[George]

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

Renee: Why not show me where I am wrong here instead of throwing verses at me that have to do with the damnation of unbelievers? I am nice to people here. I used to be KJVOnly and know why you think I am a reprobate, but these inflated comments are not good for edifying. I am edifyable (just coined this term) and will retract where I am wrong.

And you think that your fallacious arguments and sophistry is edifying? I have a question - WHY are you here? It's certainly NOT to edify!

I must add...

When the Psalmist (David) wrote this, if he had in mind that this passage related to the preservation of Scripture, then why did he say "...from this generation forever."

Taking your interpretation, then David is suggesting that there was no preserved Scripture before him. Preservation begins with him.

Keep in mind, I am not challenging the KJV here, just your interpretation of this passage.

[Paladin54]

Freesudnayschoollessons, could you show us the verse that condemns KJBOnlyism?

And you think that your fallacious arguments and sophistry is edifying? I have a question - WHY are you here? It's certainly NOT to edify!

I am here because it is a forum on the Internet. Apparently, there was a decision made to put the King James Only discussion out into the "marketplace." I am not here to exude sophistry. Simply, to get feedback and learn more fully the KJVOnly perspective.

I came out of a KJVOnly church and college. I have developed "stereotypical" thinking over the past two decades. I am here to bash my thoughts about you where I am wrong and I am here to share my thoughts so you can see that the "outsiders" are not that bad (the latter as hardly a main motive).

If you are not edified by my comments, I cannot help that. I am doing my best. Have you read my article on "straining at gnats?" Also, the thread on Psalm 12? If you don't find thoughts there for edification, I don't know what to tell you.

Freesudnayschoollessons, could you show us the verse that condemns KJBOnlyism?

Gladly. I would like you to answer my question first. I will give anyone here until noon EST to show me where we are to use only one version and that the KJV is God's only preserved scripture for today, biblically. No long rambling discourses, just the verse and a sentence or two to explain. If your position is that clearly biblical, this should be no problem. Of course, it does not need to say KJV in the verse....

[bibleprotector]

The translators said,

If we will be sons of the truth, we must consider what it speaketh, and trample upon our own credit, yea, and upon other men’s too, if either be any way an hinderance to it.

If there was any problem with the former Protestant English Bibles, those of the truth would rather humble themselves and get them right, rather than to stubbornly stay with an error. Now we know that the text form of the early Protestant Bibles was not always correct, nor the translation always the best, but by the thorough King James Bible method (54 men appointed to check and recheck, a seventh company, ratification, etc.) we know that these men went for truth rather than to stay with something which required correcting.

And as the Romanists also corrected their Vulgate, how is it that the King James Bible translators could not correct the Protestant English Bible? And if they did, why suddenly in the later portion of the 1800s, was it so "vile" (in the eyes of a few) that it had to be replaced?

We know that the truth clearly and utterly came through without hindrance from 1611, and that the widest possible Protestant testimony can be given in favour of this.

Whereas the modern versions, in their chopping and changing, in their constant and never ending alterations, are never without hindrance, and they never consent to one truth.

[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.

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

the commentaries... are unanimously agreed that vs 7 refers to the poor.

FSSL, this is simply not true. Many of the commentaries are hard to access and some take either a dual or unsure view (e.g. Kraus, Kidner and Anderson recently) however I will share a bit. Lest somebody reading may otherwise actually believe what you declare above.

Thanks to Thomas Holland and David Cloud, the sources for some of these.

Dr. G. Campbell Morgan - (1863-1945) Notes on the Psalms
"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."

John Wesley Commentary (Notes on the Old Testament - 1765)
v:6
Pure - Without the least mixture of falsehood;
and therefore shall infallibly be fulfilled.
v7
Thou shalt keep them - Thy words or promises:
these thou wilt observe and keep,
both now, and from this generation for ever.

J. H. Eaton - Torch Bible Commentaries (1967)
"...but we may rather follow the main Hebrew tradition:
"Thou O Lord shalt keep them (i.e. watch over the words to fulfill them, Jer. 1:12)..."

Jeremiah 1:12
Then said the LORD unto me,
Thou hast well seen: for I will hasten my word to perform it.

Early Hebraics was split, and Ibn Ezra having the words of God as kept.

It is true there is less understanding in modern times as the study of Hebrew is more one-dimensional (computer lexicon vs. daily study of writers like Kimchi and Rashi and Ibn Ezra ... you can see a perfect example of this in the critically important verse in apologetics, Jeremiah 8:8, mangled in the modern versions) and diminished in modern scholarship. John Hinton being one of the only writers bringing this to the fore on Psalm 12, afaik only he and Bryan Racine even mention the energic nun in modern discussions. Today there also as there is more reliance on the wrong Hebrew text (note that there is a substantive variant in Psalm 12:7) and more confusion from variant readings like the Greek OT.

The next commentary is one of my favorites on Psalm 12, with the crisp relating to other scripture verses. From David Cloud.

Annotations by Henry Ainsworth, 1626.
Briggs commends Ainsworth as the "prince of Puritan commentators" and that his commentary on the Psalms is a "monument of learning." ... Ainsworth states that "the sayings" [of Psalm 12:7] are "words" or "promises" that are "tried" or "examined" "as in a fire." He cross references the reader to Psalm 18:31; 119:140; and Proverbs 30:5, each reference having to do with the purity of the word.

Psalms 18:31
As for God, his way is perfect:
the word of the LORD is tried:
he is a buckler to all those that trust in him.
For who is God save the LORD?
or who is a rock save our God?

Psalms 119:140
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.

Proverbs 30:5
Every word of God is pure:
he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Note that the context of Psalm 18 is dual, saving the afflicted people as well.

Also please consider that the Reformation confessions, built on scripture, teaches exactly what we share as sound understanding of Psalm 12.

Westminster Confession on Bible Preservation
“The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them” (I.VIIIa).

If you agree .. what verses do you believe best supports this view ?

Shalom,
Steven

FSSL, this is simply not true. Many of the commentaries are hard to access and some take either a dual or unsure view (e.g. Kraus, Kidner and Anderson recently) however I will share a bit. Lest somebody reading may otherwise actually believe what you declare above.

Thanks Steve. I should never put out that Hasty Generalization. I do see that there are commentaries that approach your interpretation. I simply do not have those commentaries. I have quite a few on the Psalms, but not those. Matthew Henry, which seems to be one of the most favored commentaries here, surely agrees with my interpretation.

As far as the Westminster Confession goes, that is interesting that they obviously use the words in Psalm 12. My copy does not have the passage footnoted. Does yours? Even so, I would have to say, that I won't disagree that we don't have the Word completely today.

What do you think about the other points? The gender of "them" and "words" and the overall context? Also, what about the "from this generation forever" point above?

[Diligent]

I have posted a more direct reply in this thread:
http://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=270

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

Thanks Steve. I should never put out that Hasty Generalization.

Welcome.

For completeness, another "words" reference is :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Martyn
Henry Martyn (1781 -1812), Persian Bible translator

Who translated the NT and Psalms into Persian and did other excellent translating work in his brief life. We are trying to get the exact words of his translation and/or commentary.

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

As far as the Westminster Confession goes, that is interesting that they obviously use the words in Psalm 12. My copy does not have the passage footnoted. Does yours?

I looked at a couple of web copies and did not see a footnote.

http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/16.../Chapter01.htm
The London Baptist Confession

and some other Confessions have the same language. Anyway we know the reference.

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

Even so, I would have to say, that I won't disagree that we don't have the Word completely today.

Your double negative is confusing, and you are apparently reading something into the Confession.

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

What do you think about the other points? The gender of "them" and "words" and the overall context? Also, what about the "from this generation forever" point above?

There can be a lot being discussed on the new thread over time. I have a few posts I might extract and bring over. First, I simply wanted to straighten out the commentary issue.

Shalom,
Steven