Search results

No they didn't. That's just your misinterpretation of what they said. They actually said that they provided notes indicating other varieties of translation, where they had chosen what they thought was correct out of some variations.

... be zealous therefore, and repent.

Are they really believers? And of course, many have lost their salvation: Ga 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. Heb 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift...

The problem is that your view is tainted with the leaven of Infidelity. Also, refer to the portion of Thomas Scott's commentary I quoted previously. Wrong on several counts: 1. The Holy Ghost speaks to all generations with the Scripture, but this does require that the first generation had...

Wrong. I said that 1260 page document describes a view of how to interpret. It mentions Ps. 12, but was never given as a specific on that passage. I then made a video to give some intro on that, plus posts on this forum with specific info on Ps. 12. I am asking you to explain what relevance...

Carnal brethren are in danger of backsliding, that's why He said He will spue them out.

I have already answered the question. Now, it is up to FSSL to explain what purpose verse 6 has in the context of verses 5 and 7.

Here is evidence that I already answered the question. As you can tell, the word "them" = the words of the LORD. The implication is the words as power for the people of God.

Pronouns have a direct, synonymous standing with what concept they are representing. They are not derivative.

I am not the one talking about parenthetical, you are, si we are waiting for your explanation on that. That does not ring true, since pointing at the KJB is pointing at an exact set of words. So you say, all the while trying to get the heat off your lack of identifying the reason for what...

And you are avoiding answering the question, which is what relevance does verse 6 have which you deem parenthetical? A strange accusation, since we actually have the text, the KJB, and believe it. The word "them" is in no way derivative of anything, and therefore does not have an antecedent...

You have not answered the question of the purpose of the parenthetical statement in verse 6 in context of the psalm. Otherwise, the psalm may as well jump from verse 5 to verse 7.

As a discernible thread in the Protestant tradition even indicates, the words are meant, with the promise for the people: 1. The immediate interpretation, when David saw the evil men around him, and yet He trusted in God's tried Word (having the nature of being fully pure), that would establish...

Antecedent in the passage is Thou, i.e. God.

By the way, here is one from your side who knows that the KJBOs did not make up their interpretation: http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_why_psalm.htm Here is Jean Calvin: ... Some give this exposition of the passage, Thou wilt keep them, namely, thy words; but this does not seem to me to be...

Why are you asking me that? You need to explain the relationship of verse 6 with verses 5 and 7. No verse is irrelevant, so you need to explain structurally why there is a parenthetical statement there, and what purpose it serves.

You are misreading or misrepresenting. The "object" is in relationship with a verb and a subject. So, the verb would be in the "keep" or "preserve", but the object is the word "them". The word "them" is the object. Consider the command not to muzzle the ox. How many "objects" are there to the...

It is no surprise to me that a post-modernist approach sides with a modernist approach. Same spirit behind it.

Going to the Hebrew lexicon today addles interpretation. The reason why you reject the KJBO view is because of your modernistic commitment to incorrect understanding of Hebrew. Actually not: the words and the people are conjoined. Jas 1:21 Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of...

That is exactly what he addresses. The so-called "third option" is not an option, because it must be forced to the dichotomy of for or against. That's the whole point of the Baal scenario, the two masters (God v. Mammon), and the hot or cold choice. He says you cannot serve two masters. That...