1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Psalm 12:7

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Keith M, Jul 19, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Top Posters
Page 3 of 6
  1. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    It should be abundantly clear that some will continue to interpret the pronoun "them" in Psalm 12 to mean "words", while others will prefer "people".

    But in the discussion of the doctrine of 'preservation of the scriptures' the interpretation is irrelevant.

    Even when "them" is interpretated as "words of the LORD" there is no reason given in this passage to believe it includes written revelation. God's words were spoken by His prophets (including David), His angels, and also in dreams; and there ARE specific references to the audible words in this passage (witness the mentioning of "speak", "lips" and "tongue"). There is NO direct objective connection to the preservation of scripture here.

    OR

    The promise of keeping His word (verse 7) could be specifically limited to the LORD's proclaimation in verse 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." In context, the most conservative interpetation would be that David is merely expressing the surety of the LORD's declaration to the "faithful" (verse 1) against the "wicked" (verse 8). There is NO reason to expand the scope beyond this passage.
     
    #41 franklinmonroe, Jul 21, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 21, 2007
  2. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Simple, Salamander. The marginal notes often give shades of meaining and explanations of meanings found in the original languages. Very often, the English of the Bible can be misunderstood, just as it is misunderstood by those who take Ps 12:7 to refer to the preservation of words instead of the preservation of people. You can stand on your left ear to try to make Ps 12:7 refer to words, but that doesn't change the fact that your incorrect interpretation does not reflect the way it was written in the original Hebrew.
     
    #42 Keith M, Jul 22, 2007
  3. tinytim

    tinytim <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    I just like those two words for some reason.... Poof Proof! :laugh: :laugh:
    I hope they will be preserved for a while....

    Salamander you may have just coined a phrase!
     
    #43 tinytim, Jul 22, 2007
  4. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Salamander:No, you're playing the decoy games. If you want to believe God only preserves some of the poor and needy from the oppressors then you make God a respector of persons. But if you want to believe God has preserved all His written words then you would be dogmatically correct to so believe.

    Sal, you're forgetting(or ignoring) the CONTEXT. Psalm 12 was written about the time David & friends were on the run from Saul & prolly sometimes felt lower than a snake's belly. Therefore, david was writing only about himself & his companions, whom God DID preserve to become the ruling party of Israel.

    Why is it some will adhere to footnotes as some sort of "poof proof" when doctrine is established by the word of God through its profitability to all?

    Because we know the translators, knowing the LITERAL translation of the Hebrew, wished to explain why they'd taken some liberties from that exact-as-possible literal translation in order to keep the MESSAGE correct.

    It is therefore true that God does preserve the poor and needy from the oppressors through His preserved word, which never changes, but then we do have the problem, men try to change God's word to fit their understandings all the while it is God trying to get men to change to His understanding.

    Well, there's no problem here unless YOU make one. Just about every English Bible version but the KJV reads "us" or "him" in V7, while the KJV gives the literal translation in their note. The problem arises when certain people tryta make V7 say something else besides its true meaning.

    Argue all your semantics all you want, but the doctrinal truth is that God has preserved His word, while the poor and needy are not preserved from all differing aspects of oppression, unless they adhere to His word.

    Argue all the defense of Wilkinson's book that you want, but the literal truth is that David, in Ps. 12, was writing about the time of his flight from Saul, the depression he & his friends felt at times, & his trust in God to protect him from Saul & the others who wanted him & his friends dead. He wasn't writing about ALL the poor & oppressed; he was writing about himself & his band of followers, who were certainly poor/depressed at the time.
     
    #44 robycop3, Jul 22, 2007
  5. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let's just assume for a moment that you are right, Salamander. Let's assume that David was really thinking about the preservation of words when he wrote this verse, instead of the preservation of people. What can we conclude if your assertion is correct, Salamander?

    Well, first, we can conclude David was not very learned in the part of Hebrew grammar which taught that the gender of the word we see as "them" in Ps 12:7 should agree with the gender of its antecedent. This agreement is only possible if the antecedent is people and not words. Maybe David should have studied his grammar a little more before he started writing, huh?

    In your first paragraph you write about the written word. If Ps. 12:7 refers to the preservation of the written word as you assert, Salamander, and if God's word never changes as you assert in your third paragraph, then surely you must be able to supply us a date after which the written word never changed. Was anything written after Moses the unchanging written word, Salamander? Was anything written after Joshua the written word? After David? After Solomon? After the prophets? At just what point in time does this unchanging written word become Scripture?

    Of course if the written word is unchanging after a certain point in time as you assert, Salamander, then this disallows the addition of any part of the Bible written after that particular time, doesn't it? Does this mean the Gospels are not Scripture? How about Paul's letters? John's Revelation?

    And of course if the written word of God is unchanging, then we all need to learn the original Hebrew. Of is that Hebrew and Greek? Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic? If God's written word is unchanging as you assert, Salamander, then the written word cannot possibly include English, Spanish, Japanese or even Latin.

    Are you beginning to see how absurd your assertions really are, Salamander? Do you agree that God's written word really has changed down through the years with the addition of later writings? Or do you wish to stand by your absurd assertions?

    Of course since Ps. 12:7 refers to the preservation of people, Salamander, this was merely an exercise to show the utter absurdity of your claims. Of course if David had been referring to the preservation of written words as you claim, then all these questions would be ligitimate questions and you would be expected to answer them to show there was any validity to your point. Maybe in the future you'll be less likely to make these wild assertions you cannot support, Salamander. But then, maybe not!
     
    #45 Keith M, Jul 23, 2007
  6. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    There it is, I'm sorry, but I don't like the "shady" interpretation.

    Doctrine is emphatically clear, that's what makes it DOCTRINE.

    Psalm 12:6,7 do NOT form any doctrine of God preserving the poor and needy from the oppressors, that ideal isn't truth at all.

    We are all kept by the power of God through His word from the oppression of the devil as we adhere to the word of God and resist the devil and draw nigh to God.

    Obedience to the will of God is the requirement, not as so many like to try and force "people" into the context as if we have no responsibility to obeying the will of God. We are not puppets and God isn't a nanny.

    The word of God is what we always fall back upon for stability, not expecting the Lord to force us against our own will.

    Too much fallacious and erroneous ideals formed when one looks at it from that narrow minded point of view. Doctrine proves that it's the word of God that is kept, else only poor and needy people can be saved and all rich people go to hell.
     
    #46 Salamander, Jul 23, 2007
  7. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    But it's you who preaches the "shady interpretation," Salamander. Your interpretation is certainly not the way it was written.

    That "doctrine" certainly doesn't come from Ps. 12:6-7. That's not how it is written and that is certainly not the way it should be interpreted.

    The only "forcing" is by those who twist what is written, claiming it refers to "words" or "written words" instead of people. One does not have to "force 'people' into the context" because that IS the context, Salamander!

    The "fallacious and erroneous ideal" is the misninterpretation that Ps. 12:7 refers to words. There is nothing at all "fallacious" or "erroneous" about accepting the word of God as it is written without adding our own "private interpretation."

    Ps. 12:6-7 form a prophecy of sorts, Salamander. And your interpretation, as it doesn't accept what was written, is a "private interpretation." You can bend over backward and you can jump through all sorts of hoops, but you cannot make Ps. 12:7 refer to the preservation of words. it is clearly (well, it should be clear, at least) that Ps. 12:7 refers to the preservation of people, just as it was written. We who accept what was written are not narrow-minded as you suggest, Salamander.
     
    #47 Keith M, Jul 23, 2007
  8. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I still blame the whole "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie" upon Dr. Wilkinson's book His error goes against the work of virtually every translator or team who have made English Bibles. Every valid version I've ever seen shows V7 is about PEOPLE.

    This error is compounded by the fact that later KJV editions omit the translators' marginal notes. Thus, some people believe the goof because they misapply the impersonal pronoun to God's words because that's what they've heard or read in some error-filled pro-KJVO book, & haven't bothered to find out the FACTS for themselves.
     
    #48 robycop3, Jul 24, 2007
  9. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    228
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I guess you totally ignored the FACTS presented on post #15 in this thread. The men quoted predated Wilkinson by several hundred years. The FACT is, this "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie" has been around as long as the English Bible has been around.
     
    #49 Pastor_Bob, Jul 24, 2007
  10. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No, I didn't ignore it. Truth is, this 'thingie' was pretty well buried until Wilkinson brought it back up. Apparently, it was W who failedta check out the veracity of the claim.

    Clearly, the translators of the familiar BVs believed the verse to be about preservation of the PEOPLE of the entire Ps. 12. That's the way they wrote Psalm 12:7. And that's the way most modern translators believe. Wilkinson compiled his stuff from previous worx, and apparently didn't check out the veracity of any of it. And neither did the subsequent authors who copied Wilkinson.

    What makes the modern claim look so bad for the KJVOs is that the AV1611 clearly indicates its makers believed the verse is about PEOPLE....not to mention that if it really were a 'word preservation' verse that it doesn't give the SLIGHTEST HINT of any version or even of any language in which such preservation had taken place.

    I believe the evidence is heavily in favor of Ps. 12:7 being about the PEOPLE of the entire ps. 12.
     
    #50 robycop3, Jul 24, 2007
  11. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, you did ignore it.
    Not only the people! These verses of Ps. 12 talked about the people and the WORDS of God. You see many people died - NOT forever! But the WORDS of God are FOREVER because God's Words do nothing with the death. The people were sinners then they died long, long years ago. God preserved His Words FOREVER!!!! That is how we got the Bible, not people.
     
    #51 Askjo, Jul 24, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 24, 2007
  12. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nothing shady about God preserving His word, but you insist upon a slightly darker interpretation when you stick with the obviously erroneous ideal that God preserves some poor and needy from the oppressors and then lets others be open game; that makes Him a respector of persons, by your estimation.



    According to Hebraic means of recording it most certainly does, seems you forgot that.

    You're demanding of the Hebrew to align with the rules of English Grammar, BIG mistake!


    Nothing twisted, only you espouse a false doctrine, according to the rest of the Bible, that is.


    Nothing "private" about that which is rather obvious.



    So, by your estimation, does God "pickle" people? Seems a very large contradiction to your interpretation when there are so many poor and needy people in hell today. If, as you believe, why did God "promise to presevre the poor and needy" and then let so many go to hell?

    Seems God is just in preserving His word and people choose whom they will serve. Without any hoops.
     
    #52 Salamander, Jul 24, 2007
  13. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Alternates are not sound words, that's why they're in the footnotes, roby.
     
    #53 Salamander, Jul 24, 2007
  14. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    You're absolutely wrong as usual, Salamander. You refuse to accept God's word as it is written, choosing to accept your own erroneous "private interpretation" rather than the truth.

    Not quite, Salamander! If, as you errantly claim, Ps. 12:7 refers to words then the rules of English grammar were applied to the Hebrew when this Psalm was written - and English didn't exist when this Psalm was written. However, since the verse refers to people and not words, and since the Psalm was written in Hebrew and not English, then the rules of Hebrew grammar were applied. Why is it you refuse to accept this basic and simple truth? Why do you choose to believe what is so obviously false to everyone who truly believes he truth?

    The false "doctrine" is the erroneous belief that this verse refers to words, Salamander. It is you espousing the false "doctrine." I accept God's word as it is written. It's you who wants to bend and shape God's written word to fit your own errant belief and to bend and shape the Hebrew to fit the English. We're not talking about the rest of the Bible here, Salamander, because God DOES promise to preserve His word. He just doesn't make that promise in Ps. 12:7, that's all.

    Yet you foolishly deny what is written and claim it refers to words. That certainly IS a "private interpretation," Salamander! You're extremely confused which is made even more obvious because you refuse to see or comprehend this basic truth.

    There you go spouting more error and confusion, Salamander. Psalm 12 is about the faithful, not everyone in the world. Do you really have such a severe comprehension problem, Salamander, or are you just trying to throw up a smoke screen to hide your obvious error and confusion?

    That's the first correct thing you've said about this subject, Salamander. God IS just in preserving His word! But this simple truth cannot make Ps. 12:7 refer to the preservation of words no matter how you twist it. Ps, 12:7 refers to the preservation of people just as it was written in Hebrew, Salamander. All your English rules do not apply when the original language is something other than English. You should have learned that simple fact years ago! Guess you were snoozing when that was covered, huh?

    Salamander, you can insist all you want that Ps, 12:7 refers to the preservation of words. That doesn't make your assertion any less wrong because that is not how it is written in the original language, Hebrew. Hebrew grammatical rules applied when the Psalm was written, so the verse refers to faithful people and not to words.
     
    #54 Keith M, Jul 25, 2007
  15. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Wrong. They are notes rather than text becausa TRANSLATORS CHOICES. Remember, Coverdale & Co. chose "him", which is in the AV translators' note.

    BTW, your "sound words" thingie is pure conjecture.
     
    #55 robycop3, Jul 25, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 25, 2007
  16. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Salamander: //Alternates are not sound words,
    that's why they're in the footnotes, roby.//

    Robycop3: //Wrong. They are notes rather than text
    becausa TRANSLATORS CHOICES. Remember,
    Coverdale & Co. chose "him", which is
    in the AV translators' note.

    :thumbs: Amen, Brother Robycop3 -- Preach it! :thumbs:
     
    #56 Ed Edwards, Jul 25, 2007
  17. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist

    Actually, I dismissed(not ignored) mosta the arguments as incorrect. Big difference. it appears those who actually made bible translations, older and newer, dismissed them also.
     
    #57 robycop3, Jul 25, 2007
  18. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    Mebbe it is just my vertigo acting up again, but I think all the going around on this subject is making me dizzy. I am going to lay down and get up again after it passes...





    ... this thread, I mean!:smilewinkgrin:
     
    #58 Mexdeaf, Jul 25, 2007
  19. KeithS

    KeithS New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    186
    Likes Received:
    0
    As I recall from a previous discussion on Psalm 12 - it is, like some other Psalms, a chiasmus (or inverted parallelism). This should help in decyphering the meaning of our text.
     
    #59 KeithS, Jul 25, 2007
  20. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    i believe the whole thing's pretty obvious. David wrote the psalm about the time he was on the lam from Saul. At times he was a little depressed, being separated from his family, his home, & mosta his friends, living hand-to-mouth, in peril every day, being 'puffed at' from all sides, never knowing if the next stranger he met & who recognized him would betray his whereabouts to Saul. However, he knew what God had promised, he knew he had been anointed to become king by God's appointment, and through all his troubles he trusted God to keep His promise at the right time. Since the Psalm is a SONG, he used the "songwriter's license", which has been around since time immemorial, to PRAISE GOD in the midst of his lamentations. Thus, we have his praise of God's words interspersed into the psalm.

    Every translation I've seen of verses 6 & 7 have David COMPARING God's words to silver that's been purified 7 times. There's NO purification of God's words indicated, as some ignoramuses indicate. I believe this is deliberate 'misunderstanding' of the English. No English reader should not be able to see the comparison in any valid version, old or new.

    I believe the problem has arisen from OVER-READING this psalm.
     
    #60 robycop3, Jul 26, 2007
Page 3 of 6
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...