Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, John81 said:

These verses have been addressed as they don't indicate angel/human mating or angels somehow renouncing their spiritual nature and making themselves physical. Neither do they indicate any such is even possible.

A spirit in a body is still a spirit. Humans are a spirit with a body of dust, angels normaly have no body, what about people who are possesed with anunclean spirit(s), or an evil spirit, when Jesus cast them out, they were still spirits but they had to leave the vesel from which they were cast out, and had to go to the place which was appointed to them; sooner or later. As far as scripture goes, I think Genesis 6 is the clearest, there are many topics which lack 'proof texts' so you only need to prove the meaning to yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, John81 said:

These verses have been addressed as they don't indicate angel/human mating or angels somehow renouncing their spiritual nature and making themselves physical. Neither do they indicate any such is even possible.

Who addressed them I never saw that, but if they are quoting greek and all that, do we all need to go and learn greek from an apostate teacher in order to find out his error?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brother Chester,

On ‎2‎/‎14‎/‎2016 at 11:38 PM, Critical Mass said:

A semicolon means that the two independent clauses are closely related.

Indeed, a semicolon that is followed by the coordinating conjunction "and" DOES grammatically indicate a coordinating relationship between the two statements of the two independent clauses.

On ‎2‎/‎14‎/‎2016 at 11:38 PM, Critical Mass said:

Therefore, the giants are associated with the Sons of God and daughters of men. The giants are the mighty men of old.

False.  The semicolon and the coordinating conjunction "and" do NOT indicate that the "giants" were associated with "the sons of God" and "the daughters of men."  Rather, the semicolon and the coordinating conjunction "and" grammatically indicate that the two events of the two independent clauses are related to one another.  Yet what is that relationship?  That relationship is revealed by the additional phrase, "also after that."  You see, if you desire to speak concerning the grammatical construction of the passage, you need to speak concerning ALL of the grammatical construction; and ALL of the grammatical construction includes the entire phrase, "and also after that."

Frist, the use of the adverb "also" indicates that the second independent clause reveals an additional reality to the first independent clause.  Indeed, the use of the adverb "also" grammatically reveals that the second independent clause is NOT an explanation or definition of the first independent clause.  Furthermore, the adverbial (prepositional) phrase "after that" indicates that the reality of the second independent clause occurred in time AFTER the reality of the first independent clause.  Indeed, according to the context the results of the two realities existed at the same time, such that the "giants" and the children of "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" existed on the earth during the same period of time.  However, the realities of the two independent clauses originally occurred in a sequence of time, with the reality that "the sons of God" and "the daughters of men" procreated and had children occurring AFTER the reality that "there were giants in the earth in those days."  Now, since the procreation of "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" occurred AFTER the existence of the "giants," it is impossible that the "giants" could be the resulting children of that procreation.  By definition the effect does NOT occur before the cause.

On ‎2‎/‎14‎/‎2016 at 11:38 PM, Critical Mass said:

Born again males (and for some reason only born again males are backslidding here according to your interpretation) having children with unregenerated women do not produce freakishly tall giants or necessarily "mighty men of old". 

Indeed, my viewpoint, based upon the English grammar of the verse, indicates that the procreation of "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" did NOT produce the "giants," since the "giants" existed in the earth BEFORE the children from "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" were brought forth.  Indeed, my viewpoint, based upon the English grammar of the verse, indicates that the children of "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" were simply human males who grew up to become "mighty men which were of old, men of renown," NOT the "giants."

On ‎2‎/‎14‎/‎2016 at 11:38 PM, Critical Mass said:

This was going on after the flood too. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah knew that the men who visited Lot were angels but still desired them.

Really???  Where in the Biblical account of Genesis 19:1-12 does God's Word indicate that "the men of Sodom . . . knew that the men who visited Lot were angels"?  (By the way, the men of Gomorrah never encountered the two angels, since Lot lived in Sodom, and since the angels visited Lot in Sodom.) 

On ‎2‎/‎14‎/‎2016 at 11:38 PM, Critical Mass said:

This is the "strange flesh" as mentioned in Jude 6,7.

False.  The adjective "strange" means "foreign, uncommon, unnatural."  The "strange [unnatural] flesh" after which "Sodom and Gomorrha" and "the cities" around them "in like manner" with Sodom and Gomorrha were "going after" is explained in Romans 1:27 -- "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Chester,

Indeed, a semicolon that is followed by the coordinating conjunction "and" DOES grammatically indicate a coordinating relationship between the two statements of the two independent clauses.

False.  The semicolon and the coordinating conjunction "and" do NOT indicate that the "giants" were associated with "the sons of God" and "the daughters of men."  Rather, the semicolon and the coordinating conjunction "and" grammatically indicate that the two events of the two independent clauses are related to one another.  Yet what is that relationship?  That relationship is revealed by the additional phrase, "also after that."  You see, if you desire to speak concerning the grammatical construction of the passage, you need to speak concerning ALL of the grammatical construction; and ALL of the grammatical construction includes the entire phrase, "and also after that."

Frist, the use of the adverb "also" indicates that the second independent clause reveals an additional reality to the first independent clause.  Indeed, the use of the adverb "also" grammatically reveals that the second independent clause is NOT an explanation or definition of the first independent clause.  Furthermore, the adverbial (prepositional) phrase "after that" indicates that the reality of the second independent clause occurred in time AFTER the reality of the first independent clause.  Brother Scott, that is not correct. The phrase, "in those days", indicates that the existence of giants was contemporary with the actions of the sons of God, namely "when men began to multiply...."  and the term "in those days" is speaking of the entire period before the flood. and, according to the context the results of the two realities existed at the same time, such that the "giants" and the children of "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" existed on the earth during the same period of time.  However, the realities of the two independent clauses originally occurred in a sequence of time, with the reality that "the sons of God" and "the daughters of men" procreated and had children occurring AFTER the reality that "there were giants in the earth in those days."  Now, since the procreation of "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" occurred AFTER the existence of the "giants," it is impossible that the "giants" could be the resulting children of that procreation.  By definition the effect does NOT occur before the cause.

Indeed, my viewpoint, based upon the English grammar of the verse, indicates that the procreation of "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" did NOT produce the "giants," since the "giants" existed in the earth BEFORE the children from "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" were brought forth.  Indeed, my viewpoint, based upon the English grammar of the verse, indicates that the children of "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" were simply human males who grew up to become "mighty men which were of old, men of renown," NOT the "giants."

Really???  Where in the Biblical account of Genesis 19:1-12 does God's Word indicate that "the men of Sodom . . . knew that the men who visited Lot were angels"?  (By the way, the men of Gomorrah never encountered the two angels, since Lot lived in Sodom, and since the angels visited Lot in Sodom.) 

False.  The adjective "strange" means "foreign, uncommon, unnatural."  The "strange [unnatural] flesh" after which "Sodom and Gomorrha" and "the cities" around them "in like manner" with Sodom and Gomorrha were "going after" is explained in Romans 1:27 -- "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎14‎/‎2016 at 2:37 AM, beameup said:

"their own habitation" is oikētērionThe angels that sinned "gave up" their glorified bodies in order to "materialize" on the earth and mate with human women.  (ie: the "angels that sinned" permanently became physical beings, in order to contaminate the human DNA through sex)

For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house oikētērion G3613 which is from heaven:  2 Cor 5:2   We shall receive "glorified bodies". :D
 

δέ εἰ τὶς ἀγνοέω ἀγνοέω

First, the use of "oiketerion" in Jude 1:6 cannot be made equivalent with the use of "oiketerion" in 2 Corinthians 5:2, because the phrase "their own habitation" creates a clear division from "our house."  The phrases "their own" and "our" reveal that these things are two completely different categories of "oiketerion," with each being distinct unto the two respective groups of individuals, the angels in one case and human believers in the other case.

Second, the use of "oiketerion" in Jude 1:6 cannot refer to the angel's "giving up" of their glorified bodies, because they were originally created as "spirits." (See Psalm 104:4)  Thus they could not have "given up" that which they did not originally have.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Old-Pilgrim said:

Genesis 6:4  There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men [from 119; ruddy i.e. a human being] and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men [powerful; by implication, warrior]

'Men' does not = Human or 'of Adam'

Brother "Old-Pilgrim,"

You are correct that the Hebrew word which is translated "mighty men" in Genesis 6:4 is NOT a word that necessarily refers to humans, but is simply a word that indicates MIGHTY individuals.  However, in your above explanation, you completely neglected to consider the concluding phrase of Genesis 6:4 -- "men of renown."  In this phrase the Hebrew word that is translated "men" IS a word that indicates humanness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, heartstrings said:

Three groups of sinners in the Bookof Jude,: #! The Israelites in the Wildreness, #2  the angels which kept not their first estate, and #3 the Sodomites. And three(3) sins are mentioned: Defile the flesh, despise dominion, speak evil of digities. Match the sin with the sinners: The Israelites spoke evil of dignities (namely Moses), the angels despised dominion (the dominion of God), and it was the Sodomites who" defiled the flesh". ...not the angels.

Brother Wayne,

No disagreement whatsoever.  Simply desire to present some added information.

Involved in Jude 1:5-8 we encounter three different groups of sinners, three different categories of sin, and three different judgments from the Lord, as follows:

1.  The first generation of the children of Israel delivered from Egypt - "believed not," "speak evil of dignities" (Moses authority from the Lord) - "destroyed" through the wilderness wandering. (See Jude 1:5, 8)

2.  "The angels which kept not their first estate" - "left their own habitation," "despise dominion" (the authority of their Creator God) - "reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." (See Jude 1:6, 8)

3.  "Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them" - "giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh," "defile the flesh" - "suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (See Jude 1:7, 8)

In the context of the epistle all three of these groups are presented in order to reveal that the ungodly false teachers of Jude's time would certainly be condemned before and judged by the Lord God.  If the Lord God judged (1) His own people, (2) angelic beings, and (3) heathen cities for their rebellion against Him, He certainly would also judge these ungodly ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Wayne,

No disagreement whatsoever.  Simply desire to present some added information.

Involved in Jude 1:5-8 we encounter three different groups of sinners, three different categories of sin, and three different judgments from the Lord, as follows:

1.  The first generation of the children of Israel delivered from Egypt - "believed not," "speak evil of dignities" (Moses authority from the Lord) - "destroyed" through the wilderness wandering. (See Jude 1:5, 8)

2.  "The angels which kept not their first estate" - "left their own habitation," "despise dominion" (the authority of their Creator God) - "reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." (See Jude 1:6, 8)

3.  "Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them" - "giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh," "defile the flesh" - "suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (See Jude 1:7, 8)

In the context of the epistle all three of these groups are presented in order to reveal that the ungodly false teachers of Jude's time would certainly be condemned before and judged by the Lord God.  If the Lord God judged (1) His own people, (2) angelic beings, and (3) heathen cities for their rebellion against Him, He certainly would also judge these ungodly ones.

Yes. that's it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Frist, the use of the adverb "also" indicates that the second independent clause reveals an additional reality to the first independent clause.  Indeed, the use of the adverb "also" grammatically reveals that the second independent clause is NOT an explanation or definition of the first independent clause.  Furthermore, the adverbial (prepositional) phrase "after that" indicates that the reality of the second independent clause occurred in time AFTER the reality of the first independent clause.  Brother Scott, that is not correct. The phrase, "in those days", indicates that the existence of giants was contemporary with the actions of the sons of God, namely "when men began to multiply...."  and the term "in those days" is speaking of the entire period before the flood. Indeed, according to the context the results of the two realities existed at the same time, such that the "giants" and the children of "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" existed on the earth during the same period of time.  However, the realities of the two independent clauses originally occurred in a sequence of time, with the reality that "the sons of God" and "the daughters of men" procreated and had children occurring AFTER the reality that "there were giants in the earth in those days."  Now, since the procreation of "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" occurred AFTER the existence of the "giants," it is impossible that the "giants" could be the resulting children of that procreation.  By definition the effect does NOT occur before the cause.

Brother Wayne,

Overall, it appears that we hold similar positions concerning Genesis 6:1-4.  However, I cannot agree with your above corrective.  Even so, I must contend that the grammatical construction of Genesis 6:4 (specifically concerning the phrase, "and also after that") is precisely as I have presented it.  Further, I am moved to express my belief that you are not being quite precise enough with your handling of the matter.

Indeed, the opening independent clause of Genesis 6:4 does presents a declarative statement of fact that includes the prepositional phrase, "in those days."  This prepositional phrase includes the demonstrative pronoun "those," using it as an adjective for the noun "days."  Grammatically, this demonstrative pronoun "those" points back to the events and realities that were presented earlier in the context, as per Genesis 6:1-2.  Even so, the reality that "there were giants in the earth in those days" was a contemporary reality with the events and realities that were revealed in Genesis 6:1-2.

What then are the events and realities that were revealed in Genesis 6:1-2.  Therein we find a set of events and realities that are presented in a progression, as follows:

1.  "Men began to multiply on the face of the earth."

2.  "Daughters were born unto" these men who had begun to "multiply on the face of the earth."

3.  "The sons of God saw" these very "daughters of men," noticing "that they were fair."

4.  The sons of God "took them wives of all which they chose" from among these very daughters of men.

Even so, in those very days (that is -- in the very days wherein men were multiplying and begetting daughters and wherein "the sons of God" were marrying these daughters), "there were giants in the earth."  However, it should be noted that the events and realities of Genesis 6:1-2 do NOT make any mention concerning any children that "the sons of God" have with "the daughters of men," or concerning what those children grow up to become.  In fact, this information is presented with the second independent clause of Genesis 6:4 as occurring AFTER the existence of the "giants in the earth in those days" (that is -- contemporary with the events and realities of Genesis 6:1-2).  As such, the progression of the passage would be as follows:

1a.  "Men began to multiply on the face of the earth."

2a.  "Daughters were born unto" these men who had begun to "multiply on the face of the earth."

3a.  "The sons of God saw" these very "daughters of men," noticing "that they were fair."

4a.  The sons of God "took them wives of all which they chose" from among these very daughters of men.

5.  The Lord God's pronouncement of judgment upon mankind, to be enacted after 120 more years.

1-4b.  "There were giants in the earth in those days."

6.  "And also after that, the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men" whom they had taken as wives.

7. The daughters of men "bare children" to the sons of God.

8.  These very "same" children "became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

Were the "giants" still in the earth during the lifetime of these children?  The context would appear to indicate that it was so.  Yet which came into existence first, the "giants" or the children from "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men"?  The "giants" came first; then "after that" the children from "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" were born and grew up.

____________________________________________________

By the way, it is interesting that in the progression of the passage, the Lord God pronounced His judgment after "the sons of God" had taken wives from among "the daughters of men," but before there were children born unto them.  This would appear to reveal that it was NOT the children of these marriages that moved the Lord God to judgment, but that it was the marriages themselves that moved the Lord God to judgment.

Indeed, what were the sins of MANKIND which the passage specifies as those which moved the Lord God to judgment?

1.  "And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [not angels, but man] was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

2.  "The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence."

3.  "And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh [not angels, but human flesh] had corrupted his way upon the earth."

4.   "For the earth is filled with violence through them."

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:
6 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Chester,

Indeed, a semicolon that is followed by the coordinating conjunction "and" DOES grammatically indicate a coordinating relationship between the two statements of the two independent clauses.

False.  The semicolon and the coordinating conjunction "and" do NOT indicate that the "giants" were associated with "the sons of God" and "the daughters of men."  Rather, the semicolon and the coordinating conjunction "and" grammatically indicate that the two events of the two independent clauses are related to one another.  Yet what is that relationship?  That relationship is revealed by the additional phrase, "also after that."  You see, if you desire to speak concerning the grammatical construction of the passage, you need to speak concerning ALL of the grammatical construction; and ALL of the grammatical construction includes the entire phrase, "and also after that."

Frist, the use of the adverb "also" indicates that the second independent clause reveals an additional reality to the first independent clause.  Indeed, the use of the adverb "also" grammatically reveals that the second independent clause is NOT an explanation or definition of the first independent clause.  Furthermore, the adverbial (prepositional) phrase "after that" indicates that the reality of the second independent clause occurred in time AFTER the reality of the first independent clause.  Indeed, according to the context the results of the two realities existed at the same time, such that the "giants" and the children of "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" existed on the earth during the same period of time.  However, the realities of the two independent clauses originally occurred in a sequence of time, with the reality that "the sons of God" and "the daughters of men" procreated and had children occurring AFTER the reality that "there were giants in the earth in those days."  Now, since the procreation of "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" occurred AFTER the existence of the "giants," it is impossible that the "giants" could be the resulting children of that procreation.  By definition the effect does NOT occur before the cause.

Indeed, my viewpoint, based upon the English grammar of the verse, indicates that the procreation of "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" did NOT produce the "giants," since the "giants" existed in the earth BEFORE the children from "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" were brought forth.  Indeed, my viewpoint, based upon the English grammar of the verse, indicates that the children of "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" were simply human males who grew up to become "mighty men which were of old, men of renown," NOT the "giants."

Really???  Where in the Biblical account of Genesis 19:1-12 does God's Word indicate that "the men of Sodom . . . knew that the men who visited Lot were angels"?  (By the way, the men of Gomorrah never encountered the two angels, since Lot lived in Sodom, and since the angels visited Lot in Sodom.) 

False.  The adjective "strange" means "foreign, uncommon, unnatural."  The "strange [unnatural] flesh" after which "Sodom and Gomorrha" and "the cities" around them "in like manner" with Sodom and Gomorrha were "going after" is explained in Romans 1:27 -- "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

Brother Chester,

Indeed, a semicolon that is followed by the coordinating conjunction "and" DOES grammatically indicate a coordinating relationship between the two statements of the two independent clauses.

False.  The semicolon and the coordinating conjunction "and" do NOT indicate that the "giants" were associated with "the sons of God" and "the daughters of men."  Rather, the semicolon and the coordinating conjunction "and" grammatically indicate that the two events of the two independent clauses are related to one another.  Yet what is that relationship?  That relationship is revealed by the additional phrase, "also after that."  You see, if you desire to speak concerning the grammatical construction of the passage, you need to speak concerning ALL of the grammatical construction; and ALL of the grammatical construction includes the entire phrase, "and also after that."

Frist, the use of the adverb "also" indicates that the second independent clause reveals an additional reality to the first independent clause.  Indeed, the use of the adverb "also" grammatically reveals that the second independent clause is NOT an explanation or definition of the first independent clause.  Furthermore, the adverbial (prepositional) phrase "after that" indicates that the reality of the second independent clause occurred in time AFTER the reality of the first independent clause.  Indeed, according to the context the results of the two realities existed at the same time, such that the "giants" and the children of "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" existed on the earth during the same period of time.  However, the realities of the two independent clauses originally occurred in a sequence of time, with the reality that "the sons of God" and "the daughters of men" procreated and had children occurring AFTER the reality that "there were giants in the earth in those days."  Now, since the procreation of "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" occurred AFTER the existence of the "giants," it is impossible that the "giants" could be the resulting children of that procreation.  By definition the effect does NOT occur before the cause.

Indeed, my viewpoint, based upon the English grammar of the verse, indicates that the procreation of "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" did NOT produce the "giants," since the "giants" existed in the earth BEFORE the children from "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" were brought forth.  Indeed, my viewpoint, based upon the English grammar of the verse, indicates that the children of "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" were simply human males who grew up to become "mighty men which were of old, men of renown," NOT the "giants."

Really???  Where in the Biblical account of Genesis 19:1-12 does God's Word indicate that "the men of Sodom . . . knew that the men who visited Lot were angels"?  (By the way, the men of Gomorrah never encountered the two angels, since Lot lived in Sodom, and since the angels visited Lot in Sodom.) 

False.  The adjective "strange" means "foreign, uncommon, unnatural."  The "strange [unnatural] flesh" after which "Sodom and Gomorrha" and "the cities" around them "in like manner" with Sodom and Gomorrha were "going after" is explained in Romans 1:27 -- "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

Pastor Scott  you said >>>''False.  The adjective "strange" means "foreign, uncommon, unnatural."  The "strange [unnatural] flesh" after which "Sodom and Gomorrha" and "the cities" around them "in like manner" with Sodom and Gomorrha were "going after" is explained in Romans 1:27 -- "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.''<<<
Scott, as far as I can see, "in like manner" could be refering to "the cities" around them, or equaly it could be refering to ''the angels which kept not their first estate'', or ''he hath reserved in everlasting chains'', However well the rules of grammer might be understood, every word, phrase and sentence almost always if not absolutely always have more than one way in which they can be honestly and rightly understood, or ambiguity, but you use your intracate knowledge of grammer to present it as if there was certainty and only one possible way to read a sentence, which to me looks like a subtle abuse of your knowledge of language.

or am I wrong about the ambiguity?

Edited by Old-Pilgrim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, John81 said:

The plain English reading is clear.

Hello John, so if it is clear, what does it mean ?Jude 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

Where what and why did they leave, and where are they now?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Old-Pilgrim said:

However well the rules of grammer might be understood, every word, phrase and sentence almost always if not absolutely always have more than one way in which they can be honestly and rightly understood, or ambiguity, but you use your intracate knowledge of grammer to present it as if there was certainty and only one possible way to read a sentence, which to me looks like a subtle abuse of your knowledge of language.

Brother "Old-Pilgrim,"

First, God the Holy Spirit inspired the written Scriptures with precise grammatical constructions; therefore, it is our responsibility as Bible students to "rightly divide" any given passage of Scripture with precision, not ambiguity.

Second, precision of grammatical understanding in Bible study is NOT an abuse of knowledge, but is a pursuit of accuracy, in direct obedience unto the responsibility to "rightly divide the word of truth" (that is -- to cut a precise line of understanding in accord with the pattern of God the Holy Spirit's precise communication through inspiration).
 

1 hour ago, Old-Pilgrim said:

Scott, as far as I can see, "in like manner" could be refering to "the cities" around them, or equaly it could be refering to ''the angels which kept not their first estate'', or ''he hath reserved in everlasting chains'',

Or am I wrong about the ambiguity?

I would contend that there is NO ambiguity at all.  If the "in like manner" phrase were at or near the beginning of the sentence, then that phrase would connect the sentence to that which came before it (that is -- it would connect the statement of verse 7 to the statement of verse 6).  However, within the sentence of verse 7, the "in like manner" phrase is grammatically connected directly to the phrase, "and the cities about them."  Therefore, the "in like manner" phrase grammatically connects the phrase, "and the cities about them," to the phrase, "Sodom and Gomorrha."  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the OP - The Kingdom

But as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD.  Numbers 14:21

Be thou exalted, O God, above the heavens; let thy glory be above all the earth.  Psalm 57:5
Be thou exalted, O God, above the heavens: let thy glory be above all the earth. Psalm 57:11
And blessed be his glorious name for ever: and let the whole earth be filled with his glory; Amen, and Amen. Psalm 72:19
So the heathen [Gentiles] shall fear the name of the LORD, and all the kings of the earth thy glory. Psalm 102:15
And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.  Isaiah 6:3
And, behold, the glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the east: and his voice was like a noise of many waters:
and the earth shined with his glory. [prophetical vision] Ezek 43:2
For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea. Hab 2:14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rev 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

Even the dead people in Heaven and Hell will see Jesus returning to set up his kingdom. Even the devils in chains will see Jesus return.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There appears to be at least one person on this forum that is an amillennialist/supersessionist, who does not believe that there will be a literal Kingdom, on the earth, in Israel, ruled by Jesus Messiah and his kinsmen the Jews.

There also may be some who cannot differentiate clearly between the "kingdom of heaven", the "kingdom of God", and the "kingdom" on the earth (ie: Millennial Kingdom), and who will "populate" (for lack of a better word) those "kingdoms".

He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Luke 1:32-33

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, beameup said:

There appears to be at least one person on this forum that is an amillennialist/supersessionist, who does not believe that there will be a literal Kingdom, on the earth, in Israel, ruled by Jesus Messiah and his kinsmen the Jews.

There also may be some who cannot differentiate clearly between the "kingdom of heaven", the "kingdom of God", and the "kingdom" on the earth (ie: Millennial Kingdom), and who will "populate" (for lack of a better word) those "kingdoms".

 

OK, Tell us the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎15‎/‎2016 at 3:14 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Wayne,

Overall, it appears that we hold similar positions concerning Genesis 6:1-4.  However, I cannot agree with your above corrective.  Even so, I must contend that the grammatical construction of Genesis 6:4 (specifically concerning the phrase, "and also after that") is precisely as I have presented it.  Further, I am moved to express my belief that you are not being quite precise enough with your handling of the matter.

Indeed, the opening independent clause of Genesis 6:4 does presents a declarative statement of fact that includes the prepositional phrase, "in those days."  This prepositional phrase includes the demonstrative pronoun "those," using it as an adjective for the noun "days."  Grammatically, this demonstrative pronoun "those" points back to the events and realities that were presented earlier in the context, as per Genesis 6:1-2.  Even so, the reality that "there were giants in the earth in those days" was a contemporary reality with the events and realities that were revealed in Genesis 6:1-2.

What then are the events and realities that were revealed in Genesis 6:1-2.  Therein we find a set of events and realities that are presented in a progression, as follows:

1.  "Men began to multiply on the face of the earth."

2.  "Daughters were born unto" these men who had begun to "multiply on the face of the earth."

3.  "The sons of God saw" these very "daughters of men," noticing "that they were fair."

4.  The sons of God "took them wives of all which they chose" from among these very daughters of men.

Even so, in those very days (that is -- in the very days wherein men were multiplying and begetting daughters and wherein "the sons of God" were marrying these daughters), "there were giants in the earth."  However, it should be noted that the events and realities of Genesis 6:1-2 do NOT make any mention concerning any children that "the sons of God" have with "the daughters of men," or concerning what those children grow up to become.  In fact, this information is presented with the second independent clause of Genesis 6:4 as occurring AFTER the existence of the "giants in the earth in those days" (that is -- contemporary with the events and realities of Genesis 6:1-2).  As such, the progression of the passage would be as follows:

1a.  "Men began to multiply on the face of the earth."

2a.  "Daughters were born unto" these men who had begun to "multiply on the face of the earth."

3a.  "The sons of God saw" these very "daughters of men," noticing "that they were fair."

4a.  The sons of God "took them wives of all which they chose" from among these very daughters of men.

5.  The Lord God's pronouncement of judgment upon mankind, to be enacted after 120 more years.

1-4b.  "There were giants in the earth in those days."

6.  "And also after that, the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men" whom they had taken as wives.

7. The daughters of men "bare children" to the sons of God.

8.  These very "same" children "became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

Were the "giants" still in the earth during the lifetime of these children?  The context would appear to indicate that it was so.  Yet which came into existence first, the "giants" or the children from "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men"?  The "giants" came first; then "after that" the children from "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" were born and grew up.

____________________________________________________

By the way, it is interesting that in the progression of the passage, the Lord God pronounced His judgment after "the sons of God" had taken wives from among "the daughters of men," but before there were children born unto them.  This would appear to reveal that it was NOT the children of these marriages that moved the Lord God to judgment, but that it was the marriages themselves that moved the Lord God to judgment.

Indeed, what were the sins of MANKIND which the passage specifies as those which moved the Lord God to judgment?

1.  "And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [not angels, but man] was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

2.  "The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence."

3.  "And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh [not angels, but human flesh] had corrupted his way upon the earth."

4.   "For the earth is filled with violence through them."

Brother Scott,

I have looked into the feasibility of diagramming this sentence, but don't see how that would help; maybe it would. There seems to be no controversy, between us, on the rest of Genesis 6 except verse 4 and I don't have a lot of time right now for an in-depth analysis of every word or the grammar. But I would like to point out one thing for the time being. is this about what you are saying happened?

 

 

sons of  god bare children3.jpg

Edited by heartstrings
graphic too large

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the "after that" period, did the giants still exist? Or had they died off by that time? If they still existed in the "after that" days, then "after that" cannot mean "at a later time". Know what I'm saying?

''after his kind'' Genesis 1:11
''after our likeness'' Genesis 1:26
''after the name of his son'' Genesis 4:17
''after the manner of daughters''  Exodus 21:9
''after the pattern of the tabernacle''  Exodus 25:9
''after the fashion of almonds'' Exodus 31:19
''neither seek after wizards'' leviticus 19:31
''Ye shall not go after other gods'', Deu 6:14

The word "after", in all the above verses, does NOT mean "at a later time period". There are hundreds of verses like this in the KJB and I'm still saying that Genesis 6:4 is likewise. The "giants" are a picture of military might, the same as in the Book of Numbers. Then the last part of Genesis 6:4 tells us what the "children" did; they became "mighty men" and a force to be reckoned with AFTER "the likeness", "after the manner", "after the pattern", "after the fashion" "after" the giants. that's what the whole verse 6:4 is getting at: military prowess.. Put more simply, Genesis 6:4 is saying "these guys were scary and powerful, and these guys did the same thing, became mighty men". The word "after". here,  simply means they "imitated" or "copied" them or "pursued" that lifestyle., if you will.

 

Quote

After

Preposition

5. in imitation of or in imitation of the style of:

to make something after a model; fashioned after Raphael.
 
 
Edited by heartstrings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brother Wayne,

5 hours ago, heartstrings said:

In the "after that" period, did the giants still exist?

Yes, the context appears to indicate that this was so.

5 hours ago, heartstrings said:

Or had they died off by that time?

No, the context does not appear to indicate this.

5 hours ago, heartstrings said:

If they still existed in the "after that" days, then "after that" cannot mean "at a later time". Know what I'm saying?

No.  The grammar of the passage would present the following:

In Those Days --

1.  "Men began to multiply on the face of the earth."

2.  "Daughters were born unto" these men who had begun to "multiply on the face of the earth."

3.  "The sons of God saw" these very "daughters of men," noticing "that they were fair."

4.  The sons of God "took them wives of all which they chose" from among these very daughters of men.

5.  The Lord God's pronouncement of judgment upon mankind, to be enacted after 120 more years.

6.  "There were giants in the earth."

Also After That --

1.  "The sons of God came in unto the daughters of men" whom they had taken as wives.

2. The daughters of men "bare children" to the sons of God.

3.  These very "same" children "became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

4.  The "giants," who were already in existence, were still in existence, such that these children from "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" would have to deal with them.

Grammatically, the point of Genesis 6:4 is that the "giants" come into existence first, and then "after that" the children from "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" were born and grew up to become "mighty men."  There is nothing either grammatically or contextually that would forbid the "giants" from being in existence in the "in those days" phase and from still being in existence in the "also after that" phase; just as there is nothing either grammatically or contextually that would forbid the parents of "the daughters of men," who would then be the grandparents of their children, from existing in the "in those days" phase before their grandchildren were born and from still existing in the "also after that" phase after their grandchildren were born.
 

5 hours ago, heartstrings said:

In the "after that" period, did the giants still exist? Or had they died off by that time? If they still existed in the "after that" days, then "after that" cannot mean "at a later time". Know what I'm saying?

''after his kind'' Genesis 1:11
''after our likeness'' Genesis 1:26
''after the name of his son'' Genesis 4:17
''after the manner of daughters''  Exodus 21:9
''after the pattern of the tabernacle''  Exodus 25:9
''after the fashion of almonds'' Exodus 31:19
''neither seek after wizards'' leviticus 19:31
''Ye shall not go after other gods'', Deu 6:14

The word "after", in all the above verses, does NOT mean "at a later time period". There are hundreds of verses like this in the KJB and I'm still saying that Genesis 6:4 is likewise. The "giants" are a picture of military might, the same as in the Book of Numbers. Then the last part of Genesis 6:4 tells us what the "children" did; they became "mighty men" and a force to be reckoned with AFTER "the likeness", "after the manner", "after the pattern", "after the fashion" "after" the giants. that's what the whole verse 6:4 is getting at: military prowess.. Put more simply, Genesis 6:4 is saying "these guys were scary and powerful, and these guys did the same thing, became mighty men". The word "after". here,  simply means they "imitated" or "copied" them or "pursued" that lifestyle., if you will.

 

After

Preposition

5. in imitation of or in imitation of the style of:

to make something after a model; fashioned after Raphael.

Certainly, the preposition "after" can be used to mean "after the likeness of."  However, it can also be used, and very commonly is used, to mean "after the time of."  So then, how does an individual discern which is the correct meaning for Genesis 6:4?  In my case, I would consider the meaning of the Holy Spirit inspired and preserved Hebrew word that was translated with the English word "after" in the verse.  This Hebrew word is "achar;" and it carries the meaning of "behind in location, after in following (as in -- following after), and after in time."  This Hebrew word does not carry the meaning of "after in likeness."  Even so, this evidence is enough for me to make my decision as to the meaning of the phrase, "also after that," in Genesis 6:4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Wayne,

Yes, the context appears to indicate that this was so.

No, the context does not appear to indicate this.

No.  The grammar of the passage would present the following:

In Those Days --

1.  "Men began to multiply on the face of the earth."

2.  "Daughters were born unto" these men who had begun to "multiply on the face of the earth."

3.  "The sons of God saw" these very "daughters of men," noticing "that they were fair."

4.  The sons of God "took them wives of all which they chose" from among these very daughters of men.

5.  The Lord God's pronouncement of judgment upon mankind, to be enacted after 120 more years.

6.  "There were giants in the earth."

Also After That --

1.  "The sons of God came in unto the daughters of men" whom they had taken as wives.

2. The daughters of men "bare children" to the sons of God.

3.  These very "same" children "became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

4.  The "giants," who were already in existence, were still in existence, such that these children from "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" would have to deal with them.

Grammatically, the point of Genesis 6:4 is that the "giants" come into existence first, and then "after that" the children from "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" were born and grew up to become "mighty men."  There is nothing either grammatically or contextually that would forbid the "giants" from being in existence in the "in those days" phase and from still being in existence in the "also after that" phase; just as there is nothing either grammatically or contextually that would forbid the parents of "the daughters of men," who would then be the grandparents of their children, from existing in the "in those days" phase before their grandchildren were born and from still existing in the "also after that" phase after their grandchildren were born.
 

Certainly, the preposition "after" can be used to mean "after the likeness of."  However, it can also be used, and very commonly is used, to mean "after the time of."  So then, how does an individual discern which is the correct meaning for Genesis 6:4?  In my case, I would consider the meaning of the Holy Spirit inspired and preserved Hebrew word that was translated with the English word "after" in the verse.  This Hebrew word is "achar;" and it carries the meaning of "behind in location, after in following (as in -- following after), and after in time."  This Hebrew word does not carry the meaning of "after in likeness."  Even so, this evidence is enough for me to make my decision as to the meaning of the phrase, "also after that," in Genesis 6:4.

I don't have time until this evening but will list you a couple of verses with the word "achar", which are not speaking of "later in time", but instead carry the same meaning as am trying to convey to you. Also, I believe in my last post I gave you the definition, "imitation" and in another place I said "pursuing a lifestyle" not "likeness". Correct me if I'm wrong.

Exodus 23:2

Exodus 34:16

Deuteronomy 6:14

 

Edited by heartstrings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brother Wayne,

3 hours ago, heartstrings said:

Also, I believe in my last post I gave you the definition, "imitation" and in another place I said "pursuing a lifestyle" not "likeness". Correct me if I'm wrong.

I am sorry.  My brain set its focus upon the following:

22 hours ago, heartstrings said:

''after our likeness'' Genesis 1:26 (emboldening added by Pastor Scott Markle)
 

The "giants" are a picture of military might, the same as in the Book of Numbers. Then the last part of Genesis 6:4 tells us what the "children" did; they became "mighty men" and a force to be reckoned with AFTER "the likeness", "after the manner", "after the pattern", "after the fashion" "after" the giants. that's what the whole verse 6:4 is getting at: military prowess..  (emboldening added by Pastor Scott Markle)

However, I should have set my focus more closely upon your conclusion, as follows:

22 hours ago, heartstrings said:

Put more simply, Genesis 6:4 is saying "these guys were scary and powerful, and these guys did the same thing, became mighty men". The word "after". here,  simply means they "imitated" or "copied" them or "pursued" that lifestyle., if you will.  (emboldening added by Pastor Scott Markle)

____________________________________________

3 hours ago, heartstrings said:

I don't have time until this evening but will list you a couple of verses with the word "achar", which are not speaking of "later in time", but instead carry the same meaning as am trying to convey to you.

Exodus 23:2

Exodus 34:16

Deuteronomy 6:14

Brother, there is no need for you to do the extensive work necessary (since the Hebrew word "achar" is used a very large number of times in the Old Testament) in order to make your point.  I myself have now done enough research to acknowledge that the "after in following (as in -- following after)" meaning for the Hebrew word "achar" can indeed carry the meaning of "following after in imitation."  (Note: I do thank you for pushing me to put forth more depth in my study on this matter.)

However, I would present two further points of argument:

1.  Even if we choose the "following in imitation" meaning for Genesis 6:4, the "afterward in time" meaning is built into this "following in imitation" meaning.  By definition, someone cannot engage in imitation if the person or thing being imitated is not first already in existence.  So then, we would have the following -- First, the "giants" were "in the earth in those days."  Then second, afterward in imitation of those "giants," the children of "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" grew up to become "mighty men."

2.  Yet I myself am not prepared to concede the argument that the phrase "after that" in Genesis 6:4 does not strictly carry the meaning of "afterward in time."  In the Hebrew the exact construction for this prepositional phrase is the following -- "achari-ken."  I myself was able to find only four other times wherein this Hebrew construction is found in the Old Testament, as follows:

Genesis 15:14 -- "And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance."

Genesis 23:19 -- "And after this, Abraham buried Sarah his wife in the cave of the field of Machpelah before Mamre: the same is Hebron in the land of Canaan."

Genesis 41:31 -- "And the plenty shall not be known in the land by reason of that famine following; for it shall be very grievous."

1 Samuel 9:13 -- "As soon as ye be come into the city, ye shall straightway find him, before he go up to the high place to eat: for the people will not eat until he come, because he doth bless the sacrifice; and afterwards they eat that be bidden.  Now therefore get you up; for about this time ye shall find him."

In all four of these verses, it appears to me that the Hebrew construction does indeed carry the meaning of "afterward in time."  Therefore, I am choosing to remain with that position for Genesis 6:4 also.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/17/2016 at 4:02 AM, beameup said:

There appears to be at least one person on this forum that is an amillennialist/supersessionist, who does not believe that there will be a literal Kingdom, on the earth, in Israel, ruled by Jesus Messiah and his kinsmen the Jews.

There also may be some who cannot differentiate clearly between the "kingdom of heaven", the "kingdom of God", and the "kingdom" on the earth (ie: Millennial Kingdom), and who will "populate" (for lack of a better word) those "kingdoms".

He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Luke 1:32-33

Yes, they are not the same. What cause the confusion is that both share some of the same characteristics.

But, the kingdom of God cannot be taken with violence (Matthew 11:12).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Wayne,

I am sorry.  My brain set its focus upon the following:

However, I should have set my focus more closely upon your conclusion, as follows:

____________________________________________

Brother, there is no need for you to do the extensive work necessary (since the Hebrew word "achar" is used a very large number of times in the Old Testament) in order to make your point.  I myself have now done enough research to acknowledge that the "after in following (as in -- following after)" meaning for the Hebrew word "achar" can indeed carry the meaning of "following after in imitation."  (Note: I do thank you for pushing me to put forth more depth in my study on this matter.)

However, I would present two further points of argument:

1.  Even if we choose the "following in imitation" meaning for Genesis 6:4, the "afterward in time" meaning is built into this "following in imitation" meaning.  By definition, someone cannot engage in imitation if the person or thing being imitated is not first already in existence.  So then, we would have the following -- First, the "giants" were "in the earth in those days."  Then second, afterward in imitation of those "giants," the children of "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" grew up to become "mighty men."

2.  Yet I myself am not prepared to concede the argument that the phrase "after that" in Genesis 6:4 does not strictly carry the meaning of "afterward in time."  In the Hebrew the exact construction for this prepositional phrase is the following -- "achari-ken."  I myself was able to find only four other times wherein this Hebrew construction is found in the Old Testament, as follows:

Genesis 15:14 -- "And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance."

Genesis 23:19 -- "And after this, Abraham buried Sarah his wife in the cave of the field of Machpelah before Mamre: the same is Hebron in the land of Canaan."

Genesis 41:31 -- "And the plenty shall not be known in the land by reason of that famine following; for it shall be very grievous."

1 Samuel 9:13 -- "As soon as ye be come into the city, ye shall straightway find him, before he go up to the high place to eat: for the people will not eat until he come, because he doth bless the sacrifice; and afterwards they eat that be bidden.  Now therefore get you up; for about this time ye shall find him."

In all four of these verses, it appears to me that the Hebrew construction does indeed carry the meaning of "afterward in time."  Therefore, I am choosing to remain with that position for Genesis 6:4 also.

Yes, absolutely, many verses mean "afterward in time" that is the truth.

Brother Scott.

I said to correct me if I'm wrong so that's no problem. I guess, I haven't completely nailed down in my own mind, whether the "following after" means ''after the likeness'' or ''in imitation'' but, technically, it means close to the same thing. However, considering the military connotations in this context of "giants and mighty men', the alternate meanings of the word "after", and the fact that the giants were contemporaries with the "sons god and daughters of men bearing children", I still contend  that it means that the sons of God were following some type of lifestyle involving military might, as either a defensive a reaction to, or a worldly imitation of the presence of giants. It cannot simply mean at a later time because the entire narrative is about "those days". Furthermore, if this is definitively proven to be the case, it drives a final nail in the coffin of the " angels cohabited with women" belief because it further proves  that "sons of God" were just human beings and that they did not gender the giants.

Edited by heartstrings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 10:57 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother "Old-Pilgrim,"

First, God the Holy Spirit inspired the written Scriptures with precise grammatical constructions; therefore, it is our responsibility as Bible students to "rightly divide" any given passage of Scripture with precision, not ambiguity.

Second, precision of grammatical understanding in Bible study is NOT an abuse of knowledge, but is a pursuit of accuracy, in direct obedience unto the responsibility to "rightly divide the word of truth" (that is -- to cut a precise line of understanding in accord with the pattern of God the Holy Spirit's precise communication through inspiration).
 

I would contend that there is NO ambiguity at all.  If the "in like manner" phrase were at or near the beginning of the sentence, then that phrase would connect the sentence to that which came before it (that is -- it would connect the statement of verse 7 to the statement of verse 6).  However, within the sentence of verse 7, the "in like manner" phrase is grammatically connected directly to the phrase, "and the cities about them."  Therefore, the "in like manner" phrase grammatically connects the phrase, "and the cities about them," to the phrase, "Sodom and Gomorrha."  

Hello Scott, sorry if I was questioning you integrity, I had no grounds to do that, but how do you know your teachers taught you right? And on the Ambiguity, I know God the Holy Spirit has inspired the original text and also was involved in the creation of the languages, but I believe that the 'dual meaning' or seeming 'dual meaning' which is woven through out words and language is there by design, that each word has got two edges and so we need the Holy Spirit as teacher in order to understand the correct meaning in context of the words. I will attempt a cut and paste here an article which is on the topic of ambiguity and translation. Which shows a passage of scripture which has similar structure and ambiguity. (It is an interesting article worth the time)

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 post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 24 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...