John 5:3-4 Is it Scripture?

[Jerry]

Throughout history, sound theologians have believed that Psalm 12 is speaking of the preservation of God's Word or God's Word AND God's people, because of the vagueness of the wording of the passage. It is only now in the last few generations that we are getting theologians who deny the preservation aspect and believe it ONLY refers to God's people - and considering it is these last few generations that are involved in corrupting God's Word, it isn't too surprising!

[dwayner79]

Throughout history, sound theologians have believed that Psalm 12 is speaking of the preservation of God's Word or God's Word AND God's people, because of the vagueness of the wording of the passage. It is only now in the last few generations that we are getting theologians who deny the preservation aspect and believe it ONLY refers to God's people - and considering it is these last few generations that are involved in corrupting God's Word, it isn't too surprising!

That is certainly debatable. There is an argument to be made that very few theologians spoke of it being God's word, and the normal position was it was His people. Only after the KJVo movement started did "theologians" begin to attribute these verses to the preservation of scripture.

I make no claim to have studied out every theologian, and I am sure either of us could come up with a few examples either way, but it does not really matter. The point is the poster I was responding to said something like, the Bible clearly states and the fact of the matter is this is not the verse to use if you want to make that claim.

[Jerry]

Only after the KJVo movement started did "theologians" begin to attribute these verses to the preservation of scripture.

Nothing like presumption.

Dwayner, making statements like that really discredit you. I HAVE read quotes from old time preachers and commentators from hundreds of years ago, attributing that exact verse to the preservation of Scripture - so it certainly was NOT something that came along "after the KJVo movement started." Sure, it might fit your position to state that, but you are dead wrong and are just talking without knowledge.

If anyone is interested, I can do my best to see if I can find the same articles and quotes online. (I won't do this unless someone is really interested though, as it might take a while to find them.)

[Jerry]

Here are some of the articles:

PSALM 12:7 AND BIBLE PRESERVATION

Strouse says Psalm 12:7 Teaches Preservation of Scripture

[dwayner79]

Jerry, Do you really think its fair to pull that one sentence out of the context of the rest of my post.

Language like "There is an argument to be made" and "I make no claim to have studied out every theologian, and I am sure either of us could come up with a few examples either way" should of made it pretty clear that I was not trying to say that your position is without any merit at all, only that it is a debatable position. From what I can tell, it is a VAST majority of scholars (and still today of those outside the KJVo camp) who make the people (particularly the poor) the object of God's preservation (let alone the Hebrew gender support).

For those with E-Sword, download EVERY SINGLE commentary, and read on the passage. Beside's John Wesley, every single one says it is the object is the people of God.

Now how about you start reading my entire post, and responding to the content of the whole post, not try to pull out one sentence that misrepresents what I am saying.

I guess Jerry's back. :roll


Edit to add: Clown's... err.... I mean... Cloud's site is about as trustworthy IMO as free-republic. They don't really count. I suppose if I really cared about this, I would read it, but I don't, so I won't. My only point was to say that basing your (not Jerry, but anyone) KJVo statements on Psalm 12 is rather suspect.

[Jerry]

Sure, - suspect if you read it in an MV, such as the NIV...

Now how about you start reading my entire post, and responding to the content of the whole post, not try to pull out one sentence that misrepresents what I am saying.

I wasn't trying to misrepresent you - I was commenting on what I thought you were stating. We KNOW you are anti-KJVonly, so I read your statements in that light. Anything to discredit the KJVOnly position, even if there aren't any solid facts to back up the broad statements.

[brandplucked]

The KJV can be used for comparison since it is an excellent translation. I think the most important thing, however, is that it is a faithful translation of the Greek and Hebrew, not a faithful translation of the KJV.

Hi Kevin. Just a note. You keep telling us about "the Greek and Hebrew", yet I'll bet you can't read 5 words of either language. Again, when I asked "Exactly WHAT BIBLE are you referring to? The confused and contradictory one you posted with your four links? Is this the "bible" you are not adding to?" you then posted:

So how exactly are they confused and contradictory? They are what your KJV came from. Whether you like it or not, the KJV is a translation from the Textus Receptus and Masoretic Text.

Kevin, you again are showing your ignorance. All four of the sites you referred us to were of texts, especially the three Greek sites, that were put together AFTER the King James Bible was published, and none of the three Greek texts agrees with the other two in every case. In fact, the "Majority" text differs in many hundreds of words, and has some wild readings that NO bible follows.

The particular TR of the Trinitarian Bible Society by Scrivenir was his attempt to trace the readings that the KJB translators used. The TBS TR came AFTER the KJB, not before it.

Will

[kevinmiller]

Hi Kevin. Just a note. You keep telling us about "the Greek and Hebrew", yet I'll bet you can't read 5 words of either language.

LOL. Well, actually you are wrong. I can read more than five words of Greek. I can read just about any Greek word you put in front of me, I know the meanings of about 20 or so probably. I studied Greek in school.

Kevin, you again are showing your ignorance. All four of the sites you referred us to were of texts, especially the three Greek sites, that were put together AFTER the King James Bible was published, and none of the three Greek texts agrees with the other two in every case. In fact, the "Majority" text differs in many hundreds of words, and has some wild readings that NO bible follows.

The particular TR of the Trinitarian Bible Society by Scrivenir was his attempt to trace the readings that the KJB translators used. The TBS TR came AFTER the KJB, not before it.

"The Byzantine Majority Greek text represents the texttype reflected among the vast majority of extant manuscripts. It is from this family of Byzantine texts that the early printed Greek New Testaments ("Textus Receptus" editions) and early English versions such as the Bishop's, Geneva, Coverdale, and King James Version derive, as well as the early European versions such as that of Luther and the Dutch Staten Vertaling."
http://logos.com/ebooks/details/byz
Stephen's Textus Receptus
"The Textus Receptus 1550 Greek text is best known as the basis for the King James Version or Authorized Version completed in the year 1611. This is a useful text for comparison for those with proficiency in Greek."
http://logos.com/ebooks/details/stephens

I don't think "ignorance" can apply to my position. You see, the difference between you, Calvary, and others and Dwayne, Will, myself and others is that you take the KJV as a matter of faith while we approach the suject as a matter of logic. You believe in the KJV because it says "KJV" on the front. You dodge the question of what was the Bible before 1611. We, on the other hand, look at what makes the KJV God's Word. We approach it rationally and research facts, though we have all come to somewhat different conclusions.

Please read those links this time. The TR exists. The Byzantine Text exists. The Scrivener's TR came after the KJV, not all of them.

[brandplucked]

From what I can tell, it is a VAST majority of scholars (and still today of those outside the KJVo camp) who make the people (particularly the poor) the object of God's preservation (let alone the Hebrew gender support).

PSALM 12:6-7: DOES IT MEAN WHAT IT SAYS?

By Bruce Lackey, Thomas Holland, Thomas Stouse & David Pitman


"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."


PROFESSOR BRUCE LACKEY [1]:

I submit the following reasons for my not being moved away from my
conviction that Psalm 12:6-7 does teach the preservation of Scripture.

1. [Professor Doug Kutilek's] admission that "there are occasional
exceptions to the principle of agreement in the Hebrew Bible (see Gesenius"
Hebrew Grammar 135 o)" immediately shows that the
preservation-interpretation is not automatically incorrect, grammatically,
but is definitely possible. A somewhat similar situation exists in John.
15:6, where "them" is neuter plural in Greek, and "they are burned" is a
singular verb. Dana and Mantey, in "A Manual Grammar of The Greek New
Testament," on page 165, give the following statement: "A seeming exception
to the above principle of syntax is the fact that a neuter plural subject
regularly takes a singular verb (John. 9:3)." Therefore, it is unwise to
prove or disprove a position using the argument of gender and number.
Anyone who studies languages knows that there are exceptions.

2. The argument listing various verses in Psalms where "keep" and
"preserve" speak of people is not very weighty. Psalm 12:6-7 might be the
only place in the whole book which uses these words to refer to things
[other than people], but that would not disqualify the situation. Psalm
110:4 is the only verse in the Old Testament which teaches the
Melchisedical priesthood of the Lord Jesus, but Hebrews 4:7 does not
hesitate to make much of it!

3. The argument from context does not hold water, either. [Kutilek] says,
"The basic thrust of the message of Psalm 12 is clear: the psalmist bemoans
the decimation of the upright and the growing strength of the wicked."
Thus, he tries to show that verse 7, teaching preservation, would not fit.
If this be true, neither would verse 6. Rather, the context is favorable to
the preservation-interpretation. God's promise to save the poor and needy
is given in verse 5; verses 6 and 7 are injected to show that His promise
of verse 5 will never be broken.

4. In the last paragraph, [Kutilek] says that those who apply these verses
"to any doctrine of Bible preservation" are guilty of handling "the Word of
God deceitfully and dishonestly, something unworthy of any child of God."
But earlier, he admitted that such illustrious interpreters as John Wesley,
Henry Martyn, G. Campbell Morgan, and Kidner, agreed with the
preservation-interpretation. Sounds like a mouse attacking elephants! They
might have been wrong on some points, but they were certainly not deceitful
and dishonest.

Some other verses which teach that God would preserve His Words for all
generations are Psalm 33:11; 119:152,160; Isaiah 59:21; Matthew 24:35; and
I Peter 1:25. Also, a comparison of Matthew 28:20 and John 14:23 shows that
Christ's promise of His continual presence with us is fulfilled as we keep
His words; thus His words must be available to believers "alway, even unto
the end of the world. Amen."



DR. THOMAS HOLLAND [2]:

One student writes, "I would really enjoy seeing something about Psalm
12:6,7. I have a copy of James White's book somewhere, and it would be nice
to see a refutation of each supposed 'problem' passage of the KJB he lists.
(Of course that may be a bit much."

Not really. In fact, I plan to respond to many of the verses that Brother
White raises in his book,The King James Only Controversy, simply because he
does such a fine job of stating the point of view reflected by the
supporters of modern versions, and because his book is popular and in use
with many. However, for now let us focus briefly on Psalm 12:6-7. The verse
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." (KJV).

Brother White responds to this passage twice in his book. Once in a
footnote on page 6, and then again on page 243. He writes, "Many KJV Only
advocates prefer to speak of the 'words of God' when they refer to the KJV,
drawing from Psalm 12:6." (p.6). To me, this is a very interesting footnote
given by Brother White. Time and again, White says he believes the KJV is
the word of God, as is the NIV, RSV, NASV and NRSV. If this is so, why
would he footnote what he himself claims to believe? The difference here is
that I do not believe the NIV, RSV, NASV, or the NRSV are the words of the
LORD. I believe they are translations made by men which reflect a certain
line of manuscripts. I believe that they contain God's word only when they
agree with it.

But containing God's word and being the word of God are two different
things. I do not believe that God's word has error in it, and I believe
that these translations have error. What I do believe is that God promised
to keep and preserve His words. That is what the verse says. If I am to
believe God, I must believe this verse. If I do not believe this verse, why
should I believe anything else that God says? However, I do believe it and
I have the assurance that God has not lied to me concerning the keeping of
His words. Further, I believe that for those of us who speak English these
preserved words are in the KJV. So I have a book I believe fulfills Psalm
12:6-7 and it can be held and tested. Brother White does not.

The question is asked by White, "Doesn't Psalm 12:6-7 promise that God will
preserve His WORDS?" To this White responds with, "My first question is,
Where does Psalm 12 say that the 'words of the LORD' refer to the King
James Version of the Bible? Of course, it doesn't. Secondly, nowhere does
this passage tell us how God will preserve His words. Does this mean He
will do so by ensuring that no one can ever change the substance of those
words, or does it mean that He will always make sure that there is one
infallible version in one or more languages or translations? The passage
does not even begin to address such things. And finally, noting the NIV
translation, it is quite possible that verse 7 does not refer back to 'the
words of the LORD' in verse 6, but instead to those in verse 5 of whom the
Lord says, 'I will set him in the safety for which he yearns' (NKJV)." (pp.
243-244).

The passage in Psalm 12:6-7 in the NIV reads, "And the words of the LORD
are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven
times. O LORD, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever."

So, in his chapter on 'Questions and Answers' (chapter 10) his very first
question, which is the one listed above, gives no answers at all. Instead,
he raises more questions himself.

White's first question is, "Where does Psalm 12 say that the words of the
LORD refer to the KJV of the Bible?" This is not an answer, it is a
question. However, the answer is that it does not. If it had, then there
would be no word of God until 1611. If there was no word of God until 1611,
then Psalm 12 could not possibly be true because the claim is to keep the
words of the LORD from THIS generation for ever. This generation predates
1611, however it also includes 1611. This is the difference between the
Bible-believer and modern scholarship. Where is this preserved word today?
Where was it at any time? Have we lost it or misplaced it? The modern
scholar does not have an answer, at least not one that agrees with the
verses found in Psalm 12. The "KJV Only advocates" (to cite Brother White)
do not advocate the KJV only for everyone throughout Church history. ... We
advocate the KJV as the preserved word of God, for the English-speaking
people, without any proven error.

His second question is what did God mean by "preservation"? Well, the best
answer is He meant what He said. He said He would keep and preserve His
words from this generation for ever. Either He did this or He did not. If
He did, the modern scholar is at a loss to find where these preserved words
are. If He did not, then He lied, which is impossible for God to do. Please
notice that the text does not say that God would preserve the substance of
His words, as White suggests. He says He will preserve His W-O-R-D-S. Now,
did He or didn't He? Once again, the Bible-believer says He did and not
only see the evidence that He did, but has a copy he can hold and read for
himself.

The third question Brother White raises is one he plants in your mind. Is
Psalm 12:7 translated correctly? Does it refer back to verse 5 and not
verse 6? This is the same argument Dr. John Durham of Southeastern Baptist
Seminary raised. Durham writes, "Verse 6 interrupts the development of the
Psalm with an aside on the purity of the utterances of Yahweh. ... It is
... an interruption and could very well have been added at a period
subsequent to the composition of the Psalm." (Boardman Bible Commentary,
pp. 192-193) So now it becomes either a mistranslation, an interruption, or
an addition. Anything except for what it is, the promise of God to keep and
preserve His Words. The mark of the Holy Ghost is to assure the Believer
concerning the word of God (1 John 5:13). The mark of Satan is to question
the word of God (Genesis 3:1).

Dr. G. Campbell Morgan agreed with the rendering. He writes, "The psalmist
breaks out into praise of the purity of His words, and declares that
Jehovah will 'keep them' and 'preserve them.' The 'them' here refers to the
words. There is no promise made of widespread revival or renewal. It is the
salvation of a remnant and the preservation of His own words which Jehovah
promises." (Notes on the Psalm, Revell Comp., p.32).

Brother White quoted the NKJV to support his view that verse 7 refers back
to verse 5 and not to verse 6. However, this is not how the NKJV is versed.
In the Psalm, the NKJV lends itself to poetic form and groups verses
together. It is very plain to see that the editors of this translation have
grouped verses 6 and 7 together and not verses 5-7. Brother White would
have done better to have stayed with the NIV instead of switching to the NKJV.

It should also be noted that the KJV is not alone in its translation of
verse 7 as "them" instead of "us." The ASV of 1901 reads, "Thou wilt keep
them, O Jehovah, Thou wilt preserve them from this generation for ever."
Well, I guess that this only proves the old saying that even a blind
squirrel can find a nut.

I do hope that this answers your question and that this lesson has been an
encouragement to you. If you have any questions or comments, please feel
free to write me and let me know.


More to come

Will

[brandplucked]

DR. THOMAS STOUSE [3]:

Following is part of Dr. Thomas Stouse's critique of a article by William
Combs refuting his position on Psalm 12:6-7:

Combs assures the reader that the original words are pure and inerrant
words, but does not know how purely they are preserved (p. 15). Of course
the retort is that if the pure originals are not preserved purely, then how
can they be preserved at all. Is one to understand that God has promised to
preserve His pure originals impurely? Combs does concede that these verses
'might be a general promise of preservation.' Next, Combs argues that the
grammar of vv. 6-7 is against the word preservation interpretation.
Instead, the gender differences between the masculine plural pronominal
suffix 'them' and its antecedent feminine plural 'words' forces one to look
for another antecedent which is masculine plural (i.e., 'poor' and 'needy'
in v. 5).

However two important grammatical points overturn his argument. First, the
rule of proximity requires 'words' to be the natural, contextual antecedent
for 'them.' Second, it is not uncommon, especially in the Psalter, for
feminine plural noun synonyms for the 'words' of the Lord to be the
antecedent for masculine plural pronouns/pronominal suffixes, which seem to
'masculinize' the verbal extension of the patriarchal God of the Old
Testament. Several examples of this supposed gender difficulty occur in
Psm. 119. In verse 111, the feminine plural 'testimonies' is the antecedent
for the masculine plural pronoun 'they.' Again, in three passages the
feminine plural synonyms for 'words' have masculine plural pronominal
suffixes (vv. 129, 152, 167). These examples include Psm. 119:152
('Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou has founded
them for ever'), which Combs affirms to be 'a fairly direct promise of
preservation' of the written form of the Torah (p. 18). As the KJV/TR
bibliologists have argued all along, both the context and the grammar
(proximity rule and accepted gender discordance) of Psm. 12:6-7 demand the
teaching of the preservation of the Lord's pure words for every generation.

Next, Combs quotes the NIV rendering 'you will keep us safe and protect
us

[dwayner79]

...and I am sure either of us could come up with a few examples either way, but it does not really matter. The point is the poster I was responding to said something like, the Bible clearly states and the fact of the matter is this is not the verse to use if you want to make that claim.

:dunno:

[John the Baptist]

Psa 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.
Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

The words of God are pure, God will keep his word to the poor and oppressed saints, God's words are true and pure always. The bible as original written was pure and without error.

V: 7 He will keep and preserve the poor and the needy saints.

[brandplucked]

God's words are true and pure always. The bible as original written was pure and without error.

Hi John, I know this will probably be lost on you, but for the sake of others I thought I would point out the obvious double-talk of men like yourself who do not REALLY believe in a complete and inspired Bible that EXISTS NOW.

First you use a present tense verb "are" to say "God's words are true and pure always." OK so far. Sounds like you believe in something that still exists and have seen and believe. However, you then go on to contradict yourself by saying:"The bible as original written was pure and without error."

John, you have never seen the bible as originally written a day in your life. In fact, there never was a "Bible" composed of the originals. But now you tell us it WAS pure and without error. How do you know this? Simple answer, You don't.

Your view ends up as a contradiction in logic, and you end up saying you believe something that you know does not nor ever did exist. And then you have the temerity to think that we King James Bible onlys are somewhat off the track. What irony.

In spite of your breakdown in logic and consistent faith, I wish you well anyway.

All of grace,

Will K

[kevinmiller]

LOL. Well, actually you are wrong. I can read more than five words of Greek. I can read just about any Greek word you put in front of me, I know the meanings of about 20 or so probably. I studied Greek in school.




"The Byzantine Majority Greek text represents the texttype reflected among the vast majority of extant manuscripts. It is from this family of Byzantine texts that the early printed Greek New Testaments ("Textus Receptus" editions) and early English versions such as the Bishop's, Geneva, Coverdale, and King James Version derive, as well as the early European versions such as that of Luther and the Dutch Staten Vertaling."
http://logos.com/ebooks/details/byz
Stephen's Textus Receptus
"The Textus Receptus 1550 Greek text is best known as the basis for the King James Version or Authorized Version completed in the year 1611. This is a useful text for comparison for those with proficiency in Greek."
http://logos.com/ebooks/details/stephens

I don't think "ignorance" can apply to my position. You see, the difference between you, Calvary, and others and Dwayne, Will, myself and others is that you take the KJV as a matter of faith while we approach the suject as a matter of logic. You believe in the KJV because it says "KJV" on the front. You dodge the question of what was the Bible before 1611. We, on the other hand, look at what makes the KJV God's Word. We approach it rationally and research facts, though we have all come to somewhat different conclusions.

Please read those links this time. The TR exists. The Byzantine Text exists. The Scrivener's TR came after the KJV, not all of them.

Since it seemed you failed to notice it seeing as you continue the same rhetoric without regards to facts.

Your view ends up as a contradiction in logic, and you end up saying you believe something that you know does not nor ever did exist. And then you have the temerity to think that we King James Bible onlys are somewhat off the track. What irony.

So where did the KJV come from? Please, I'm just dying for you to tell me that it dropped out of the sky.


P.S. Please respond to the entire post, not just the last line since you seem to have a habit of selective responding.

[brandplucked]

Kevin. I'm so glad to hear you can read probably 20 words in Greek. I guess I was waaaay off the mark in my comments that you really have no idea what your are talking about. You have restored my waning faith in you as a scholar and a gentleman.

As for the original 4 links you gave, all of these texts were written AFTER the KJB came out in print. Now you post another one dealing with Stephanus. Are you aware of the fact that the KJB translators did not always follow the Stephanus readings? Naw, probably not.

Did the King James Bible drop out of the sky? Well, almost, but not quite. My belief is that God Himself has promised to preserve His perfect words in a real and tangible Book here on the earth till the Lord Jesus Christ returns in power and glory. Heaven and earth shall pass away but His words shall not pass away.

I believe God sovereignly guided the KJB translators in both their selection of textual readings and the resultant correct meanings in the English language. I do not believe there is a single error in the KJB other than the occasional printing errors that have been made and corrected over time.

I do not believe that any other bible is the pure and perfect words of God.

You talked before about Luther's German which omitted 1 John 5:7 and seemed to imply it was just as good as the KJB. You mentioned also the Geneva bible even though it has totally different meanings in about 100 verses I know of, and then you told us you really didn't know much about it or Luther's bible.

You then told us that you did not know of any other TR version that omitted verses. Well, I will be happy to inform you that Tyndale omitted the whole verse of Luke 17:36 "Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."

If Tyndale omitted this verse, then is it still the perfect and complete words of God?

Tyndale also had a horrible textual error in Luke 2:22 where the true Bible (the KJB) says "when the days of HER purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished..."

There was a blood sacrifice made to atone for the sin of the woman, but nothing was to be offered for the male child, and much less for the Son of God according to Lev. 12:6-8. Yet here Tyndale says "for HIS purification". Wrong text and wrong theology.

I and many others believe in a perfect and infallible Bible and it is the King James Bible. You on the other hand are not quite sure where it is, and recommend a great variety of contradictory versions and wildly different and conflicting Greek texts, of which you say you can read some 20 words. I congratulate you on the depth of your expertise in these matters.

Have a great day.

Will K