[Diligent]

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish

He's no longer "with us."

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by Tandi

..the "genius of ambiguity" argument (Van Kleeck), as well as a link to the Strouse article. Strouse makes an excellent case for verse 7 teaching the preservation of Scripture....
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns/fbns88.html
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/strouse-psalm127.html
Yet Van Kleeck makes a point worthy of consideration.

And here are the John Hinton articles, hosted on this very website !

http://av1611.com/kjbp/ridiculous-kj...12-Part-1.html
Ridiculous KJV Bible Corrections: Psalm 12, Part 1

http://av1611.com/kjbp/ridiculous-kj...2-verse-7.html
Psalm 12 Part 2, verse 7

I used to think that maybe the verse could be properly seen with a dual application, 'ambiguous'. However when you simply read the full chapter (something that is rare in modernist exegesis, in the journal articles today they appear loath to even give the words of a verse ! much less a chapter or section) the context being the contrast of the purified as silver pure words of God and the vanity, flattering lips, double heart and proud tongue rings all through the section.

(please go to page one :

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

Also for the context of the NT as a whole.

http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...09&postcount=5
complementary scriptures to Psalm 12:6-7 )

While there had definitely been a historical split on the understanding of the verse, with some folks normally quite good supporting the poor understanding, I really believe that is a bit of a twig and forest thing. They got so enmeshed in the couple of verses (and on that their grammatical understanding is incomplete .. thank you Thomas and John) that they missed the simplicity and power and clarity of the word of God).

Any interpretation of the poor and needy being those preserved is only a minor auxiliary aspect of the majesty and power and purity of the word of God.

Shalom,
Steven

Originally Posted by Diligent

He's no longer "with us."

LOL, okay I thought it was a little quiet in here...

[MC1171611]

On the whole "author of confusion" issue, I have a little thought that not many people have cared for, but it makes a whole lot of sense.

Mr. Banned-pants said that God "Authored" the confusion at Babel. Well, I didn't see God WRITE anything there, and since "author" by definition (not consistently throughout Scripture, though) means to "write" something, God doesn't "write" confusion. Of course the modern perversion morons don't like that, since that means their myriad perversions don't have God's power on them, since they're so utterly "confusing."

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

.......I used to think that maybe the verse could be properly seen with a dual application, 'ambiguous'. However when you simply read the full chapter (something that is rare in modernist exegesis, in the journal articles today they appear loath to even give the words of a verse ! much less a chapter or section) the context being the contrast of the purified as silver pure words of God and the vanity, flattering lips, double heart and proud tongue rings all through the section......

While there had definitely been a historical split on the understanding of the verse, with some folks normally quite good supporting the poor understanding, I really believe that is a bit of a twig and forest thing. They got so enmeshed in the couple of verses (and on that their grammatical understanding is incomplete .. thank you Thomas and John) that they missed the simplicity and power and clarity of the word of God).

Any interpretation of the poor and needy being those preserved is only a minor auxiliary aspect of the majesty and power and purity of the word of God.

Shalom,
Steven

Excellent points to ponder. I am beginning to see it clearly. Thank you, Steven!

Shalom,

Tandi

[Just_A_Thought]

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.

I must kindly disagree with you. When I am on this forum I use the KJV only. I must use some other versions here to show you how it was interpreted by others. The KJV is not wrong but easily misunderstood here. I will not use any AT Bibles. I will only use TR versions.

Psa 12:6 The wordes of the Lorde are pure wordes, as the siluer, tried in a fornace of earth, fined seuen folde.
Psa 12:7 Thou wilt keepe them, O Lord: thou wilt preserue him from this generation for euer. -Geneva

Psa 12:6 The wordes of God be wordes pure, as the siluer tryed in a furnace of earth: and purified seuen times.
Psa 12:7 [Wherfore] thou wylt kepe the godly, O God: thou wylt preserue euery one of them from this generation for euer. -Bishops

Both of these say the same thing as thier meaning, so does the KJV. It is simply miss read do to the working that the translators chose.

God Bless!

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by Just_A_Thought

I must kindly disagree with you.

That's fine, however: your only argument offered is that an inferior translation agrees with your reading. When sticking to the superior KJV, and examining the plain English, as well as the doctrinal ramifications, it's clear to me that the other translations are simply wrong. Of course, this is the 87th post and still nothing new is being said.

[Just_A_Thought]

Originally Posted by Diligent

That's fine, however: your only argument offered is that an inferior translation agrees with your reading. When sticking to the superior KJV, and examining the plain English, as well as the doctrinal ramifications, it's clear to me that the other translations are simply wrong. Of course, this is the 87th post and still nothing new is being said.

I think you would be hard pressed to prove that the Bibles I quoted are inferior. (no reason to use this guy but I could not resist.)

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by Just_A_Thought

I think you would be hard pressed to prove that the Bibles I quoted are inferior. (no reason to use this guy but I could not resist.)

Their incorrect translation of this verse proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt!

The older English translations are inferior to the KJV for all of the reasons that the KJV was commissioned for. You may wish to examine http://av1611.com/kjbp for some more background on the KJV and translations of the Bible.

Originally Posted by Diligent

Their incorrect translation of this verse proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt!

The older English translations are inferior to the KJV for all of the reasons that the KJV was commissioned for. You may wish to examine http://av1611.com/kjbp for some more background on the KJV and translations of the Bible.

This is classic circular reasoning combined with begging the question. Can't you come up with anything better for an argument? I think we deserve better than this.