[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

In looking at the quotes above, Doug Kutilek makes an observation of some merit, one that deserves careful consideration. He says that to:

sunder apart the synonymously parallel clauses of verse 7a, applying the “you will keep them” to the words and “you will preserve him” to the believer, shows a lack of understanding of the basic feature of Hebrew poetry -- parallelism of thought. Hebrew poetic structure demands that both clauses “you will keep them” and “you will preserve him” be applied to the same object.

Well, "demands" is a very strong word in poetry and grammar, one which some may find objectionable. However in English as well we can see the basic point, you don't even have to have an MHP (Masters in Hebraic Poetry). Any split interpretation has to jump over real difficulties. It simply does not make much sense, it is not very comfortable, to have the two phrases applying to differing objects.

(Sidenote: Doug Kutilek morphs "poor and needy" to "believer" as a political tool. To speak too truthfully about the Psalm does not suit his purposes.)

Now .. looking at the verses in the simple and clear read.

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.

Yet, let us reason together .. doesn't this cut in two directions ?
Anyone can see that Psalm 12:7a has a very natural sense as "words".

And there is less of a grammar objection (the plural agrees, thus only the relatively minor gender discordence, easily understood by the 'priority of the masculine', with the similar verse example in Psalm 119 involving the words of God) the word flow is far more direct to "keep them" than to the "preserve him" clause (proximity PLUS sentence flow -- something that Thomas Strouse possibly could emphasize, proximity is only one of 4 complimentary aspects -- proximity, sentence flow, consistency, context). And the manuscript evidence more certain. And the second pronoun is subordinate, the first primary.

Remember that Rashi applied this first clause to preserving Torah, not people, a point that Kutilek craftily hid.

Thus by the reasoning of Doug Kutilek, the split commentators, like Rashi, when they start with "words" in Psalm 12:7a, should really be consistent and strongly lean to "words" in Psalm 12:7b !

This is a sound point from Doug Kutilek, even if he did not realize he was making it. Split interpretations (12:7a words, 12:7b people) should tend strongly to be "words" interpretations, barring (non-existent) compelling reasons to resist this, or to make the second, auxiliary pronoun primary. In fact there is a compelling contextual reason to be added to making the full interpretation "words" from considering the "split" position -- the "for ever" clause in 12:7b (the one hid by NETBible) applies very beautifully to words (remember 1 Peter and many other verses) and very awkwardly, if at all, to the poor and needy.

1 Peter 1:23-25
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible,
by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass
The word of the Lord endureth for ever

So Doug Kutilek has, after you unravel his own deceit (or slipperiness if you want to use the more cordial and forgiving word) on Rashi and think about his sensible (while slightly overstated) assertion above, given us strong support for the full "preservation of the words of God" interpretation.

Thanks, Doug.

However, wait. There is also another little issue of the Doug Kutilek competence and integrity and fairness and objectivity in research and writing, coming forth in this very section we are studying. Has it been picked up by any of our readers ? Granted, you may have to track down his little paper to see the problem. And remember, from the last post, keep the dunce-caps ready.

(Pause )

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

We know that a numbers game of commentators means little. Often they simply write as lemmings (see "strain at a gnat" if you have any doubt about the capabilities of lemming-gnats).

However, if you are going to be reviewing the commentators you should at least do it fairly and accurately. You should try to read the commentators and learn from them, enjoy and appreciate. learn and study. We saw above that perhaps the single most critical commentator, Rashi, was severely misrepresented by Doug Kutilek.

(Also other significant later Hebraic commentators and versions supporting "words" were simply omitted, although that might be more Doug Kutilek unfamiliarity with the material.)

Now we will be considering another situation, while challenging our readers with "how many things are wrong with this picture" re: Doug Kutilek on the Michael Ayguan discussion above.

While we await, let us look at how easy it is for Doug Kutilek to misrepresent and blunder.

http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_why_psalm_pr.htm
Why Psalm 12:6,7 is Not a Promise of the Infallible Preservation of Scripture

"the promise of preservation applies to the persecuted people of God...
Among 19th century authors who concur are Adam Clarke, Symon Patrick..."

Wait a minute. Hmmm.

Symon Patrick in the 19th century ? Symon Patrick is in the 17th century, and quite a fine writer (and a strong supporter of the 'heavenly witnesses' verses).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Patrick
Simon Patrick (1626 – 1707) was an English theologian and bishop.

Here is a writing sample. Notice that 1 John 5:7-8 starts the book, and is the theme of the whole work !

http://www.archive.org/details/witne...rist01patruoft
The witnesses to Christianity, or, The certainty of our faith and hope : in a discourse (1675)

Now that is pretty bad, two centuries off, however Doug Kutilek also misrepresents Symon Patrick on the Psalms verses at the same time !

http://books.google.com/books?id=pIMXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA87
A Commentary Upon the Old and New Testaments, with the Apocrypha - Symon Patrick

Ver. 6. The words of the LORD sre pure words ; as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

For the promises of God are not deceitful like yours, but sincere, and void of all guile: the purest silver, refined to the greatest perfection, is not more free from dross, than they are from all mixture of falsehood.

Ver. 7. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shall preserve them from this generation for ever.

I am confident, O Lord, thou wilt perform them, and not suffer thy words to fail. Thou wilt ever preserve him that,confides in thee, from this perverse generation, how oft soever they renew their attempts against him.

Notice that Symon Patrick is giving a similar type of split interpretation as we just saw from Michael Ayguan.

For Patrick
Keep them == perform them (words)
Perserve them = protect them - from this generation.

"For ever" is given the very awkward sense of "how oft soever" straining the language, much like the NETBible "continually". There really is only a type of current protection, not true preservation for ever.

And using the Doug Kutilek theory of single interpretation, properly applied, the correction to Symon Patrick should be to preserving words.

However, to be fair, Symon Patrick really missed the concept of "preservation" altogether, even though it is totally clear in the verse !

Nonethess despite the split interpretation, despite the lack of preservation, Kutilek, after the strange blunder of missing two centuries (remember this paper could have been changed and updated over the years, Kutilek may still not know !) Doug Kutilkek also misrepresents the position of Symon Patrick ! Yoiks. Double-blunder.

Kutilek researched these commentaries in a very shoddy one-dimensional manner. (Something we often find from those without the pure Bible.) It is very hard to get Symon Patrick's date wrong ! You have to simply grab the date of an 1800s edition of his writing. You have to be totally uninterested in the man, his depth and insight. You must be a technocrat without deep heart and soul when "studying" the Bible. And you also have to be a bit slow, and miss the fact that his name in that spelling (Symon .. he is referred to both ways) is earlier English ! Very strange.

Then on top of that Doug Kutilek reads with superficial one-dimensional glasses, to misrepresent what Symon Partick actually says. You have to read for agenda, not insight.

Kutilek's deception on Rashi looked deliberate, not dunce-cap capable. However here we have a large dunce-cap for placing a man with a Puritan heritage, living around 1650 and writing some very sweet books, in the 1800s. Plus on top of the dunce-cap, we add the misrepresentation of the Symon Patrick position. And we learn a bit more about Doug Kutilek.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Ok, I grant that looking at the errors of Doug Kutilek can be a smidgen tedious, so we will break for a couple of small tidbits.

Samuel Horsley was quite a respected Christian writer, well known for his controversies with the scientist Joseph Priestley. Priestley was actually an ebionite, denying the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus Christ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Horsley
Samuel Horsley (1733–1806) was an English divine.

Horsley commented with a clear "split interpretation" translation and commentary of Psalm 12.

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZBRVAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA30
The Book of Psalms - Samuel Horsley,

The words of Jehovah are pure words,
Silver assayed in a crucible of earthy Gold purified seven times.
Thou wilt keep them, O Jehovah ;
Thou shalt preserve us for ever from this generation.

"Pure words," free of all untruth deceit or insincerity.
"Keep them," that is, keep thy words, thy promises; .

Notice that Horsely has no doubt at all about the first phrase, it means to keep thy words. This is such a smooth reading that in a certain sense anything else is very, very strained. Many, many translators and interpreters, Jewish and Christian alike, show this. As long as they do not have to deal with the Greek OT "us" corruptions in Psalm 12:7a.

The second phrase Horsley makes no comment, yet since he is using the deficient "us" translation the implication is preservation of people. Yet if he had the correct translation, "them", it is very likely that Samuel Horsley would have been consistent, with preservation of God's words for ever.

What is very clear is that Kutilek's Theorem applies here. Since Samuel Horsley saw the very clear and accurate application of Psalm 12:7a to words, without a smidgen of doubt or translation alternative, and since the common sense understanding is that all of verse 12 has the same object, the best adjustment is to have all of verse 12 apply to "words".

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Here is a very similar split understanding to that of Samuel Horsley right above, quite recent. And thus the same application of Kutilek's Theorem can apply.

Quite interesting is that this is in an ... NIV Commentary (!) series.
(The NIV has the decrepit "us..us" translation.)

Sometimes the meaning of the verses is so clear that all the obfuscation and mistranslation attempts flounder. The commentator has a heart for the word of God and does not allow himself to be totally misled. He still understands the preservation of the words of God in Psalm 12.

http://books.google.com/books?id=q2lKzCtKGmMC&pg=PA153
Psalms - The College Press NIV Commentary Vol 1. - S. Edward Tesh, Walter D. Zorn (1999)

God's word endures. It was so in David's time, and for 3000 years it has continued to be so, having withstood every assault made against it. That Word has met successfully the test of time.

While not a direct verse-by-verse reference, clearly such an interpretation of the chapter is applying at least part of verse 7 to the words of God.

(Ironically elsewhere in the Psalm, verse 5, these commentators went off into a flight of Ugaritic emendation fantasy to try to shore up a NIV mistranslation.)

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Next, a discussion of one a solid commentator on Psalm 12.

http://www.theoldtimegospel.org/017_index.html
G. Campbell Morgan (1863-1945) "A gifted Preacher and Teacher"

http://www.preaching.com/resources/p...7269/archive7/
George Campbell Morgan: A Man of the Word By John Bishop

The question often arises where did the revival of the full and complete "words" view arise in the 20th century. The various opponents often try to paint this as an oddball King James Bible interpretation. Or they try to place it as a quirk of Benjamin Wilkinson around 1930 who as a Seventh Day Adventist (SDA) can be a 'genetic fallacy' target. (Note, the SDA establishment generally rejected Wikinson's sound defense of the King James Bible.) For this they have to ignore the historical evidence through the Reformatin and the rabbinics.

In 1906 George Campbell Morgan had given a clear and straightforward commentary with the true interpretation. Even while he himself struggled with the inferior modern versions like the ASV ! Thus this was not coming forth from a King James Bible defender, just a believer who read the Psalm properly.

http://books.google.com/books?id=5LaTe6d0GewC&pg=PA663
Record of Christian Work (1906)

Jehovah's Rule In The Midst Of Ungodliness.

Out of a consciousness of the terrible evil of his times the worshiper cries to Jehovah for help. The failure of godly men and faithful souls is always the gravest peril which can threaten a nation or an age. There is no trouble which more heavily afflicts the heart of the trusting. The note here is more characterized by faith than that of Psalm x. There, is a cry for help, but no suggestion that God is indifferent. Indeed there is an immediate affirmation of confidence in the interest and interference of God. It is very beautiful to notice how in answer to the cry and the affirmation of confidence, Jehovah speaks, so that the singer hears Him, and is able to announce His declaration in response ere the song ceases. This answer of Jehovah is most precious. It promises the preservation .of .the trusting. The psalmist breaks out into praise of the purity of His words, and declares that Jehovah will "keep them" and "preserve them." The "them" here refers to the words. There is no promise made of widespread revival or renewal. It is the salvation of a remnant and the preservation of His own words which Jehovah promises. Thus the psalm ends with a description of the same condition which it at first describes. It is the cry of a godly soul amid prevailing ungodliness, for help; and it is answered.

Usually this is attributed to the posthumous : (Notes on the Psalm, Revell Comp. (1947) p.32).
As in the Thomas Holland article where he properly references G. Campbell Morgan.

Doug Kutilek simply says:
"Later supporters of the “words” position include ... G. C. Morgan (1947)"
Before launching his strange, imbalanced attack on all such interpreters.

Now we have a bit more context, some background on George Campbell Morgan and the earlier date !

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[Man]

For a review of Kutilek's article, see
This blog.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

The Doug Kutilek article goes back to 1983 (The Biblical Evangelist, 17:21, October 14, 1983) so he has had over 20 years to find the simple errors we are pointing out on this thread ! (Yes, there are more.)

Originally Posted by Man

For a review of Kutilek's article, see
This blog.

Hi Man,

That is one of the direct responses to the Doug Kutilek article. Another is given by David Cloud, relating his correspondence to Bruce Lackey (1930-1988) in 1984. David Cloud moves around his URLs, so here it is in archive.org.

http://web.archive.org/web/200802121...ervationis.htm
Fundamentalists Following Textual Critics in Denying/Questioning Biblical Preservation

This next Jack Moorman paper was also largely in response to the Doug Kutilek article denying preservation in Psalm 12.

http://www.feasite.org/foundation/fbcpresv.htm
Psalm 12:6-7 and Bible Preservation
by Jack Moorman - Foundation Magazine - March-April 1994

And Kent Brandenburg works directly with a few of the Kutilek claims, at least in some forums and blogs, perhaps in the book. Two examples.

http://www.sharperiron.com/showthrea...79&page=1&pp=7
Exegesis and Admitting Error - Sharper Iron Forum

http://fundyreformed.wordpress.com/2...debate-part-4/
The Promise Argument - Fred Butler Blog (opponent of Preservation in Psalm 12)

All of these responses to Doug Kutilek make good, solid points. Some could be more assertive for the best "words" interpretation and there are some weaknesses as well in the above.

Hopefully, as the thread moves along, we will be able to coalesce the best of the best, plus more, in a summary of the articles. Even specifically looking at least at :

Doug Kutilek article
Jack Moorman article
Bruce Lackey comments
blog comments above

For the opposition Kutilek at least does not make the tawdry blunder of attacking the King James Bible translation. Kutilek only opposes our interpretation. Some use the deficient translation to make their points (James White and Mark Phillip Purchase of New Zealand).

And while there are other "Psalm 12 preservation of the words of God" opponents to note and comment upon (e.g. James Price, W. Edward Glenny, Lim Seng Hoo) most of the issues can be reached through the articles above.

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

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.

While we keep some other items on the warm burner, tonight we have a very unusual "split interpretation". Remember, by Kutilek's Theorem Enhanced we understand that any writer who sees Psalm 12:7a as clearly referring to the words and promises of God (the obvious and clear and simple flow of the verses) becomes a strong support for 'words' for the whole verse. Clearly the beginning of verse seven 'drives' the verse, not the reverse. (Granted, this is not easy to 'prove' and there are a number of factors, yet it is common sense plus .. with one of the pluses being 'for ever', matching Bible teaching well.) Looking at the Hebrew it is similarly hard to see, as with the English of our Holy Bible, how split interpretations can easily arise. Although dual interpretations can fit a bit more easily, driven by the first phrase and the verse flow.

Tonight we go right back to the early days of the King James Bible, into merry England, and we read ... Francis Bacon ! (We will bypass theories that he was William Shakespeare, or he wrote the King James Bible).

http://books.google.com/books?id=x9dk9hl4LMgC&pg=PT21
The Poet's Book of Psalms - Laurence Wieder (1999)

Francis Bacon Lord Verulam, (1561-1626) son of Queen Elizabeth's Lord Keeper, rose to be Lord Chancellor (1618) ... Bacon dedicated A Translation of Certain Psalms into English Verse, which he wrote during a sickness in 1624, to George Herbert. Sir John Davies (1569-1626) ...

And here is the Psalm section, whole Psalm in the book.

http://books.google.com/books?id=x9dk9hl4LMgC&pg=PT44
The Twelfth Psalm

And sure the word of God is pure and fine,
....And in the trial never loseth weight;
Like noble gold, which, since it left the mine,
....Hath seven times passed through the fiery straight.

And now thou wilt not first thy word forsake,
... Nor yet the righteous man that leans thereto;

While very much a paraphrase, we see in the early 1600s that "keep them, O LORD" was seen as referencing the words and promises of God.

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

The Reformation high view of the words of God changed in the 1800s, when the criticisms came forth, strongly influenced by the German scholarship, which became the cutting edge of a dull knife.

And only in the last decades has there been a revival of understanding of Psalm 12 more fully for the words of God. (Early strong exceptions being George Campbell Morgan in 1906 and Benjamin Wilkinson around 1930.)

In the late 1800s Thomas Francis Cheyne :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kelly_Cheyne
Thomas Kelly Cheyne - Wikipedia (1841-1915)

English divine and Biblical critic ... Oxford University ... studied German theological methods at Göttingen... joint editor of the Encyclopaedia Biblica (London, 1899–1903), a work embodying the more advanced conclusions of English biblical criticism. In the introduction to his Origin of the Psalter (London, 1891) he gave an account of his development as a critical scholar. His publications include translations, commentaries, and supplemental research ... became a member of the Bahá'í Faith by 1914.

was one of the big names in techie textual circles. And even wrote an interesting letter about some of the other attempted retranslations (tamperings - e.g. changing "a furnace of earth") with our verses in the Expository Times in 1897. Issues which we have not made our focus in this thread, yet are quite fascinating as an adjunct learning course !

However when it came to his own version of Psalm 12 Cheyne is an excellent example of the awkwardness of the modern translations/interps. In order to deal with the problem of the 'generation for ever' not fitting smoothly (with his interp) Cheyne even went so far as to move verses around to 'smooth' the difficulties !

http://books.google.com/books?id=9vrwGw99qy4C&pg=PA14
The Book of Psalms - Thomas Kelly Cheyne (1884)

The words of Jehovah are pure words,
silver smelted, seven times refined.
All around, the ungodly walk to and fro,
Thou, Jehovah, shalt keep us,
and shalt guard us from this generation for ever.

Ver. 8 is placed before ver. 7, because " this generation " points back to "the ungodly. (p.219)

Error begets error.

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

We should be well aware that those who see Psalm 12 as referring to the preservation of the words of God are often those who believe in and defend the tangible, pure word of God. No surprise there. And not surprisingly, those who believe the Bible today is corrupt and unreliable, faulty and errant, are very unlikely to see Psalm 12 declaring the preservation of what they do not believe.

Albert Leverett Gridley was an early defender of the word of God against the errors of evolution, science so-called. And against the criticisms, especially the higher criticisms that ran rampant in his day. Such ideas, like two or three Isaiahs, virtually ruled the scholastic establishment. Daniel and Psalms and other books as very late writings, even post-Malachi or in the Maccabean period. Evolution as a supposed science was influencing many. Albert Gridley was a defender against many of these deceptions.

Even today, often the same 'scholars' who foisted the decrepit criticism arguments are the origin or primary sources for the anti-pure-KJB attacks that we see. They will be quoted approvingly by evangelicals for their technical interpretations, often convoluted, confused and contradictory. Without concern for their overall unbelief about the word of God.

As a defender of the Bible the simple and true understanding of Psalm 12 came to Albert Gridley very naturally.

http://www.archive.org/details/first...rgen02gridgoog
http://books.google.com/books?id=q9E0AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA181
The First Chapter of Genesis as the Rock Foundation for Science and Religion
By Albert Leverett Gridley (1913)

The voice of God comes to us in remembering or reading the written word of God, the Bible. An incident to illustrate the latter.

On one occasion I had been reading Dr. Behrends' book, "The Old Testament Under Fire." I was myself a little disturbed in mind as to the outcome of recent criticism and was about to retire for the night. I had gone about half way up stairs when a strong inward impulse came, "Go back and read a passage of scripture." I was about to disregard it and go on, but it came again,

"Go back and read a passage of scripture." I returned asking myself what message there was for me. Opening my Bible at random my eyes fell upon the twelfth Psalm. I read the first few verses and thought that there was nothing in particular there, but in the 6th and 7th verses I read, "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, 0 Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever."

There was my message. The words were a revelation and an assurance. Why, I thought, it was no new thing, even in David's time for the word of God to be under fire, to be tried as in a furnace of earth. And, by the way, there may be a good deal of the earthly element now in the trying of the word of God.

But the assurance that sustained the Psalmist is encouraging still. "Thou shalt keep them, 0 Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever."

These are a few instances of a great many in which the printed word has been not only a guide but a source of encouragement, of hope and instruction. The word of God in its simplicity, as it reads, is an authority for instruction. It is more, it is life giving. I am assured by my own experience that it is not dogmatism to say that the Bible is God's word. And my experience is not unique. It is the testimony of the experience of multitudes in all ages and climes. The Bible not only contains God's word, mixed up with a mass of verbiage of human authority, leaving to each reader the responsibility of picking out God's part, but as a whole it is God's message to men.

We can see how even Albert Gridley's view was watered down under the onslaught of the day. (This was also true of some of the strong textual defenders.) Nonetheless, Gridley fought well, and the clearest and simplest and true understanding of Psalm 12 came to him very naturally, seeking the wisdom of God. And Albert Gridley adds some interesting thoughts for our consideration.

Shalom,
Steven Avery