Psalm 12:5-7

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Pioneer, Sep 18, 2002.

  1. Pioneer

    Pioneer
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    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.
    6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
    7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

    Verses 6 and 7 are used by King James Bible believers as support verses for the doctrine of the verbal, plenary preservation of the scriptures. However, many modern version advocates have stated that the word "them" in verse 7 must refer to the words "poor" and "needy" in verse 5 instead of the word "words" in verse 6 because of the pronoun-antecedent relationship.

    What saith the rules of English grammar? My one son (who is in 10th grade) had an English lesson recently on the subject of pronouns and their antecedents. Here is what it said:

    When the antecedent is a collective noun (such as family, club, class, ect.) and you want to refer to it as a unit, you would use the word "it" as the pronoun. If you want to refer to the separate members of the unit, you would use a form of the word "they" as the pronoun.

    Let's apply this rule: If the word "them" in verse 7 refers to the words "poor" and "needy" in verse 5 instead of the word "words" in verse 6 then it must be speaking of individuals who are poor and needy. However, verse 5 already shows how that God is watching over the individual who is poor and needy.

    Because the poor and needy are already provided for in verse 5 and because verse 5 is a complete thought in itself, it is only logical to conclude that verse 7 completes the thought of verse 6 and that the word "them" refers to the individual words of God and not just to the word of God in general.

    [ September 18, 2002, 11:56 PM: Message edited by: Pioneer ]
     
  2. LRL71

    LRL71
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    0
    Regarding the 'possibility' of Psalm 12 referring its meaning to the preservation of words rather than of the 'poor' and 'needy', I will add a little more proof that this verse is NOT teaching the preservation of words. Let me demonstrate this to all, which I will paraphrase from Doug Kutilek's pamphlet and the Hebrew OT text:

    Further consideration is in the usage of the verbs translated "keep" and "preserve". The verb translated "keep" from Hebrew is shamar. The occurrences of the verb shamar in Psalms will shed light upon the true meaning of the text in Psalm 12, and I will quote the following verses from the Psalms (KJV):
    12:7--Thou shalt "keep" them
    16:1--"preserve" me
    17:8--"keep" me
    25:20--O "keep" my soul
    41:2--The Lord will "preserve" him
    86:2--"preserve" my soul
    ** Also see the following verses:
    89:28, 97:10, 116:6, 121:3, 121:4, 121:5, 121:7, 121:8, 127:1, 130:3, 140:4, 141:9, 145:20, and 146:9.
    If you can see in the preceding verses, the object of the verb shamar is always a person, people, or group of people, or pertaining to people. The usage of this verb with the object being other than 'person' or 'people' would be foreign in its usage. This verb is consistent with its usage in the Psalms to refer only to people and not to, as some may want to concede, referring to "words" of Psalm 12:6.

    Again, the usage of the second verb translated "preserve" (in Hebrew, natsar) will shed its light upon the consistent meaning of Psalm 12. Consider the following cases of the usage of natsar in the Psalms:
    12:7-- thou shalt preserve them
    32:7-- thou shalt preserve me
    64:1-- preserve my life
    140:1, 4-- preserve me
    141:3-- keep the door of my lips

    As with the Hebrew verb natsar ("preserve"), when God is the *subject* of the verb, the object being preserved is 'people' or pertaining to a person or people. The supposition that this is referring to 'words' of verse six is not supported by either of the Hebrew verbs used in translating "keep" and "preserve".

    In either case, the verb usage in Hebrew does NOT reflect the view that Psalm 12:6-7 is referring to God preserving His words, but rather that God is keeping and preserving the 'poor' and 'needy'!

    Do you think that your pastor should have a good knowledge of the original languages of the Bible?

    [Edited]

    [ September 19, 2002, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: DocCas ]
     
  3. LRL71

    LRL71
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    0
    Someone has implied that Psalm 12:5-8 is proof of the doctrine of providential preservation. I shall now prove why this is wrong, and I would venture to say that there is no other passage in the Bible that says *anything* about providential preservation of the text of the Bible.
    I have been through seminary, and have about five years of Hebrew (including one year in college), as well as nine years of Greek. Why is it important to know the original languages?? Well, let me apply it to the deceit of the KJV-onlyists on Psalm 12:
    I would urge anyone to read an article by Doug Kutilek, "Why Psalm 12:6,7 is not a promise of the infallible preservation of Scripture", which I will briefly outline from his pamphlet. Grammatical proof of my assertion is as follows:
    Pronouns indicate the presence, whether expressed or implied, of an antecedent (previous) noun. Verse 7 declared that God will keep *them* and preserve *them*, but what is the antecedent to these pronouns? Based on the English text (and I will only use the King James), there appears to be two possibilities: words, in verse six-- and this one is the closest relative, or in verse five, which are the 'poor' and 'needy'. The pronoun in verse 7 ('them') is plural, and solely based on the English tense, it could be ambiguous as to its antecedent. Now, here's the kicker.....
    We have a Hebrew text underlying the translation of the English KJV. When we look at the Hebrew, the ambiguity is perfectly clear! Hebrew, like many other languages, has a feature inherent that English lacks: grammatical gender. In English, we don't have gender; an example to demonstrate its foreign concept to those who only know English is like this: in German, the word 'spoon' is of the masculine gender, for 'knife' it is neuter, and for 'fork' it is feminine. The use of gender in other languages than English is a common practice. Hebrew works the same way, that is, different words have different genders, and the pronouns *must* match the gender, case, and number *exactly*! This is how we know what 'them' in verse 7 refers to.

    In the Hebrew of Psalm 12, the pronouns translated 'them' in verse 7 are both masculine gender. The first 'them' in verse 7 is plural in number, while the second is singular (literally, 'him'). This means that the antecedent noun can be expected to be masculine in gender and plural in number. Now, the KJV-onlyist has a problem with using this verse to prove that it teaches a 'providential preservation' doctrine: in verse six, the Hebrew word for 'words' is a *feminine* plural noun in both cases, while the words 'poor' and 'needy' in verse 5 are both masculine and plural! Gender and number antecedents of 'them' is not 'words' (of verse six), but the 'poor' and 'needy' of verse 5!

    Based on the clear evidence from grammar and its proper explanation of the context from the Hebrew text, it can be concluded that Psalm 12:6-7 says nothing about the doctrine of providential preservation.

    [Edited]

    My fingers are now really tired!

    [ September 19, 2002, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: DocCas ]
     
  4. LRL71

    LRL71
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    0
    [edited]
    The OT was written in HEBREW!
    God didn't write His inspired Word in English, and most certainly not in the KJV. I have posted two of my exegetical analyses on this thread to [enlighten you]. [edited]

    [ September 19, 2002, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: DocCas ]
     
  5. AVL1984

    AVL1984
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    You're trying to apply recent English for the standards and rules of English during the King James Era, from a text that was taken from the Hebrew...Don't think your argument on them being text verses for preservation of Scriptures holds any water.

    AJL
     
  6. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    You have shown us your expertise in your exegesis of Psalm 12. Now could you please give us your opinion of these verses?

    Mat 10:16 "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves ."

    1Cor 8:1 "Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth ."

    Eph 4:29 "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers. "

    Col 4:6 "Let your speech be alway with grace , seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man."

    James 4:6 "But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud , but giveth grace unto the humble."

    You are doubtless a very intelligent person. Your arguments would hold more value if you left off the Pharisaical comments at the end of your posts. Especially on the ones you disagree with.

    No one on this board has ever claimed that God wrote His Word in English. Our confidence is that He preserved His Word in the KJV. You'll have to come up with more than a Hebrew grammer lesson on 1 verse to convince me otherwise.
     
  7. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pastor Bob,

    With due respect and appreciation for your kind spirit, I don't think anyone here is arguing that God didn't preserve his word in the KJV. We all agree that he did. The specific argument at hand is whether Ps 12:6-7 speak to that issue. I cannot find any reasonable evidence that they do. I think the Hebrew grammar and context lessons are extremely important because they answer this question directly. For the sake of argument, we might grant that the KJV is the only word of God in English. Psalm 12:6-7 still doesn't speak to that issue. That is our contention.

    More to the point, we are contending that God has preserved his word in every faithful translation of the original langauge texts, whether English or not.
     
  8. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    Pastor,

    I agree with this statement. I have made similar statements in the past. I do not subscribe to the theory that the KJV is the exclusive Word of God in existence today. The key words to me are faithful translations.

    My specific problem with this Psalm 12 situation is the spirit in which the argument is being presented. I have not based my confidence on the preservation of God's Word on one passage of Scripture. As a result, refuting an isolated Scripture is not justification for the "I just shot down your whole theory" attitude. I rarely resond positively to an "in your face" spirit even if I agree with the post, because it is an overwhelming indication of a lack of the Holy Spirit's control in one's life.

    A Spirit-filled individual will manifest the fruit of the Spirit as presented in Galatians 5:22,23 "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
    23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law."

    You'll notice that arrogance, pride, haughtiness, and even vain knowledge are absent from this list.
     
  9. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am with you on that.
     
  10. Pastork

    Pastork
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2002
    Messages:
    434
    Likes Received:
    0
    LRl71,

    I hope you will take a lesson from this thread. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing strongly with others and being direct or confrontational in doing so, but sarcasm and rude comments will rarely be effective in getting others to listen to you. I would also add that you have pointed out a couple of times in different threads now how many years of Hebrew and Greek studies you have had, but this does not help your argument either because it will be seen by many (if not most) as arrogant. By the way, how did you get "about five years of Hebrew" and "nine years of Greek"? You say you have been through seminary, but I know of know seminary which offers eight to ten semesters of Hebrew or eighteen semesters of Greek. Even if, e.g., you took one year of Hebrew in college as you say, then you would have needed to get four years (eight semesters) of Hebrew in seminary. What seminary offers eight semesters of Hebrew? Did you retake Hebrew at that school or some other school? You can probably see that I suspect your claims to be overstated or misleading, although I will extend to you the benefit of the doubt and assume that to be unintentional. Can you explain yourself a little better?

    Pastork
     
  11. LRL71

    LRL71
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    0
    To answer your first question "last" (as I will answer your comments in the beginning of your post), I have a B.A. in Pastoral Studies from college, where I also have a minor in Biblical Languages. One year of Hebrew there as well as two and a half years of Greek. I did not complete my seminary training for an M.Div., but did complete all of my courses in biblical languages, education, and some theology courses. An additional three years of Hebrew in seminary makes a total of four years of Hebrew, and in addition to that I had taken correspondence courses from a school in Israel, so that totals five years. Each 'year' would be at least one course of each language in every semester, and I had only taken a single course of Hebrew for every semester (Hebrew 101 in the fall, Hebrew 102 in the spring, but not taking any concurrent courses of Hebrew at the same time). In regard to Greek, I had nine courses (4 and 1/2 years) in seminary, and include textual criticism to make that five years in seminary, and two and a half from college makes.... seven and a half years-- not nine as my previous statement (I was in seminary for 6 years, but only went part-time and completed about 54 credits out of 96 for an M.Div.). I chose not to do just the requirements of both languages from either college or seminary; I even was allowed to take Greek courses instead of English book studies while in seminary. Without 'giving' away the names of the schools I went to, I would say that both are highly regarded as independent and fundamental schools, with seminary also being independent fundamental Baptist. Whew! My life story.... at any rate, during my time in seminary (and I was saved by Christ while a senior in college!) I had seen God's direction in my life and got out of preparing for pastoral ministry. Obviously, a man of God needs to have the desire (in Greek, epithumia) to want to be a pastor/missionary. I don't have such a desire or willingness to go into the ministry.

    Now, to address your earlier comments from your post. Yes I agree with you about my sarcasm! Obviously for me, this is another 'good' reason for me *not* to consider ministry...... although we all do have faults, but this one is not good for a man to be struggling with if he is in the pastoral ministry. Believe me, my comments would have been much more deraguatory toward that person whom I had responded to if I had not edited my earlier comments before I hit "post"!

    For me, it is almost incomprehendible that someone could be that ignorant of the Scriptures, and how he interprets the Bible with that kind of hermeneutic. Yes, your English Bible (and it *does not matter* what properly translated version you use) is sufficient to ascertain good doctrine, but if someone did not have the skills to properly point out the meaning from the original text, then his knowledge is useless! I already possess the education that many IFB pastors do not have, and I feel that it is important that they know even *more* than I do. My angst against KJV-onlyists is that they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about, and even worse, their use of theology and hermeneutics is equally as atrocious. To apply verses that only *prove* the infallibility of the Bible and then take them out of context to prove their definition of 'providential preservation' shows that they are not capable of handling the Word of God. For example, Pastor Bob has stated that Matthew 24:35 is a 'proof' text that God has 'preserved' His Word in only the KJV (or, any like translation)-- yet hermeneutically this is untenable. The verse does not state that God's written Word has been providentially preserved. Jesus is stating here that His Glorious Second Coming is a sure event, even to the point where heaven and earth will pass away, but His words-- about His Second Coming and the Promise of what He says is completely true-- will not pass away. This verse is idiomatic, in that he is giving an example of proving His point that what He is saying is an infallible proof of His Divine promise-- the Second Coming. Jesus did not say that He would 'preserve' His Words in the NT text, here or otherwise. To inject and isogete this passage to suit one's perverted ideas about how "God preserves His Word in the KJV" is completely foreign to the meaning of this text.

    The reason why I chose the Psalm 12 text to prove that God did not intend to mean that He 'preserved' His word is that KJV-onlyists use this verse to prove just that. Also, it is the only verse in the Bible that could, if taken without consideration of the Hebrew text, be used to prove a 'perfection' of the Bible text during its transmission. Even if this verse, or any other out there, could be used to prove providential preservation, its meaning could not be twisted into saying that God intended that preservation to only apply to the KJV. If the KJV-onlyists can be shown that their hermeneutical and exegetical analysis of Psalm 12 is completely wrong, then it can cast doubt upon their ability to be even-handed with interpreting other passages of Scripture. I believe that the KJV-only 'doctrine' or beliefs, where they say that they can prove their doctrine from the Bible, is heretical at worst. It is my opinion that the Modern Versions, particularly the NASB Updated Edition, is the best English version out there-- and that is my *opinion*, not my assertion that God has 'preserved' His Word in the NASB. The KJV-onlyists only want to take the doctrinal 'high ground' and say that if you don't believe that God has preserved His Word in the KJV, then you are not on solid *doctrinal* ground. That is heresy! If they said that it was their *opinion* that the KJV is the best translation in the English language (regardless of what time the English language is currently at-- whether 1611 or 2002) without having to go to Scripture (falsely!) to prove their point, then I would be completely fine with that, but don't tell me that *God Himself* has overseen the preservation of His Word in the KJV! That is complete heresy! They play their 'trump card' in this regard and this kind of demagoguery is abusive and unsubstantiated from Scripture. This is why I also have a problem with their definition of preservation. They place it on level with Bible doctrine (and Pastor Bob, on another post in another category here on Baptist Board makes this a point of doctrine to define what a 'fundamentalist' is!) and then turn around to say that somehow God preserved His Word in the KJV? Now, where does God say that? I am sure that the KJV-onlists will continue to hem and haw around the issue by quoting Scripture passages that prove the Bible's infallibility but that have nothing to say about preservation (into the KJV even!), and go on record to say that the KJV is infallible and therefore must be the preserved Word of God. Duh! So is my NASB! It is God's Word, faithfully translated from the Hebrew and Greek! The text may contain errors as well as the KJV, NIV, and all others. The Hebrew and Greek texts also have errors since we don't have the original manuscripts to prove their 'perfection' has been preserved! You cannot define (as KJV-onlyists have done) that providential preservation means that God perfectly preserved the extant manuscripts to be perfectly equal to the original manuscripts and then say that since the KJV translators used a 'perfectly' preserved, that is equally error-free as if they read exactly as the original manuscripts, Greek compilation of the manuscripts (the TR), then God has also equivically made the KJV to be perfect and 'preserved' like the original. To say that this is a *Bible doctrine* is complete heresy! It is basically saying that God has 'inspired' the KJV!

    I would like to hear from a KJV-onlyist (possibly from Pastor Bob, if he will forgive me!) to define what he means by 'providential preservation' and how it applies to the KJV. Be precise! I think that by stating this, we will get back to the original post I had made on this thread to discuss what providential preservation means and whether it is deserving to be called a 'Bible doctrine'.
     
  12. ChristianCynic

    ChristianCynic
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/cc2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    927
    Likes Received:
    0
    What saith the rules of English grammar? My one son (who is in 10th grade) had an English lesson recently on the subject of pronouns and their antecedents. Here is what it said:

    When the antecedent is a collective noun (such as family, club, class, ect.) and you want to refer to it as a unit, you would use the word "it" as the pronoun. If you want to refer to the separate members of the unit, you would use a form of the word "they" as the pronoun.


    Yeah shurrr. Just like in the 'Sermon on the Mount,' where Jesus said, "Blessed are the poor in spirit; for its is the Kingdom of Heaven." That's what He said, right?
     
  13. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,071
    Likes Received:
    101
    "Poor" is not a collective noun; the word is plural.

    Why? Because English grammarians and speakers have treated it as such. It's almost circular reasoning: Poor cannot take a singular verb, so it must not be a collective noun. Because it's not a collective noun, it must be plural and take a plural verb.

    Just as grass is a noncount noun and must always take a singular verb.

    Ain't English grammar wonderful?

    [ September 20, 2002, 12:41 AM: Message edited by: rsr ]
     
  14. eric_b

    eric_b
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://home.nc.rr.com/robotplot/tiny_eri

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, they are.

    Eric
     
  15. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    The Pharisees already possessed the education that John the Baptist did not have but I would have rather stopped and listened to John preach all day than sit for one hour under a Pharisee.

    Jesus said that we are to live by "Every Word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Just what language did God speak in? Did He speak the OT in Hebrew and the NT in Greek or are they mere translations of the "originals?"

    Nowhere in the Bible will you find that God refuses to use or bless someone for their own personal inadequacies. In fact, just the opposite is true. God very often chose to use those who were unskilled and unlearned to do His finest work.

    Shamgar was just a farmer. He did not have the proper "tools" to fight off the enemy of God but he used what he had available to him and God blessed him greatly. He was able to kill 600 Philistines with an oxgoad, not a sword and shield. The lack of proper training or tools did not stop him; he was available and willing to be used. That's all God wants from us.

    David was a shepherd. We was not properly trained in the art of warfare. He did not possess the proper equipment for the task at hand. In fact, he refused the proper equipment and faced the giant with his sling and five stones. God used him over all the men of war in the camp that day. Why? because he was willing and available to fight for the right cause.

    I could go on to name Gideon, Moses, the fisherman that God used to turn this world upsidedown, and dozens of others. The point is, knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew may be beneficial, it may have it's advantages but it is in no way mandatory to being a man of God. I have in my library all the tools I need if I want go back and research what the Greek and Hebrew says. I never use this to "correct" the Bible; I use it to aid my understanding of a portion of scripture.

    I agree with you that this verse does not state that God's written Word will not pass away, but it is saying that God's spoken Word (logos) will not pass away. God's spoken Word's were written down by divine inspiration for you and I to live by. That is providential preservation.

    God Himself has overseen the preservation of His Word. He has preserved the text of the OT and NT in a very pure form and it has been readily available to Christians in every age for the past 2000 years.

    The original Scriptures were given by direct inspiration of God. I am not claiming that this applies to any translation of the originals as far as a direct inspiration from God. My confidence in the preservation of God's Word is closely linked to the doctrine of inspiration. If God inspired His Word, then He must also preserve His Word. What good would it serve to say only the originals were accurate? Do we not have the information that God intends for us to have today? If preservation were not a fact, then inspiration would be academic. It would have no value to you or I today.

    It is my belief that God preserved His Word, true to the originals, wherever it is accurately translated from the Textus Receptus regardless of what the langauge might be. It is just as much the Word of God as the KJV.

    Following is a quote from the Westminster Confession of Faith:
    "The OT in Hebrew, and the NT in Greek, 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."

    It goes on to say:
    "But because these original languages are not known to all the people of God who have right unto and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope."

    I am not a champion for the KJVO camp. I speak for myself alone. I believe God inspired His Word in the originals, and then preserved His Word down through the ages in the descendants of the originals. I believe the KJV and its predecessors that use the Traditional Text as it's basis are the preserved Word of God. In addition, all other translations, regardless of langauge translated from this text are also the Word of God.

    Why?

    Assuming you're asking for forgiveness regarding your arrogant attitude in previous posts, I forgive you. There is a way that you can convey your opinions in a godly manner. No argument is worth losing your testimony. Remember, the truth does not need defending. Silence is not an admission of defeat.

    [ September 20, 2002, 09:44 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Bob 63 ]
     
  16. LRL71

    LRL71
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Pharisees already possessed the education that John the Baptist did not have but I would have rather stopped and listened to John preach all day than sit for one hour under a Pharisee.

    ** Are you saying that that the Apostle Paul, possessing the equivalent of knowledge of the Jewish leaders, is someone whom you would not want to listen to? Education is very important to know the Scriptures, and wanton blissful ignorance is hardly something to be proud of. I would venture to say that even John the Baptist had possessed a great knowledge of Scripture-- and he already knew the original languages!

    **********************************************

    Jesus said that we are to live by "Every Word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Just what language did God speak in? Did He speak the OT in Hebrew and the NT in Greek or are they mere translations of the "originals?"

    ** Again, here is where the KJVO's pervert the meaning and context of the Word of God. Where is this verse that you are quoting? Perhaps we should take another look at Matthew 4:4. John Knox, in his commentary, said, "And therefore I measure not the truth and favour of God by having or by lacking of bodily necessities, but by the promise that he has made to me. As he himself is immutable, so are his word and promise constant, which I believe, and to which I stick, and do cleave, whatever can come externally to the body. And therefore I measure not the truth and favour of God by having or by lacking of bodily necessities, but by the promise that he has made to me. As he himself is immutable, so are his word and promise constant, which I believe, and to which I stick, and do cleave, whatever can come externally to the body."
    This verse, as Pastor Bob has quoted it, does not say anything about preservation of Scripture nor does it imply that there is a 'providential preservation' of Scripture. Pastor Bob is also ignorant of the Greek, where we are to trust every word (translated from rhemati) which is all the Word of God! Funny how God confounds the ignorant! He used rhemati in the Greek rather than logos! This means utterance or voice, not meaning "words" as like in written form! Here is Strong's Greek Concordance definition of this word, Strong's number 4487:
    "Text: from 4483; an utterance (individually, collectively, or specifically); by implication, a matter of topic (especially of narration, command, or dispute); with a negative naught whatever". Strong's 4483 indicates that this is the noun form of the verb rheo, which also has this in its definition in Strong's: "perhaps akin (or identical) with 4482 (through the idea of pouring forth); to utter, i.e. speak or say:"
    Perhaps what Jesus is saying is that it is not His written Word that is in view here, but rather the corpus of utterances from God! This is an excellent verse to prove the Bible's infallibility, but is otherwise silent about the providential preservation of the Bible text.

    ***********************************************
    Nowhere in the Bible will you find that God refuses to use or bless someone for their own personal inadequacies. In fact, just the opposite is true. God very often chose to use those who were unskilled and unlearned to do His finest work.

    ** And He also used the most highly learned men for His purposes too. See King Solomon & Apostle Paul. I sense here that Pastor Bob is making up excuses for being 'inadequate' in knowledge. We should be like the Berean Church, which searched the Scriptures to see if things that are spoken were 'so' (Praxeis-- Acts 17:10-13). The Bereans were commended because of their scholarly excellence in examining (Greek, anakrinontes, a compounded verb that uses ana and krinoo) the Scriptures in that they were scrutinizing, investigating, interrogating, in order to determine (see Strong's number 350).

    ************************************************

    Shamgar was just a farmer. He did not have the proper "tools" to fight off the enemy of God but he used what he had available to him and God blessed him greatly. He was able to kill 600 Philistines with an oxgoad, not a sword and shield. The lack of proper training or tools did not stop him; he was available and willing to be used. That's all God wants from us.

    David was a shepherd. We was not properly trained in the art of warfare. He did not possess the proper equipment for the task at hand. In fact, he refused the proper equipment and faced the giant with his sling and five stones. God used him over all the men of war in the camp that day. Why? because he was willing and available to fight for the right cause.

    I could go on to name Gideon, Moses, the fisherman that God used to turn this world upsidedown, and dozens of others. The point is, knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew may be beneficial, it may have it's advantages but it is in no way mandatory to being a man of God. I have in my library all the tools I need if I want go back and research what the Greek and Hebrew says. I never use this to "correct" the Bible; I use it to aid my understanding of a portion of scripture.


    ** Again, you are taking the meaning of the Bible's teachings out of context to suit your points. Each of these OT examples were demonstrating God's power; we no longer live in such an age that God is supernaturally demonstrating His power like He did with these men of God from ages past.
    I am in no way suggesting that you are 'not a man of God' because you do not possess the knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. My example of Psalm 12 in analysis of the Hebrew shows that only knowledge of English can leave the man of God stunted in his understanding of Scripture. If I were on a church committee to examine a prospective pastor, I want him to possess the knowledge of Greek and Hebrew so that he may draw out of Scripture from the very languages He chose in writing them from the pen of the Prophets and Apostles. You yourself should also pursue such knowledge so that through your expository preaching of the Word you can better ascertain the meaning of Scripture. There is nothing wrong with having knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew, but there is something wrong with making excuses-- and using Scripture to defend excuses-- why you should remain ignorant. This is not in keeping with being a Berean Christian!

    *********************************************

    I agree with you that this verse does not state that God's written Word will not pass away, but it is saying that God's spoken Word (logos) will not pass away. God's spoken Word's were written down by divine inspiration for you and I to live by. That is providential preservation.

    ** OK, you have now just said that providential preservation equals inspiration! Heresy, I would say! Providential preservation does not mean that God has 'inspired' His word for you and me everytime we sit down and read the KJV-- or any other version in any other language. Do you possess perfectly what God wrote in the original manuscripts? If so, prove your point. You have a mountain of error-prone manuscripts that all do not have agreement on the exact wording of the NT text, so how do you know if the TR, KJV, or anything else out there is identical to the orignal manuscripts?
    I think that you have proven my point about how KJVO's take Scripture out of context! It is good that you now agree with God on Psalm 12 as well as Matthew 24:35. Again, you have isogeted your bias into what the true and Biblical meaning of this verse is clearly stating.

    **********************************************

    God Himself has overseen the preservation of His Word. He has preserved the text of the OT and NT in a very pure form and it has been readily available to Christians in every age for the past 2000 years.

    ** OK, now it's time for you to prove your point! You have made an erroneous (and arrogant!) assertion that God has 'preserved His Word in a very pure form'. Where does God say that He is obligated to perform this, let alone any verse (you have been proven wrong before!) that says that God preserves His Word in a pure form. If you couch your definintion of preservation in Scripture, then I would have to say that you are injecting your words into God's Word-- Beware of Revelation 22:18!

    *************************************************

    The original Scriptures were given by direct inspiration of God. I am not claiming that this applies to any translation of the originals as far as a direct inspiration from God. My confidence in the preservation of God's Word is closely linked to the doctrine of inspiration. If God inspired His Word, then He must also preserve His Word. What good would it serve to say only the originals were accurate? Do we not have the information that God intends for us to have today? If preservation were not a fact, then inspiration would be academic. It would have no value to you or I today.

    ** Again, you have made an error in your argument about preservation. Did God say *anywhere* in the Bible that He is obligated to preserve His Word exactly like the original manuscripts? God's answer is obvious: we haven't got the originals, nor is any one manuscript error-free. If you postulate that God has done something when in fact He hasn't, then you are in error. Your definition of providential preservation is therefore in error because none of the facts line up with your argument!

    ***********************************************

    It is my belief that God preserved His Word, true to the originals, wherever it is accurately translated from the Textus Receptus regardless of what the langauge might be. It is just as much the Word of God as the KJV.

    ** Why only the TR? Again, you are making blind assertions of fact when you are in error. What do you mean exactly by the TR or KJV being 'true to the originals' and *how* do you know this to be an accurate statement? I can prove that the TR has errors in it! How then is it possible to have a 'perfectly' true-to-the-original-manuscripts Greek NT text? By postulating that God did this because you *believe by faith* that God did it *exclusively* in the TR? Again, God did not say that He would 'perfectly' preserve His Word in *any* NT text-type or manuscripts! To put words in God's mouth is indeed a great error-- and even could be considered..... heresy!

    **************************************************

    Following is a quote from the Westminster Confession of Faith:
    "The OT in Hebrew, and the NT in Greek, 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."

    It goes on to say:
    "But because these original languages are not known to all the people of God who have right unto and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope."


    ** The Westminster Confession is not necessarily known to be a confession that even Calvinist Baptists like myself would subscribe to, much less any other kind if IFB! Anyway, here is the full text of the section that Pastor Bob has quoted:
    8. 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. But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.

    9. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

    The Westminster Confession does not assert 'providential preservation' as does the KJVO's or even with Pastor Bob 63, nor does it offer any Scriptural evidence that it does teach "providential preservation".

    My church subscribes to the New Hampshire Confession of faith, but with some reservations against two points (Christian Sabbath and also the vagueness of the NH Confession's statement on Eschatology-- it is not "premillennial"). The benchmark of a confession of faith is in the Scriptures, not in the confession itself.
    The NH confession is no more or less authoratative than the Westminster Confession, so long as it reflects the true meaning and context of the Scriptures.

    ************************************************

    I am not a champion for the KJVO camp. I speak for myself alone. I believe God inspired His Word in the originals, and then preserved His Word down through the ages in the descendants of the originals. I believe the KJV and its predecessors that use the Traditional Text as it's basis are the preserved Word of God. In addition, all other translations, regardless of langauge translated from this text are also the Word of God.

    ** In and of this statement by itself is perfectly fine with me! So long as this is stated that it is only your *opinion* and not Bible truth! But again, you have to prove that God did say that He would 'perfectly preserve His Word' from the Bible to make it comparable as a Bible doctrine. It is impossible to counter the fact that out of all of the manuscripts where the transmission of the text throughout the ages, no manuscript is free from error. God is not obligated to perfectly preserve His Word in any one manuscripts or through any one group of text-types. God did not say this, and to base one's argument that God *performed this act* is complete heresy. Again, why only the TR? Did God say that he would only preserve His Word in the TR to be 'like the originals'? Don't put words in God's mouth and make your 'postulations' as if they are Bible truth!

    ***********************************************

    Why?


    ** Well, why not? As stated in this post earlier, you are making false presumptions about how God 'preserved' His Word. In no way could you possibly prove that the KJV=TR=original manuscripts *perfectly* or *faithfully*! In no way did God say that He preserved His Word only in the TR or the majority of manuscripts! In no way did God miraculously preserve the transmission of the text from errors! To believe any or all of this is *blind faith*. True faith is to believe *only* what God has stated in the Bible, and not to "make-believe" that God said anything more than that was already said in Scripture.

    *************************************************

    Assuming you're asking for forgiveness regarding your arrogant attitude in previous posts, I forgive you. There is a way that you can convey your opinions in a godly manner. No argument is worth losing your testimony. Remember, the truth does not need defending. Silence is not an admission of defeat.</font>[/QUOTE]** Amen! But consider this, and this is in no way to be considered an 'excuse' for my previous behavior: the use of sarcasm and humor is not one to be taken lightly! I would appreciate that one has a sense of humor and not to take anything too seriously. It is not my intention to belittle anyone whether intended or implied, but rather their silly and uneducated opinions about their own KJVO positions. It is in a sense of retribution that I say some things with heat and rancor because of the lies and distortions of some of the extreme KJVO's, and their horrendous attitudes against those of my persuasion. I have read books by recent authors such as Gail "God-And-Me" Riplinger and William Grady; these authors have been most 'unchristian' in character! Yes, such retribution is not in character with the Historic Christian faith, and I would appreciate such correction on your part upon me.

    [ September 20, 2002, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: LRL71 ]
     
  17. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    I am no scholar to be sure. A wise preacher once told me, "Education is not just what you know; it is knowing where to go to find out what you don't know."

    I have read the following link and find that I agree 99% with everything that is written by this outstanding 19th century scholar. It is amazing that even 150 years ago men believed just like I do today about providential preservation.

    I am going to default to this man in repudiation of the above posted claims of heresy. If it comes down to his word against another's, I'll side with this fellow. It is interesting that this scholar was also like me and unaware that Psalm 12:6,7 did not really mean what God said.

    http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/preservd.htm#II.%20%20The%20Dean
     
  18. LRL71

    LRL71
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ok, what exactly do you mean to say? Did God say that He 'preserved' His Word or did God say that He would preserve the poor and needy?
    Did I waste my time in writing the earlier posts? Psalm 12 did not say that God preserved His Word, nor does this verse teach such an unbiblical belief. An individual cannot use Psalm 12 to 'prove' any kind of 'doctrine of the providential preservation of the Bible text'.

    Pastor Bob's referencing a link to the Dean Burgon Society demonstrates a willingness to ask those who know more (scholars) who have a ready knowledge of the subject. If one is interested in reading the writings of Dean Burgon, you can do so by going to the link Pastor Bob provided. One should also beware of taking another's word as being the 'truth'! Scripture, not men, are the 'final authority' in life, faith, and practice, and Berean Christians should be always scrutinizing the teachings of those who claim to be Apostles, other "Bible Scholars"-- and even Pastor Bob or myself!

    As a rebuttal to the authors of the Dean Burgon Society, I have provided links below for all to check out and examine-- as all Berean Christians should do! Enjoy, and I shall say that this 'discussion' and debate will also continue.

    http://www.christianbeliefs.org/kjv/preservation.html
    "THE PRESERVATION OF SCRIPTURE"

    http://www.kjvonly.org/gary/why_dean.htm
    "WHY DEAN BURGON WOULD NOT JOIN THE DEAN BURGON SOCIETY"

    http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/inspiration.htm
    "Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism"

    http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/burgon_textus.htm
    "WHAT DID JOHN WILLIAM BURGON REALLY BELIEVE ABOUT THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS AND THE KING JAMES VERSION?"

    ** Pastor Bob, and Pioneer-- and all those who are KJVO, please read the above links!
     
  19. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Two points before this discussion continues.

    1. Please refrain from posting long winded diatribes which read more like "War and Peace" than a message forum. Let's stick to one point and just a few short, and to the point, paragraphs.

    2. Please avoid posting nonsense or URLs pointing to nonsense. The link "WHY DEAN BURGON WOULD NOT JOIN THE DEAN BURGON SOCIETY" is fallacious for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the man has been dead for 130 years, which is the ONLY reason we know of why he would not do anything. And, secondly, it is infantile to try to inlist dead men onto one side or another of the argument. If they were still alive they could speak for themselves. As they are not alive nobody can speak for them.

    Let the discussion resume.

    Thomas Cassidy
    Forum Moderator
     
  20. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    After some digging, I came up with this for your consideration. These are not my words, the following is all borrowed.

    The doctrine of Bible preservation rests upon two unfailing authorities:
    (1) The promise of God (Ps. 12:6,7; 33:11; 100:5; 111:7-8; 117:2;
    119:89,152,160; Is. 40:8; 59:21; Mt. 5:18; 24:35; 1 Pet. 1:23,25; Rev.
    22:18,19). (2) The character of God. The God who has revealed Himself in an
    inspired Book, who has magnified that Word above His very name, would
    jealously superintend its transmission.

    Some do not agree that Psalm 12 should be included in a list of verses on Bible preservation. Consider, though, what verses 6 and 7 say in the King James Bible: "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." There can be no doubt that the Authorized Bible allows for the interpretation that verse 7 speaks of the preservation of the Bible. There can be no doubt, also, that this was an interpretation held by many down through the centuries.

    The modern versions, though, translate verse 7 in such a way that it cannot possibly apply to Bible preservation. The NIV is representative: "And the
    words of the Lord are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times. O Lord, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever." The NIV translation of Psalm 12:7 can only refer to the preservation of people.

    In a report on the history of the translation and interpretation of Psalm 12:6,7, Peter Van Kleeck, Senior Pastor of the Wealthy Street Baptist
    Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan, shows that the testimony is divided. Some interpreters have viewed Psalm 12:7 as applying to Bible preservation; others have viewed it as applying to the preservation of God's people; others have viewed it as having a double application. Thus Van Kleeck speaks of "the genius of ambiguity." His report was completed in the process of pursuing an M.A.R. at Calvin Theological Seminary.

    Consider some excerpts from this excellent study:

    THE GENIUS OF AMBIGUITY--The Translational and Exegetical Rendering of Psalm 12:7 Primarily Considered in the Churchly Tradition of the 16th And 17th Centuries and Its Expression in the Reformation English Bibles, By
    Peter Van Kleeck

    "The appropriate interpretation of Psalm 12:7 is not without question in the churchly tradition. Problems arise from the textual base chosen for the translation, Greek-Latin or Hebrew ... Contemporary Bible versions and the
    reciprocating confirmation of each other's validity give the dogmatic impression that as a result of new and better methodologies, the modern rendering is best and that past problems have been resolved. A casual perusal of the popular literature on the subject of Bible texts and versions will show, however, that the Reformational Churches' expression of their common faith in Scripture's providential preservation of the texts in their possession is evaluated in an unsympathetic and pejorative manner.

    Scholars such as Bruce M. Metzger and Kurt Aland discredit the value of the Reformation Greek texts and subsequently the English Bibles on textual grounds. Metzger, giving a standard reply, writes,

    "Partly because of this catchword [Textus Receptus] the form of the Greek text incorporated in the editions that Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzevirs had published succeeded in establishing itself as 'the only true text' of the New Testament, and was slavishly reprinted in hundreds of subsequent editions. It lies at the basis of the King James Version and of all the
    principal Protestant translations in the languages of Europe prior to 1881.

    So superstitious has been the reverence accorded the Textus Receptus that in some cases attempts to criticize or emend it have been regarded as akin to sacrilege" (Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, Oxford University
    Press, 1968, p. 106).

    "What these writers fail to say is that the Authorized Version is not an ad hoc English translation, but stands at the end of the 16th century English Bible tradition. ... To deny the Authorized Version on textual grounds is
    to do the same for the Bishops, Geneva, Great, Coverdale, Matthews and Tyndale Bibles going back to 1524. It also questions the scholarship of the
    Protestant exiles of Mary's romanish persecution who had escaped to the safe haven of Geneva as well as the value of every 16th and 17th century
    commentator who based his work on Erasmus' Greek New Testament.

    "The bifurcation of the Reformation Bible tradition and the post-19th century English Bibles is seen in the New Revised Standard Version render[ing of] Psalm 12:7, "You O Lord, will protect us; you will guard us from this generation forever." In a similar manner, the New International Version translates verse 7, "O Lord, you will keep us safe and protect us
    from such people forever." In spite of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia reading "keep them" and "preserve him," both the NRSV and NIV have elected not to translate the Hebrew and have, in its place, substituted a translation from the Greek and Latin rendering of these two pronouns.

    By so doing, the editors of these translations have endorsed one exegetical tradition, the Greek-Latin, to the exclusion of the other, the Hebraic, and by doing so have censured any further debate within the Hebrew exegetical tradition itself. ...

    "This essay will show the diversity of the textual and exegetical tradition of Psalm 12:6-7 ... By so doing, the inadequacy of modern renditions of Psalm 12:7 will be exposed...

    "Michael Ayguan (1340-1416) ... On Psalm 12:7 Ayguan comments, Keep them: that is, not as the passage is generally taken, Keep or guard Thy people, but Thou shalt keep, or make good, Thy words: and by doing so, shalt preserve him--him, the needy, him, the poor--from this generation...

    "Martin Luther's German Bible ... Following the arrangement of this Psalm, Luther penned a hymn, two stanzas of which reflect his understanding of
    verse 6 and 7: ... "Thy truth thou wilt preserve, O Lord, from this vile generation..." In poetic form, Luther grasps the significance of this verse both for the preservation of those who are oppressed and for the Word of God. The two-pronged significance of this interpretation to both people and God's words in Luther's Psalter was to have wide-ranging significance in the English Bible tradition.

    "Calvin's Commentary on the Psalms ... in the body of the commentary he writes, 'Some give this exposition of the passage, Thou wilt keep them,
    namely, thy words; but this does not seem to me to be suitable." [Thus while Calvin did not believe Psalm 12:7 referred to the Word of God, he admits that others did hold this view in his day.]

    "Coverdale Bible, 1535 ... reads for [verse 7] of Psalm 12: "Keep them therefore (O Lord) and preserve us from this generation for ever." With the absence of "Thou shalt" to begin verse 7, there is a direct connection between 'words' and 'keep them.' In the first clause, Coverdale intended the words to be kept; in the second clause people are in view..."

    "The Matthew Bible 1537. ... In Psalm 12:67 Rogers translated, "The words of the Lord are pure words as the silver, which from the earth is tried and purified vii times in the fire. Keep them therefore (O Lord) and preserve us from this generation for ever." Following Coverdale, Rogers makes a clear connection in his translation between the words being the antecedent to "them." ... The significance of Roger's marginal note is that two of the greatest Hebrew scholars referred to by the Reformation writers differed on the interpretation of "them" in Psalms 12:7. [Thus we see that the interpretation of this verse was also divided among Jewish scholars.]

    "The Third Part of the Bible, 1550. Taken from Becke's text of 1549 this edition of the scriptures contains the Psalter, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs. ... In verse 7 there is a note at them which states,
    'some understand here certain men, some others word." Again, the translators and exegetes allowed breadth of interpretation of "them" to
    include people and words.

    "The Geneva Bible, 1560. ... The preface reads, "Then comforting himself and others with the assurance of God's help, he commendeth the constant vigil that God observeth in keeping his promises." The text reads, "The words of the Lord are pure words, as the silver, tried in a furnace of earth, fined seven fold. Thou wilt keep them, O Lord: Thou wilt preserve him from this generation forever." [The margin reads, "Because the Lords word and promise is true and unchangeable, he will perform it and preserve
    the poor from this wicked generation." Thus the Geneva took a position that verse 7 applies both to the preservation of the Bible and of God's people.]

    "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.

    "Matthew Poole's 1685 Commentary of the Psalms ... writes at verse seven, "Thou shalt keep them; either, 1. The poor and needy, ver. 5 ... Or, 2. Thy words or promises last mentioned, ver. 6. ...

    "In summary ... [t]he only sure conclusion is that there is no consensus within the English Bible tradition for the interpretation of "them" in Psalm 12:7 and it was precisely this lack of agreement within the tradition which was the genius of the ambiguity of the King James Version's rendering. ... by choosing a Greek-Latin basis the modern versions elect to
    overlook the Reformation's Hebrew basis for translation in Psalm 12:6-7; and the churchly tradition in the new versions is censored by not including a translation that is broad enough to include both interpretations--oppressed people and God's words" (Peter Van Kleeck, The
    Translational and Exegetical Rendering of Psalm 12:7 Primarily Considered in the Churchly Tradition of the 16th and 17th Centuries and Its Expression in the Reformation English Bibles: The Genius of Ambiguity, March 1993).
     

Share This Page

Loading...