Hi Brandplucked,
About Psalm 12:6-7 you said:
Quote:
|
I believe that this verse, like many other Scriptures, has a double fulfillment. I can only be seen in the second way after it has happened, not before. How many prophecies of Christ Himself were not understood until after they had happened? Many if not most of them.
|
As I've told you before, "double meaning"/"double fulfillment" is a slippery slope. Yes, many prophecies of Christ himself were not understood until after they happened,
but all had their secondary fulfillment clearly and authoritatively identified and explained by other scripture. That is
vitally important, and is the distinction between what is orthodox and doctrinal, and what is pure speculation and based on bias and assumption. If scripture doesn't clearly identify the secondary fulfillment,
any passage can be claimed to have a secondary meaning to support
anyone's pet theories. In fact, this practice is almost single-handedly the reason behind most cultic movements and organizations - they see secondary fulfillment in whatever passages they want, and can claim it's "scriptural" because they can list Bible references after their claims, and nobody can technically disprove them.
This is not to say there are still unrevealed secondary fulfillments, but
they must be revealed by authority. Once Christ returns, I'm sure he'll reveal (authoritatively) all sorts of secondary meanings we do not see at this time. But until then,
we cannot claim secondary fulfillments that scripture doesn't clearly identify. We can guess and speculate and opine, but it's all fallible, unauthoritative and unverifiable. It can be fun and interesting to think about and discuss the possibilities, but at the end of the day the best we can do is shrug and say "maybe". We certainly cannot claim them authoritatively, let alone oppose others for not doing so.
About me calling Tyndale's translation "the word of God", you said:
Quote:
It is statements like this that make me wonder what kind of strange logic you are using to try to sound 'orthodox' or even insightful. I have a lot more I could post about Tyndale's version, but here are just a couple examples.
...
How do you reason your way through this kind of logic?
|
I am simply in agreement with the KJV translators on this issue. If you consider them unorthodox, illogical, and having a few screws loose in the ol' brain pan, that's your business.
God bless,
Brian