew what He was inspiring David to write. I believe in this case that your interpretation of the English is errant because it stands in conflict with what was originally written in Hebrew.

The B-I-B-L-E Yes that's the book for me. I stand alone on the word of God, the B-I-B-L-E (in English).
Cool, me too.

Then you are saying, in this case, your interpretaion of the English is right while the original Hebrew is wrong. That is absolutely absurd, Rufus!

What a bizarre accusation. I did not mention KJVO once, I countered your contention that Hebrew grammatical rules should make us question our Bible and cause us to think that it means something other than what it says. If you desire that I not participate, I'll gladly find another sandbox.

You must have a guilty conscience, Rufus. I did not suggest you were trying to make this into a KJVO thread. I merely asked that folks not turn it into what was not intended. This is another fine example of how you try to put words in the mouths of others, Rufus. And, really, you're not very good at it, are you?

 

[Keith M]

STROUSE SAYS PSALM 12:7 TEACHES PRESERVATION OF SCRIPTURE

Then Strouse is wrong. In the Hebrew preservation can refer onlyto the antecedent people, as has been ably and correctly shown. it all boils down to whether you believe the writer of the Psalm was inspired by the Holy Spirit or whether you believe the interpretation of men based on the grammatical rules of the receptor language. My bet is on original inspiration by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Keith M]

Sorry, double post.

 

[Keith M]

False???? Well, if you believe in the preservation of the Holy Scriptures that refers to Psalm 12:7, you must reject Brian Tegart's comment against God's Words and favoring "people" on this passage. On other hand, if you believe in the preservation of the Holy Scriptures that refers to Psalm 12:7, you agree with Brian's comment then you obviously contradict yourself between your belief and his favor of "people" instead of "words" on this passage.

Askjo, you're wrong about that. The falsehood is in the belief that preservation in Psalm 12:7 refers to God's word instead of to people. It has been demonstrated that peservation in Psalm 12:7 cannot possibly refer to God's word, but that due to Hebrew grammatical rules it refers only to people. For you to believe otherwise is to stand firmly on error while denying the truth. I DO believe in the peservation of Scripture - i just don't believe the fable that Psalm 12:7 refers to the preservation of God's word. it's really quite simple when you consider the evidence of Hebrew against the erroneous interpretation of a mere English translation of God's word. Askjo, in believing this error, you accept the impossible as truth while denying the real truth. There is no contradiction in believing in the preservation of Scripture and seeing that preservation in Psalm 12:7 cannot possibly refer to God's word as you falsely suggest.

 

[robycop3]

I find it quite amusing that some people argue that Psalm 12:7 is a 'preservation' verse when NNE HERE is arguing AGAINST God's preservation of His word-and in the face of several other verses that clearly, unmistakably say God has preserved His word. reminds me of Ben Franklin's flying a kite during a storm to prove the existence of wind.

The reason this argument exists at all is because this error appears in Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson's book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, and that "J. J. Ray", Dr. D. O. Fuller, and others copied this error from that book into their own boox which became the daddies of a whole new man-made doctrine.

Did the AV translators believe Ps. 12:7 was a word-preservation verse? Not hardly. They places this marginal note for the 2nd them in the verse in the AV: "Heb.him, I. euery one of them". Had later editors left this note(and the other marginal notes) in later editions of the KJV, this argument would never have begun.

Here's a FACT I've repeated umpteen times, which no one seemsta notice: Even IF ps. 12:7 were a word-preservation verse, there's not one quark of evidence pointing to such preservation only in one specific version in one specific language. I haven't seen ONE advocate of a certain doctrine EVER address this FACT.

I didn't really wanna wade into this silly argument again, but some people just won't leave it buried. It simply ISN'T TRUE, and even if it was true, it wouldn't help their cause one iota. Silliness like that is just part of why we Freedom Readers know that cause is absurd.

 

[npetreley]

Here's a FACT I've repeated umpteen times, which no one seemsta notice: Even IF ps. 12:7 were a word-preservation verse, there's not one quark of evidence pointing to such preservation only in one specific version in one specific language. I haven't seen ONE advocate of a certain doctrine EVER address this FACT.

That is kind of funny when you think about it. Here's the "preservation" verse, yet somehow it only got preserved in one Bible version in one language.

 

[TCassidy]

Wow, thank you very much. Well, I guess we know how the Septuagint translators viewed this.

We also know how the KJV translators viewed this. The real AV of 1611 makes that abundantly clear. They put a note in the margin next to verse 7 where it says "keepe them," saying "Heb. Him. i. euery one of them" referring back to the poor and needy of verse 5. They make it perfectly clear that the "them" of verse 7 is masculine and refers to the masculine antecedents found in verse 5, and according to the Hebrew rule of "the remoter antecedent" ultimately to the masculine "children of men" in verse 1.

 

[Keith M]

It's sad marginal notes were left out of many of the later revisions of the KJV. If marginal notes had been left intact many of today's controversies could have been avoided.

 

[robycop3]

We also know how the KJV translators viewed this. The real AV of 1611 makes that abundantly clear. They put a note in the margin next to verse 7 where it says "keepe them," saying "Heb. Him. i. euery one of them" referring back to the poor and needy of verse 5. They make it perfectly clear that the "them" of verse 7 is masculine and refers to the masculine antecedents found in verse 5, and according to the Hebrew rule of "the remoter antecedent" ultimately to the masculine "children of men" in verse 1.

It appears that most other translators, older and later, believed this also, according to THEIR renderings of V7. Just guessing, of course, but I'll say the AV men subbed 'them' for 'him' because they knew the reference was to PLURAL people & not singular 'him'.

But I'm still amused by the effort some folks make to attempt to turn this into a 'word preservation' verse when there are so many others which plainly state such preservation without controversy. Thus, I believe they're trying to prove Wilkinson's book right than they are anything else.

 

[Salamander]

It appears that most other translators, older and later, believed this also, according to THEIR renderings of V7. Just guessing, of course, but I'll say the AV men subbed 'them' for 'him' because they knew the reference was to PLURAL people & not singular 'him'.

But I'm still amused by the effort some folks make to attempt to turn this into a 'word preservation' verse when there are so many others which plainly state such preservation without controversy. Thus, I believe they're trying to prove Wilkinson's book right than they are anything else.

No, you're playing the decoy games. If you want to believe God only preserves some of the poor and needy from the oppressors then you make God a respector of persons. But if you want to believe God has preserved all His written words then you would be dogmatically correct to so believe.

Why is it some will adhere to footnotes as some sort of "poof proof" when doctrine is established by the word of God through its profitability to all?

It is therefore true that God does preserve the poor and needy from the oppressors through His preserved word, which never changes, but then we do have the problem, men try to change God's word to fit their understandings all the while it is God trying to get men to change to His understanding.

Argue all your semantics all you want, :BangHead: but the doctrinal truth is that God has preserved His word, while the poor and needy are not preserved from all differing aspects of oppression, unless they adhere to His word.:godisgood:

 

[tinytim]

You all do realize you are arguing over a song? right....

You have to apply different interpretive approaches when you are dealing with the poetry section of the Bible...

David did not write this chapter to be analyzed like you would analyze Paul's writings...

For Goodness sakes... it is Poetry!!

You have to approach it from that aspect...

 

[Rufus_1611]

You all do realize you are arguing over a song? right....

You have to apply different interpretive approaches when you are dealing with the poetry section of the Bible...

David did not write this chapter to be analyzed like you would analyze Paul's writings...

For Goodness sakes... it is Poetry!!

You have to approach it from that aspect...

The psalms are not just poetry, they include history, prophesies and promises, such as the one found in Psalm 12.

 

[tinytim]

The psalms are not just poetry, they include history, prophesies and promises, such as the one found in Psalm 12.

Yes, aren't you glad He promised to be there for the hurting! That is soooo comforting when we go through persecution... or when Satan attacks....

That is why this PSALM is so important.

God loves us.. and David wrote a song describing His protection for His own.

Sorry you just can't see this blessing...

 

[TCGreek]

Yes, aren't you glad He promised to be there for the hurting! That is soooo comforting when we go through persecution... or when Satan attacks....

That is why this PSALM is so important.

God loves us.. and David wrote a song describing His protection for His own.

Sorry you just can't see this blessing...

1. I see nothing wrong with the sweet messages of this song. I wish I could put it to music.

2. Let's face it! It is a song.

3. As is the case with the others, it too is informed by history, etc.

4. It is a a poetic song.

5. Thanks, Tim, for reminding us of the tune. I think we were off key for a bit.