Correcting a Bible Corrector on Psalm 12

Posted: March 10, 2015 in King James Only Debate, Uncategorized
Tags: , ,

Dr James Ach and J/A (PMI PhD Student)

Lest anyone deem my response as unkind, I’m going to begin this article by showing how Colby Bonham treated Matthew Flynn (the subject of this article), so that nobody whines when I treat Colby’s article with the same fervor in which he treated Flynn’s.

I hope you have the discernment to see the idiocy of Mr. Flynn’s argument.

Although I’ve had this debate a million times- and no KJVO (King James Version Only) critic has ever raised a logical or Biblical defense to their criticism of the KJVO position on Psalm 12- from time to time some buffoon thinks he’s smarter than God and can just rewrite the Scriptures-in any language-and even alter basic rules of grammar-in any language.

Some Bible corrector named Colby Bonham decided to send me a link to his blog in response to an argument he had with another Twitter friend who is KJVO. The blog can be found here  . This is not a new attack on Psalm 12, but certainly one of the worst I’ve ever seen. The logic employed here is a stretch even for critics like James White and Daniel Wallace. But for the sake of a few of my friends that this guy repeatedly harasses, I’m going to peel his onion blog.*

Colby first states his goal is not to “critique KJVO position in its entirety”, but yet he maintains that anyone who holds to the KJVO view is mislead, dangerous, and teaching false doctrine. If that’s not a critique of the KJVO position in its entirety I don’t know what is.

I can’t speak on the points where he is apparently rebutting “Flynn’s” arguments because I do not have access to that blog’s content, so I will simply respond to the errors of Colby’s attacks on the KJVO position and specifically his ridiculous arguments on Psalm 12:6-7.

Traditional King James Only View of Psalm 12:6-7

Most people who understand the Bible and take it literally view Psalm 12:7 as referring to the words of the LORD in verse 6. When read naturally line upon line and in the normal flow of context and syntax, that’s how the passage reads. The words of the LORD are the natural antecedent of what God preserves. However, Bible correcting “scholars” have introduced a monkey wrench into this passage by claiming that it what God preserves are the poor of Psalm 12:5 instead of the words of the LORD of verse 6.  Colby is one of such that takes this foolish position and we shall dismantle his major errors below.

Colby  Error #1 Purified Silver

Colby admits that there is some symbolism used here. But he misses the point and presumes that “KJVOS assume God’s word needs purifying”. That’s the DUMBEST thing I’ve ever heard, and a blatant strawman attack that no KJVO holds to. Yes, the silver is a finished product being compared to the words of the LORD, but the TRYING OF THE SILVER isn’t to purify God’s words, it’s the process of bringing them to light to US.

Now I am not so dogmatic as to boldly claim that Psalm 12 refers to 7 translations prior to the KJV in 1611. I think it is certainly a shocking coincidence, but not one that I can claim with certainty. I think Laurence Vance has offered some convincing arguments for it, but it’s not a position that I am convinced is a MUST or necessity for a KJVO advocate. What I CAN claim with certainty is that Psalm 12:7 is a reference to the words of the LORD, not the poor of verse 5. More on that later but Colby was not merely attacking this view, but cited Doug Kutilek’s article in support of his argument in which Kutilek attacks the entire view that Psalm 12:7 is not a reference to the words of the LORD at all, and also, the commentators cited by Colby support this view as well.

Thus for Colby to claim that he is merely attacking the KJVO position of Psalm 12:7 as being a prophetic reference to the English translations that preceded the KJV is disingenuous and dishonest in light of the resources he cited in support of his position that ALL agree with each other (with the exception of a few that Colby misquoted), that Psalm 12:7 refers to “the poor” instead of the words of the LORD of Psalm 12:6. Colby is in fact attacking 2 different positions even though he claims to only be attacking one. This is an obvious attempt to “win by default” where if there is shown disagreement among even KJVOs and other commentators on Psalm 12 regarding the versions preceding the KJV, then by default that means Psalm 12:7 is not a reference to the words of the LORD. Quite a deceptive sleight-of-hand indeed.

Colby  Error #2 Hebrew Grammar

Naturally, as an Israeli born Hebrew speaking Jew, this one got my attention. I was eagerly waiting for the punch line of Colby’s devastating Hebrew analysis, and it never materialized. When I asked him where it went? He replied on Twitter “I never said I knew Hebrew”. Wait! Yes you did. You said, “The rules of Hebrew grammar prove that KJVOs are wrong on Psalm 12”. It’s one thing to quote someone else and claim that THEY SAID Hebrew grammar rules support their view, quite another to assert it as a fact of your argument when you admittedly don’t know Hebrew.

Colby cites Doug Kutilek, someone who’s NOT a Hebrew scholar, just a KJVO critic that many of us have dealt with before. Kutilek’s only real challenge offered where grammar is concerned is that the pronominal suffix in “keep them” a masculine gender and “the words of the LORD” (v6)  feminine in gender, and so he concludes the “them” must be a reference to the “people” of verse 5.

Gesenius, a Hebrew scholar, states,

“Through a weakening in the distinction of gender … masculine suffixes (especially in the plural) are not infrequently used to refer to feminine substantives (E Kautzsch, ed,Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 2nd ed by A E Cowley [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910], 440, sect O).

Other examples include, Genesis 31:8-9, “Thus God hath taken away the cattle of your [masculine plural pronoun suffix—refering to Rachel and Leah] father, and given them to me.”;  Genesis 32:15, “Thirty milch camels with their [masculine plural pronoun suffix—referring to the 30 female camels] colts, forty kine, and ten bulls, twenty she asses, and ten foals.”; Exodus 1:21, “And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them [masculine plural pronoun suffix — a reference to the midwives] houses.

Speaking on the remainder of grammar issues, Quek Suan Yew from Far Eastern Bible College states:

Anti-preservationists also argue that the pronominal suffix in “preserve them” (v7b) is in the singular, and so the KJV translators were wrong to render it as “them” (plural). It is true that the pronominal suffix for “preserve them” in verse 7b is a third person masculine singular suffix (him). Why did the KJV translators translate it as “them?” The answer is in the attaching of the energetic nun (the Hebrew letter n) to the pronominal suffix. When this occurs an additional rule applies in the Hebrew language. It is important to note that there is no masculine plural pronominal suffix in the third person when the energetic nun is applied to a verb (see Gesenius, 157-8,l sect 4, I). Hence the Scripture writer, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, used the singular masculine pronominal suffix, retaining the same gender as in “keep them” in verse 7a. It is again very legitimate and consistent with Hebrew grammar for the KJV translators to translate the masculine singular pronominal suffix with the energetic nun as a masculine plural pronoun — “them.”

When we speak of context, it is the immediate context that is considered first, and not the distant context. The immediate context speaks of the words of the Lord. Hence the preservation and keeping (guarding) would be the words of the Lord. We know that the grammar and syntax allow it. Verse 6 is what is known as an emblematic parallelism where the purity of God’s Word is likened to the sevenfold purification (as pure as you can ever get) process of purging silver of every bit of dross leaving behind the purest silver (see Tremper Longman III, How to Read the Psalms [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1988], 100). This verse teaches that the words of the Lord are without error or fallibility and it is 100% perfect.

Verse 7 is known as a synonymous parallelism where the second line restates what is mentioned in the first, but using different words (Longman III, 99). As mentioned before, the use of the energetic nun emphasises the act of preservation. This preservation is forever. The relationship between verses 6 and 7 is what we callsynthetic parallelism where the second verse adds or expands on the teaching mentioned in the first verse. These two verses combined teach that the words of God are forever perfect; like silver purified seven times, they will be preserved by God for eternity.

The contrast within the psalm would be the words of these evil men versus the words of the Lord. These evil men speak vanity and flattery (v2), and boast that their words will prevail and no one is lord over them (v4). The psalmist counters this by declaring that it is the words of the Lord that will prevail over the words of the evil ones. This is the assurance and comfort that the Lord gives to His people. Do not fear the words of these evil flatterers and boasters; trust in the words of the Lord that is purified seven times as opposed to the words of the evil men which are vain, proud and stem from a double heart (v2). God will keep (guard) His holy words and preserve (action is emphasised by the energetic nun) them from this generation forever. The Lord gave this verbal assurance to that generation and after because He knew they needed it. God’s people were distressed by the many wicked and confusing words that came from proud and evil men. But the thrice holy and perfect God encouraged His people by reminding them that His words and promises are ever true and will forever remain.

Published in The Burning Bush, Volume 10 Number 2 (July 2004)

Furthermore from Gesenius,

“The suffix gains still more strength, when instead of the union-vowels there is inserted between it and the verb a union-syllable n-, which, when the syllable has the tone, becomes n- (commonly called Nûn epenthetic or Nûn demonstrative), which, however, occurs only in the Imperfect and chiefly in pause, e.g. yebarkenehu he will bless him (Ps. 72,15)… This Nûn is, however, for the most part incorporated with the suffixes, and hence we get a new series of forms … Rem. The uncontracted forms with Nûn written distincly are rare and only poetic (Ex. 15,2) Deut. 32,10, Jer. 5,22,, 22,24) and do not occur at all in 3 fem. sing. and 1 plur. The contracted forms (with the Nûn assimilated) are rahter frequent also in prose, especially in pause (very seldom -nu as first pers. pl. Hosea 12, 5) This Nûn is of a demonstrative nature, and gives more emphasis to the word, and is therefore chiefly found in pause. But it occurs also in the union of the suffixes with certain particles.” Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, London: Asher & Co., 1903, p. 146. 

Interesting that the NASV altered the nun form in Psalm 12:7 even though they followed the rules in hundreds of other places (In Genesis alone Genesis  5:29; 9:5; 21:13; 42:4; 42:15; 43:9; Ex 21:29; 21:33; 22:21; 22:26; 23:4; 23:29; 25:2; 25:11; Le 1:3; 1:10; 3:1; 6:5; 7:6;  13:11; 13:44; 13:55; 13:57; 17:9; 23:11; 25:49; 25:53; 27:8; 27:10; 27:33; Nu 6:9; 9:16; 18:13; 22:6; 23:13; 23:25; 24:9; 24:17; 30:13; De 7:26; 12:15; 12:16; 12:18; 12:22; 12:24; 12:25; 13:9; 14:27; 15:8; 15:12; 15:13; 15:20; 15:21; 15:22; 15:23; 20:5; 20:6; 21:23; 23:21; 25:3; 28:30; 28:48; 30:13; 31:14-Thank you Brandon Staggs).

The masculine pronominal suffixes “them (תשׁמרם)”/”him (תצרנו)” and the feminine “words (אמרות)” are not an uncommon unpaired match and in this context when it is semantically masculine as a whole phrase (“אמרות יהוה”) the entire phrase takes on a masculine construction.

For more examples and a THOROUGH Hebrew analysis of the grammatical issues of Psalm 12:6-7 see Dr. Thomas Strauss

For a thorough response to Doug Kutilek’s butchering of Psalm 12, see Will Kinney, Answering Doug Kutilek’s anti- Preservation in Psalms 12

We also won’t mention that Kutilek relies much on “19th century writers..like Simon Patrick”, who lived from 1626-1707, hardly “19th century”, or how Doug lied about Rashi’s claims about Psalm 12:7 never referencing the words of the LORD, but who said Doug was good with FACTS!

See also Gender Discord by Kent Brandenburg and Sam Gipp Is the King James Bible inspired or preserved?

Colby Error #3 The King James Translators View of Psalm 12

Apparently, Colby seems to think that the KJV translators share his view of Psalm 12. He has obviously never seen the footnote in the 1611 KJV in context with the verse, “Heb. him. i. every one of them“. The translators knew it was grammatically singular and translated the pronoun as semantically plural in reference to the masculine being THEM-the words of God! For whatever reason Colby doesn’t get the footnote reference by the KJV translators. (More below as to the grammatical nature used here.)

Colby Error #4 Commentators Vs Hebrew Scholars

Colby seems to think that a person who blogs about KJVOs or writes commentaries qualifies as an expert in Hebrew grammar. He can’t seem to tell the difference between a textual scholar, linguistic expert, and a commentator.

But let’s look at the logic of some of the commentators.

Colby cites the Pulpit Commentary as follows:

Ver. 7. — Thou shalt keep them, O Lord. God having promised to set the righteous, who are oppressed, in a place of safety (ver. 5), the psalmist is sure that he will keep them and preserve them from the wicked“generation,”  which has possession of the earth, and bears rule in it

First of all, NOWHERE in Psalm 12 are the poor referred to as “the righteous”.  This is eisegetical suicide invented to make Psalm 12:7 fit their view. God commanded Israel to be courteous to the poor because they themselves were oppressed and strangers in Egypt.  Deut 15:11, 23:5-7, Ex 23:6. In fact, Deut 15:11 shows a distinction between “thy brother” and “the poor”. Just because God defends the poor doesn’t mean they are saved. More on this point later.

Furthermore, when David wrote Psalm 12, Israel was the dominant kingdom of the earth, not their enemies. Israel was not taken into captivity until well after Saul, David, and Solomon were memories. So to claim that Psalm 12 is about keeping the “righteous” away from the wicked who are IN POSSESSION AND RULE THE EARTH is a blunder of mammoth proportions because no wicked nation ruled the earth at that time, Israel did.

Colby erroneously relies on a handful of commentators to prove that the historicity of commentators debunks the KJVO position. That is just patently absurd. In the same breath, the existence of just as many commentators who say otherwise would therefore vindicate the KJVO position.

John Wesley, June 5, 1765 says,

Psalm 12:6. Pure-Without the least mixture of falsehood; and therefore shall infallibly be fulfilled.

V.7. Thou shalt keep them-Thy words or promises: these thou wilt observe and keep, both now, and from this generation for ever.

Noah Webster,

“Webster’s 1833 translation, and the Lesser Bible 1853 – “Thou shalt keep THEM, O LORD, thou shalt preserve THEM from this generation for ever.”

Dr. G. Campbell Morgan,

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 his 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.” Exposition of the whole Bible, Psalms, pg 32

Hebrew Scholar J.H. Eaton,

…but we may rather follow the main Hebrew tradition: “Thou O Lord shalt keep them (i.e. watch over the words to fulfill them, Jer. 1:12)…” (Torch Bible Commentaries, 1967). [Confirming that the interpretation of ‘thou shalt keep them’ as referring to the words of God was in fact, established Hebrew tradition].

David Guzik, Study Guide for Psalm 12, 2008,

B.1.(b). You shall keep them, O LORD, You shall preserve them: This was David’s declaration of confidence in God’s ability to preserve His own words. He did not only give His word to mankind; His providential hand has protected the existence and integrity of His word through the centuries.

Trinitarian Bible Society,

Furthermore, since these Scriptures were placed near the ark, in theheart of the tabernacle or temple, they were separated from all common books. They were manifestly declared to be holy. Certainly, God’s written Word is pure and sublime. It is truth, without any mixture of error. “The
words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times” (Psalm 12:6).” Malcom H. Watts, The Lord Gave the Word, 1998, page 5.

Henry Ainsworth (1526)

the sayings” [of Psalm 12:7] are “words” or “promises” that are “tried” or “examined” “as in a fire.”

Dr. W. Gary Crampton,

Textual criticism over the last century has moved away from the textual critical principles of the Reformers and Puritans that was grounded in the doctrines of inspiration and preservation, and has led the church astray. We have been told that a few texts upon which the new translations are based are better than the majority of texts upon which the King James and the New King James versions are based. As this article has shown, however, this is not true. The Westcott-Hort critical text is not dependable. As Pickering wrote, it is unproved at every point. Neither the Westcott-Hort theory nor the Modern Critical Text theory of eclecticism (often called “reasoned eclecticism”) can rationally claim to believe that God has providentially preserved His Word throughout the centuries. Any view that disclaims passages such as Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8-11, and 1 John 5:7 (which have been “received” as a part of the New Testament for centuries) shows this to be the case. When God tell us that He will preserve His Word for us from generation to generation, as He does in Psalm 12:7; 119:152, 160; and Isaiah 40:8, then He will do so, because He “is not a man that He should lie” (Numbers 23:19).” Crampton: Bart D. Ehrman & Daniel B. Wallace in Dialogue: The Reliability of the New Testament

For more scholars on Psalm 12:7, see David Cloud’s exhaustive research in For the Love of the Bible.

Suffice it to say “history” is not on Colby’s side because common sense would tell us that if history itself was the benchmark, then the earliest comment wins, and the evidence shows that the earlier commentators and Hebrew scholars (as opposed to Colby’s citation of recent ones) supported the Psalm 12:7 view as applied to the words of the Lord of verse 6. The paradigm shift in Psalm 12:7 among some scholars is a recent one, certainly not a “historical” position.

Colby Error #5 The Benjamin Wilkinson Fallacy

Most KJVO critics erroneously blame a 7th Day Adventist for many of the KJVO claims bypassing the common sense notion of figuring out where Wilkinson got HIS ideas from. They weren’t original, and in fact, even James White admits that most of what Wilkinson wrote in defense of the Textus Receptus and King James Version he got from An Inquiry Into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate by Dr. Frederick Nolan  (1784-1864) (White’s critique of Wilkinson’s book). Thus the claims made by Wilkinson were derived from a CALVINIST nearly 100 years BEFORE Wilkinson wrote his book. The idea of 7-fold purification was also mentioned by G. Campbell Morgan well before Wilkinson.

The very fact that Colby quotes John Gill who died in 1771 (long before Wilkinson was born) who shows his disagreement with Aben Ezra on Psalm 12 shows that there were Hebrew scholars that held this position long before Benjamin Wilkinson.

This is a classic “guilt by association” fallacy. The KJVO critics ignore the fact that a large amount of KJV translators were Calvinists and pick out folks like a 7th Day Adventist to slander the KJVO position. Granted, KJVOs have done this with the beliefs of Westcott & Hort, but neither of these men believed that the Scriptures were infallible and/or perfectly preserved and thus at this point what they believed made quite a difference in their bias in translation whereas in spite of the different views among the KJV translators, what they all DID have in common was that the word of God was preserved and was the final authority on all matters of faith and practice, hardly the same view held by the Catholic Bible translators (including the lesbians on the NIV committee).

What is really silly about this accusation is that there’s not one 7th Day Adventist today that holds Wilkinson’s position. In fact, the 7DA publication “Amazing Facts” is adamantly opposed to King James Only advocacy.

Nevertheless, when it comes to associations, I can hardly think of any worse association than a manuscript that is named after the Vatican (Codex Vaticanus) and a Roman Catholic owned monastery (St. Catherine’s, Codex Siniaticus) -both of which are the primary underlying texts that make up the critical text apparatus and all modern versions (including the Jehovah’s Witnesses ‘New World Translation’)- by those who claim to oppose the Roman Catholic Church.

Colby Error #7 God Never Uses Exclusiveness of Language

For nearly 2000 years, God used ONLY the Hebrew language to preserve and communicate His word to Israel. To claim that it is wrong for KJVOs to expect others to learn English because God wouldn’t require that of anyone defies the fact that that’s EXACTLY how God operated for 2,000 years. English is the universal language. It is impossible to conduct international business without knowledge of English. It is even impossible to get the right time zone without setting it to the standard of Greenwich, England. Why is that the rest of the world is fine with learning English for business and trade, but the KJVO critic is opposed to it for learning the Bible?

Moreover, it is even more absurd to claim that instead of learning English, the only way to truly know the Bible is to have a thorough knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. In other words, KJVO critics, in chastising us for expecting others to learn English, expect everyone else to learn TWO different languages in order to “properly” interpret and convey God’s “original” meaning.

This silly argument also ignores the fact that the KJV has been translated into hundreds of other languages. Thus the KJV is NOT JUST AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION. A little gloss that KJVO critics frequently (deliberately in my opinion) ignore.

Critics forget that God is the one that confounded the languages of man in the first place (Genesis ch 11). God did not WANT there to be common communication. He reserved ONE LANGUAGE for His people (Hebrew: and for the idiots who argue “you left out Aramaic”, Aramaic is a form of Hebrew, genius). There’s no reason to dismiss God using an exclusive GENTILE language during the times of the Gentiles.

Other Ridiculous Questions by Colby

“Why would God allow His people to remain in such an error all the way up until 1930?”

Considering that his ‘camp’ of Bible agnostics say the same thing about Codex Siniaticus and Codex Vaticanus, this is quite the accusation coming from KJVO critics. Let me explain. Critics like James White and ..well…every other KJVO critic and modern version proponent claim that neither Erasmus nor any of the KJV translators had the manuscripts available to them that were available to the Westcott & Hort Revision Committee that released their critical text and “revision” between 1881-1885. Thus according to all KJVO critics, not only did the KJV translators not have the word of God in 1611, neither did anyone else until at least the discovery of Codex Sinaiticus in 1859 by Constantine von Tischendorf, which gave credence to Codex Vaticanus, both of which the Revision Committee used to rewrite the Greek New Testament and overthrow the Textus Receptus.

In other words, the position that critical text scholars and their fans take against the KJVO is the exact same position that should equally apply to their own position. But of course, KJVO critics are never consistent in their accusations. They make the absurd claim that KJVO proponents don’t think the word of God showed up until 1611, yet their own position doesn’t allow for the complete word of God to be discovered until over 200 years later, and published in 1865.

Furthermore, critics like James White chide KJVO advocates for not being ‘open minded’ enough to accept new discoveries. So like the evolutionist, new discoveries may some day prove that evolution is true, and shame on those closed-minded creationists for accepting as truth -right NOW- that the matter of creation is settled without one more bit of “scientific evidence” needed to vindicate creationism. For the KJV Bible critic, the issue of preservation is never settled. In fact, it is this very point that Muslims have used against James White to reinforce their attacks against the Bible. (See proof in our article “Jesus Didn’t Forgive Them” with Will Kinney , and video evidence citing by a Muslim).

For more, see Will Kinney’s Where Was The Bible Before 1611?

God Only Preserved His Word In the “Original Languages”

An oldie but a goodie. This is the Alexandrian Cult’s favorite line. Nevermind that Moses destroyed the originals that God made of the Ten Commandments, or a king destroying the “original” in Jeremiah 36, or that God reveals that COPIES of His word were still inspired Scripture (See Deut 17:18). While Colby uses a childish argument such as “where does the Bible say Psalm 12 refers to the King James”, there’s nothing in the Bible that says inspiration and preservation are limited to the “original languages”, and for that matter, where does the Bible mention NIV, ESV, ASV, NASB? #StupidArgument. If it were limited to God’s spoken words, then there are spoken words that John admits were never recorded that should actually be a part of Scripture, but they’re not. John 21:25. This Alexandrian logic leaves us with a blatant contradiction in the promise of preservation if preservation meant that ONLY God’s “original” spoken words were to be Scripture.

Apparently it is “OK” for the KJV to change/eliminate words, but it is not “OK” for the modern translations to change/eliminate words.

The KJV corrected printing errors and updated some of the language. That is NOT what modern versions have done, and every KJVO critic knows that. Changing a middle English “f” to a modern English “s” isn’t the same as eliminating an entire half of a chapter (Mark 16:9-21), or whole verses (Acts 28:29, 1 John 5:7-8, Acts 8:37), or making changes like “The Son of God” (KJV) to “a son of the gods” (All others) in Daniel 3:25. The modern versions are making corrections that alter the text from a Greek text that has been fabricated by Bible hating scoffers influenced by German Rationalists. THAT is the issue, and these KJVO critics are well aware of that, but they attempt to cloud the issue by comparing the changes the KJV translators made to the deliberate alterations and corruptions made by modern versions since 1881.

Forget of course, that KJV translators as well as Erasmus rejected many manuscripts as corrupt. That tells you that men of the Reformation discriminated against manuscripts they believed were corrupt. But today even many of those who call themselves Reformers scoff at the idea of choosing one manuscript over another or labeling ANY of them as corrupt. The one thing that the Reformers had in common was they all knew what a corrupt Greek, Hebrew, and Latin manuscript looked like, and refused to acknowledge it/them as the word(s) of God. It is only in recent times that this centuries accepted practice since the foundation of the church has been questioned, shunned, and anathematized in the church. Anyone today who practices the same textual discrimination that ALL of the early churches did is labeled “divisive”.

For more on the preposterous logic of “originals only” arguments, see Will Kinney’s Can Translations Be Inspired? 

 The Absurd Conclusion: Salvation of All Poor People

The conclusion we are left with if Colby’s (and his citations) are taken seriously is that all poor people are saved without exception or distinction: universalist salvation of all poor and oppressed. Colby did not offer any proof that God preserved any of the poor forever. Common sense and logic would tell us that for a person to be preserved forever they would have to be saved, yet according to the logic of KJVO critics, we can bypass the gospel and just become poor enough to be eternally secure. No repentance, no faith, no belief in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, ignore the deity of Christ, because according to this view of Psalm 12, poverty=salvation. Colby & Co have invented an exemption to the gospel for the poor, not to mention that the poor are then purified by fire in a furnace of earth!

This is the kind of “scholarship” and “logic” you deal with from MVO (Modern Version Onlyist) and “Original Onlyist” Googleogians. The clear and obvious antecedent to “thou shalt preserve THEM” is not a skip over verse 6 as if it’s just a parenthetical side comment, but a reference to the words of the LORD being preserved forever. It is obvious why greedy for filthy lucre scholars don’t want evidence of preservation, because it allows them to continue setting themselves up as the authority on the Bible, and to add to the word of God when they see fit. The Bible then can’t be added to or new discoveries uncovered to reveal some altering revelation that would revolutionize Christianity if Psalm 12:7 shows that God is the one that keeps and preserves His words. It also emphasizes man’s self efforts to maintain God’s words instead of having any real faith in God’s ability to transmit His own Scriptures. It is the Jesuit method of replacing the Dark Ages priest with the modern day “scholar” (Malachi 2:12).

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. Matthew 24:35

For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven. Psalm 119:89

______________________

*It is interesting, as a side-note, that one of the first observations I had made about Colby’s blog was his erroneous use of descriptions of logic. He had initially referred to “laws of logic” as #1 being “law of contradiction”. He vehemently argued with me that this was correct even though no Christian scholar from Geisler to William Lane Craig uses it. Colby has now changed his blog to reflect the proper term, “Law of NON contradiction”. It is called the law of NON contradiction because the law asserts that truth does NOT contradict truth. Law of contradiction would imply that contradictions are necessary elements of logic.

Colby also doesn’t seem to grasp what logical fallacies are. The simple explaining of a contradiction does not itself identify what the logical fallacy is. Not all logical fallacies apply to the categorical syllogisms that Colby seems to be referring to. The law of Non Contradiction simply shows that a thing can not be both A and be NOT A at the same time. That is not the definition “logical fallacies”. Yet in all of Colby’s parading his new found Googlisms, he failed to expound on any known logical fallacies as applied in his arguments.

Colby also seems to think he was victorious in that I had “blocked” him a month or so ago (Ignored. If Colby had actually bothered to check he isn’t blocked, he just assumed so because I obviously never responded to him because I didn’t see any of his comments). My “blocking” him then had nothing to do with any inability to respond, but because every comment he made even if it was about which topping to put on a sandwich had my named tagged to it, and with 70 thousand followers it’s a little hard to follow comments when one person yields over 100 notifications that have nothing to do with a conversation I am involved in.

______________________________

Advertisements

Leave Godly Comments

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s