-
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!
Psalm 12:7
- Thread starter Keith M
- Start date
- Status
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Askjo said:
Because there is no correlation between my views on the text issue and my interpretation of this passage.
I am not sure about this question whether my theology is naturalistic or Alexandrian - I try to make sure my theology is Biblical.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hope of Glory
New Member
C4K said:
LOL! Or we could just accuse the other person of having a theology that is unbiblical. It's much easier than comparing scripture to scripture!:laugh:
Whatever happened to disagreeing, comparing scripture to scripture, still disagreeing and getting along? Today, the only arseanal to defend a position seems to be descending into name-calling, abusive language, denigration, and vituperation.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Hope of Glory said:
Nope, you misread me. Biblical as opposed to naturalisitic or Alexndrian theologies that Askjo mentioned. Nothing implied about Askjo or his theology.
Keith M said:
Rufus_1611 said:
When history changes so that Psalm 12 was written in English. The Psalm in quetion was not written in English, Rufus, so the rules of grammar for the original language apply rather than the rules of English.
Keith M said:
Rufus_1611 said:
No, it is not an error to trust the word of God, Rufus. That is an absurd question, to say the least! You're putting words in my mouth, because that is not at all what I said. Or do you really have that much of a comprehension problem? It IS wrong to trust your own private interpretation of the receptor language over what was written in the original language. It's quite obvious from your comments you don't think the original Hebrew is the word of God because you don't believe the original is right - you errantly believe your private interpretation of the English is correct while denying what was written in the original language.
Keith M said:
Rufus_1611 said:
That, Rufus, is an absolutely and intentionally false statement if I have ever heard one. The Psalm WAS NOT written in English, and you know it. How can you post such an absoluty false comment? The Psalm was written in Hebrew, not English. The Psalm was merely translated into English, Rufus. And your interpretation of the English is errant.
Keith M said:
Rufus_1611 said:
Rufus, you falsely accuse me of placing the value of marginal notes over the value of Scripture. That is not true at all - it's another case of you falsely and deliberately misrepresenting what I said. Marginal notes give us insight into what the translators of any Bible version were thinking, and they should never be placed as equal to or above Scripture. But the marginal notes the translators of the 1611 KJV wrote for Ps. 12:7 indicate they recognized how the Psalm was written in Hebrew and they were trying to avoid the confusion you and a few others show over the English wording of the verse.. You and those who agree with your misunderstanding of this verse place your own errant interpretation of the English of this verse of Scripture over what the original Hebrew said - that God would preserve people, not words.
Keith M said:
Rufus_1611 said:
Oh, I trust the English Bible is true, Rufus. What I do not trust is your belief that your own errant interpretation of Scripture corrects the original Hebrew. For it to be true, the English must accurately reflect what was originally written in Hebrew, and your interpretation definitely does NOT reflect what the Psalmist wrote. I trust God and the inspired writers of Scripture over the errant interpretation of someone in today's world, Rufus. Your errant interpretation is in direct conflict with what God inspired and what David wrote. You claim this Psalm is pretty simple to comprehend, yet you fail to comprehend it. Apparently it isn't that simple to comprehend, at least for you!
Speaking of the English Bible, Rufus, take a look at this:
And this:
(The letter M was added above in two places - "them" and "from")
And this:
And this:
The above Bible versions are available online at http://www.studylight.org the StudyLight web site. I am e-mailing the site administrator to let him know the letter M is missing in two words of the verse. This error will likely be corrected before some of you read this post.
All these English Bible versions have it correct, Rufus. The translators of these various versions recognized the grammatical rules of the original Hebrew and that Ps. 12:7 refers to people. Yet you deny this and accept your own private and errant interpretation of the English of the poorly-worded KJVs over these. Are you then saying these English Bible versions are wrong and that thay are not the word of God?
Face it, Rufus, you're wrong!
:tonofbricks: :sleeping_2: :laugh:
Some people just won't comprehend the fact that no matter how many feathers they glue onto a hippo, it just won't fly. There's no way they're gonna make Ps. 12:7 be about words no matter how they try.
it's evident that generations of professional translators, people who know/knew more about the Hebrew than any amateur exegetes do/did, are nearly unanimous in the opinion that this Psalm is about PEOPLE. I believe they were better-informed than those who wrote the commentaries that have been referenced here.
And I still believe that if Dr. Wilkinson hadn't brought this up in his book, we wouldn't be discussing it here today. But he DID bring it up; it was copied by subsequent KJVO authors, & picked up by some who actually believed the fishing stories those authors wrote. Now, they're stuck with trying to justify something they cannot even begin to prove correct.
it's evident that generations of professional translators, people who know/knew more about the Hebrew than any amateur exegetes do/did, are nearly unanimous in the opinion that this Psalm is about PEOPLE. I believe they were better-informed than those who wrote the commentaries that have been referenced here.
And I still believe that if Dr. Wilkinson hadn't brought this up in his book, we wouldn't be discussing it here today. But he DID bring it up; it was copied by subsequent KJVO authors, & picked up by some who actually believed the fishing stories those authors wrote. Now, they're stuck with trying to justify something they cannot even begin to prove correct.
Last edited by a moderator:
Before this thread gets shut down here is my opinion FWIW:
First I am NOT an Onlyist.
But I believe 6-7 refers to words but words of an even earlier antcedent than those which have been mentioned, although one person alluded to it
and that antecedent by way of contrast not by similarity
The antecedent IMO is implied in Psalm 12 2-4
First I am NOT an Onlyist.
But I believe 6-7 refers to words but words of an even earlier antcedent than those which have been mentioned, although one person alluded to it
and that antecedent by way of contrast not by similarity
The antecedent IMO is implied in Psalm 12 2-4
2 They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak.
3 The LORD shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things:
4 Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us?
3 The LORD shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things:
4 Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us?
What is implied is/are in verses 2-4 and these are the words of the wicked which are to be cut off and destroyed. In contrast the words of God are pure (not proud or flattering or out of a double heart) and are going to be preserved forever.
In the final anaysis it really doesn't matter.
NKJV Psalm 135:6 Whatever the LORD pleases He does, In heaven and in earth, In the seas and in all deep places.
KJV Psalm 115:3 But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.
HankD
HankD
Last edited:
tinytim said:
Seems you may be right, Tim. Here we see a good example of what is foretold in 2 Timothy.
Obviously, there are those on this board who "will not endure sound doctrine." That is made abundantly clear by those who refuse to accept truth and prefer to accept their own erroneous interpretations of Scripture.
Roger, you or one of the other moderators are welcome to close this thread. We have gone as far as we can go in presenting the truth to those who "will not endure sound doctrine." It is now between them and the Lord if they wish to accept truth or if they wish to continue on in their error after having been shown the truth repeatedly.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Keith M said:
An I would daresay that the "words" side could well say the exact same thing from their perspective.
Next time we have this debate can we just do the , "words, people, words, people, words, people" thing?
C4K said:
Why is this even an important issue to the KJVO crowd?
I happen to think it's "people", but let's assume for the sake of argument that it's "words". Okay, so God preserved His words. Where are they preserved? In spirit and truth? In the ears of the people who first heard them? In the original manuscripts? In copies of the original manuscripts? In a translation? In several translations? Which translation(s)?
That's funny, the Psalm doesn't say. It simply says "words".
So even if the Psalm meant "words", one cannot possibly make a case for it meaning the "words" in the KJV. The Psalm doesn't say "KJV" it says "words".
Actually, it says "people".
franklinmonroe
Active Member
I wish I'd said something like that... Oh! I did (back in post #5)!npetreley said:
Hope of Glory
New Member
C4K said:
You misread me. I was commenting on Askjo's tactic of asking you the question.
Salamander
New Member
Funny how you guys cannot understand basic Hebrew anomalies, but then prejudice has its way of preventing one from understanding.
"If" it is as you have poorly attempted to prove anything concerning verse 7, how is it you repeatedly accuse the Lord of His "failing" to keep the poor from oppression and still believe what you do?
Try some plain old common sense sometime.
"If" it is as you have poorly attempted to prove anything concerning verse 7, how is it you repeatedly accuse the Lord of His "failing" to keep the poor from oppression and still believe what you do?
Try some plain old common sense sometime.
- Status