• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

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

Inerrancy of the Bible and other Religious Texts

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
AV1611 said:
If you see flaws, then how should it read?
KJV
  • 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.
  • 12:6 The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
  • 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
  • 12:8 The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.
Septuagint
  • 12:5 Because of the misery of the poor, and because of the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the Lord, I will set them in safety; I will speak to them thereof openly.
  • 12:6 The oracles of the Lord are pure oracles; as silver tried in the fire, proved in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
  • 12:7 Thou, O Lord, shalt keep us, and shalt preserve us, from this generation, and for ever.
  • 12:8 The ungodly walk around: according to thy greatness thou has greatly exalted the sons of men.
NET Bible
  • 12:5 “Because of the violence done to the oppressed,because of the painful cries of the needy, I will spring into action,” says the Lord. “I will provide the safety they so desperately desire.”
  • 12:6 The Lord’s words are absolutely reliable. They are as untainted as silver purified in a furnace on the ground, where it is thoroughly refined.
  • 12:7 You, Lord, will protect them; you will continually shelter each one from these evil people,
  • 12:8 for the wicked seem to be everywhere, when people promote evil.
bible.org makes the following observation about the 'then' in 12:7 ...
The third person plural pronominal suffix on the verb is masculine, referring back to the “oppressed” and “needy” in v. 5 (both of those nouns are plural in form), suggesting that the verb means “protect” here. The suffix does not refer to twrma (“words”) in v. 6, because that term is feminine gender.​
... thereby aligning itself with the Septuagint translation.

It would seem the Psalm 12:7 is mantra material for the KJV-only crowd, so there is more than a little discussion of it. One that I found of interest follows:

WHY PSALM 12:6,7 IS NOT A PROMISE OF THE
INFALLIBLE PRESERVATION OF SCRIPTURE


< --- snip --- >

The main proof text employed to teach an infallibly preserved Bible is Psalm 12:6, 7, which in the KJV reads,
“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.”
It is commonly asserted that this is proof positive that God promised to infallibly preserve His written Word. Not only is this seized as proof of the certain preservation of the Scriptures in the original languages, but it is often applied to perfect preservation of the Scriptures in the English language, particularly and exclusively the King James Version in English. [Note: The actual origin of using Psalm 12:6-7 to apply exclusively to the KJV and its Textus Receptus Greek is Seventh-day Adventist author Benjamin G. Wilkinson, whose 1930 book was plagiarized by Jasper James Ray in his 1955 book, God Wrote Only One Bible. See the article, “The Unlearned Men” by Doug Kutilek, and “The Great Which Bible? Fraud” by Kutilek & Hudson, both on this website.].

We shall examine in detail these verses as regards grammar, context, and the views of biblical authorities both ancient and modern to determine their correct interpretation and application.

< --- snip --- >

The vast majority of translations and commentaries to which I had access agreed with the conclusions reached independently above, viz., that the promise of preservation applies to the persecuted people of God. Most gave no reasons, but some gave sound arguments from grammar. The pre-Christian Greek translation of the Old Testament, commonly called the Septuagint (LXX), reads, “you, O Lord, will guard us, and you will keep us,” etc., understanding the pronouns as first person plural “us” in both cases instead of “them” and “him” as in the Masoretic Hebrew text. Whatever the cause of this difference, the LXX clearly supports the “people” position.

The Targum to Psalms, the interpretive Jewish translation of the Hebrew into Aramaic which dates from the early Christian centuries, reads, “you, O Lord, will keep the righteous ones, you will protect them from this evil generation forever.” The antecedent of “them” is spelled out plainly.

The Pe****ta Syriac, a second-century Christian translation of the Old Testament, reads, “because of the robbery of the poor ones (masculine plural)...” (Vs. 5), “the word (masculine singular) of the Lord is a pure word....” (Vs. 6), “you, O Lord, will keep them (masculine plural); save me and rescue me from this generation forever” (Vs. 7). Gender and number agreement and the personal pronoun me confine the reference to people, not words.

Jerome’s fourth-century Vulgate translation of the Old Testament into Latin reads “us” in both cases like the LXX, instead of “them” and “him”; it clearly applies the promise to saints, not Scriptures.

Augustine, using a Latin text that read “us” twice in verse 7 rather than “them,” of course, understood the promise to apply to people. Rabbinic scholar Rashi (d. 1105) writes, “you will keep them -- this is said concerning the poor and afflicted who are persecuted by this generation.”

The greatest medieval Hebrew grammarian and lexicographer, David Kimchi (d. ca. 1240), explains the passage, noting the change in Hebrew from masculine plural them to masculine singular him: “‘you, O Lord, will keep them’ -- you will keep the poor ones, and he said ‘you will preserve him’ -- which is singular, concerning every poor one, and the poor in every place wherever he may be.”

Calvin shows awareness of other interpretation but expressly rejects it on grounds of context: “Some give this explanation to the passage, thou wilt keep them, namely, thy words; but this does not seem to be suitable. David, I have no doubt, returns to speak of the poor, of whom he had spoken in the preceding part of the psalm.”

The Geneva Bible (1560), produced by Puritan exiles from the cruel reign of Mary, translated verse 7, “Thou wilt keep them, O Lord: thou wilt preserve him from this generation forever,” and in a marginal note on them added, “That is, thine, though he were but one man.” Among Puritan writers who understood the promise to apply to people are David Dickson (1655), John Mayer (1663), and Matthew Henry (d. 1714). The learned Hebraist and Baptist pastor John Gill (d. 1771) takes a position and then gives reasons, which is far better: “Verse 7: ‘Thou shalt keep them, O Lord,’ etc. Not the words before mentioned, as Aben Ezra explains it, for the affix is masculine, not feminine:...but the sense is, that God will keep the poor and needy, and such as he sets in safety, as Kimchi rightly observes.”

Among 19th century authors who concur are Adam Clarke, Symon Patrick, George Horne, E. W. Hengstenburg, J. A. Alexander, Albert Barnes, C. B. Moll in Lange’s, C. H. Spurgeon, Joseph Excell in Biblical Illustrator, G. Rawlinson in Pulpit Commentary, F. C. Cook, George Murphy, J. J. Stuart Perowne, and Franz Delitzsch. The last one of these is among the few to give reasons, but his arguments are grammatical and accurate. “The [pronominal] suffix in verse 8a [7a in English] refers to the miserable and poor; the suffix [him] in verse 8b [7b] refers back to the man who yearns for deliverance mentioned in the divine utterance, verse 6 [5].”

Among 20th century authorities that accept as valid the reference to the poor and needy are Cheyne, Briggs (apparently), Maclaren, W. E. Barnes, Kirkpatrick, F. B. Meyer, Arno Gabelein, Cohen, W. G. Scroggie, W. O. E. Oesterly, H. C. Leupold, Dahood, the Open Bible (marginal note), and the New International Version, which adopts the reading of the LXX (which fact is not noted in the margin).

Counting scholarly noses does not constitute proof. However, it is evident that the vast majority of interpreters accept the position maintained by the writer -- that God has promised here to preserve and guard His saints. Included among these commentators are some of the best Hebraists and expositors of all time, Rashi, Kimchi, Calvin, Gill, Hengstengerg, Alexander, Perowne, and Delitzsch. Though most do not give reasons for their view, those who do so present valid arguments from grammar and context.

- see Psalm 12:6-7

I trust that I have answered your question.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Deut. 32.8 said:
I trust that I have answered your question.
Please re-read my question and answer it.

It's easy (and cheap) to tell me what it shouldn't say. So tell me what it should say.

And while you're busy not doing that, don't do this, either:

Tell me where the preserved line is, then.
 

Fade

The Great Master Bates
Duet, do you ever get the feeling that everything you offer for debate is being filtered through treacle? It's like being tangled up in a marshmallow spiders web and no matter how hard you try to be logical or reasonable it just goes nowhere.

*BIG SIGH* :(
 

ch'ang

artist in training
How can you logicly say "this book is true because it says so". Well using that logic I say I am god and the only reason I can give you to beleive this is because I say so, why don't you beleive me?
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
ch'ang said:
How can you logicly say "this book is true because it says so". Well using that logic I say I am god and the only reason I can give you to beleive this is because I say so, why don't you beleive me?
It is self-validating. It says it is true, I believe it, therefore "I" say it's true. That's what faith is all about.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Fade said:
Duet, do you ever get the feeling that everything you offer for debate is being filtered through treacle?
In fact, AV1611 could well argue that, since I spoke of 'translation' rather than 'interpretation', he is technically correct. Such an argument is not particularly honest, nor is it particularly honorable, but it is the best he can achieve. It remains ironic that one must insist on distorting the the meaning of Scripture in order to defend that Scripture as inerrant.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
AV1611 said:
It is self-validating. It says it is true, I believe it, therefore "I" say it's true. That's what faith is all about.
Faith in the face of evidence to the contrary is pure superstition.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Deut. 32.8 said:
Faith in the face of evidence to the contrary is pure superstition./QUOTE]

Tell that to Marco Polo.

Tell that to Christopher Columbus.

Tell that to someone lying in a hospital dying of AIDS, hanging on to one last ray of hope that someone will find a cure in time.

Tell that to someone on kidney dialysis.

Tell that to a woman desperately trying to have a child, when doctors say otherwise.
 

Ryan2065

Well-Known Member
AV1611 said:
Tell that to Marco Polo.

Tell that to Christopher Columbus.
These two guys had evidance for their claims, they did not go on faith alone. (ok, scientific evidance)
AV1611 said:
Tell that to someone lying in a hospital dying of AIDS, hanging on to one last ray of hope that someone will find a cure in time.

Tell that to someone on kidney dialysis.

Tell that to a woman desperately trying to have a child, when doctors say otherwise.
Appealing to emotion now I see. Yes these people can have FAITH that they will live. But scientific evidance doesn't bend due to emotion and even though these people can have faith that they will live all evidance can point to them dieing. Sorry, but science doesn't play favorites.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
AV1611 said:
Deut. 32.8 said:
Faith in the face of evidence to the contrary is pure superstition.
Tell that to someone lying in a hospital dying of AIDS, hanging on to one last ray of hope that someone will find a cure in time.
Tell that to someone on kidney dialysis.
Tell that to a woman desperately trying to have a child, when doctors say otherwise.
That was truly despicable.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Ryan2065 said:
These two guys had evidance for their claims, they did not go on faith alone. (ok, scientific evidance)
Appealing to emotion now I see. Yes these people can have FAITH that they will live. But scientific evidance doesn't bend due to emotion and even though these people can have faith that they will live all evidance can point to them dieing. Sorry, but science doesn't play favorites.
BINGO! There's my point --- they had FAITH, despite overwhelming physical evidence to the contrary!
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Deut. 32.8 said:
That was truly despicable.
Then THINK before you say something goofy like that!

You thought it was despicable reading it, how do you think "I" felt typing it?
 

Ryan2065

Well-Known Member
AV1611 said:
BINGO! There's my point --- they had FAITH, despite overwhelming physical evidence to the contrary!
Again, faith with evidance to the contrary is superstition. We call it faith when people who are sick have this superstition just because it is more PC =)
 

Fascist Christ

Active Member
AV1611 said:
Then THINK before you say something goofy like that!

You thought it was despicable reading it, how do you think "I" felt typing it?
:confused: This deserves a blank stare. I don't understand the thought processes behind such a response.
 

Ryan2065

Well-Known Member
Superstition:
  1. irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.
    1. A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.
    2. A fearful or abject state of mind resulting from such ignorance or irrationality.
    3. Idolatry.
I would say that Deut had a good definition of superstition. And the "emotional" things that you listed were supersititions but we don't call them superstitions because it is not PC. So please quit argueing over that and get back to the main topic.
 

Ryan2065

Well-Known Member
AV1611 said:
I never thought I'd do this, but it's worth a sigh:

http://www.layevangelism.com/advtxb...-10/sec10-5.htm

Does that help?
If someone wanted a website to read for information against a world wide flood, I'd send them to the website you just posted. I have read all of the "facts" that they give that there was a world wide flood, and they are not facts, they are a distortion of the facts. For one this website lists information against its own idea that the biblical flood occured when they say...
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Thousands and millions of fish fossils which retain all the body parts indicating very rapid burial. Under normal conditions, fish do not fossilize. Dead fish are torn apart by scavengers and disintegrated by bacteria. There are the existence of fossils with soft tissue like jellyfish and sponges. There are the preservation of animal tracts, fish odors, amino acids, proteins, epidermal bark in plants, cell details, chlorophyll, etc.[/font]
Because as we all know, a world wide FLOOD will kill fish...

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]There are huge ancient whale fossils that can be found completely and quickly buried in sediment.185 Near Lompo, CA there was found in diatomaceous earth an 80 foot Valine Whale upright on its tale. In order to sweep a creature like that up on its tale, in order to sedimentarally incase it would require global catastrophic proportions.[/font]
Look ma, hes distorting the truth and hoping that no one will catch on that WHALES WOULDN"T RAPIDLY DIE FROM A FLOOD!

Most of the events he lists here can be explained by any global event happening. The evidance he lists for a flood are not global, if you actually pay attention to the experts he quotes, they only say that a flood could have happened in this or that area. They make no mention of a global flood.
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]"Judging from the concentration of bones in various pits, there were 30 million fossil fragments in that area. At a conservative estimate, we had discovered the tomb of 10,000 dinosaurs. There was a flood. This was no ordinary spring flood from one of the streams in the area but a catastrophic inundation. . . That’s our best explanation. It seems to make the most sense, and on the basis of it we believe that this was a living, breathing group of dinosaurs destroyed in one catastrophic moment."[/font]
Notice how the expert says "in this area"

The best evidance that this website gives for a world wide flood is this...
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]"Among all traditions there is none so general so wide spread on earth of the fact that the deluge is granted because of the basis of all myths in particular in nature myths having a real basis in fact."[/font]
Thanks for the read though. It was very entertaining.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Ryan2065 said:
Thanks for the read though. It was very entertaining.
My pleasure, Ryan. It confirms what I've always said too: nothing, but nothing I said has been of any use to you. So I need to quit trying, because I'm doing a very poor job.
 
Top