[MC1171611]

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

MC, there are a dozen or more verses that reference the WORDS, while only one references the SPEAKERS. If the men were inspired as opposed to the words, then why did the foundational verse on inspiration speak of the written words ("script"ure) and not the speakers?

Do you also apply inspiration to the translators of the KJB?

I'll post a new topic eventually; I would usually delve into the topic regardless, but this one is stickied and therefore I believe we should stick to preservation here.

Originally Posted by Diligent

Regarding Psalms 12:6,7

Psalms 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.

FSSL claims that the words "Thou shalt keep them" refer to the poor in verse five:

Psalms 12:5 For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.

FSSL's claim is clearly incorrect simply from the grammar of the passage, but more obvious is that the "poor" of David's time were not preserved for ever.

FSSL later claims the word "from" would have to mean that the words began in David's generation. That is as incorrect as assuming that "the poor" began in that generation to the exclusion of all prior generations.

The book Thou Shalt Keep Them (ISBN 0974381705, chapter 1) offers a thorough examination of the Hebrew text proving that the modern versions that translate this passage so as to remove the promise of preservation are simply wrong. Those who have an interest in such things should read that book.

If we are to accept the incorrect reading of verse seven to make it refer to the poor instead of God's words, we must do the same in Psalm 119:110,111:

Psalms 119:110-111 The wicked have laid a snare for me: yet I erred not from thy precepts. Thy testimonies have I taken as an heritage for ever: for they are the rejoicing of my heart.

If we accept FSSL's rules of grammar in this case, we must assume David was rejoicing at the wicked, instead of God's testimonies. (Note that this verse also teaches the preservation of God's word in that they are an heritage "for ever." Just as Psalm 12:7 says they will be preserved "for ever." A little "Scripture with Scripture" by the simplest of KJV believers will yield mountains more understanding than all the scholarly works of unbelieving "original language" scholars.)

The meaning of Psalm 12 is perfectly plain. The chapter is a contrast between David's love of God's words and the vanity of men's words. Incorrectly reading verse 7 to refer to a promise to preserve the poor forever ruins the praise of God's promises David is offering. It also leaves us with the strange, untenable position that God is promising the preservation of the poor in perpetuity -- a tenet not to be found elsewhere in Scripture. (And I looked -- among all of the commentaries I have that agree with FSSL's position, none of them offer a cross-reference teaching a similar tenet.) It also contradicts the very first verse, where David states that "for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men." If we are to accept the reading FSSL offers, we must conclude that the "godly man" and "faithful" can not also be "poor" and that, oddly, the poor are therefore ungodly, faithless, and will be preserved forever.

1. Diligent....

John Gill was one of the most seasoned hebrew expert of his day. He wrote extensively about the hebrew language. He wrote about Psalms 12:7

thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever; or "thou shalt preserve him" (p); that is, everyone of the poor and needy, from the wicked generation of men in which they live, from being corrupted or intimidated by them; and who are described in the beginning of the psalm. Some take these words to be a prayer, "keep thou them, O Lord, and preserve them", &c. (q); and so the following words may be thought to be a reason or argument enforcing the request.

(p) תצרנו "custodies eum", Pagninus, Montanus, Gejerus, Michaelis; so Ainsworth. (q) "Custodi eum", Tigurine version, Vatablus, "custodito eorum quemque", Junius & Tremellius, Piscator.

He say that the text says "him" and not "them". He give the reasoning of such when be speaks of "custodies eum"

Are you saying that John Gill is wrong.

2. Did not our Lord say.

Joh 12:8 For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.

How can you say that our Lord is wrong and that the poor are not preserved?

I am interested to read your responses.

Sincerely
Lewis

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by llthomasjr

He say that the text says "him" and not "them". He give the reasoning of such when be speaks of "custodies eum"

Are you saying that John Gill is wrong.

Yes. He's wrong, for the reasons I already explained. My final authority is not John Gill, so this doesn't bother me much.

I suppose I could retort "are you saying John Wesley was wrong" since he agrees with my reading of the passage. But John Wesley is not my final authority either.

How can you say that our Lord is wrong and that the poor are not preserved?

Did the Lord say the poor would be preserved forever? No, there is no conflict with what I said and what the Lord said. There is no problem here because those to whom the Lord was speaking always had poor people around them. That doesn't mean the Lord preserved all of them. Can you tell me where the poor of Jesus' time are now? I'm pretty sure none of them were preserved. The poor couldn't usually afford good mummification services.

Originally Posted by Diligent

Yes. He's wrong, for the reasons I already explained. My final authority is not John Gill, so this doesn't bother me much.

I suppose I could retort "are you saying John Wesley was wrong" since he agrees with my reading of the passage. But John Wesley is not my final authority either.

Did the Lord say the poor would be preserved forever? No, there is no conflict with what I said and what the Lord said. There is no problem here because those to whom the Lord was speaking always had poor people around them. That doesn't mean the Lord preserved all of them. Can you tell me where the poor of Jesus' time are now? I'm pretty sure none of them were preserved. The poor couldn't usually afford good mummification services.

1. John Gill is not my final authority as well, but I would say he knows the hebrew language better than you or I both. That is what I meant by you consider him to be wrong.

It doesn't matter how elborate a senerio you put forth to explain that verse 7 is not speaking of verse 5.... if them... is in fact.... him.... in the verse.....your scenerio means nothing.

2. Do you mean to tell me that Jesus was only speaking about the poor that lived during his advant on this earth when He said.

Mat 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

????

If you do not... then why can we not consider that Jesus was also talking about the poor of all generations upon the earth when He said

Joh 12:8 For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.

I am trying to understand your logic but I'm not getting it.

[George]

Lewis (llthomasjr):

"1. Diligent....

John Gill was one of the most seasoned hebrew expert of his day. He wrote extensively about the hebrew language. He wrote about Psalms 12:7

thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever; or "thou shalt preserve him" (p); that is, everyone of the poor and needy, from the wicked generation of men in which they live, from being corrupted or intimidated by them; and who are described in the beginning of the psalm. Some take these words to be a prayer, "keep thou them, O Lord, and preserve them", &c. (q); and so the following words may be thought to be a reason or argument enforcing the request.

(p) תצרנו "custodies eum", Pagninus, Montanus, Gejerus, Michaelis; so Ainsworth. (q) "Custodi eum", Tigurine version, Vatablus, "custodito eorum quemque", Junius & Tremellius, Piscator.

He say that the text says "him" and not "them". He give the reasoning of such when be speaks of "custodies eum"

Are you saying that John Gill is wrong.

2. Did not our Lord say.

John 12:8 For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.

How can you say that our Lord is wrong and that the poor are not preserved?

I am interested to read your responses.

Sincerely
Lewis"

You are neither truly "sincere" nor are you genuinely "interested" in Diligent's response! You are simply one more "Christian" Sophist that is looking for an argument and showing off your supposed "knowledge" about an issue. If you were a "seasoned" sophist you would know better than to spell the word Hebrew - ("hebrew"), since even the most "unseasoned" NOVICE knows that you always CAPITALIZE the word Hebrew!

For your information: John Gill (or any of the other numerous Reformers) is not a genuine Bible believer's "FINAL AUTHORITY"! He certainly is NOT my "final authority"! John Gill may be your "final authority" (which is your privilege and prerogative), but when you twist someone else's words to say something that they DID NOT SAY - you reveal just exactly the kind of person you are (A GENUINE SOPHIST!)

I have known Diligent for over 15 years and he would NEVER, I REPEAT, NEVER say what you have twisted and wrested his words to say!

Lewis' Quote:

"How can you say that our Lord is wrong and that the poor are not preserved?"

I can suffer a lot of different people, but a word twisting "Christian" who is a Sophist and a liar, is someone I cannot bear!

If you cannot produce the exact "quote" (i.e. the very words) that you say (claim) Diligent has said - I would suggest that you go back to whatever hole (Forum) you crawled out of and return as quickly as you can. Because "Christian" Sophists don't do very well here.

I have been aware of your argument (John Gill's & many other "seasoned" Hebrew "experts") about Psalms 12:6 & 7 since 1969 (some of us weren't "born yesterday"). I rejected his position then, as I still do today!

John Gill was wrong then, and all who have followed him since then are wrong! Believe what you want - it's a "free country" (for a little while longer), but don't try to "bulldoze" your way onto this Forum with lies (misquotes) and misrepresentations of what other people have said, and expect to get a warm Christian welcome or the right hand of fellowship, because I for one cannot abide someone who is so dishonest as to misrepresent and misquote a fellow Christian!

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by llthomasjr

1. John Gill is not my final authority as well, but I would say he knows the hebrew language better than you or I both. That is what I meant by you consider him to be wrong.

And the KJV translators knew Hebrew better than Gill. If you're saying the KJV is wrong here, just come out and say it. If not, then this is a simple grammar issue. What if we apply your understanding here?

Psalms 119:110-111 The wicked have laid a snare for me: yet I erred not from thy precepts. Thy testimonies have I taken as an heritage for ever: for they are the rejoicing of my heart.

It doesn't matter how elborate a senerio you put forth to explain that verse 7 is not speaking of verse 5.

Ah, well then, I can safely regard this as totally disingenuous:

I am trying to understand your logic

I didn't mis quote him. I quoted what Jesus said. That is all I quoted. There is no need to get so upset.

The KJV says the "poor" in verse 5. Diligent said this can not be the object of reference for verse 7. One of the arguments he presented was that of the poor not being preserved.

Here is the exact quote.

The meaning of Psalm 12 is perfectly plain. The chapter is a contrast between David's love of God's words and the vanity of men's words. Incorrectly reading verse 7 to refer to a promise to preserve the poor forever ruins the praise of God's promises David is offering. It also leaves us with the strange, untenable position that God is promising the preservation of the poor in perpetuity -- a tenet not to be found elsewhere in Scripture.

Yes that tenant is to be found elsewhere in the scriptures.

I did not misrepresent anything.

Sorry I didn't captilize Hebrew. Certainly you can't consider me a novice because I wrote such. I never have read where a novice was defined by his punctuation skills.

One of my posts got lost in posting...

I'll try to remember what I said

1.. Diligent....

It doesn't matter what explanation of the verse you gave if..... the word is "him" and not "them" as mentioned. That is what I was talking about considering Gill to be wrong.

No.... Gill is not my final authority. Certainly He knew more about hebrew than you or I.

Here is a more detailed explanation of the hebrew

The third person plural pronominal suffix on the verb is masculine, referring back to the “oppressed” and “needy” in v. 5 (both of those nouns are plural in form), suggesting that the verb means “protect” here. The suffix does not refer to אִמֲרוֹת (’imarot, “words”) in v. 6, because that term is feminine gender.

This is from the NET translation notes.....

The jist of the issue is verse 5 and verse 6 can not meet because of the feminine gender of "words" in verse 6.


2. There are verses that talk about the preservation of the poor. For example..

Mat 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

I would call that preservation. Here the poor are talked about eternally. Why can we not consider that the poor mentioned in....

John 12:8 For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.

Is talking about more than the poor that where on the earth during Our Lords advent?

Why can we not consider verse 7 is talking about the poor throughout all generations? I know our Lord loves the poor. He commanded the rich to give to the poor. He even told John the Baptist that the poor had the gospel preached to them. Lazarus was a poor man.....

I honestly believe that the poor have been preserved through all generations just like verse 7 says. Our Lord has keep them and served them for generation to generation.

[George]

Re: "Psalm 12:7 - the Promise of Preservation"

Lewis,

You "sidestepped" the issue! {S.O.P. for all Sophists!}

You SAID:

"How can YOU SAY that our Lord is WRONG and that the poor are not preserved?"

And I SAID:

"produce the exact "quote" (i.e. the very words) that you say (claim) Diligent has said."

And like all Sophists - You cannot produce the quote that YOU SAID Diligent said! So you try to "wiggle out of the hole that you are in", by misdirection and changing the subject.

I'm not mad at you - just disgusted! After dealing with "Christians" like you for over 50 years, I have no more patience for dishonest and crooked people.

This will be my last Post to you - I do not wish you well. I learned long ago to avoid trouble makers and people who either cannot, or will not, be honest in their dealings with others.

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

Sorry its your last post to me. I was not trying to be dishonest.

I am sorry you do not have patience for me. Patience is one of the virtues 2 Peter says would make you would never be barren or unfruitful. Paul also said..

2Ti 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
2Ti 2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;