Feathers in Hair
World's Tallest Hobbit
Oh, no! What'll she be doing with the old one? *worries*
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
In the context of this thread, that is a sadly deceptive evasion. At issue here is the assertion, as made in the OP by bible.org, that ...AV1611 said:Either Psalm 12:7 says what it says, or it doesn't.
So in YOUR opinion, does Psalm 12:6-7 say what it says?Deut. 32.8 said:In the context of this thread, that is a sadly deceptive evasion. At issue here is the assertion, as made in the OP by bible.org, that ...The third person plural pronominal suffix on the verb is masculine, referring back to the oppressed and needy in v. 5 (both of those nouns are plural in form), suggesting that the verb means protect here. The suffix does not refer to twrma (words) in v. 6, because that term is feminine gender.... and that the interpretation imposed on this verse by you and others is a self-serving distortion of its intent. Anyone who reads the OP will find abundant evidence to support this assertion - evidence including the Septuagint, the Targum to Psalms, the Pe****ta Syriac, Jerome, Augustine, Rashi, Kimchi, Calvin, etc.
Please feel free to address this evidence or, if you prefer, to ignore the thread. But do not believe that you can distort this thread with the same facile disrespect that you've demonstrated with respect to Scripture.
Deut, is this what you've been hounding me to address?Deut. 32.8 said:In the context of this thread, that is a sadly deceptive evasion. At issue here is the assertion, as made in the OP by bible.org, that ...The third person plural pronominal suffix on the verb is masculine, referring back to the oppressed and needy in v. 5 (both of those nouns are plural in form), suggesting that the verb means protect here. The suffix does not refer to twrma (words) in v. 6, because that term is feminine gender.... and that the interpretation imposed on this verse by you and others is a self-serving distortion of its intent. Anyone who reads the OP will find abundant evidence to support this assertion - evidence including the Septuagint, the Targum to Psalms, the Pe****ta Syriac, Jerome, Augustine, Rashi, Kimchi, Calvin, etc.
Please feel free to address this evidence or, if you prefer, to ignore the thread. But do not believe that you can distort this thread with the same facile disrespect that you've demonstrated with respect to Scripture.
ok ,i will get my coatDeut. 32.8 said:That was not particularly helpful ...