Psalms 12:6-7

neopallium said:

In any interpretation of the Bible, I find it prudent to use scripture to examine scripture.

I agree. But you have done this in an illegitimate fashion, by avoiding the immediate context almost entirely, atomizing Psalm 12 and allowing other contexts to interpret its individual verses.

A psalm is a work of poetry. Unlike most of the rest of the Bible, a chapter from Psalms is its own context.

There are many types of psalms. Each has its own typical form and features. Specifically, Psa. 12 is a lament. This means it has a few features that are common to all such psalms, specifically, sections of:

</font>

• Address: Who is it addressed to? God, of course (Psa. 12:1): "Help, Lord."</font>
• Complaint: The psalmist spells out what's on his mind, in this case, that the wicked are acting treacherously against the righteous:
  
  </font>
• Trust: If God were not trustworthy, the psalmist would not cry out to him for help. This part expresses what the psalmist wants God to do:
  
  </font>
• Deliverance: A call to God to deliver the complainant comes next:
  
  </font>
• Next comes the assurance that God will deliver:
  
  </font>
• Typically a lament psalm also has an element of praise, but in this case it is more implicit than explicit. (See Psa. 3:8 for a more typical example.) In this case, the psalm closes at verse 8 with a repeat of the complaint:
  
  </font>

(The above structure was borrowed from Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, 3rd ed. [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003] pp. 215-18. I don't agree with everything in this book, but I do recommend it to anyone interested in good hermeneutical practice that takes seriously the literary genre of the various parts of the Bible.)

Not every psalm fits the typical mold perfectly, but when you say that vv. 6-7 breaks out of the mold completely and changes the subject, based on proof-texts not having anything to do with the psalm, you simply do violence to the psalmists intent. Such poor hermeneutics are beneath the people of God and show no respect for his Word.

 

Amen, Brother Ransom -- Preach it!

 

Robycop3, it is amazing how the KJVo will say the KJV is from the TR and is 100% accurate, then turn around and say the NKJV, which truly WAS translated from the TR (unlike the real KJV, which had everything including the Vulgate) is not accepted as a good translation.

I have heard the one complaint about "servant", and besides that the only other complaint was the footnotes. Obviously, these KJVo's have not read the footnotes in the original 1611 KJV.

 

G2G, I happen to agree with you concerning Psalm 12:6-7.

I call you to task however with the statement above because it is KJVO folks who have come here to the BB with this typical shrieking and shouting tantrum telling us that the Bibles which we read, memorize and worship with are "satanic counterfeits".

So, it shouldn't surprise you when you are treated with the lex talionis of "an eye for an eye"

For months we heard the following mantra "things which are different are not the same" unless of course it is the hundreds of differences between the "editions" of the King James Bible (Not that it ever really mattered to us but the KJVO coined the mantra and rehearsed it in our ears, so again, eye-for-eye).

All the while many of us were totally dedicated to the Word of God (some prefering the KJV above all others).

Granted (for the sake of the discussion) the differences between the KJV editions and the KJV/MVs are of lesser quantity and quality, however that then means that although God is not capable of making big mistakes He can make little ones (but not that many).

HankD

 

(broken record)

I have answered, repeatedly. The KJV is the perfect word, as is the Geneva, as is the NASB, as are many many many others. The perfect word is not defined by patterns of ink on the paper, but by the correct interpretation one can arrive at from those patterns of ink on the paper.

In your view, if ONLY the KJV is perfect word, then it denies that God's perfect word existed prior to 1611. Ya, you say the KJV is in "our mother tongue" or whatever, but so are the other Bibles. The KJV translators already had the word of God in their mother tongue, yet they produced the KJV anyway.

 

They don't want to hear the truth, natters. It's hard for them to think outside the circular reasoning!

 

Got a copy of the NKJV ??? Go get it and read the ENTIRE preface. Now if you know ANYTHING about textual criticism, which most of you don't, you will see something about a guy named Kittel and a Hebrew text OTHER than the Masoretic text. The historic ben Chayyim Rabbinic Bible, used by the KJV, was altered in 1937 by liberal German theologian Rudolf Kittel, using Leningrad Ms B 19a (ben Asher text). His family’s conviction for their involvement in the death of millions of Jews during Hitler’s holocaust makes his alterations to the Old Testament highly suspect. The NKJV’s use of recent discoveries like the Septuagint, Vulgate, and Dead Sea cave manuscripts (see NKJV preface) contradicts the bible’s doctrine of preservation (Ps. 12:6-7) “to a thousand generations” (Ps. 105:8). Did God skip the generations from the fourth century to the nineteenth century? READ THIS LINK!!!! DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT!!!!

Who is Kittel

 

Oh, puh-leaeese!

 

Blah blah blah. Do you know anything about Erasmus' view on the Jews? Does his highly negative view negate the TR?

 

[attack snipped] Read the link. What are you afraid of ???

[ February 09, 2005, 12:10 AM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]

 

Why do you even ask that question???? Because I don't pat you on the back and say "Amen brother" every time you post?

Wasting my time with yet another dozen KJV-only double standards and twisted half-truths.

 

Regardless of what view you have in this debate, you have crossed the line with this comment. You have shown that you are ignorant of what it takes to be genuinely saved. You have clearly shown another false view that of only those who subscribe to KJVO are saved.

You need to apologize to the brothers you have offend and slandered. If you choose not to then you reveal the condition of your own heart.

Bro Tony

 

Oh, I don't mind. At least he asked, rather than just provided the answer for me.

 

Strange,
Both your profiles say your "in transition" concerning a church. Your replies do not surprize me at all. By the posting rules, neither of you should even post(Not that I care)How about some proof on your claims on Erasmus?? I'm not afraid!

Pr 18:13 ¶ He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

Tony,
I slandered nobody, I simply asked a question.

 

G2G,

You know the implication of your question. You are far to intelligent to play the dumb card now. Why don't you just step up to the plate and apologize---it would do what your handle implies--bring glory to God.

I assume the transition statement has nothing to do with me.

Bro Tony

 

Tony,
Being you are a pastor, I find it hard to believe that you should think I should assume someone is saved just because they're on a "Christian" posting board. I was always taught to assume everyone was lost until I see fruit or hear a testimony. These folks are not members of any church according to their own testimony. That arouses suspicion. I ask out of genuine concern,
not because I want to harass. [attack snipped] Why this dosen't concern a Pastor is beyond all understanding. [attack on the Word of God snipped] If you are truley a man of God you should be in perfect agreement with me. The Pope is an abomination to the Lord, and I will expose him and all that support them for what they are. Did you read the link? God DOES get the glory when I earnestly contend for the faith!!

[ February 09, 2005, 12:22 AM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]