Brilliant, thanks for this interview, always love listening to Dirk Jongkind. He is one of those Christian’s who really knows scripture, and is very good at explaining the meaning to simple folk like me. Thanks, I have read his book thanks for plus. Brilliant interview
Dwayne, I didn't see anyone answer his gender dissonance question. There is purposeful gender discordance, the masculine pronoun referring to a feminine noun, when the referent is the Word of God. Examples of this are all over Psalm 119 and it is also found in Hebrew Grammar and syntax. It's easy enough to find examples when you read Psalm 119 in Hebrew. There are other examples all over of similar gender discordance. Without gender discordance, proximity determines the antecedent to the pronoun. It's plain or natural for "them" refer to "words" by proximity.
I want to look a little bit more at the gender disonance in this passage, at some point I'll be doing a video no some of the commonly used passages for preservation.
Hmnmm.....God's words are preserved, but not always understood. I would observe that to be reasonably true. Even with the promise of the Holy Spirit to "teach" us, we still are incomplete in our knowledge and prophecy (I Cor. 13). When Dr. Jongkind brought up the phenomena of scribal and copying errors and extrapolates in a simple fashion that God (for whatever reason) allowed us to not completely know the exact jots and tittles of the original text, he seemed to hit the nail on the head for what is debated about the doctrine of Preservation. It is certainty, itself. One Christian is terrified to think God would not fully orchestrate a perfect preservation of every jot and tittle and thus, believes in perfect preservation. Another Christian may be totally accepting that a part of "preservation" may have been put in man's hands (for whatever reason) via textual criticism. Each position seems to require faith, and both claim to have a "high view of scripture." Dewayne, I can't say yet I'm fully decided on what preservation exactly means, so I am greatly appreciative to hear you keep asking the questions and allowing me to search for answers with you.
Dwayne, I'd love it if you would challenge a 'Confessional bibliologist' on their unconfessional interpretation of Psalm 12:7. Eg the Westminster Annotations interpret 'thou shalt keep them' as 'Meaning the poor and needy, spoken of v. 5'. David Dickson, who wrote a contemporary commentary on the WCF and whose 'Sum of Saving Knowledge' is often bound up with the Confession, wrote: Therefore doth David turn himself to God, in delivering this charter of the church’s safety; thou, saith he, shall keep them'. Calvin rejects the interpretation of 'keep them' as referring to the words of Scripture, saying 'this does not seem to me to be suitable. David, I have no doubt, returns to speak of the poor, of whom he had spoken in the preceding part of the psalm'
I don't do debates... I don't think I'd be quick witted enough to be a good representative of any side. You know how you go away from a conversation and say "I should've said this!"... That's me. 🤣 A couple things to note here is 1. I'm pretty sure the most informed confessional Bibliologists are aware of this and will simply disagree with Dickson on this point. 2. I'm more interested in how proponents (not just CB folks) of this passage for preservation handle the gender dissonance. Gender dissonance seems to be the root of the issue.
@Dwayne Green when I was reading the preface to the 2nd edition of Darby’s New Testament, he mentions a “phenomenon” of an old Latin (which I understand predates Jerome’s Vulgate by a few centuries) text, namely Codex Brixianus, which dates to around 550 AD to match uniformly with the Textus Receptus. What are your thoughts?
The Old Latin and Italic to follow dates back to 157 A.D., several hundred years before Jerome's Vulgate. This first western Old Latin text is a result of Christianity spreading west from Palestine. From what I understand Codex Brixianus is another Old Latin witness which contains John's account of the woman taken in adultery.
The occasion when the book of the law was discovered while repairing the temple during the reign of Josiah (not Joash) is often cited by modern text critics in discussions of preservation, as if it teaches something relevant to this issue. However, the book of the law had been in the temple, its proper place, all along. This was an issue of the scriptures being neglected by the people of God, not “lost”, so it really doesn’t apply at all to the issue of preservation.
@@Dwayne_Green The Bible also teaches a doctrine of availability of the words. This couples with preservation. I call the other view, the buried text view. God preserved it but man doesn't actually possess it or have it available. The Bible doesn't teach this. This is also not what churches believed. Jesus said, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Words that man lives must be available. Israel argued for the words not being available in Deuteronomy 30 and God said, "no, they are even in your mouth. God's words are available for anyone who wants them. In other words, they are available for every generation of true believers.
It was disappointing that the issue of gender discordance in Psalm 12:6-7 was used to dismiss the relevance of this important passage to the issue of preservation. This very construction is used many times in the Psalms when speaking of Scripture, so its casual dismissal by a scholar who should know better is a bit naïve.
@@Dwayne_Green Those who interpret Psalms 12:7 as referring to people and not the Word of God say that since the pronominal suffix “keep them” in verse 7a is in the masculine gender (plural) and “the words of the Lord” in verse 6 is in the feminine gender (plural), therefore “them” must refer to “people.” In order for it to refer to God’s Word, the pronominal suffix must also be in the feminine gender like the substantive. This is a faulty reasoning based upon a wrong assumption. As Wilhelm Gesenius, a classic Hebrew grammarian said, quote, “Through a weakening in the distinction of gender, which is noticeable elsewhere, and which probably passed from the colloquial language into that of literature, masculine suffixes (especially in the plural) are not infrequently used to refer to feminine substantives” (Kautzsch, E. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar 2ndEd. Oxford: Clarendon Press, p.440 1909-1910). (4) www.kjvdebate.com (p.40)
It's interesting that, as Dwayne pointed out, they is a note in the margin of the KJV itself put there by the translators that it could be interpreted as refering to the people and not the words. If they were, in fact, inspired as some believe, would that make the margin note itself inspired and settle this issue?
@@Dwayne_Green Thank you again for a great video. This passage seems to be a popular one for arguing that God’s Words have been "preserved and kept pure" in either a particular translation (KJV) or group of Greek texts (TRs) but I don't see that taught in this passage or anywhere else in the Bible. Dr. Jongkind believes that God has preserved His Words and they can be found in the manuscript evidence. I understand we want more certainty than that but God allowed the Bible to be copied over centuries imperfectly,
@@G.D.9 Margins are not inspired; the final text is. The KJV translators were not moved upon by the Holy Ghost in the same way the Apostles were. However, they were given guidance by the Spirit of God during the translation, thus GIVING THEM THE UNDERSTANDING for a perfected translation by Holy Ghost inspiration, for “the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding” (Job 32:8; II Timothy 3:16) KJV.
Brilliant, thanks for this interview, always love listening to Dirk Jongkind. He is one of those Christian’s who really knows scripture, and is very good at explaining the meaning to simple folk like me. Thanks, I have read his book thanks for plus. Brilliant interview
This was a great series of videos. I appreciated Dirk’s responses generally, but especially his answers in this video.
I have great respect for Dr. Jongkind as a scholar and as a man of God.
Dwayne, I didn't see anyone answer his gender dissonance question. There is purposeful gender discordance, the masculine pronoun referring to a feminine noun, when the referent is the Word of God. Examples of this are all over Psalm 119 and it is also found in Hebrew Grammar and syntax. It's easy enough to find examples when you read Psalm 119 in Hebrew. There are other examples all over of similar gender discordance.
Without gender discordance, proximity determines the antecedent to the pronoun. It's plain or natural for "them" refer to "words" by proximity.
I want to look a little bit more at the gender disonance in this passage, at some point I'll be doing a video no some of the commonly used passages for preservation.
Great series
Great video series.
Another great interview, Dwayne. The KJV translator's note on Psalm 12:7 that you mentioned is interesting. I had not heard that before.
Hmnmm.....God's words are preserved, but not always understood. I would observe that to be reasonably true. Even with the promise of the Holy Spirit to "teach" us, we still are incomplete in our knowledge and prophecy (I Cor. 13). When Dr. Jongkind brought up the phenomena of scribal and copying errors and extrapolates in a simple fashion that God (for whatever reason) allowed us to not completely know the exact jots and tittles of the original text, he seemed to hit the nail on the head for what is debated about the doctrine of Preservation. It is certainty, itself. One Christian is terrified to think God would not fully orchestrate a perfect preservation of every jot and tittle and thus, believes in perfect preservation. Another Christian may be totally accepting that a part of "preservation" may have been put in man's hands (for whatever reason) via textual criticism. Each position seems to require faith, and both claim to have a "high view of scripture." Dewayne, I can't say yet I'm fully decided on what preservation exactly means, so I am greatly appreciative to hear you keep asking the questions and allowing me to search for answers with you.
Dwayne, I'd love it if you would challenge a 'Confessional bibliologist' on their unconfessional interpretation of Psalm 12:7. Eg the Westminster Annotations interpret 'thou shalt keep them' as 'Meaning the poor and needy, spoken of v. 5'.
David Dickson, who wrote a contemporary commentary on the WCF and whose 'Sum of Saving Knowledge' is often bound up with the Confession, wrote: Therefore doth David turn himself to God, in delivering this charter of the church’s safety; thou, saith he, shall keep them'.
Calvin rejects the interpretation of 'keep them' as referring to the words of Scripture, saying 'this does not seem to me to be suitable. David, I have no doubt, returns to speak of the poor, of whom he had spoken in the preceding part of the psalm'
I don't do debates... I don't think I'd be quick witted enough to be a good representative of any side. You know how you go away from a conversation and say "I should've said this!"... That's me. 🤣
A couple things to note here is 1. I'm pretty sure the most informed confessional Bibliologists are aware of this and will simply disagree with Dickson on this point. 2. I'm more interested in how proponents (not just CB folks) of this passage for preservation handle the gender dissonance. Gender dissonance seems to be the root of the issue.
@Dwayne Green when I was reading the preface to the 2nd edition of Darby’s New Testament, he mentions a “phenomenon” of an old Latin (which I understand predates Jerome’s Vulgate by a few centuries) text, namely Codex Brixianus, which dates to around 550 AD to match uniformly with the Textus Receptus. What are your thoughts?
I've never heard of it, but it's worth looking in to :)
The Old Latin and Italic to follow dates back to 157 A.D., several hundred years before Jerome's Vulgate. This first western Old Latin text is a result of Christianity spreading west from Palestine. From what I understand Codex Brixianus is another Old Latin witness which contains John's account of the woman taken in adultery.
The occasion when the book of the law was discovered while repairing the temple during the reign of Josiah (not Joash) is often cited by modern text critics in discussions of preservation, as if it teaches something relevant to this issue. However, the book of the law had been in the temple, its proper place, all along. This was an issue of the scriptures being neglected by the people of God, not “lost”, so it really doesn’t apply at all to the issue of preservation.
The point wasn't that it had not been preserved, but that people didn't have access to leading up to it's rediscovery.
@@Dwayne_Green The Bible also teaches a doctrine of availability of the words. This couples with preservation. I call the other view, the buried text view. God preserved it but man doesn't actually possess it or have it available. The Bible doesn't teach this. This is also not what churches believed. Jesus said, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Words that man lives must be available. Israel argued for the words not being available in Deuteronomy 30 and God said, "no, they are even in your mouth.
God's words are available for anyone who wants them. In other words, they are available for every generation of true believers.
It was disappointing that the issue of gender discordance in Psalm 12:6-7 was used to dismiss the relevance of this important passage to the issue of preservation. This very construction is used many times in the Psalms when speaking of Scripture, so its casual dismissal by a scholar who should know better is a bit naïve.
I'd love to see some details on the gender discordance issues. Do you have any relevant links that would be helpful?
@@Dwayne_Green Those who interpret Psalms 12:7 as referring to people and not the Word of God say that since the pronominal suffix “keep them” in verse 7a is in the masculine gender (plural) and “the words of the Lord” in verse 6 is in the feminine gender (plural), therefore “them” must refer to “people.” In order for it to refer to God’s Word, the pronominal suffix must also be in the feminine gender like the substantive. This is a faulty reasoning based upon a wrong assumption. As Wilhelm Gesenius, a classic Hebrew grammarian said, quote, “Through a weakening in the distinction of gender, which is noticeable elsewhere, and which probably passed from the colloquial language into that of literature, masculine suffixes (especially in the plural) are not infrequently used to refer to feminine substantives” (Kautzsch, E. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar 2ndEd. Oxford: Clarendon Press, p.440 1909-1910). (4)
www.kjvdebate.com (p.40)
It's interesting that, as Dwayne pointed out, they is a note in the margin of the KJV itself put there by the translators that it could be interpreted as refering to the people and not the words. If they were, in fact, inspired as some believe, would that make the margin note itself inspired and settle this issue?
@@Dwayne_Green Thank you again for a great video. This passage seems to be a popular one for arguing that God’s Words have been "preserved and kept pure" in either a particular translation (KJV) or group of Greek texts (TRs) but I don't see that taught in this passage or anywhere else in the Bible. Dr. Jongkind believes that God has preserved His Words and they can be found in the manuscript evidence. I understand we want more certainty than that but God allowed the Bible to be copied over centuries imperfectly,
@@G.D.9 Margins are not inspired; the final text is.
The KJV translators were not moved upon by the Holy Ghost in the same way the Apostles were. However, they were given guidance by the Spirit of God during the translation, thus GIVING THEM THE UNDERSTANDING for a perfected translation by Holy Ghost inspiration, for “the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding” (Job 32:8; II Timothy 3:16) KJV.