[TrevorL]

Re: Greetings from Ausralia

Greetings again Basilissa,

I have noticed that you seem to be very preoccupied with what our community believes. I want to reassure you that we do not believe anything that is not in the Holy Bible.

While as a female I have no authority over you and certainly cannot teach you anything (1 Timothy 2:12), I would (silently) beg you to consider the following verses:

I hope that at least some of these verses were helpful in understanding what the Bible says about predestination.

I appreciate your comments and list. I will take a copy of the verses that you have given for future reference. Did you consider the few verses that I have mentioned? John 3:14-17, Matthew 7:13-14, 5:1, 7:24-27, Acts 8:5,12, Romans 10:17, Matthew 24:12-13 (these last three may not seem relevant, but they are – faith and God’s fore-knowledge not predestination). I could add a few more but a few may suffice Matthew 11:25-30 and John 12:20-36. I could discuss these at length but this thread is not a predestination, Augustine vs Pelagius, Calvin vs Arminius, hyper-predestination vs moderate predestination, predestination vs free-will thread. Neither have I accumulated a list as yet, but I have been content to read the wise words of my respected brother and expositor, who certainly carefully considered this subject.

Also have you seen any equivalent list by those who do not believe in hyper-predestination, or a list by those who believe in moderate predestination, or even a list by those who believe in some or limited free-will? My position is that I believe in moderate or limited free-will, in that we have the God-given ability to hear and respond to or reject the Gospel of Christ.

Kind regards
Trevor

[Basilissa]

Re: Greetings from Ausralia

Greetings again Basilissa, I appreciate your comments and list. I will take a copy of the verses that you have given for future reference. Did you consider the few verses that I have mentioned? John 3:14-17, Matthew 7:13-14, 5:1, 7:24-27, Acts 8:5,12, Romans 10:17, Matthew 24:12-13 (these last three may not seem relevant, but they are – faith and God’s fore-knowledge not predestination). I could add a few more but a few may suffice Matthew 11:25-30 and John 12:20-36.

Thank you for your kind reply.

John 3:14-17and Matthew 7:13-14 describe what happens to those who believe and those who don't. These verses make it quite clear that so called "good people" who do not believe in Jesus are going to Hell. These verses do not specify if people are following Jesus because of their free will or because He had chosen them to do so. Hence, these verses do not contradict predestination.

Matthew 7:24-27 is similar to the previous ones, but it makes you think: what - or should we ask Who - makes the solid/bad foundations in the first place? Who creates one man to be wise, and other man to be foolish? God could have created all of us to be wise, couldn't He? Or do you think that being dumb is a life choice, and not a complex correlation of mother's behavior while pregnant, child nutrition, early education, maybe a genetic or epigenetic component, etc, etc (all of which are independent from the individual whose intelligence is at stake but easily corrected by God's Will)?

Acts 8:5-12 describes Apostle Philip teaching and converting people in the city of Samaria, and problems with a sorcerer. Again, it does not specify why people converted, it just states they did.

Romans 1:17. It's worth reading in context, especially reading all the way down to 1:21. It clearly shows that there are some people who hear yet not believe. I know from experience for it to be true, in the past I've known some atheists who read the Bible yet rejected it as the Word of God. In the light of Matthew 7:24-25 that makes them the foolish people, and it brings back to that question again: why would God create us with unequal abilities to accept His Word if He did not want to send some us to Hell at the dawn of our lives?

Matthew 24:12-13 states a fact (some will be saved while most will perish - especially read in context of neighboring verses), but it says nothing about the cause (free will or predestination).

Matthew 11:25-30 calls people to follow Jesus, but does not say why some of those who hear the calling will obey it while (in the light of the verses discussed above) there will be plenty of people who will reject it.

John 12:20-36. In this passage Jesus creates a miracle to make people believe in Him (John 12:30). Would they have believed if there were no voice from heaven? I suppose we'll never know, not in this life anyway, but I think it is safe to assume that Jesus had that conversation with Heaven to directly impact His audience. He really wanted them to be saved, impressing them with something that went beyond their intellectual capacities to understand and accept His Word.

I'm not sure what Matthew 5:1 has to do with anything, though?

I could discuss these at length but this thread is not a predestination, Augustine vs Pelagius, Calvin vs Arminius, hyper-predestination vs moderate predestination, predestination vs free-will thread. Neither have I accumulated a list as yet, but I have been content to read the wise words of my respected brother and expositor, who certainly carefully considered this subject.

Also have you seen any equivalent list by those who do not believe in hyper-predestination, or a list by those who believe in moderate predestination, or even a list by those who believe in some or limited free-will? My position is that I believe in moderate or limited free-will, in that we have the God-given ability to hear and respond to or reject the Gospel of Christ.

I'm somewhat baffled and confused. Are you suggesting that the Holy Scripture is internally contradictory? I believe in what is written in the Bible, and if the Bible was internally contradictory that would mean that I wouldn't know what to believe in anymore.

Of the names you've mentioned, they do ring a bell but I've read only St.Augustine (and only some fragments and it was several years ago).

And no, I don't look for lists of supposed contradictions in the Holy Bible.

[Alan Swallows Waiting for Email Confirmation]

Re: Greetings from Ausralia

Did you consider the few verses that I have mentioned?

There are very few verses that could be construed as supporting the idea of free will. One of the most commonly quoted is Joshua 24:15:

Joshua 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

Would you say Joshua exercised free will on behalf of his wife and children and servants (his household)? Because this verse gives the impression Joshua decided for them.

John 3:14-17, Matthew 7:13-14, 5:1, 7:24-27, Acts 8:5,12, Romans 10:17, Matthew 24:12-13 (these last three may not seem relevant, but they are – faith and God’s fore-knowledge not predestination).

As Basilissa pointed out (thank you, BTW), none of these verses explicitly support the notion of free will. You seem to think just because God invites everyone to come to Him, everyone is able to come to Him. God has no problem offering people something they can't have.

Matthew 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

(these last three may not seem relevant, but they are – faith and God’s fore-knowledge not predestination).

I suppose you know better than the Holy Spirit who inspired these verses:

Romans 8:29-30: 29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Neither have I accumulated a list as yet, but I have been content to read the wise words of my respected brother and expositor, who certainly carefully considered this subject.

Why don't you think these things through for yourself instead of getting your friend to think for you?

Also have you seen any equivalent list by those who do not believe in hyper-predestination, or a list by those who believe in moderate predestination, or even a list by those who believe in some or limited free-will?

I suppose you could google it, but that sounds too much like hard work.

My position is that I believe in moderate or limited free-will, in that we have the God-given ability to hear and respond to or reject the Gospel of Christ.

I suppose you find it comforting to think God's in control of everything while you've still got some control over your own fate. You like to think there's something inherently good in Trevor that he was able to believe in God when so few people would.

Have you heard of false equivalence? It's when you give two ideas equal weight when they may in fact not be of equal merit. It's when you say free will and predestination may both be true, they may both be compatible. I'd say they were mutually exclusive. When comes to a contest of wills between God and man, God will always win. God can't be sovereign otherwise.

I bet you believe in God's absolute sovereignty when it's convenient. If someone threatened your life, you'd pray for God to save you - the will of the person threatening you be damned! In fact, whenever you pray an intercessory prayer, you're asking God to interfere with people's wills, to thwart the will of evil people and to compel good people to action.

You just don't like divine sovereignty when it comes to your will. Or when it involves the idea that God predestined people to do evil. Or predestined most people to eternal torment before they'd even done anything evil.

I don't know how you can live with the inconsistency.

[TrevorL]

Re: Greetings from Ausralia

Greetings again Alan and Ezekiel,

I apolgise that I am not keeping pace with the Posts, and I have not yet considered the latest Posts by Basilissa and Alan. I hope what I say below does not completely conflict with these later Posts. I will consider these two in the next day or two, time allowing and DV.

Since when has God ever demanded of people something they have natural capacity to do? God demands perfection (Matthew 5:48). We are by nature imperfect (Isaiah 64:6).

I do not accept your reasoning here, and you should also consider the range of meaning of S#G5046. You should not transfer your wrong conclusion to the subject of faith.

God demands faith (Hebrews 11:6). You don't think He also gave everyone the natural capacity to believe too, do you?

Looking at the subject of faith, or the capacity to believe. If I say to a child, “I have 20 cents in my pocket, if you tidy up your room I will give it to you”, is not his response a matter of belief? He really believed that I had the 20c, and because of his assessment of my kind but partly authoritative disposition at the time, he started to tidy his room. And sure enough he was rewarded, even though if I was mean and nasty I could say, “You should have tidied it up anyway and you don’t therefore really deserve a reward.” His assessment of my character would then suffer. But this is the quality of belief, nurtured in a child, and we also respond in faith to the Father’s promises. Prominent among these promises are those given concerning Eve and her seed, the promises to Abraham and the promises to David. We hear the Word of God and if we have a good and honest heart, then we affectionately believe.

Luke 8:15 (KJV): But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.
Romans 10:17 (KJV): So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Genesis 15:5-6 (KJV): 5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. 6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
There is no hint that God injects a foreign quality into the predestined elect at the time of preaching.

The three stages before the conversion of the Samaritans John 4, Luke 9:51-56, Acts 8 shows that belief is a gradual process of initial growth, with the occasional relapse, and then an embracing of the gospel when properly understood and affectionately believed.

Ephesians 2 is very clear. Faith does not come from within you.
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.
I suppose God gives faith to some and denies it to others.

Please check, but my tentative reading of the above is that it is “grace” that is “not of yourselves”. God is the one that gives, and He gives the gift of grace. I consider faith as both quantitative and qualitative. To claim only those that are to be saved have “faith” does not agree with the observation that there are many ideas that people hold, and God knows who and what amongst these is a saving faith.

Well, I did quote Scripture supporting the idea that you can't lose your salvation, but if you want another verse, here you go:
Philippians 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

This is the same sort of confidence that I placed in the child to clean up his room. I knew that he was a responsive and reasonable child, and a little incentive and prior example on my part (he saw me tidy up my room). If the child was rebellious and stubborn then the confidence would be displaced. If the Philippians were not interested in Paul and his message and Paul's knowledge of God's providential care, then his confidence would be displaced, but the history of these believers and their heart-warming response to Paul and the gospel is evident.

Its an old expression, that you need to read between the lines to get at the truth when you have two reports of an incident.

At least you're being honest that you think the Bible may contain unreliable or conflicting accounts.

No, both accounts are true. The two complete the three-dimensional view. I have listened to and agree with a study on the various addresses by Peter and Paul in the Acts. He claimed that each report of the addresses in Acts, Acts 2, 3, 7 etc., is a summary, a precis, and yet the essential details guide us to the range and message delivered.
Acts 3:19-21 (KJV): 19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; 20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: 21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

One example of this expansion, he suggested that at this point in Peter’s speech he would have illustrated his claim concerning “the times of refreshing” and “restoration” by various quotations by some of “all of the prophets”. Peter would have quoted these prophets to illustrate his claim that the prophets spoke of the work that would be achieved by Jesus in restoring and refreshing the earth at his second coming.

I'm not interested in opinion. I'm only interested in God's truth.

Good, then I hope you will listen to and weigh the whole counsel of God.

I've only quoted the Bible, not John Calvin. I think the reason you don't like the Bible verses I quoted is because you don't like the implication if they're true.

God demands that people hear Him, yet He makes them deaf. He not only foresaw who would believe but decided who would believe and who wouldn't before the beginning of time. He planned to give eternal bliss to some and eternal torment to others. God's choice to save us wasn't due to anything good in us because there is no good in us. His choice is therefore arbitrary.

This is not the God you worship, as you said, but it's the God of the Bible. You need to stop pretending.

How do you explain that God’s choice is arbitrary, when God shows his love in giving His Son and then calls upon all to respond John 3:14-17?

However, I do agree with you that your imagination is over-fertile and that you should not be applying it to God's Word so that the Holy Words take on a meaning convenient to your preconceived notions.

I accept your advice and correction, and I should be more careful in what I imagine and say.

Witch-hunting was and remains a very necessary occupation: had there been no witches, then there would have been no need. King James, the king to whom God spoke also knew that there were witches and we assume from the same source and by virtue of Ex:22:18, for which I doubt even you could provide an imaginative translation.

I suggest you look around you at certain women, despised by the Christian population, work out their frustrations by creating evil - their skills and powers must emanate from somewhere...

That they are by no means as common as they were in the 17th century is confirmation of the success of eradication.

I agree with the Law that was given to Israel as applying to Israel. We are not under the Law of Moses, neither is such a law a part of most countries’ Law. I believe many were wrongly persecuted and killed in the past. The Spanish Inquisition was only stopped by Napoleon in 1805, and various Laws were introduced to stop witch-hunting in England before that time. I am not sure if these laws have had an effect in some parts of the USA. If you harass ten women that you suspect may be witches, what would happen before God if you were wrong with one case? That’s life? I do not believe that it is the present role of Christians to partake in this pursuit.

PS. The BBC is a socialist, liberal organization that will lead you to the Gates of Hell, and you will be smiling as you go - they too have a high proportion of female employees at a relatively high level... need I say more?

Although I may not swallow everything that the BBC presents, I have no reason to doubt most of what was presented in the BBC Inquisition series. It included the persecution by the Roman Catholic Church in Europe, the Spanish Inquisition and the Witch-hunting in England. Much of what was presented was by researching records, and evidently thorough records of much of this was kept.

Kind regards
Trevor


Psalm 38:15, 21-22 (KJV): 15 For in thee, O LORD, do I hope: thou wilt hear, O Lord my God. 21 Forsake me not, O LORD: O my God, be not far from me. 22 Make haste to help me, O Lord my salvation.

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Greetings from Ausralia

Mr. Trevor,

Many of the fears I expressed earlier in this thread have come into fruitition.

You are very well educated in Bublical commentary. While that can be laudable when dealing with the unbeliever, it becomes a tool of the Enemy when you're among those of Faith. Please let me elaborate.

Commentaries can be genuine and sincere attempts to make God's Word relevant in a world that is confusing. They try to dissect the Scripture in a logical manner to make it internally consistent and reveal the (hidden) message that emerges from this scholarship.

There are some unspoken premisses that can make this hazardous. God's Word needs explaining. There is a need to defend Scripture as it appears inconsistent.

This leads to the present situation of having well-constructed and logical paths that lead to distinctly opposite conclusions. 1 Timothy 2:12 becomes mixed with a hypothetical situation of women gossiping during service and disturbing the sermon. OK but we have no data about the actual situation. Romans 1 becomes a sermon against irresponsible sodomy. Others take other paths that are logical as well but wildly different conclusions.

Obviously, you can and you do choose the commentaries that please you. How do you know they do not neglect some alternative hypotheses? What these widely different commentaries do is that they make the people lose the Fear of God (Ecclesiastes 12:13) and replace it with shifting goalposts. By their very nature these academic apologetics admit that the Bible seems constradictory and needs defending and editing. They are denying God some of His omnipotence by claiming that He would have to follow human logic: that is the unfortunate legacy of Tomism and Anselm.

If His Scripture is forced to follow Human logic, we're in a mess. Really. This leads to the situation where agnostics and atheists look at Biblical Scholarship and commentary and pose the questions that all science does. Are there alternative hypotheses that require less auxiliary cumbersome additions? Are there negative data that do not support my conclusions? Is this actual evidence of just anecdotal narrative? The answers in that context are frightening. Yes, there is the alternative hypothesis that the contradictions are really there and the Bible does not have internal logic. Why else would ingenous scholars come to opposite conclusions? Yes, there are negative data, the sediments on ocean floors should be thicker than on the continents if there had been a real Flood. Occam's razor would cut through elaborate attempts to harmonize the Bible to the theory of justice and show Scripture only as a veil of ignorance. No, there is no evidence, just narratives. The NT authors had access to the OT texts, it was easy to choose the prophecies that were supposedly fullfilled.



All this because some verses are chosen as more reliable and some as less. Revelations as spiritual struggle, comdemnation of unbelievers (John 3:18) as an invitation, as human love instead of the Love of God in Exodus 3:14.

By starting the unnecessary defence of alleged contradictions the road is paved with wonderful intensions and leads to the entry of statistics. The probabilities replace certainty. If a commentary is true with a 90% certainty, it is no lnger totally true. If Jesus' resurrection is most likely true it becomes scientific data. It could be falsified.

God's word is by its nature beyond logic. Miracles break down the nice chain of causation. They are illogical. They can happen any time, anywhere. Death and its entropy are broken, gravity is dismissed. To explain this with human logic neglects the supernatural.

The Bible is all about supernatural.

It is Christmas eve. Jesus is being born was being born will be born.

John 1:10
He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

This is not logical. It is gobbdelygook for the scholar. I am going to my local charity now to help prepare the Christmas feast for those less fortunate than us, who have no access to the Internet of the Bible but who crave the food of men and the Word of God. They do not need to be told that some feel that the Word needs to undergo elaborate cross-referencing to be plausible. They need to repent and follow God's Commandments.

I am on call for them and with my mobile on call for my Brethren here to help them fight the loss of Faith and its initial steps of abandoning the Bible under the scrutiny of fuzzy logic and statistics.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[TrevorL]

Re: Greetings from Ausralia

Greetings again Basilissa, Alan and Elmer,

I have had a quick look through your comments on the various verses that I mentioned. I see most of the verses differently to your explanation. Romans 1:17 is an important verse, but I had Romans 10:17 in mind, that faith comes by hearing the word of God. I will consider your Post Elmer and reply if appropriate. You certainly are very analytical. I have briefly mentioned your earlier use of 1 Peter 1:20 in my next Post.

I'm somewhat baffled and confused. Are you suggesting that the Holy Scripture is internally contradictory? I believe in what is written in the Bible, and if the Bible was internally contradictory that would mean that I wouldn't know what to believe in anymore.

Of the names you've mentioned, they do ring a bell but I've read only St.Augustine (and only some fragments and it was several years ago).

And no, I don't look for lists of supposed contradictions in the Holy Bible.

What I was suggesting is that these types of discussions on this subject have raged over many centuries, both sides claiming that Scripture supports their position. You seem to have come out on the pre-destination side, even though you claim this is the Scriptural side. Quite often, when I hear a fairly well reasoned argument, I will agree with this at the first, but when another discusses the subject a wider perspective is achieved or even the position of the first speaker is almost completely discredited. A good example is the Book of Job. Some of the arguments of the three friends seem plausible at first, but Job perseveres. Then Elihu balances some of Job’s extremes, and then God’s answer settles the matter and in the process humbles Job and reconciles Job with his friends.

Why don't you think these things through for yourself instead of getting your friend to think for you?

I reached a certain stage with the subject, but gained better insight with this friend’s article. This article also helped to resolve a prolonged discussion on this subject between two of my mates. A younger brother was expressing some views close to arbitrary predestination, and an older brother had spent much time trying to persuade him. I was able to find the article, gave the young brother a copy, and the matter was resolved.

You just don't like divine sovereignty when it comes to your will. Or when it involves the idea that God predestined people to do evil. Or predestined most people to eternal torment before they'd even done anything evil.

I cannot agree with the last two sentences at least and have reservations concerning the first.

Kind regards
Trevor

Psalm 38:15, 21-22 (KJV): 15 For in thee, O LORD, do I hope: thou wilt hear, O Lord my God. 21 Forsake me not, O LORD: O my God, be not far from me. 22 Make haste to help me, O Lord my salvation.

[TrevorL]

Re: Greetings from Ausralia

Under Investigation Part 3 – The Bible Passage below the Post
The title “Under Investigation”on the LHS works both ways – you are examining me, and I am examining this forum. The third part of my investigation is on the subject of The Bible Passage below the Post.

At first sight this passage seems to be placed by the individual who is making the Post, but this is not the case. Rather someone with Administrative Ability adds a Scripture that THEY CONSIDER APPROPRIATE.

With my Posts on this thread the first of these Scriptural quotations did not appear until 7 or more Posts. This particular Scripture persisted for quite some time and then this was replaced by the second Scripture that appears at the moment.

Administrator’s First Scripture:
2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Now in my estimation 2 Peter 1:20 is an important verse and in a way I welcomed this, but I began to question why it was added. I guessed, and could be wrong, that it was added as an indication that I was giving my own private interpretation of the Scripture and this assessment was made on the basis that what I said was contrary to the teachings of the Forum and the Landover Baptist Church.

As a result I started to respond to the Administrator’s Scripture by adding various other translations of 2 Peter 1:20, plus a few brief quotations from Commentaries, and one saying. These additions were added progressively, but the total response is as follows:

2 Peter 1:20-21 (NKJV): 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation (mg or origin), 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

2 Peter 1:20-21 (NET): 20 Above all, you do well if you recognize this: No prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet’s own imagination, 21 for no prophecy was ever borne of human impulse; rather, men carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

NET Bible Translator’s Note: The γάρ (gar) at the beginning of v. 21 gives the basis for the truth of the proposition in v. 20. The connection that makes the most satisfactory sense is that prophets did not invent their own prophecies (v. 20), for their impulse for prophesying came from God (v. 21).

2 Peter 1:20-21 (WBC): 20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture derives from the prophet’s own interpretation, 21because prophecy never came by the impulse of man, but men impelled by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

A text without a context is a pretext.

No prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation (or origin, margin). This statement has given rise to a great variety of interpretations. Some are absurd, such as the view that interpretation of the Bible is the right of the church alone and that individuals should not study it! (Believer’s Bible Commentary)

2 Peter 1:20-21 (KJV Bible Commentary): No prophecy of Scripture ever arises from human ingenuity, for never did a single Old Testament prophecy come at the impulse of a man; what those men spoke was the Word of God because they were being influenced by the Holy Spirit.

All of the above give a different understanding of 2 Peter 1:20-21 than my assessment of the Administrator’s use of this Scripture. In my estimation this wrong usage of 2 Peter 1:20 seems to be reflected in Post #54 when Elmer used a portion of 2 Peter 1:20 in this wrong sense.

Administrator’s Second Scripture:
Psalms 38:5: My wounds stink and are corrupt because of my foolishness.

Some Posts later, after I had added sufficient Scriptures and comments to answer the Administrator’s First Scripture, this second scripture appeared. At the same time the Administrator added an Avatar which seems to be rude or crude, and next to the Avatar the words were added “retarded abo”. Thus my only conclusion is that this use of Scripture was meant to also malign me. By doing this the Administrator additions seem to be inappropriate given the context of Psalm 38 where David’s enemies spoke evil of David when he was sick.

My response was first trying to show the context by quoting more of Psalm 38 as follows in Post #52

Psalm 38:12-22 (KJV): 12 They also that seek after my life lay snares for me: and they that seek my hurt speak mischievous things, and imagine deceits all the day long. 13 But I, as a deaf man, heard not; and I was as a dumb man that openeth not his mouth. 14 Thus I was as a man that heareth not, and in whose mouth are no reproofs. 15 For in thee, O LORD, do I hope: thou wilt hear, O Lord my God. 16 For I said, Hear me, lest otherwise they should rejoice over me: when my foot slippeth, they magnify themselves against me. 17 For I am ready to halt, and my sorrow is continually before me. 18 For I will declare mine iniquity; I will be sorry for my sin. 19 But mine enemies are lively, and they are strong: and they that hate me wrongfully are multiplied. 20 They also that render evil for good are mine adversaries; because I follow the thing that good is. 21 Forsake me not, O LORD: O my God, be not far from me. 22 Make haste to help me, O Lord my salvation. [/u]

I was not claiming the whole of the Psalm as being appropriate, but I felt that I could unite with David in his prayer, especially as a result of the way I was treated by these Administrator additions on my Posts. Since adding this full quotation I have now reduced my answer to Psalm 38:5 to simply unite with David in his prayer as follows:
Psalm 38:15, 21-22 (KJV): 15 For in thee, O LORD, do I hope: thou wilt hear, O Lord my God. 21 Forsake me not, O LORD: O my God, be not far from me. 22 Make haste to help me, O Lord my salvation.

Kind regards
Trevor

Psalm 38:15, 21-22 (KJV): 15 For in thee, O LORD, do I hope: thou wilt hear, O Lord my God. 21 Forsake me not, O LORD: O my God, be not far from me. 22 Make haste to help me, O Lord my salvation.

[Basilissa]

Re: Greetings from Ausralia

Greetings again Basilissa, Alan and Elmer,

I have had a quick look through your comments on the various verses that I mentioned. I see most of the verses differently to your explanation. Romans 1:17 is an important verse, but I had Romans 10:17 in mind, that faith comes by hearing the word of God.

I do apologize for a misspelling. I have something stuck under my "0" key and cannot get it out, so sometimes I loose some zeroes and ends of parentheses. (And I do love (ab)using parentheses).

I meant Romans 10:17 and reading it all the way down to Romans 10:21, which talks about Israel being disobedient despite hearing the Word of God. Given that several verses talk about fools hearing but not listening to the Word of God (e.g.: Psalm 14:1), it seems like the ability to accept Jesus after hearing about Him is related to the individual's intelligence. Fools reject Jesus, half-smart people accept some sort of Pascal's wager, but the truly smart actually believe. I hope that we can agree that intelligence is a gift from God, that is given unequally to different individuals.

What I was suggesting is that these types of discussions on this subject have raged over many centuries, both sides claiming that Scripture supports their position. You seem to have come out on the pre-destination side, even though you claim this is the Scriptural side.

I'm a much more simpler person than Brother Elmer, but the way I see goes like that: the Holy Bible is a Life Instructions Manual. I've read instructions to many things in my life, and the good instructions are easy to follow. Do you believe in a cruel God who created instructions so complicated that they have many interpretations? I do not. I believe that the Bible is to be read as is, no convoluted interpretations. It praises people who bash babies' heads into stones and rip pregnant women's bellies open, so should we.

I agree that it is possible that for whatever reason God decided to cloud my judgement and make me believe a lie for some past transgression, so that He can punish me for eternity (2 Thessalonians 2:8-12). If so, so be it. Who am I to question His judgement?

[Alan Swallows Waiting for Email Confirmation]

Re: Greetings from Ausralia

We hear the Word of God and if we have a good and honest heart, then we affectionately believe.

No one has a good, honest heart.

Jeremiah 17:19 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

Romans 3:10-11: 10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

There is no hint that God injects a foreign quality into the predestined elect at the time of preaching.

Ephesians 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins.

The three stages before the conversion of the Samaritans John 4, Luke 9:51-56, Acts 8 shows that belief is a gradual process of initial growth, with the occasional relapse, and then an embracing of the gospel when properly understood and affectionately believed.

The Good News cannot be understood without God's help.

Romans 8:7-8: 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

First Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

It's not like Christianity was invented by man, you know. It was invented by God, so it's way beyond human understanding. This is why so many people see "contradictions" in the Bible.

Please check, but my tentative reading of the above is that it is “grace” that is “not of yourselves”. God is the one that gives, and He gives the gift of grace.

There is no ambiguity in God's word. If you had the same Holy Spirit I have, you would understand "that" is "faith" (Ephesians 2:8).

Besides, it doesn't change much. You would agree you can't be saved without grace - a gift God bestows on some and withholds from others.

I consider faith as both quantitative and qualitative. To claim only those that are to be saved have “faith” does not agree with the observation that there are many ideas that people hold, and God knows who and what amongst these is a saving faith.

I agree there are other kinds of faith besides saving faith. Unbelievers believe in all kinds of silly things: UFO's, New Age, homeopathy, etc. People have a propensity to believe in the paranormal and false gods and various ideologies. Can you imagine if the faith of a Christian was the same as the faith of a Buddhist or a naturopath?

How do you explain that God’s choice is arbitrary, when God shows his love in giving His Son and then calls upon all to respond John 3:14-17?

God sent His son to die to for our sins.

First John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

God calls upon all to come to Him.

Matthew 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

BUT

No one can come to Jesus unless the Father compels them.

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Few have been chosen to respond to the call.

Matthew 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

It's really quite simple. I suppose you think you would do it better if you were God.

Quite often, when I hear a fairly well reasoned argument, I will agree with this at the first, but when another discusses the subject a wider perspective is achieved or even the position of the first speaker is almost completely discredited. A good example is the Book of Job. Some of the arguments of the three friends seem plausible at first, but Job perseveres. Then Elihu balances some of Job’s extremes, and then God’s answer settles the matter and in the process humbles Job and reconciles Job with his friends.

This is another dangerous line of reasoning. If you try to look at both sides of an argument, what's to stop you from looking at arguments against the Bible and against God?

I reached a certain stage with the subject, but gained better insight with this friend’s article. This article also helped to resolve a prolonged discussion on this subject between two of my mates. A younger brother was expressing some views close to arbitrary predestination, and an older brother had spent much time trying to persuade him. I was able to find the article, gave the young brother a copy, and the matter was resolved.

In other words, it was easier to take someone's word for it than to look into it for yourself.

I cannot agree with the last two sentences at least and have reservations concerning the first.

If you cannot agree with the Bible, stop calling yourself a Christian. You make Jesus vomit.

Revelation 3:15-16: 15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. 16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

[TrevorL]

Re: Greetings from Ausralia

Greetings again Elmer,

Before I respond to you, I need to acknowledge that I have now read the thread “Noobs please read this before posting”. The reason why I state this is that I received on Infraction Notice from one of the Moderators, who I have abbreviated as “Mary E” stating

You have received an infraction at The Landover Baptist Church Forum.
Reason: Bearing false witness against God's favorite church

The infraction was stated to be because of my Post #67. In this Post I mainly commented on 2 Peter 1:20-21 and Psalm 38:5, or rather I commented on the Administrator’s use of 2 Peter 1:20 and Psalm 38:5. Possibly I misinterpreted or wrongly assessed why the Administrator(s) added these verses to my Posts.

In response to Elmer: I appreciate your assessment represented by Fear1 and Fear 2. Looking at Fear1:

Many of the fears I expressed earlier in this thread have come into fruitition.

You are very well educated in Bublical commentary.

I do have access to many resources and I attempt to use them carefully and sparingly. My position in our meeting is that I am the librarian and as a result I have become aware of the many books that are available and new books that continue to become available. Most of the books that I purchase for this library, books for individual purchase and others for the borrowing library, are those recommended by respected brethren in my fellowship who have spent their lives in study and dedication to God.

My initial interest in Biblical Commentary arose out of a series of Young People classes that a senior brother conducted or rather guided on the subject of Galatians. For each class he appointed a young brother to speak on a portion of Galatians and helped the young brother in some aspects of the preparation, but also during the presentation helped by discussing the subject when in progress. One piece of advice that has stuck is that he stressed that many of the claims of the Judaisers are not stated. But we can assess their claims and attacks against Paul and against his Apostleship and teaching, by what Paul in effect replies and defends. As young brethren, we felt a part of the class and became very involved in trying to understand the subject and for my part I was able to take thorough notes and after each class consolidated these notes with personal study and meditation. Near the end of the series the senior brother recommended a small commentary on Galatians and stated that he had found this commentary difficult at first. Then he did his own personal study on Galatians, and at the end he read again the commentary and found that most of the explanations in the commentary matched his own conclusions, and helped clarify many other aspects. I have matched that experience by my own study and then confirming much but not all with this commentary. But also I have gained much more detail and many more insights by also considering this commentary. This commentary was written by one of our magazine editors and in his day was a well-received speaker and expositor. He has published a number of books, mainly individual commentaries on a book of the Bible.

As a result of my interest in books, apart from the meeting’s library, I have accumulated a much larger personal library, including electronic resources. I prefer to use personal Bible study and meditation first, trying to understand what the Bible says and only then using such resources that help in the meaning and range of each word, and only then, after this process, possibly looking at a commentary. My preferred commentaries are not those commercially available, but by those who I assess have lived a life of dedication and study and exposition. This is the method that our senior brother encouraged. So my assessment is that your comments in the rest of Fear 1 are interesting, but not really applicable to my position

My brief encounter with this forum is that some do not use even word reference books, and almost seem to suggest that reading the KJV1611 is all sufficient, and then stating their immediate impression of what this says. Also I gain the impression that possibly the Landover Baptist Church claim that they are guardians of “the Pure Message™ of Christ as mediated by our Church.” I have not been given or researched the full implications of this claim, but you stated that I have rejected this, so I assume that part of my Posts conflicts this position.

Considering Fear 2:

Revelations as spiritual struggle, comdemnation of unbelievers (John 3:18) as an invitation, as human love instead of the Love of God in Exodus 3:14.

I find this statement obscure and much of the rest of your Post is similar. I hold all of the Scriptures as reliable. “Revelations as spiritual struggle” – please explain. “comdemnation of unbelievers (John 3:18) as an invitation” – please explain. “as human love instead of the Love of God in Exodus 3:14.” – please explain.

Seeing you appear to be an educated man and well-read, I cannot resist asking again concerning Exodus 3:14 seeing you have raised it again. What do you think about Tyndale’s translation of Exodus 3:14, especially the use of the future tense. A use of Englishman’s and other references seem to confirm that the future tense is correct here. The future tense is also given in the margins of the RV and RSV.
Exodus 3:12-14 (Tyndale): 12 And he sayde: I wilbe with the. And this shalbe a token vnto the that I haue sent the: after that thou hast broughte the people out of Egipte, ye shall serue God vppon this mountayne. 13 Than sayde Moses vnto God: when I come vnto the childern of Israell and saye vnto them, the God of youre fathers hath sent me vnto you, ad they saye vnto me, what ys his name, what answere shall I geuethem? 14 Then sayde God vnto Moses: I wilbe what I wilbe: ad he sayde, this shalt thou saye vnto the children of Israel: I wilbe dyd send me to you.

Also while on the subject of Tyndale. He was persecuted and killed by the Church, and in his translation and possibly in the Geneva Bible as well, he used the word congregation and not Church. Do you agree with his translation on this, or the KJV1611 use of Church, which in the context of the times, especially those persecuted, possibly meant the established Church of England, or Church of Rome, including their buildings.

Kind regards
Trevor

Psalm 38:15, 21-22 (KJV): 15 For in thee, O LORD, do I hope: thou wilt hear, O Lord my God. 21 Forsake me not, O LORD: O my God, be not far from me. 22 Make haste to help me, O Lord my salvation.

[Didymus Much]

Re: Greetings from Ausralia

...Do you agree with his translation on this, or the KJV1611 use of Church...

Ima take a flyer and guess they'll agree with the KJV. Because they always agree with the KJV. It's what they do.

Any connotations you wish to attach to any given word are your problem to deal with, not theirs to explain to your satisfaction.

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Greetings from Ausralia

Greetings again Elmer,


In response to Elmer: I appreciate your assessment represented by Fear1 and Fear 2. Looking at Fear1:
I do have access to many resources and I attempt to use them carefully and sparingly. My position in our meeting is that I am the librarian and as a result I have become aware of the many books that are available and new books that continue to become available. Most of the books that I purchase for this library, books for individual purchase and others for the borrowing library, are those recommended by respected brethren in my fellowship who have spent their lives in study and dedication to God.

...commentary matched his own conclusions, and helped clarify many other aspects. I have matched that experience by my own study and then confirming much but not all with this commentary. But also I have gained much more detail and many more insights by also considering this commentary. This commentary was written by one of our magazine editors and in his day was a well-received speaker and expositor. He has published a number of books, mainly individual commentaries on a book of the Bible...

...by those who I assess have lived a life of dedication and study and exposition. This is the method that our senior brother encouraged. So my assessment is that your comments in the rest of Fear 1 are interesting, but not really applicable to my position...

...Exodus 3:14.” – please explain.

Seeing you appear to be an educated man and well-read, I cannot resist asking again concerning Exodus 3:14 seeing you have raised it again. What do you think about Tyndale’s translation of Exodus 3:14, especially the use of the future tense.
Kind regards
Trevor

Dear Trevor,

This is exactly what I have been referring to. The commentaries become authorities based on the ad verecundiam characterization of the author. The conclusions match out own, so they have to be correct? The danger of confirmation bias is strong in this one. The author has published a lot? No doubt, but the actual content determines the quality and not the amount of text.

You are even seducing my vanity. I do not mind being called well-educated but my credentials are also irrelevant. It is the content that decides.

I've been seeing these things. I used to love reading systemathic theology. I enjoyed the debate on Luther's vs. Melancthon's choice of words. Is the act of Salvation donum or favor? Thousands of pages on that one and the principal effect is the alienation from the actual Scripture, the thing that the common sinner needs.

Now let us assess אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה. Imperfect form, but the term is not one of tense but of aspect. Something ongoing, not finished. Why not the future tense then? Because it neglects the timelessness of this aspect. If we had a way of saying I am being that I am being we might consider that? We can discuss these for ages and gradually lose the actual message: Do not negotiate with God. He decides.

John 1:13
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[TrevorL]

Re: Greetings from Ausralia

Greetings again Elmer,

This is exactly what I have been referring to. The commentaries become authorities based on the ad verecundiam characterization of the author. The conclusions match out own, so they have to be correct? The danger of confirmation bias is strong in this one. The author has published a lot? No doubt, but the actual content determines the quality and not the amount of text.

I apologise for my lack of Latin as I suppose it is. Sometimes I can guess, but not this time. I do agree that it is the quality that is important. If we are selective, then we will keep company with those we gain spiritual help. Same with any written material, we should choose carefully both author and even then be careful in endorsing or swallowing all that he has written.

Now let us assess אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה. Imperfect form, but the term is not one of tense but of aspect. Something ongoing, not finished. Why not the future tense then? Because it neglects the timelessness of this aspect. If we had a way of saying I am being that I am being we might consider that? We can discuss these for ages and gradually lose the actual message.

Yes I agree that it is something ongoing and not finished. What was to be accomplished was the deliverance of the children of Israel out of Egypt. The future tense or the future thing to be accomplished is shown in Exodus 6:1-8. The future tense is also confirmed in the immediate context in Exodus 3:12, where even the KJV translates as “I will be”. The result of God’s action which were future when the Angel spoke to Moses is seen in Exodus 15:3, when God has become their salvation:
Exodus 6:1-8 (KJV): 1 Then the LORD said unto Moses, Now shalt thou see what I will do to Pharaoh: for with a strong hand shall he let them go, and with a strong hand shall he drive them out of his land. 2 And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD: 3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them. 4 And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers. 5 And I have also heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I have remembered my covenant. 6 Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments: 7 And I will take you to me for a people, and [u]I will be to you a God[u]: and ye shall know that I am the LORD your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. 8 And I will bring you in unto the land, concerning the which I did swear to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it you for an heritage: I am the LORD.

Exodus 3:12 (KJV): And he said, Certainly I will be with thee; and this shall be a token unto thee, that I have sent thee: When thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain.

Exodus 15:1-4 (KJV): 1 Then sang Moses and the children of Israel this song unto the LORD, and spake, saying, I will sing unto the LORD, for he hath triumphed gloriously: the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea. 2 The LORD is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation: he is my God, and I will prepare him an habitation; my father’s God, and I will exalt him. 3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name. 4 Pharaoh’s chariots and his host hath he cast into the sea: his chosen captains also are drowned in the Red sea.

: Do not negotiate with God. He decides.

Not sure if you are stating that the KJV 1611 settles the matter. Are you suggesting that because the individual translators (and the group(s) as a whole) of the KJV decided on the present tense, that then this overrides any research and any contrary conclusion.

I read this morning the word Neginoth and seeing you are familiar with Hebrew you may be able to consider the following:
Psalm 6:1 (KJV): To the chief Musician on Neginoth upon Sheminith, A Psalm of David.
1 O LORD, rebuke me not in thine anger, neither chasten me in thy hot displeasure.
Habakkuk 3:19 (KJV): 19 The LORD God is my strength, and he will make my feet like hinds’ feet, and he will make me to walk upon mine high places. To the chief singer on my stringed instruments.
The KJV renders the same Hebrew word as “Neginoth” in Psalm 6:1, while in Habakkuk 3:19 it is rendered as “stringed instruments”. Does this indicate that the scholar who prepared Psalm 6:1 had a different perspective that the scholar that prepared Habakkuk 3:19.

The RV translates Psalm 6:1 as “stringed instruments”. It is also interesting that JW Thirtle suggests that this portion of the Psalm should be printed as the sub-title to Psalm 5, based in part this pattern is shown in the Habakkuk “psalm”. Ethelbert W Bullinger in his Companion Bible prints the KJV with this as a sub-title.

Kind regards
Trevor


Psalm 38:15, 21-22 (KJV): 15 For in thee, O LORD, do I hope: thou wilt hear, O Lord my God. 21 Forsake me not, O LORD: O my God, be not far from me. 22 Make haste to help me, O Lord my salvation.

[Alan Swallows Waiting for Email Confirmation]

Re: Greetings from Ausralia

I apologise for my lack of Latin as I suppose it is. Sometimes I can guess, but not this time. I do agree that it is the quality that is important. If we are selective, then we will keep company with those we gain spiritual help. Same with any written material, we should choose carefully both author and even then be careful in endorsing or swallowing all that he has written.

The Bible warns against this sort of behavior.

Second Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears.

Not sure if you are stating that the KJV 1611 settles the matter. Are you suggesting that because the individual translators (and the group(s) as a whole) of the KJV decided on the present tense, that then this overrides any research and any contrary conclusion.

So you're saying these commentators you like so much know better than Jesus, who used the present tense.

John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

And if we allowed research to determine our reading of the Bible, we would have to take a lot of parts out and translate a lot of verses differently - and we'd still be unsure about the meaning of some parts. Then I suppose we'd have to reject creationism and a lot of stories in the Bible that purport to be historical events. If you're commentators haven't done this, then they're being very selective in their research. I find it's best just to reject all research.

I read this morning the word Neginoth and seeing you are familiar with Hebrew you may be able to consider the following ...
The KJV renders the same Hebrew word as “Neginoth” in Psalm 6:1, while in Habakkuk 3:19 it is rendered as “stringed instruments”. Does this indicate that the scholar who prepared Psalm 6:1 had a different perspective that the scholar that prepared Habakkuk 3:19.

The RV translates Psalm 6:1 as “stringed instruments”. It is also interesting that JW Thirtle suggests that this portion of the Psalm should be printed as the sub-title to Psalm 5, based in part this pattern is shown in the Habakkuk “psalm”. Ethelbert W Bullinger in his Companion Bible prints the KJV with this as a sub-title.

How can you live with all this uncertainty over what God's word really means? You do know He promised to preserve it forever, don't you?

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

Although I suppose a bit of uncertainty allows you to read into it what you want.

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Greetings from Ausralia

Not sure if you are stating that the KJV 1611 settles the matter. Are you suggesting that because the individual translators (and the group(s) as a whole) of the KJV decided on the present tense, that then this overrides any research and any contrary conclusion.

No, in fact, I'm referring to the way this discussion is beginning to make the Word of God a sideshow and the main attraction will be (imperfect aspect with future connotations) something that is, in fact, quite alien to the Bible.

Let us examine the whole issue of concentrating on translation within the framework of commentaries and exegetics. In we take that as our guideline, it is clear that you're forgetting the most important aspect of the Bible.

It is (within this context) spoken word that has been written down. Its very nature it its Hebrew and Koine forms is to be spoken and understood as spoken. You might want to refer to the Epistles, but also their context is one of the ancient world with illiteracy being the norm. Paul dictated his Epistles under the influence of the Holy Spirit to a scribe (with the exception of, e.g., Galatians 6:11) and these letters were read aloud to congregations. It is the same with the OT, spoken work, read aloud by those few who could read to those who could not, who still wanted to worship and be educated in the Will of God.

Picture this: you're hearing the word of God aloud. Do you really have time to meticulously consider the alternative readings and vowels of Hebrew, the sigma aorist of Koine OR the different versions in American. No, you don't. What about the pastor, the scholar? Is it really crucial that they spend decades pondering the tense of one verb when all they would have to do is to listen to the loud whisper of the Holy Spirit? No. God can make the message unambiguous enough to be transmitted as the spoken word.

Exodus 6:2
And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD:

That said, I must say that you have my sympathies. I can relate to your urge to dwell on each prefix and pi'el. It is so much fun and so stimulating to look at the Hebrew letters and concentrate on a single word and its 3-consonant root and possible alternative vocalizations and the possible translations of all these alternatives and to immerse oneself into koine and find the few glorious optatives of the NT and then compare the LXX to the Masoretic and take into account the possibility that it reflects an older tradition etc.

etc.

etc.

etc.

I can even still accept it when it comes to explaining the reliability of the Bible to an unbeliever, to have him see that Faith reveals also the rationality of the text while it also uncovers the world beyond logic that is Jesus.

Why should that be done among fellow believers is beyond me. Are you trying to make us believe the Bible is True™ (we know it is)? Are you attempting to offer us alternative texts while we feel that KJV is not actually a "translation" but a text transmitted by the Holy Spirit (it is)? Or are you trying to rationalize Faith to yourself (this one I cannot answer)? I ask you to search for your motivation. What are you trying to convert us to actually?

Because it is the spoken word. No time to do spiritual self-abuse on each and every word. It is the stream of these words and morphemes that transmits the message. Fear God, and keep His commandments (Ecclesiastes 12:13): for this is the whole duty of man.

That can be forgotten when we get into things like this:

I read this morning the word Neginoth and seeing you are familiar with Hebrew you may be able to consider the following:
Psalm 6:1 (KJV): To the chief Musician on Neginoth upon Sheminith, A Psalm of David.
1 O LORD, rebuke me not in thine anger, neither chasten me in thy hot displeasure.
Habakkuk 3:19 (KJV): 19 The LORD God is my strength, and he will make my feet like hinds’ feet, and he will make me to walk upon mine high places. To the chief singer on my stringed instruments.
The KJV renders the same Hebrew word as “Neginoth” in Psalm 6:1, while in Habakkuk 3:19 it is rendered as “stringed instruments”. Does this indicate that the scholar who prepared Psalm 6:1 had a different perspective that the scholar that prepared Habakkuk 3:19.

The RV translates Psalm 6:1 as “stringed instruments”. It is also interesting that JW Thirtle suggests that this portion of the Psalm should be printed as the sub-title to Psalm 5, based in part this pattern is shown in the Habakkuk “psalm”. Ethelbert W Bullinger in his Companion Bible prints the KJV with this as a sub-title.

Kind regards
Trevor

Of course we could discuss נְגִינַת or נְגִינָה or the plural with the preposition בִּנְגִינוֺת. We could see its consonantal root נָגַן "play music". I would actually enjoy that. It would be interesting and fun!

How would this change the message for the congregation listening to the World of God spoken? Would a "translation" different from the KJV gain more souls to the Lord? I suggest that you make a Creation Science study on this.

It can be done as follows:

Assign randomly a KJV group of heathens and atheists and a group for each of RV, Thirtle and Bullinger. Sample power testing would yield you probably a group size of 36-10/group. That many atheists can be found relatively easily. Make a pre-exposure questionnaire of their Faith and repeat that after exposure. Make a sham group that are read something they think is from a Bible but is not. Any part of the Apocrypha will probably do. Make a negative control that are read "The Ancestors Tale" by Dawkins (this might pose some ethical problems as it could actually be quite effective to strengthen the unbelief of the atheists).

Report the results in a repeatable manner. Then let us consider if THIS PART of the KJV Bible would yield better cost-benefit results when it comes to the Mission we share: Teach the unbelievers what the Word of God is all about.

Yes, I do admit your approach is most seductive. It is mind-blowingly interesting. It can consume your whole being, but it is Jesus who should be doing that.

Hence my fears. You are not there yet but the symptoms are clear.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer