[Debau]

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.
__________________
Lloyd Lewis Thomas Jr.

Popish jibberish!

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

This verse is a repudiation of the social gospel, not the "preservation"( eternal opression) of the poor. This is what Rome has confused the masses with.
This is why Rome is HAPPY with the NIV and other regurgitated renderings(wresting) of a presrved "proletariat" in Psalm 12:7.

Matthew 5. Read that again.

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

This is a poverty of spirit, not of substance.

You need to read your KJB Bible in a similar manner to grasp these easy truths.

Isaiah 66:2 For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.

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.

Well said, amen brother.
The only thing that is "poor" on this thread is the understanding of those who have been blinded to the Truth by teachers who seem to deny the preservation of God's Word. I'm always sorry to see people who have a "poor" grasp of the most important verse in the Bible. God is most certainly preserving his Words!

The problem with suggesting the poor (or any other "class") are auto-preserved and ushered into heaven is: all poor people do not go to heaven. That is a dangerous teaching. There are plenty of evil lower income sinners who rape, pillage, steal and murder just like middle class folks and CEO's. In fact, I can show you any number of "poor folks" here in my town who will be happy to steal your car at gun point, molest your children and take all your money so they won't be "poor" any longer.

Hell is not populated only with rich folks, and being "poor" does not get you a pass to heaven. God is no respector of persons, and He will preserve ANYONE who trusts in Christ, not just the poor. (Col. 3: 25, I Thes. 5:23, 24)

[Josh]

Amen to Brothers Diligent, Parrish, and Debau!

To answer your queston very simply: Yes, we believe Gill is WRONG, as is anyone, or argument which states that anything(sentence, word, phrase, or punctuation) in the King James Bible is in error in any way whatsoever.

[Diligent]

Amen, Bro Parrish!

As I said in my original post, making the preservation promise for "the poor" contradicts the first three verses of the chapter and destroys the wonderful song David wrote. David knew God's promises and that they (the promises! esp. the promise in verse 5) would be sure for eternity!

Originally Posted by Diligent

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.

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

Humm....

I would not make the claim that the KJV translators knew the hebrew language better than Gill. Of coarse they rendered their "version" of the text. Where they better scholars or translators....I think not.

How about the Masoretes? Would you accept their understanding of the text?

Or how about the orthodox Jew? Does any orthodox Jew consider Psalm 12:7 to relate to verse 5 and not verse 6?

I believe the answer is yes.

Ultimately you are chosing the translation of the KJV translators over other scholars. Some of these scholars are stritic orthodox Jews. The very people who God charged with the preservation of the text. Why is that?

I have found it odd that some say KJV and others KJB. I assume this is an attempt to not see the KJV as a version and avoid the obvious argument that the very acronym KJV.... is self attesting to the 1611 being a version.

I don't get what your trying to say about Psalm 119:110-111. Are you trying to say that the 119:110:111 is a verse that proves God promised a preservation of the text?

Certainly David saw the law of God or "testamonies" in the text as his heritage forever and I am certain that they will be...... because he has found eternal life in Christ and will live forever. It in no way promises a complete unchanging preservation of the text to any succeeding generations.

Originally Posted by Josh

Amen to Brothers Diligent, Parrish, and Debau!

To answer your queston very simply: Yes, we believe Gill is WRONG, as is anyone, or argument which states that anything(sentence, word, phrase, or punctuation) in the King James Bible is in error in any way whatsoever.

Gill is wrong about alot of things... but you should consider his skill with the hebrew language. Gill is not the only hebrew expert that makes the case verse 7 can not be associated with verse 6.

Its a bold statement to say that any translation is one hundred percent word for word perfect... punctuation and all.....

What about all those words in italic in the KJV. Why are they in italic? and the others are not?

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish

Well said, amen brother.
The only thing that is "poor" on this thread is the understanding of those who have been blinded to the Truth by teachers who seem to deny the preservation of God's Word. I'm always sorry to see people who have a "poor" grasp of the most important verse in the Bible. God is most certainly preserving his Words!

The problem with suggesting the poor (or any other "class") are auto-preserved and ushered into heaven is: all poor people do not go to heaven. That is a dangerous teaching. There are plenty of evil lower income sinners who rape, pillage, steal and murder just like middle class folks and CEO's. In fact, I can show you any number of "poor folks" here in my town who will be happy to steal your car at gun point, molest your children and take all your money so they won't be "poor" any longer.

Hell is not populated only with rich folks, and being "poor" does not get you a pass to heaven. God is no respector of persons, and He will preserve ANYONE who trusts in Christ, not just the poor. (Col. 3: 25, I Thes. 5:23, 24)

First.... I never said the poor where "auto-preserve"d.

They do exist throughout all generations. Don't you not think they are? This is their preservation.

Christ said....

Mar 14:7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.

God has preserved that the poor will be in all generations. Just like He has preserved the heavens, the oceans, and etc...

Originally Posted by Debau

Popish jibberish!

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

This verse is a repudiation of the social gospel, not the "preservation"( eternal opression) of the poor. This is what Rome has confused the masses with.
This is why Rome is HAPPY with the NIV and other regurgitated renderings(wresting) of a presrved "proletariat" in Psalm 12:7.

Matthew 5. Read that again.

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

This is a poverty of spirit, not of substance.

You need to read your KJB Bible in a similar manner to grasp these easy truths.

Isaiah 66:2 For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.

I never said that Matt 5:3 was talking about all the poor literally. I mentioned it to show the value of the poor. Whether it is those poor in purse as Gill says or the poor in spirit.

I noticed you ingnored the other verses I mentioned.

What about Jesus saying.

Mar 14:7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.

Originally Posted by llthomasjr

First.... I never said the poor where "auto-preserve"d.

They do exist throughout all generations. Don't you not think they are? This is their preservation.

I understand exactly what you are saying, you are saying the poor are automatically PRESERVED from generation to generation. In other words, God is forcing them to remain poor, He is preserving them that way. God didn't say that, you did. That is not a Biblical teaching, that is not in the Bible and as I have explained, it's a dangerous teaching for the reasons I already explained. Sorry my friend, I think the entire concept is based on confusion. Diligent already speared this fish, scaled and filleted it on the first page of this thread. But you won't be able to enjoy the "meat of the Word," until you clear those clouds in your head regarding the Word of God.

Originally Posted by llthomasjr

Christ said....

Mar 14:7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.

God has preserved that the poor will be in all generations. Just like He has preserved the heavens, the oceans, and etc...

Well, let's be clear: Christ said the first part, but you ADDED the second part. This is simply your attempt to make it say what you want it to say, so it does not say what it means. Many have been blinded to the Truth by teachers who seem determined to deny the preservation of God's Word. I'm always sorry to see this because it is almost always accompanied by confusion and comments like this:

Originally Posted by llthomasjr

Its a bold statement to say that any translation is one hundred percent word for word perfect...

And there it is, sadly revealed in the daylight.
The paint has flaked off. We now see the hollow wood of your position has crumbled, and the termites are crawling out in droves.

Meditate on these verses, and pray for wisdom:

"Heaven and earth shall pass away,
but my words shall not pass away." -- Matthew 24:35

"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 grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you." 1 Peter 1:23-25

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by llthomasjr

Gill is wrong about alot of things... but you should consider his skill with the hebrew language. Gill is not the only hebrew expert that makes the case verse 7 can not be associated with verse 6.

However John Gill's case in this instance is based on one (somewhat superficial) point only,

"Not the words before mentioned, as Aben Ezra explains it, for the affix is masculine and not feminine"

I'm quite sure that John Gill was well aware that Aben Ezra was well aware of grammatical gender . So he should have thought a bit more deeply before being dismissive.

Overall this is a very thin reed of rejection and Thomas Strouse and John Hinton have gone into probably the most depth on the grammatical issues, giving multiple reasons, grammatical and contextual, why the gender is masculine and not controlling the translation into the poor rather than the words. And, significantly, giving analagous verse examples, even involving the words of God. Have you read carefully their analyses ? Do you have cogent responses for their and our consideration ?

The fact that John Gill gave a superficial analysis on this verse does not negate his overall expertise. Gill is to be respected and considered in exegesis and he is generally miles above the modernists in his understanding of the word of God, including the Biblical languages and grammar.

However in this case .. he simply erred.

And you can see by simply reading his section that he did not really tangle with the issues.

Shalom,
Steven Avery