[Just_A_Thought]

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish

A CBD is a "Confused Bible Denier."
I don't use it a lot, but it seems to fit when people like yourself come on here and start throwing around labels like "KJVO," back in post no. 95. One label deserves another.
And I'm sorry my friend, but you have already proven yourself to be a Bible denier, by spreading the false teaching that God's inerrant Word is not preserved on paper today in the KJV, and we do not know which manuscripts are correct. You not only deny the preservation of scripture, you are projecting your views as if they are FACT, as shown below in your own blunt statements. What else can we call you, a KJV DEFENDER? Come on now...

I'm not attacking you, and I hope you see fit to rise above your confusion, but let's be honest---you have positioned yourself on the opposite side of the very heart of this forum. That's not a good place to be, if you expect people to take you seriously.

I was not aware that being called a KJVO was an insult! I claimed that label proudly for over 15 years or more. It has no slander to the title. If I were to call you a KJV extremist or something like that I could see you being unhappy about that. I am certainly not here to name call. The name you have labeld me with is slander but I am not offended easily so I will move on.

Well, you are right I am not a KJV defender but I do promote the KJV. I believe it to be a very accurate translation. I find it rather odd that many people here find me so offensive on the issue. I read the Geneva and Tynsdale NT. Some of which the KJV was taken from. There are plenty of other Bible topics other than the KJV but here you are a heretic if you don't agree with KJVO'ism. I was not aware this was what Christianity was based on.

I have to have everyone elses views to be taken seriously? That would make for a shallow wolrd if everyone had to conform to someones beliefs. I am glad God gave us freedom of choice.

Originally Posted by Just_A_Thought

was not aware that being called a KJVO was an insult!

Well in your case it was packaged with a stereotypical wrapping and a judgmental ribbon, I don't think I was the only one to pick up on it, here are your words:

"Keep in mind that most KJVOs are hardcore individuals and mean well. There is, however, usually no way of changing thier minds or expecting a straight answer sometimes. If they have a good answer they are swift to give it. If they do not have a good answer they are gruff and sometimes very rude."

Originally Posted by Just_A_Thought

The name you have labeld me with is slander but I am not offended easily so I will move on.

But how is it slander, when you indeed deny the nature of the Bible?
You deny the KJV is the INERRANT Word of God, do you not?
You deny the Word of God is PRESERVED ON EARTH, do you not?
You deny the Word of God is EXISTS ON PAPER, do you not?
Answer me straightly, or correct me if I am wrong about your doctrine, please.
You deny the very essence of the Bible, the nature of the Bible itself, thus it seems to me you are a Bible denier, and your rhetorical questions strike me as less than sincere.

Well, you are right I am not a KJV defender but I do promote the KJV. I believe it to be a very accurate translation.

Really?
How can you say that, when everyone can see you already stated,
"we do not know which manuscripts are right."

If you have no idea which manuscripts are right, you have no idea which Bible is right. Sorry, but you nailed yourself to the wall on this, and you keep pushing it.

I was not aware this was what Christianity was based on. I have to have everyone elses views to be taken seriously? That would make for a shallow wolrd if everyone had to conform to someones beliefs. I am glad God gave us freedom of choice.

Well faith comes from hearing the Word of God, (Romans 10:17) so yes, it is very important that we identify and clarify exactly what that is. God did give us freedom of choice, but there is still only one way to Heaven and we have no other choices about that! But you wouldn't be able to agree, since you have no idea if any of the manuscripts are right, and the only Word of God is in heaven! I hope you can see my point, it's the 800 lb. gorilla sitting in the corner of your room.

[Here Am I]

"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." (John 6:63)

God's words, the Bible, are life. God uses His words to reach people, to help them to understand Him, and to give His children a better glimpse of Who He is and what He wants us to do.

BTW, the 'Word' is Jesus Christ (John 1:1). Don't confuse the 'Word' with the 'word' of God, the Bible, which contains God's 'words'.

It's a lot easier once you are born again, and become a child of God, because, at that point, God will help you to understand His word: "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." (1 John 2:27)

[Just_A_Thought]

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish

Well in your case it was packaged with a stereotypical wrapping and a judgmental ribbon, I don't think I was the only one to pick up on it, here are your words:

"Keep in mind that most KJVOs are hardcore individuals and mean well. There is, however, usually no way of changing thier minds or expecting a straight answer sometimes. If they have a good answer they are swift to give it. If they do not have a good answer they are gruff and sometimes very rude."



But how is it slander, when you indeed deny the nature of the Bible?
You deny the KJV is the INERRANT Word of God, do you not?
You deny the Word of God is PRESERVED ON EARTH, do you not?
You deny the Word of God is EXISTS ON PAPER, do you not?
Answer me straightly, or correct me if I am wrong about your doctrine, please.
You deny the very essence of the Bible, the nature of the Bible itself, thus it seems to me you are a Bible denier, and your rhetorical questions strike me as less than sincere.


Really?
How can you say that, when everyone can see you already stated,
"we do not know which manuscripts are right."

If you have no idea which manuscripts are right, you have no idea which Bible is right. Sorry, but you nailed yourself to the wall on this, and you keep pushing it.


Well faith comes from hearing the Word of God, (Romans 10:17) so yes, it is very important that we identify and clarify exactly what that is. God did give us freedom of choice, but there is still only one way to Heaven and we have no other choices about that! But you wouldn't be able to agree, since you have no idea if any of the manuscripts are right, and the only Word of God is in heaven! I hope you can see my point, it's the 800 lb. gorilla sitting in the corner of your room.

This is true in a lot of ways. I am sorry I stereo typed all KJVO's. This was my bad and I appologize. I did not mean to put it that way. I said it since the other poster was being slapped around. I still should not have stereo typed this way. It was not done on purpose. Again, I appologize.

You are correct on all three but this does not make me a Bible corrector in any way. Still even if you feel that this is correcting the Bible it is still slander. You are implying that I am correcting God and this is not the case.

I do stand up for the KJV. You have those who attack the KJV for being old and hard to understand. I find this argument poor. I do feel there are some parts that can be difficult to understand but not most of it. I also grew up with it. I may not be TRO but I am not ATO either. I use the Tynsdale NT, Geneva, KJV, and NKJV mostly. As you can see for the most part I use the TR. If I was so against it why would I use it? I wouldn't.

True...

Not true...you see, I compare scripture with scripture. I also pray the Holy Spirit will guide me. The Bible teaches salvation by grace through faith plus none minus none. This is very clear through the whole Bible.

[Just_A_Thought]

Originally Posted by Here Am I

"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." (John 6:63)

God's words, the Bible, are life. God uses His words to reach people, to help them to understand Him, and to give His children a better glimpse of Who He is and what He wants us to do.

BTW, the 'Word' is Jesus Christ (John 1:1). Don't confuse the 'Word' with the 'word' of God, the Bible, which contains God's 'words'.

It's a lot easier once you are born again, and become a child of God, because, at that point, God will help you to understand His word: "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." (1 John 2:27)

In case you are wondering if I am saved or not, I am. I accept Christ as my Saviour when I was 6 years old. I say this because of your last paragraph. I am not sure if you were implying I am not saved or if you were trying to shoot down the lie that the KJV can not be understood today. The KJV can be understood and I agree with you.

The Word is Jesus which we agree on. I can not say that I completely agree with the rest but I do follow what you are saying. The problem with KJVOs as well as any other belief or denomination is that just because many people fall under the same name. My point, my family is KJVO and thier belief is having the KJV in hand is basically like holding Jesus in thier hand. Not every KJVO believes this but some do.

God Bless!

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish
But how is it slander, when you indeed deny the nature of the Bible?
You deny the KJV is the INERRANT Word of God, do you not?
You deny the Word of God is PRESERVED ON EARTH, do you not?
You deny the Word of God EXISTS ON PAPER, do you not?
Answer me straightly, or correct me if I am wrong about your doctrine, please. You deny the very essence of the Bible, the nature of the Bible itself, thus it seems to me you are a Bible denier, and your rhetorical questions strike me as less than sincere.

Originally Posted by Just_A_Thought
You are correct on all three but this does not make me a Bible corrector in any way. Still even if you feel that this is correcting the Bible it is still slander. You are implying that I am correcting God and this is not the case.

Hmmm, no... I am suggesting you are a Bible DENIER, not corrector.
Thank you for admitting that I am correct on all three above, and be advised; the only slander being done here is YOUR slander against the Bible. I realize this is not a church, but just for perspective I can tell you at my church, any person who denies the Word of God EXISTS ON PAPER would never be allowed a position of leadership or teaching, nor would they be given a free platform to address the body with that doctrine. Yes, it's that serious. This is not a "grey area" like the Gap Theory or what have you. This is important.

No one is angry at you here, (as your poll suggests) but you started all this yourself, and sooner or later, all Bible deniers on this forum end up exposed, with their puppet strings revealed in the light of the truth. The members of this forum are serious about the Bible, and as long as you project your leaven as outlined in the denials above, you will never be taken serious on this subject of Biblical authority. Please understand, it just won't fly here. You need to pray about this and repent of your attitude about God's Word. Read through the material posted on this site and ask God's Spirit to create a change in your heart, I wish you the best as you seek His truth on this issue.

[chette777]

I don't feel like a hard core KJVO. But by faith and personal experience I believe the KJV is far more superior than any edition since 1890.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

This is brought over from the Isaiah 13:15 thread, where James Price and William Combs had attacked "joined unto them" as having no support in the "rabbinic traditions". And then we saw that Rashi, Ibn Ezra and Kimchi all supported "joined unto them" ! And that even in the alternative (mentioned by Kimchi as weak) the translation was not given as Price's modern version supposedly correct "captured" (which was unmentioned, off the radar).

Noting the positive reference to Rashi, the question was asked :

Originally Posted by solabiblia

Steven: I notice that we share a respect for the commentary of RASHI. Have you looked at his exegesis of Psalm 12? If so, what do you think of it?

Hi sola. Also the King James Bible translators show a consistent respect for the Hebraics (especially the vocabulary and grammar of the three men above). Where those men tend to be weaker is Messianic interpretation, since on some verses a type of "circling the horses" had become more sophisticated in the rabbinics after the Talmud-Midrash period. (Even there you can find lots of good discoveries in the rabbinics.) Yet on general interpretation and word understanding and usage they are to be respected and considered. (Many of the more tedious attacks on specific words in the King James Bible, e.g. by Rick Norris, are defacto refuted by the rabbinic references that Norris studiously avoids finding and mentioning.) And as Hayim Sheynin pointed out, Rashi tends to be sensible and down-to-earth in interpretation.

In a general sense, these men knew ancient Hebrew on a level way beyond the modern lexicon scholars. Like the Christian Hebraists of the 16th and 17th century, they worked deeply with the ancient Hebrew and Aramaic texts daily, and their work was highly respected by the Christian Hebraists. They had a hands-on familiarity with the Hebrew Bible, the Targum, the Talmud and Midrash, and other writings including the earlier rabbinics. (Today's lexicon scholars are mostly oblivious to all this. And they especially do not like when clear explanations from these Hebrew giants have been translated to English, readable by the ploughman, and directly contradict their dubious assertions against the pure Bible !) And when Rashi, Ibn Ezra and Kimchi agree on the meaning of a word or phrase (Messianic passages being possible exceptions) you can have some confidence that their sense is true or at least worthy of very earnest consideration. And often this will be reflected in the King James Bible, against some nouveau-modernist translation, as in Isaiah 13:15 and Jeremiah 8:8 (a truly critical verse in Bible-apologetics). We run into these verses frequently (where the KJB and usually the Geneva and other Reformation sources agree with the historic Jewish understanding against modern translation corruptions). A nice study would be to catalog a dozen or so with explanations.

Now on Psalm 12 there is a split in the Hebraics, with Ibn Ezra taking the "words" position for Psalm 12:7. (This is a clear and strong refutation of the more belligerent accusations on this verse that the "words" understanding is some sort of KJB-defender invention. Such accusations are rather common-place, showing once again the deficient level of understanding of the anti-KJB crew.) The split in the rabbinics is one of the reasons that I tend to be not overly dogmatic against the "persons" view and do not rail at it harshly.

Remember this is translation, not text, the King James Bible text is pure and accurate for either interpretation. While the "us" translations, every common today, are most especially deficient. Another corruption in many modern versions. This is one of the oft-hidden aspects of the verse, one that John Hinton brought to light most clearly.

For awhile I tended to consider the possibility of an ambiguity, a dual application. However, simply reading the verse as a whole carefully:

http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...89&postcount=8
Psalm 12 - contrast - God's word with lips of men

has make my conviction sure that the primary and clear meaning is the words of the LORD, and preservation of people "from this generation for ever" (a key phrase) would only apply to the "poor and "needy" in a secondary, midrashic sense, if at all.

Psalm 12:6-7
The words of the LORD are pure words:
as silver tried in a furnace of earth,
purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD,
thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Now Rashi gives an interesting interpretation on the two verses. He first writes very nicely about Psalm 12:6. (Psalm 12:7 in the Hebrew Bible, as they include the verse header as a verse.) The Mayer Gruber translation is clearer generally, so if I indicate nothing, that is what I am using. The major difference in the Judaica Press edition I will put as from JP. Where JP is clearer, then (Gr) can give Gruber.

The promises of the Lord are pure promises

They are so for He has the ability to fulfill them, while the promises of people are not (valid promises) for they (people) die, and they have not the ability to fulfill them.

pure

clear and fulfilled (JP: permanent) He does all that He promises; Note that He promised me (David) vindication and kingship. (JP: salvation and the throne).

silver refined (Gr - purged)

They are like refined silver that is exposed to the entire land. (JP)

Note that they (the promises of the Lord) is like purged silver, which is manifest to the whole earth. (Gr)

(JP)
exposed Heb. בעליל, an expression of revealing; in the language of the Mishna (Rosh Hashanah 21b, see Gemara): “whether it was plainly (בעליל) visible or whether it was not plainly (בעליל) visible, etc.” Others explain בעליל as an expression of elevation, and this is its explanation: silver refined with the best earth. (snip more explanations) ... Targum Jonathan, too, renders it as an expression of lordship. He says that His sayings are like silver, refined by the Lord of the earth, Who is God, for He refined and clarified them.

Clarified sevenfold.

This part is clearly excellent. Rashi is strongly emphasizing the purity of the words of God and the temporality of man's words and promises ("from this generation for ever" is a critical part of the next verse). The one omission I notice is that while Rashi talks about the "sayings" or "promises" of the Lord he does not specifically identify the Scripture as the eternal vessel and container for the words of God to man. One reason for this lack might be the confusions in rabbinics where extra-scriptural writings (e.g Talmud-Midrash and later even the rabbinics themselves) are given a very high status as of divine origin. Thus in Jewish writings there is a tendency to avoid simple statements about the full specialness and authority and inspiration of the Scripture alone.

This became a bit longer than expected, time is short (I prefer my posts to be carefully done) so I will continue the next verse on a second post.

Note, when quoting the Jewish sources, they are often not clear about the distinction between Lord and LORD, using 'Lord' for both. In this case I follow their usage of 'Lord' -- which in this verse is LORD == Jehovah.

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Now having discussed Rashi's mostly strength and some weakness on verse 6:

Psalm 12:6
The words of the LORD are pure words:
as silver tried in a furnace of earth,
purified seven times.

We go to verse 7.

Psalm 12:7
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD,
thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Working with the Mayer Gruber version, as the Judaica Press is lacking some of the text on this verse.

========

You, O Lord, Will Keep them.

Keep it in their hearts (Rashi)

Footnote: The midrash reads "Keep their Torah in their hearts"

=======

Hmmm... hold the presses !
So immediately we have fine new information, double the fun.

Rashi and the midrash (presumably Midrash on Psalms, which has not been referenced on this verse in the recent discussions) apparently both support Psalm 12:7a being about the words of the Lord. Rashi clearly so, in a straightforward manner. Midrash on Psalms needing to be checked. This is powerful information and afaik has never been noted before in the discussions.

We have some of the words from the midrash, however on verse 6. The context of the quote was different so it will be next helpful to look up the midrash, the William Braude translation would be fine, and see if we can find something akin to :

"Keep their Torah in their hearts".
(Readers: Feel free to check your local university library and report back.)

“The words of the Lord are . . . silver tried in the open before all men, refined seven times seven.” “Rabbi Yannai said: The words of the Torah were not given as clear-cut decisions. For with every word which the Holy One, blessed be He, spoke to Moses..."

The Midrash on Psalms, trans. by William G. Braude, vol. I (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959), p. 173.

The context given there is one of the oral law discussions, our of our loop. However based on what we see in Rashi there might be some fine parts in the Midrash.

Note: Now we have learned that Doug Kutilek wrote deceptively.

Rabbinic scholar Rashi (d. 1105) writes, “you will keep them -- this is said concerning the poor and afflicted who are persecuted by this generation."
(Why Psalm 12:6,7 is not a Promise of the Infallible Preservation of Scripture, Doug Kutilek)

Hmmm... oopps.. Doug Kutilek did not tell his readers that this is a part of the Rashi Psalm 12:7b section. By simply quoting "you will keep them..." Kutilek wants to give the reader the false impression that Rashi is referring to all of verse 7, with Doug Kutilek knowing full well that is the impression that will be received by most. Since the readers are familiar with "Thou shalt keep them" as Psalm 12:7a.

Yet the Psalm 12:7a section from Rashi is as above, God is keeping the word of God in their heart ! (In Jewish understanding Torah is a multi-dimensional word, with meanings that include the 5 Books of Moses and Scripture as a whole.)

So surprisingly enough, this will end up being at least a 3-part response ! The import of all this is far-reaching, since the "split understanding" is a very big fly in the ointment of the attack on the King James Bible defender understanding that Psalm 12 does refer to God's words.

Please remember one thing. There really is absolutely no doubt, even among the informed opposition, that the King James Bible translation is 100% sound and accurate, and that the "preserve us" translations are very dubious, ie. errant, not representing the Hebrew Bible.

And within the King James Bible accurate and proper translation there are three general interpretations.

1) The words of God kept and preserved
2) 7a is words, 7b is poor and needy
3) Poor and needy preserved from this generation for ever !

And then there are the dual and ambiguous interpretations that allow for both.

Having discovered that Rashi had been greatly misrepresented, and lines best with (2) and with Ibn Ezra being (1) and David Kimchi being (2) or (3) (research needed) really changes the dynamic of the rabbinic evidences. I had previously been surprised that the major early rabbinics would be majority for persons, that simply did not seem likely looking at the simple context of the verse and knowing their sense. Now we see that it is simply is not the case, the rabbinics had been misrepresented. Also we discover the Midrash on Psalms may want to weigh in as well.

Now to be fair, there is a distinction between the words of God being kept in the heart of the believer and being preserved for all generations. In fact, one irony in all this is that if a split was to be had -- "preserve them from this generation for ever" clearly is a better fit for words than people ! However we will go into this more, by the grace of the Lord Jesus, in a future post.

We will next look at Rashi on Psalm 12:7b.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Before more discussion, let us give the Rashi commentary on Psalm 12:7b.

Preserve them from this generation that they do not learn from (this Generation's) behaviour to be informers. Another equally plausible interpretation (of v. 8 is the following). Keep them (ie. those poor and impoverished who are persecuted from (being victimized by) this generation, who are informers.
(Rashi's Commentary on Psalms - translated by Mayer I. Gruber - 2008)

Note what Doug Kutilek offered as the Rashi interpretation is actually his second, alternative interpretation. (The Judaica Press publication only gives the first interpretation, so that cannot be the reason, my conjecture is that Doug Kutileki looked up a translation from Old French to Hebrew or Aramaic and then deliberately parsed the information for his own purposes. If I am wrong on this I would be happy to be corrected and I acknowledge that this is all new as of yesterday and no effort has been made to check with Doug Kutilek.)

So we noticed that Doug Kutilek also simplified the Rashi interpretation in order to match his absurd attempt to paint "words" as preserved as some sort of "totally foreign" interpretation that would come from those who handle the word of God "deceitfully" and "dishonestly". The putrid accusation that David Cloud rightly characterized as a mouse attacking elephants ! -- since Kutilek had mentioned a number of excellent scholars who interpret the verse with an emphasis on words. Now we find that it appears that Kutilek had to quote "deceitfully and dishonestly" in order to try to make this case of deceitfulness against others ! Oh, what a web.

Ok, next we will look at the two competing interpretations. Neither one of which has very much pizazz .. however at least they come from a writer of competence and scriptural insight, who wrote quite interestingly about the verses. However, off to work for now.

Shalom,
Steven