Jesus ? "Not God" ? Savior ?

[Deleted User]

Uniqueness (echad) of יהוה includes three (plural) distinct voices for expressing/experiencing One unified Holy Righteous יהוה Love: The Will (Father), The Word (Son), Breath The Holy while Spirtually always being One unified God: who was, who is, who is to come. Thankful for variety of God naming descriptions in יהוה inspired Scripture: a worthwhile Bible study to learn more about יהוה is the Names of God.

Your fantasy ideas of multiple voices "Gods" not being multiple but a unique "God" are irrational, illogical and nonsense.

In addition, the context of the passage from Deuteronomy is not talking about "unique multiple voices" God .... rather it emphasizes that God YHWH is SINGULAR (and not in some strange manner "unique").

Also. did you note that English translations of Deuteronomy 6:4 (as well as Jesus' quotation of that passage in Mark 12:29 ) all use the word "one" and NOT the word "unique" ??? Cp. note on Deu 6:4 in ESV Bible- "Or The LORD our God is one LORD; or The LORD is our God, the LORD is one; or The LORD is our God, the LORD alone". The Hebrew text and its meaning a plain and clear .... "one" is used in its numerical sense of "one [not two, three. ...]" describing one singular Being.

Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus שְׁמַ֖ע יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵ֖ינוּ יְהוָ֥ה׀ אֶחָֽד׃ Sh’ma Yisra’el! Adonai Eloheinu Adonai echad ['Hear & Obey' Isra’el! Adonai 'Plural God of us' Adonai unique]

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Uniqueness (echad) of יהוה includes three (plural) distinct voices for expressing/experiencing One unified Holy Righteous יהוה Love: The Will (Father), The Word (Son), Breath The Holy while Spirtually always being One unified God: who was, who is, who is to come. Thankful for variety of God naming descriptions in יהוה inspired Scripture: a worthwhile Bible study to learn more about יהוה is the Names of God.

@Wolfgang Your fantasy ideas of multiple voices "Gods" not being multiple but a unique "God" are irrational, illogical and nonsense.

We disagree about literal truth of יהוה inspired Scripture words. Fascinated by belief idea that reads to me as an appeal to an unnamed authority (fantasy) followed by expressing character ideas (irrational, illogical, nonsense) about my faith belief idea of יהוה being unique: One God having plural (three) voices (intimately intertwined in One Spirit Being) to truly express One God's Love. Primary rationale for me is יהוה intentionally inspiring thousands of Hebrew plural words to describe one, unique יהוה (especially Elohim). Hence, my Scripture Study & Prayer communion with יהוה seeks to understand what is simultaneously plural while always being one God.

@Wolfgang In addition, the context of the passage from Deuteronomy is not talking about "unique multiple voices" God .... rather it emphasizes that God YHWH is SINGULAR (and not in some strange manner "unique").

Hermeneutic singular God emphasis glosses over אֱלֹהֵ֖ינוּ Eloheinu being 'Plural God of us'.

Curious if Genesis 1:26 in your favorite English Bible has: 'Then God said, “Let me make man in my image, after my likeness.' ? If not, what is 'us' & 'our' plural in one singular God ?

@Wolfgang Also. did you note that English translations of Deuteronomy 6:4 (as well as Jesus' quotation of that passage in Mark 12:29 ) all use the word "one" and NOT the word "unique" ???

Mark 12:29 (SBLGNT) Ἄκουε, Ἰσραήλ, κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν κύριος εἷς ἐστιν" quotes Deuteronomy 6:4 (LXX) Ἄκουε, Ἰσραήλ· Κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν Κύριος εἷς ἐστιν·"

When Hebrew/Aramaic Scripture was translated into Greek Septuagint (LXX), human beings choosing to love יהוה first (obeying Deuteronomy 6:4-9) had no experience with יהוה dwelling in a physical human body while simultaneously ruling in Holy Heaven (happened over a hundred years after LXX translation). Range of meaning for Greek εἷς is different than range of meaning for אֶחָֽד Hebrew. The Lexham Analytical Lexicon of the Septuagint shows εἷς aligns with seven Hebrew words & four Aramaic words.

@Wolfgang Cp. note on Deu 6:4 in ESV Bible- "Or The LORD our God is one LORD; or The LORD is our God, the LORD is one; or The LORD is our God, the LORD alone". The Hebrew text and its meaning a plain and clear .... "one" is used in its numerical sense of "one [not two, three. ...]" describing one singular Being.

ESV Bible note on Deuteronomy 6:4 includes alone for translating אֶחָֽד (so 'one' is not the universal English translation for אֶחָֽד). Also noted verb 'is' being supplied in English for a verbless clause in Hebrew having three nouns & one adjective. Logos Bible Search for {Milestone <Dt6.4>} in my demonstration account found Deuteronomy 6:4 in seven English Bibles that do not have 'one':

Lexham English Bible (LEB) “Hear, Israel, Yahweh our God, Yahweh is unique.

New Living Translation (NLT) “Listen, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord alone.

Contemporary English Version (CEV) Listen, Israel! The Lord our God is the only true God!

Good News Translation (GNT) “Israel, remember this! The Lord—and the Lord alone—is our God.

Living Bible (LB) “O Israel, listen: Jehovah is our God, Jehovah alone.

New American Bible Revised Edition (NABRE) Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord alone!

New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God, the Lord alone.

Keep Smiling 😊

Bill_Coley

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus posted:

Puzzled by dating distraction (e.g. Psalm 137) repetition when discussion focus was Psalm 2 authorship that Acts 4:24-25 simply ascribes to David.

When you revisit my original post on this issue, you'll discover that my reference was to the dating of "some or perhaps all of the Psalms," and not to any specific Psalm. In addition, I wrote, "I'm confident those believers accurately conveyed what they had been taught, and had no reason to believe the Davidic authorship tradition might not be correct." In case those words weren't clear, they meant that I think Paul passed along to his audience the tradition of Davidic authorship of the Psalms, fully believing, as I'm sure was the accepted understanding of his time, that the tradition was correct. It turns out, we now know, that said tradition was not correct, or so says the "significant community of biblical scholars" to which I referred. I'm confident you disagree with that conclusion, and I welcome you to your view.

FWIW: have not commented about Psalm 137 authorship since that composition (like Psalm 90 written hundreds of years before David) is irrelevant to Psalm 2 question about יהוה "chosen king" in the time of David.

I linked to my post concerning Psalm 137 to demonstrate the inaccuracy of your claim that I had not provided scriptural support for my view that some Psalms may not have been written by David.

In Psalm 2 context, "today" had a specific day according to יהוה plan so יהוה The Will physically became יהוה Father of יהוה Son: יהוה The Word.

That's NOT what Psalm 2 says or, in context, means. I grant that that IS what your faith claims Psalm 2 says, but it is not what the Psalm actually says. I welcome your faith claims, but disagree with your reading of the Psalm.

To me, Paul was truthful in Acts 13:33 (LEB) ... raising Jesus,as it is also written in the second psalm, ‘You are my Son; today I have fathered you.’

My point has always been that when he wrote, the psalmist did not have in mind the resurrection of an executed person as the fulfillment of his words. Yes, Paul sees fulfillment of the psalm in the resurrection! But Paul's view has never been my focus.

At the time Psalm 2 was written by David, the יהוה Father anointed, chosen king possibilities are: יהוה (The Word became flesh "today" about ~1,000 years later, יהוה Son King Righteousness יהוה צדקנו) or human beings David (a man after heart of יהוה) or Saul (who disobeyed יהוה).

It's repetitious to point this out, but our disagreement about the dating of the Psalms leads to irreconcilable - i.e. no longer worth debating - differences on this matter.

If the man Jesus cannot be יהוה Lord God (יהוה The Word dwelling in a human body), please explain idea: ' Jesus is the Son of God.' How can Jesus be the unique, one and only Son of יהוה God (John 3:16-21 & Psalm 2:6-7) while not being יהוה God ?

I read the New Testament to mean that "Son of God" is an office, role, or calling God chose for Jesus (Jesus is the "chosen" or "anointed" one), a role Jesus accepted (cf. Matthew 26.63, where the high priest asks Jesus whether he is the "the Messiah, the Son of God," seeming to make those terms synonymous, a conclusion with which Mark begins his Gospel (Mark 1.1); also interesting are Luke 1.35, in which the angel tells Mary that her son "will be called" the Son of God," and John 1.49, in which Nathanael calls Jesus "the Son of God - the King of Israel," seeming to place those titles on the same plane.).

Related question (John 17:5 & John 17:24) is How can Jesus not be יהוה Lord God while spiritually experience יהוה Glory & Love at יהוה The Father's side when physical realm did not exist ?

We've been down this road multiple times, so there it is not news when tell you that I am challenged by the pre-existence sayings, and have not settled on an understanding of them.

Idea 'Psalm 2.7, in context, refers to a king in the Psalmist's day.' appeals to an unnamed king as a way of escape from seeing "My Son" יהוה Jesus King Righteousness fulfillment, which again evades question 'what is the name of the "chosen king" in Psalm 2:6-7?'

No evasion. My "in context" claim about Psalm 2.7 was my way of declaring what I believe the Psalm says in context. The issue of whether Jesus fulfills Psalm 2.7 was not the concern of my posts on the verse. As a matter of faith, I accept and celebrate Paul's use of it. But as a matter of Bible study, I stand on the claims of my "in context" comment. I welcome you to your interpretation of the in-context meaning of the verse.

Please clarify location (earth OR heaven) for idea 'ruling from Jerusalem ("holy mountain").'

Jerusalem is a physical location on earth, a city cited this way in Psalm 2.6: "For the Lord declares, “I have placed my chosen king on the throne, in Jerusalem, on my holy mountain.” The phrase "on my holy mountain" there serves as an appositive.

Also, what words in Psalm 2 provide basis for idea "a reference to his being elevated to the position of king" ? Psalm 2 has perfect past verb (I have set my king) with future verb (I will tell ... today) that simply disagrees with idea "a reference to his being elevated to the position of king".

• Psalm 2.2-3: The kings of the earth prepare for battle and conspire against God and God's anointed.
• Psalm 2.4-6: God laughs at the opposition and announces the placement of God's chosen king on the throne in Jerusalem.
• Psalm 2.8-9, 10-12: God promises provision to the chosen king and consequences to rebellious world leaders.

In my view, those verses report the activities of and God's promises to one who has been chosen (elevated) to the position of king.

To me, יהוה Jesus existed at יהוה The Father's side before יהוה created physical world so (I have set my king) refers to יהוה Jesus being King (Right Hand of Power) when Elohim (Plural) said: "Let there be light!"

I respect but disagree with your view on the grounds that the Psalm gives no support for your claim about the identity of the one God calls "my son."

Searching Lexham Hebrew Bible for English glosses: King Heaven did not find any verses where the king of Babylon was in heaven, but did find four verses in Daniel 4 where an arrogant king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzer, was humbled on earth for a period of seven times.

As I noted previously, I don't take literally the Isaiah 14 reference to the king's fall from heaven. As I wrote in my previous post, "In the Isaiah 14 text, the king of Babylon IS the one who is "thrown down to earth." But what does "thrown down to earth" mean in that context? It does NOT mean tossed from spiritual heaven to physical earth. Rather, it means the arrogant king will be humbled, cut down (Isaiah 14.8) from the lofty stature he has ascribed to himself (Isaiah 14.13). It means "those who captured Israel will themselves be captured, and Israel will rule over its enemies." (Isaiah 14.2) I suspect and respect that you disagree with such an interpretation.

Puzzled by "from heaven" (ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ) not being a Greek connection between Luke 10:18 (SBLGNT) and Isaiah 14:12-13 (LXX). Searching LXX for phrase "ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ" finds 50 verses with only one, Isaiah 14:12 "you" that can correspond to Luke 10:18 Satan (search found three verses in Daniel 4).

Puzzled that you're puzzled. I made clear my point of view in my previous post: "In my view, Isaiah 14.12-13 is a reference to the Babylonian king, and not an allusion to "our spiritual adversary." Jesus' description of Satan's fall "like lightning" from heaven in Luke 10.18 contains no suggestion of a connection to or fulfillment of the Isaiah 14 text." Words appearing in both texts do not a convincing connection make, in my view. I welcome you to your view.

How does 'dating of the Psalms' idea relate to Scripture specifying Psalm 20 author ? (dating idea seems to be a distraction without substance)

We've covered this ground so many times, now. I hope at some point in the near future you will agree to disagree with me about this.

If Psalm 20 was written after King David's lifetime, then King David could not have been the author of Psalm 20, whatever the content of its opening inscription.

The language of the Psalm suggests it was NOT written by a king:

• v.5:   "May we shout for joy when we hear of your victory and raise a victory banner in the name of our God. May the LORD answer all your prayers."
• v.9:   "Give victory to our king, O LORD!  Answer our cry for help."

Those are the pleas of a king's subject, not the king himself.

In this thread when a different CD poster was using ad-hominem wording directed at me, your silence about forum guidelines spoke volumes.

I don't consider myself to be the public defender of posters who believe they've been the target of inappropriate posts. If you object to another poster's "wording" directed at you, then I suggest you make your objections known to that poster or, if not satisfied with the results of that effort, to the forum's administrator.

Recently resurrected thread about Name-calling includes your concluding words publicly posted on September 15, 2018

Yes, in that SINGLE post - which I CREATED - I both acknowledged my intentional violation of the CD forums' name-calling expectation and explained in great detail the origins of the violation. I stand by that SINGLE post and the rationale it presented for its subject matter.

But you claimed I was guilty of "occasional hypocrisy" when it came to forum guideline violations. Whatever "occasional" means, it means more than once. So I ask you again not to accuse me, but to quote me. Demonstrate the accuracy of your claim that I am guilty of "occasional hypocrisy" when to comes to forum guideline violations.

If 'Christian' = worshipping Jesus as יהוה God (Acts 11:26 original meaning), would 'Christian' truly describe your belief ideas about Jesus ?

TRANSLATION: "If I'm right that Jesus is God, then are you a 'Christian,' Bill, even though you don't believe Jesus is God?"

MY VERSION TO YOU: "If 'Christian' means acknowledging that Jesus is not God, are you a 'Christian,' @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus, even though you believe Jesus is God?"

In addition to bearing a faulty premise, your question subtly questions my Christian faith, which in my view is an inappropriate topic in forums whose expectation is that participants will "criticize ideas, not people."

Huh ? as reading replay description sounds like what you wanted replay argumentation to be (with bent idea twists), which inaccurately summarizes my actual replies. Sad for a skilled debator being unable to accurately express opponent's idea in a way that opponent agrees.

I don't know what's "sad" for "skilled" debaters, but I do know what your argument was. This is yet another subject we've also addressed in multiple posts, and one from which I've made clear that I've moved on.

Idea 'And יהוה doesn't give that name to Jesus, either.' expresses personal faith belief that publicly denies Jesus is יהוה Lord (Matthew 10:32-33).

It IS my "personal faith belief" that God didn't give Jesus the name "יהוה." The reason? It happens to be true that no Bible text says God gave Jesus the name "יהוה." I accept as YOUR "personal faith claim" that one or more Bible texts says God gave him that name, but in my view, your "personal faith claim" is mistaken.

What contextual words disconnect branch from יהוה naming in Jeremiah 23:5-6 (LEB) “Look, days are coming,” declares יהוה Yahweh, “when I will raise up for David a righteous branch, and he will reign as king, and he will achieve success, and he will do justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell in safety, and this is his name by which he will be called: ‘Yahweh יהוה is צדקנו our righteousness.’

I don't know what you're asking when you ask what words "disconnect branch from יהוה naming" in the Jeremiah 23 text. What does it mean to "disconnect branch from יהוה naming"?

To my reading of those verses, the prophet shares God's promise of a better future that will be ushered in by a leader God will raise up, a leader whose name will remind people that God is their righteousness. Nothing in the Jeremiah text says the leader God will raise up will be God. I acknowledge YOUR "personal faith claim" that the text DOES say the leader God will raise up will be God, but in my view, your "personal faith claim" is mistaken.

Noted יהוה "Son of Man"deity expression by Jesus in Mark 2:1-12 (using third person style of speech).

Mark 2.1-12 contains no "'Son of Man' deity expression." It contains Jesus' claim that he has the authority - from God, or so I assert - to forgive sins. Matthew's account of the same event ends this way: 4 Jesus knew what they were thinking, so he asked them, “Why do you have such evil thoughts in your hearts? 5 Is it easier to say ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or ‘Stand up and walk’? 6 So I will prove to you that the Son of Man has the authority on earth to forgive sins.” Then Jesus turned to the paralyzed man and said, “Stand up, pick up your mat, and go home!” 7 And the man jumped up and went home! 8 Fear swept through the crowd as they saw this happen. And they praised God for giving humans such authority. (Matthew 9.4-8) Matthew leaves unchallenged the crowd's praise for the authority God had given to the "human" named Jesus.

 John 13:3 is consistent with יהוה Jesus experiencing יהוה Glory & Love at יהוה The Father's side before יהוה created physical world so יהוה Jesus came from יהוה God in Holy Heaven (above) to earth and was returning to יהוה God in Heaven to rule as King Righteousness צדקנו יהוה as foretold in Jeremiah 23:5-6

Lots of things are "consistent" with lots of other things. That John 13.3 in YOUR view is "consistent" with YOUR view of what YOU call "יהוה Glory & Love at יהוה The Father's side," I'm sure is both meaningful and relevant to YOU. Praise God! But in my view, the biblical texts don't support your view.

Concur יהוה authority (The Word quality being יהוה as stated in John 1:1c) gives יהוה Jesus free will choice to lay down his life & take it up again.

Whispers of common ground here. Good news.

John 1.1 says the Word was God; it does NOT say Jesus was God.

Relevant difference is hermeneutical handling as non-scriptural 'probative idea' appears as immoveable filter of Scripture text that deliberately does not want to see what Scripture truly says about Jesus being יהוה God (so does not know what pre-existance of Jesus in John 17:7 & John 17:24 means, along with יהוה Father speaking from Heaven to identity יהוה Jesus as "My Son" in Matthew 3:17, Matthew 17:5, Mark 1:11, Mark 9:7, Luke 3:22, Luke 9:35, & 2 Peter 1:17 that fulfills Psalm 2:7 "today", plus discards Philippians 2:5-11 Jesus being God & יהוה Lord, also asserts "I AM" is always simple indentification, but Jewish leader reaction was wanting to kill Jesus in John 8:31-59 & again wanting to stone Jesus in John 10:22-42 for blasphemy, additionally believing Jewish religous leaders were mistaken according to Jewish law that Jesus should die for who יהוה Jesus claimed to be, and disrespectfully states יהוה naming of King David's descendant as יהוה צדקנו in Jeremiah 23:5-6 as not being in Scripture, as well as denying "My Lord and My God" spoken by Thomas in John 20:28 ...). Without Scripture basis, 'probative idea' is really FAR, FAR, FAR more personal belief idea about what NOT to believe in Scripture text (while using third person deceptive description: "the text themselves say").

I read this as an efficient summary of your points of view as disclosed in our countless exchanges, including, sadly, your penchant for dismissive personal address such as, in this case, alleging that I "deliberately [do] not want to see what Scripture truly says about Jesus being God," and that I offer "third person deceptive description[s]" to support my claims.

I pray there will come a day when you believe that constructive disagreement with others does not require, and in fact is damaged by, such dismissiveness.

If Jesus is truly יהוה (beside/in יהוה Father), would יהוה צדקנו He be righteously angry with one probatively teaching Jesus is not יהוה ?

This question sounds a lot like one you asked earlier in your post: "If 'Christian' = worshipping Jesus as יהוה God (Acts 11:26 original meaning), would 'Christian' truly describe your belief ideas about Jesus ?" In my view, this latest question deserves the same assessment I gave to its predecessor: It reflects an "inappropriate topic in forums whose expectation is that participants will "criticize ideas, not people."

I pray there will come a day when you believe that as a CD forum participant, you have a responsibility to abide by its expectations, including the one that tells you to criticize ideas, not people.

Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Puzzled by dating distraction (e.g. Psalm 137) repetition when discussion focus was Psalm 2 authorship that Acts 4:24-25 simply ascribes to David.

@Bill_Coley When you revisit my original post on this issue, you'll discover that my reference was to the dating of "some or perhaps all of the Psalms," and not to any specific Psalm. In addition, I wrote, "I'm confident those believers accurately conveyed what they had been taught, and had no reason to believe the Davidic authorship tradition might not be correct." In case those words weren't clear, they meant that I think Paul passed along to his audience the tradition of Davidic authorship of the Psalms, fully believing, as I'm sure was the accepted understanding of his time, that the tradition was correct. It turns out, we now know, that said tradition was not correct, or so says the "significant community of biblical scholars" to which I referred. I'm confident you disagree with that conclusion, and I welcome you to your view.

To me, seems unnamed human authority ('we now know ...') community shares doubts about יהוה truth consistency while lacking Scripture basis (& nothing proffered to substantiate 'said tradition was not correct') so reads as a recent twist of Genesis 3:1 "Did God really say..."

FWIW: personally doubt "significant community of biblical scholars" has significance for my faith belief idea: Jesus is יהוה Lord (suspect 'significant' characterization identifies similarity with faith belief idea about Jesus being יהוה anointed human being who cannot be יהוה).

Curious how 'I welcome you to your view.' fits with desire to respectfully criticize 'ideas, but not people' ?

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus FWIW: have not commented about Psalm 137 authorship since that composition (like Psalm 90 written hundreds of years before David) is irrelevant to Psalm 2 question about יהוה "chosen king" in the time of David.

@Bill_Coley I linked to my post concerning Psalm 137 to demonstrate the inaccuracy of your claim that I had not provided scriptural support for my view that some Psalms may not have been written by David.

Distraction & irrelevant <> inaccurate (different ideas).

Maybe we have common ground about Psalms having five books (I: 1-41, II: 42-72, III: 73-89, IV: 90-106, V: 107-150) plus Psalm 151 or 151A & 151B in some Bibles, which includes a variety of Psalmist authors over 800+ years, with a number of Psalm titles lacking author identification. Davidic authorship is stated in Psalm title and/or Scripture identification: e.g. Acts 4:25-26 for Psalm 2. Also a number of Davidic Psalm titles have some Hebrew words whose meaning is currently uncertain. Non-chronological ordering of Psalms is puzzling. FWIW: commentary by John Gill includes idea of Psalms book I (Psalms 1-41) all being written by David, but my searching thus far has been unable to confirm Psalm 1, Psalm 10, and Psalm 33 authorship by David using Hebrew Psalm title or Scripture identification (my Davidic count is 75 Hebrew Psalms & LXX Psalm 151).

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus In Psalm 2 context, "today" had a specific day according to יהוה plan so יהוה The Will physically became יהוה Father of יהוה Son: יהוה The Word.

@Bill_Coley That's NOT what Psalm 2 says or, in context, means. I grant that that IS what your faith claims Psalm 2 says, but it is not what the Psalm actually says. I welcome your faith claims, but disagree with your reading of the Psalm.

Pondering Psalm 2 dating helped me recognize my lack of knowing when in David's life for Psalm 2 composition: if Psalm 2 was written by David when he was a shepherd caring for stinking sheep, prior to Samuel obeying יהוה to anoint David, the יהוה "chosen king" possibilities are יהוה (The Word became flesh "today" about ~1,000 years later, יהוה Son King Righteousness יהוה צדקנו) or human being King Saul (who disobeyed יהוה).

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Idea 'Psalm 2.7, in context, refers to a king in the Psalmist's day.' appeals to an unnamed king as a way of escape from seeing "My Son" יהוה Jesus King Righteousness fulfillment, which again evades question 'what is the name of the "chosen king" in Psalm 2:6-7?'

@Bill_Coley No evasion. My "in context" claim about Psalm 2.7 was my way of declaring what I believe the Psalm says in context. The issue of whether Jesus fulfills Psalm 2.7 was not the concern of my posts on the verse. As a matter of faith, I accept and celebrate Paul's use of it. But as a matter of Bible study, I stand on the claims of my "in context" comment. I welcome you to your interpretation of the in-context meaning of the verse.

Idea 'No evasion.' without naming a king in the Psalmist's (David's) day repeats evasion, which implies idea ''Psalm 2.7, in context, refers to a king in the Psalmist's day.' lacks plausibility, especially when compared with Zechariah 9:9 (LEB) Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem! Look! Your king comes to you; he is righteous and victorious, humble and riding on a donkey, and on a male donkey, the foal of a female donkey! that implies none of the previous human being kings of Israel, Northern Kingdom (Samaria), & Southern Kingdom (Judah) was the Psalm 2 יהוה "chosen king", whose entry on a donkey was revealed in Matthew 21:1-11, Mark 11:1-11, Luke 19:28-40, John 12:12-19. Zechariah prophecied ~500 years after David (& after all Psalms written) while being ~500 years before "My Son" יהוה Jesus King Righteousness fulfillment.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Please clarify location (earth OR heaven) for idea 'ruling from Jerusalem ("holy mountain").'

@Bill_Coley Jerusalem is a physical location on earth, a city cited this way in Psalm 2.6: "For the Lord declares, “I have placed my chosen king on the throne, in Jerusalem, on my holy mountain.” The phrase "on my holy mountain" there serves as an appositive.

To me, appositive "on my holy mountain" shows Holy Heaven location.

@Bill_Coley In my view, those verses report the activities of and God's promises to one who has been chosen (elevated) to the position of king.

Elevated to the position of King assumes a time the King was not King (similar to idea 'there was a time Jesus was not' that simply disagrees with pre-existence of Jesus in John 17:5 & John 17:24). Since Adam chose to sin (Genesis 3), how long/often have people & nations been battling יהוה ?

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus To me, יהוה Jesus existed at יהוה The Father's side before יהוה created physical world so (I have set my king) refers to יהוה Jesus being King (Right Hand of Power) when Elohim (Plural) said: "Let there be light!"

@Bill_Coley I respect but disagree with your view on the grounds that the Psalm gives no support for your claim about the identity of the one God calls "my son."

Jewish idea is stringing pearls together (scripture explains scripture). Psalm 2 is truthfullly consistent with Gospels & 2 Peter voice of יהוה Father speaking from Heaven to identity יהוה Jesus as "My Son" in Matthew 3:17, Matthew 17:5, Mark 1:11, Mark 9:7, Luke 3:22, Luke 9:35, & 2 Peter 1:17 

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus To me, Paul was truthful in Acts 13:33 (LEB) ... raising Jesus,as it is also written in the second psalm, ‘You are my Son; today I have fathered you.’

@Bill_Coley My point has always been that when he wrote, the psalmist did not have in mind the resurrection of an executed person as the fulfillment of his words. Yes, Paul sees fulfillment of the psalm in the resurrection! But Paul's view has never been my focus.

Humanly wonder how much David understood when writing Psalm 22 (crucifixion description) and Psalm 16 (quoted in Acts 2:25-28 & Acts 13:35).

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus How does 'dating of the Psalms' idea relate to Scripture specifying Psalm 20 author ? (dating idea seems to be a distraction without substance)

@Bill_Coley If Psalm 20 was written after King David's lifetime, then King David could not have been the author of Psalm 20, whatever the content of its opening inscription.

If idea about Psalm 20 being written after David's lifetime is correct, then Scripture title is a lie (not consistent with יהוה truth).

@Bill_Coley The language of the Psalm suggests it was NOT written by a king:

• @Bill_Coley v.9:  "Give victory to our king, O LORD!  Answer our cry for help."

@Bill_Coley Those are the pleas of a king's subject, not the king himself.

Wonder how many Psalms were written by David when he was a shepherd caring for stinking sheep, prior to Samuel obeying יהוה to anoint David. Also wonder how many Psalms were written by David while fleeing from King Saul, who sought to kill David a number of times. Psalm 20:9 (LEB) Rescue, O Yahweh. Let the king answer us when we call. (noticed NLT has different king implication)

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus יהוה does not give יהוה name to anyone else (Isaiah 42:8), which is also true of צדקנו (Righteousness We).

@Bill_Coley And יהוה doesn't give that name to Jesus, either.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Idea 'And יהוה doesn't give that name to Jesus, either.' expresses personal faith belief that publicly denies Jesus is יהוה Lord (Matthew 10:32-33).

@Bill_Coley It IS my "personal faith belief" that God didn't give Jesus the name "יהוה." The reason? It happens to be true that no Bible text says God gave Jesus the name "יהוה." I accept as YOUR "personal faith claim" that one or more Bible texts says God gave him that name, but in my view, your "personal faith claim" is mistaken.

Since יהוה Jesus already existed at יהוה Father side prior to יהוה creating physical world, Jesus was already יהוה so we agree about idea ' It happens to be true that no Bible text says God gave Jesus the name "יהוה." '

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus What contextual words disconnect branch from יהוה naming in Jeremiah 23:5-6 (LEB) “Look, days are coming,” declares יהוה Yahweh, “when I will raise up for David a righteous branch, and he will reign as king, and he will achieve success, and he will do justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell in safety, and this is his name by which he will be called: ‘Yahweh יהוה is צדקנו our righteousness.’

@Bill_Coley I don't know what you're asking when you ask what words "disconnect branch from יהוה naming" in the Jeremiah 23 text. What does it mean to "disconnect branch from יהוה naming"?

Restating question: What contextual words from יהוה in Jeremiah 23:5-6 (LEB) provide substance for idea יהוה צדקנו does not describe Jesus ?

@Bill_Coley To my reading of those verses, the prophet shares God's promise of a better future that will be ushered in by a leader God will raise up, a leader whose name will remind people that God is their righteousness. Nothing in the Jeremiah text says the leader God will raise up will be God. I acknowledge YOUR "personal faith claim" that the text DOES say the leader God will raise up will be God, but in my view, your "personal faith claim" is mistaken.

Searching Bible does not find any human being(s) having name יהוה nor צדקנו (for reminding people 'God is their righteousness'). Phrase יְהוָ֥ה צִדְקֵֽנוּ has hover on צִדְקֵֽנוּ in Lexham Hebrew Bible showing first person plural suffix: We => so Scripture meaning could be יהוה Righteousness We.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus  John 13:3 is consistent with יהוה Jesus experiencing יהוה Glory & Love at יהוה The Father's side before יהוה created physical world so יהוה Jesus came from יהוה God in Holy Heaven (above) to earth and was returning to יהוה God in Heaven to rule as King Righteousness צדקנו יהוה as foretold in Jeremiah 23:5-6

@Bill_Coley Lots of things are "consistent" with lots of other things. That John 13.3 in YOUR view is "consistent" with YOUR view of what YOU call "יהוה Glory & Love at יהוה The Father's side," I'm sure is both meaningful and relevant to YOU. Praise God! But in my view, the biblical texts don't support your view.

What idea(s) for respectful theological discussion ?

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Concur יהוה authority (The Word quality being יהוה as stated in John 1:1c) gives יהוה Jesus free will choice to lay down his life & take it up again.

@Bill_Coley John 1.1 says the Word was God; it does NOT say Jesus was God.

John 1:14 (LEB) And יהוה the Word became flesh and took up residence among us, and we saw his glory, glory as of the one and only from יהוה the Father, full of grace and truth. ... John 1:29-31 (LEB) On the next day he saw יהוה Jesus coming to him and said, “Look! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! This one is the one about whom I said, ‘After me is coming a man who is ahead of me, because he existed before me.’ And I did not know him, but in order that he could be revealed to Israel, because of this I came baptizing with water.”

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus If the man Jesus cannot be יהוה Lord God (יהוה The Word dwelling in a human body), please explain idea: ' Jesus is the Son of God.' How can Jesus be the unique, one and only Son of יהוה God (John 3:16-21 & Psalm 2:6-7) while not being יהוה God ?

@Bill_Coley I read the New Testament to mean that "Son of God" is an office, role, or calling God chose for Jesus (Jesus is the "chosen" or "anointed" one), a role Jesus accepted (cf. Matthew 26.63, where the high priest asks Jesus whether he is the "the Messiah, the Son of God," seeming to make those terms synonymous, a conclusion with which Mark begins his Gospel (Mark 1.1); also interesting are Luke 1.35, in which the angel tells Mary that her son "will be called" the Son of God," and John 1.49, in which Nathanael calls Jesus "the Son of God - the King of Israel," seeming to place those titles on the same plane.).

How is "Son of God" different than office, role, or calling of Rabbi, Pastor, Priest ?

How does God's annointing of Jesus not fulfill Psalm 2 chosen King ? (especially John 1:49)

Appears synonymous observations show The Messiah (Christ) was יהוה in a human body.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Recently resurrected thread about Name-calling includes your concluding words publicly posted on September 15, 2018

@Bill_Coley One final thought: Haven’t I violated the “Criticize ideas, not people” expectation throughout this lengthy post? Yes. I don’t excuse my violation, but I do explain it... this way: I have been the subject of more ad hominem attacks in these forums and those of the previous version of CD than ANYONE, by far (how many times has another poster questioned whether YOU’RE actually a Christian?).

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus If 'Christian' = worshipping Jesus as יהוה God (Acts 11:26 original meaning), would 'Christian' truly describe your belief ideas about Jesus ?

@Bill_Coley TRANSLATION: "If I'm right that Jesus is God, then are you a 'Christian,' Bill, even though you don't believe Jesus is God?"

Translation is a bit puzzling as idea question premise included original Acts 11:26 contextual meaning: believers of Roman gods using 'Christian' to describe people worshipping Jesus Christ as יהוה God (instead of worshipping Roman gods, obviously in daily human activities/interaction).

@Bill_Coley MY VERSION TO YOU: "If 'Christian' means acknowledging that Jesus is not God, are you a 'Christian,' @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus, even though you believe Jesus is God?"

No. So what if some human religious groups label me as 'Christian' while other humans do not ? What matters is Holy יהוה words of Righteous judgment to me: "Well done, good & faithful servant." (Matthew 25:14-30) OR "Depart from me. I never knew you." (Exekiel 18 & Matthew 7:21-23)

FWIW: personally not know what human religious group labels describe my childlike faith that Rejoices in worship of Jesus as יהוה Lord along with Rejoicing in worship of יהוה Father & יהוה Breath The Holy (One plural unified יהוה God). Every day am Thankful to see all Nature Praising יהוה 😍

@Bill_Coley In addition to bearing a faulty premise, your question subtly questions my Christian faith, which in my view is an inappropriate topic in forums whose expectation is that participants will "criticize ideas, not people."

My idea questions were follow-up to public CD forum replies. Noted 'Christian' idea questions lacked direct answer while expressing indignation, which implies believers of Roman gods would not use 'Christian' to describe study results that do not worship Jesus Christ as יהוה God.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus יהוה Truth is consistent. Please provide Scripture text(s) that simply say "The Bible does NOT say Jesus is God." [doubtful faith conclusion is offered as fact without any supporting Scripture text evidence] & Idea "[And by the way, that IS my personal faith claim... because it's true.]" reminds me of Judges 21:25 ... each one did what was right in his own eyes. [as faith belief filters text so only want to see in the text what believe can be].

@Bill_Coley There is no such verse. But then again, there is no verse that says Jesus was not a kumquat. I guess that means Jesus might have been a kumquat?

@Bill_Coley There were COUNTLESS things Jesus was "not." But there aren't verses that identify all those countless things. I contend that were Jesus God, Jesus would have told us so, but he didn't... and other New Testament writers would have told us so, but they didn't. It's FAR, FAR, FAR more probative that no text says Jesus was God than it is that no text says "the Bible does NOT say Jesus is God."

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Relevant difference is hermeneutical handling as non-scriptural 'probative idea' appears as immoveable filter of Scripture text that deliberately does not want to see what Scripture truly says about Jesus being יהוה God (so does not know what pre-existance of Jesus in John 17:7 & John 17:24 means, along with יהוה Father speaking from Heaven to identity יהוה Jesus as "My Son" in Matthew 3:17, Matthew 17:5, Mark 1:11, Mark 9:7, Luke 3:22, Luke 9:35, & 2 Peter 1:17 that fulfills Psalm 2:7 "today", plus discards Philippians 2:5-11 Jesus being God & יהוה Lord, also asserts "I AM" is always simple indentification, but Jewish leader reaction was wanting to kill Jesus in John 8:31-59 & again wanting to stone Jesus in John 10:22-42 for blasphemy, additionally believing Jewish religous leaders were mistaken according to Jewish law that Jesus should die for who יהוה Jesus claimed to be, and disrespectfully states יהוה naming of King David's descendant as יהוה צדקנו in Jeremiah 23:5-6 as not being in Scripture, as well as denying "My Lord and My God" spoken by Thomas in John 20:28 ...). Without Scripture basis, 'probative idea' is really FAR, FAR, FAR more personal belief idea about what NOT to believe in Scripture text (while using third person deceptive description: "the text themselves say").

@Bill_Coley I read this as an efficient summary of your points of view as disclosed in our countless exchanges, including, sadly, your penchant for dismissive personal address such as, in this case, alleging that I "deliberately [do] not want to see what Scripture truly says about Jesus being God," and that I offer "third person deceptive description[s]" to support my claims.

Seem to remember many, many replies of "That's NOT what the text says." about disagreeable belief ideas (using third person appeal to an unnamed belief authority while lacking Scripture counter-point ideas for respectful online discussion). Irony is use of third person authoritative statements about what "the text themselves say" while not believing third person יהוה deity by Jesus: "The Son of Man" (right hand of יהוה)

@Bill_Coley I pray there will come a day when you believe that constructive disagreement with others does not require, and in fact is damaged by, such dismissiveness.

Praying to speak/write יהוה Truth in Love using Kind words, which includes desire, if possible, to be Peaceable. יהוה convicts of sin, not me.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus If Jesus is truly יהוה (beside/in יהוה Father), would יהוה צדקנו He be righteously angry with one probatively teaching Jesus is not יהוה ?

@Bill_Coley This question sounds a lot like one you asked earlier in your post: "If 'Christian' = worshipping Jesus as יהוה God (Acts 11:26 original meaning), would 'Christian' truly describe your belief ideas about Jesus ?" In my view, this latest question deserves the same assessment I gave to its predecessor: It reflects an "inappropriate topic in forums whose expectation is that participants will "criticize ideas, not people."

What is Christian Debate? begins:

This is your go-to place for respectful online theological discussion. Feel free to pose Bible questions, spark theological discourse, and connect with people all over the world who are passionate about the Word.

Christian Debate is a hub for biblical learning, growth, and community. Please keep your questions and comments respectful and polite. Treat others in this forum like you would treat your neighbor at church—don’t be afraid to voice your opinion, but do it with love and kindness.

Passionate theological discourse about God ideas include ones intensely believed by CD participant(s), which can be (mis)interpreted as personal criticism. At times, respectful online discussions may have idea 'sparks' per Proverbs 27:17 As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.

Keep Smiling 😊

Bill_Coley

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus posted:

To me, seems unnamed human authority ('we now know ...') community shares doubts about יהוה truth consistency while lacking Scripture basis (& nothing proffered to substantiate 'said tradition was not correct') so reads as a recent twist of Genesis 3:1 "Did God really say..."

FWIW: personally doubt "significant community of biblical scholars" has significance for my faith belief idea: Jesus is יהוה Lord (suspect 'significant' characterization identifies similarity with faith belief idea about Jesus being יהוה anointed human being who cannot be יהוה).

Each of us is certainly welcome to our understanding, interpretation, and application of modern biblical scholarship.

Curious how 'I welcome you to your view.' fits with desire to respectfully criticize 'ideas, but not people' ?

"I welcome you to your view" is not a criticism of any kind - not of an idea; not of people. It's simply another way of saying I respect your right to hold such an opinion.

Maybe we have common ground about Psalms having five books (I: 1-41, II: 42-72, III: 73-89, IV: 90-106, V: 107-150) plus Psalm 151 or 151A & 151B in some Bibles, which includes a variety of Psalmist authors over 800+ years, with a number of Psalm titles lacking author identification. Davidic authorship is stated in Psalm title and/or Scripture identification: e.g. Acts 4:25-26 for Psalm 2. Also a number of Davidic Psalm titles have some Hebrew words whose meaning is currently uncertain. Non-chronological ordering of Psalms is puzzling. FWIW: commentary by John Gill includes idea of Psalms book I (Psalms 1-41) all being written by David, but my searching thus far has been unable to confirm Psalm 1, Psalm 10, and Psalm 33 authorship by David using Hebrew Psalm title or Scripture identification (my Davidic count is 75 Hebrew Psalms & LXX Psalm 151).

I think there's some common ground between us among your observations.

Pondering Psalm 2 dating helped me recognize my lack of knowing when in David's life for Psalm 2 composition: if Psalm 2 was written by David when he was a shepherd caring for stinking sheep, prior to Samuel obeying יהוה to anoint David, the יהוה "chosen king" possibilities are יהוה (The Word became flesh "today" about ~1,000 years later, יהוה Son King Righteousness יהוה צדקנו) or human being King Saul (who disobeyed יהוה).

The possibility that David wrote Psalm 2 "when he was a shepherd caring for stinking sheep" comes across to me as unfounded speculation. I know of no basis upon which such a claim can be supported.

Idea 'No evasion.' without naming a king in the Psalmist's (David's) day repeats evasion, which implies idea ''Psalm 2.7, in context, refers to a king in the Psalmist's day.' lacks plausibility, especially when compared with Zechariah 9:9 (LEB) Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem! Look! Your king comes to you; he is righteous and victorious, humble and riding on a donkey, and on a male donkey, the foal of a female donkey! that implies none of the previous human being kings of Israel, Northern Kingdom (Samaria), & Southern Kingdom (Judah) was the Psalm 2 יהוה "chosen king", whose entry on a donkey was revealed in Matthew 21:1-11, Mark 11:1-11, Luke 19:28-40, John 12:12-19. Zechariah prophecied ~500 years after David (& after all Psalms written) while being ~500 years before "My Son" יהוה Jesus King Righteousness fulfillment.

I can't name "a king in the Psalmist's... day" when the text of the Psalm neither names nor substantively hints at the identity of the referenced king. [BTW, neither does the text of Psalm 2 report that the "day" of the psalmist was "David's" day. Such a claim reports your personal faith claim, but not the claim of the Psalm itself.]

You're welcome to link Zechariah 9.9 to Psalm 2.7, but neither verse supports such a link. More importantly, when I referred to the in-context meaning of Psalm 2.7, I meant to limit the focus of the comments to the Psalm 2 text. Hence, what Zechariah or any other biblical text likely written in another setting, at another time, and for other purposes says is not germane to the in-context meaning of Psalm 2. I meant to ask, what does Psalm 2 tell us about the identity of the king referenced in Psalm 2.7?

To me, appositive "on my holy mountain" shows Holy Heaven location.

I rescind my previous take on the meaning of "on my holy mountain" in Psalm 2.6. Somehow I misread the text, and now contend that "on my holy mountain" refers to the geographical location of Jerusalem. There ARE verses in which "holy mountain" means God's residence (Psalm 3.4; 43.3), but more often the phrase refers to Jerusalem's physical location (Psalm 48.1; 87.1; 99.9; Isaiah 27.13; 66.20) or the city itself (Psalm 48.2). In Psalm 2, in my view, "holy mountain" refers to the physical location of Jerusalem.

Elevated to the position of King assumes a time the King was not King (similar to idea 'there was a time Jesus was not' that simply disagrees with pre-existence of Jesus in John 17:5 & John 17:24). Since Adam chose to sin (Genesis 3), how long/often have people & nations been battling יהוה ?

In my view, it's not controversial to contend there was a time when a king wasn't the king. Wasn't there a time when Saul wasn't king? when David wasn't king? when Solomon and Rehoboam and Jeroboam weren't "kings"? Certainly my suggestion that there was a time when a king referenced in the Old Testament wasn't king has nothing do with the "pre-existence" of Jesus or any Genesis 3 battle between "people & nations" and "יהוה."

Jewish idea is stringing pearls together (scripture explains scripture). Psalm 2 is truthfullly consistent with Gospels & 2 Peter voice of יהוה Father speaking from Heaven to identity יהוה Jesus as "My Son" in Matthew 3:17, Matthew 17:5, Mark 1:11, Mark 9:7, Luke 3:22, Luke 9:35, & 2 Peter 1:17 

This is reminiscent of our disagreement about the meaning of the term "in-context." I contended that the Psalm itself gives us no information about the identity of the referenced king. What you conclude based on the "pearls" of Scripture that you choose to string together is up to you, but is also not responsive to the point I made.

Humanly wonder how much David understood when writing Psalm 22 (crucifixion description) and Psalm 16 (quoted in Acts 2:25-28 & Acts 13:35).

I think our understanding of psalmists' knowledge and awareness is quite limited. But the psalmists' views are not our first priority, it seems to me, when we study other writers' uses of the psalmists' work. For example, in-context Psalm 22 is not about a crucifixion. Jesus quotes from it while on the cross, and obviously finds common ground with its opening questions to God, but the psalm itself is not about a crucifixion (we should note that the Gospels don't tell us how much of the psalm Jesus actually quoted; he might have meant to cite only the assertions of divine abandonment found in its opening verses).

If idea about Psalm 20 being written after David's lifetime is correct, then Scripture title is a lie (not consistent with יהוה truth).

I define "lie" as a falsehood declared while knowing that it's false. New Testament writers had no way of knowing what we know today about the authorship of the Psalms, and hence in my view could not have "lied" in their assertions of Davidic authorship.

AN ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE: The writer of 2 Samuel 24.1 declares that Jahweh incited David to conduct a census. The writer of 1 Chronicles 21.1 declares that it was Satan, not Jahweh, who incited David to conduct the census. Which writer lied?

Wonder how many Psalms were written by David when he was a shepherd caring for stinking sheep, prior to Samuel obeying יהוה to anoint David. Also wonder how many Psalms were written by David while fleeing from King Saul, who sought to kill David a number of times. Psalm 20:9 (LEB) Rescue, O Yahweh. Let the king answer us when we call. (noticed NLT has different king implication)

I interpret this as more speculation.

Since יהוה Jesus already existed at יהוה Father side prior to יהוה creating physical world, Jesus was already יהוה so we agree about idea ' It happens to be true that no Bible text says God gave Jesus the name "יהוה." '

Since Jesus was already God, I happen to be right that no verse says God gave Jesus the name יהוה. That's easily among the most awkward assertions of "common ground" either of us has made in our many exchanges.... I'm glad we ended up together at Disneyworld, but we sure took different roads to get there!

Restating question: What contextual words from יהוה in Jeremiah 23:5-6 (LEB) provide substance for idea יהוה צדקנו does not describe Jesus ?

Whether the prophet's words "describe" Jesus was not my point. My point was that for the prophet the reference to a king was not a someone who would live 600 years in the future.

• Jeremiah 22 contains messages for Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, and Jehoiakin, all kings of the prophet's day.
• Jeremiah 23 begins with God's judgment against the leaders who have "destroyed and scattered the very ones they were expected to care for" (Jeremiah 23.1), a clear reference back to the kings referenced in the previous chapter. God's promise in Jeremiah 23.5-6 is in response to the conduct of those leaders. Why would the prophet predict that God's response to current day leaders will come in 600 years?

Searching Bible does not find any human being(s) having name יהוה nor צדקנו (for reminding people 'God is their righteousness'). Phrase יְהוָ֥ה צִדְקֵֽנוּ has hover on צִדְקֵֽנוּ in Lexham Hebrew Bible showing first person plural suffix: We => so Scripture meaning could be יהוה Righteousness We.

We disagree as to the meaning and purpose of the name in the Jeremiah text.

What idea(s) for respectful theological discussion ?

I don't know what this question means in the context in which you ask it. In my view, all theological discussion in these forums should be "respectful."

John 1:14 (LEB) And יהוה the Word became flesh and took up residence among us, and we saw his glory, glory as of the one and only from יהוה the Father, full of grace and truth. ... John 1:29-31 (LEB) On the next day he saw יהוה Jesus coming to him and said, “Look! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! This one is the one about whom I said, ‘After me is coming a man who is ahead of me, because he existed before me.’ And I did not know him, but in order that he could be revealed to Israel, because of this I came baptizing with water.”

None of those verses declares Jesus to be God:

• John 1.14 says "the Word," not God, became flesh
• John 1.29-31 says Jesus is "the Lamb of God," not God godself
• John the Baptist refers to a "man," not God, who existed before him.

How is "Son of God" different than office, role, or calling of Rabbi, Pastor, Priest ?

It differs in magnitude, consequence, and uniqueness. There is and will always be only one "Son of God." There have been and will always be many rabbis, pastors, and priests. The mission of the Son of God includes the sacrifice of his life for salvation of the world. None of the other offices/roles has or will ever have that mission.

How does God's annointing of Jesus not fulfill Psalm 2 chosen King ? (especially John 1:49)

Again, in my posts I've not addressed whether Psalm 2 or any other OT texts help us understand Jesus and his ministry. My focus has always been the intention of the original writers.

In its specifics, I find value in pieces, but not all, of the Psalm 2 text for helping us understand Jesus.

• In the psalm, God says to the King "today I have become your Father" (Psalm 2.7) which of course means that yesterday - the day before "today" - God hadn't been the king's "Father." To my reading of the Gospels, there was never a day when God wasn't Jesus' "Father."
• In the psalm, God tells the son that he (the son) will "break" offending countries with "an iron rod and smash them like clay pots" (Isaiah 2.9), and God references the son's anger that "flares up in an instant" to destroy those who don't submit to the son (Isaiah 2.12). Jesus makes no such representations in the Gospels. 

Appears synonymous observations show The Messiah (Christ) was יהוה in a human body.

I respect but disagree with your view of those observations.

Translation is a bit puzzling as idea question premise included original Acts 11:26 contextual meaning: believers of Roman gods using 'Christian' to describe people worshipping Jesus Christ as יהוה God (instead of worshipping Roman gods, obviously in daily human activities/interaction).

Acts 11.26 makes no mention of and has apparent connection to anyone's - believers of Roman gods or otherwise - "worshiping Jesus Christ as "יהוה God." As best as I can discern, you've projected your personal claim that Jesus is God into the Acts 11 text. You have every freedom in the world to do so, of course, but the text itself does not support the projection.

That noted, my translation of your previous question was spot on. Your question was, "If 'Christian' = worshipping Jesus as יהוה God (Acts 11:26 original meaning), would 'Christian' truly describe your belief ideas about Jesus ?" OF COURSE that means "If being a Christian means worshiping Jesus as God, are you "truly" a Christian?" In the most generous translations it means, "If being a Christian means worshiping Jesus as God, are your beliefs about Jesus "truly" Christian?"

No. So what if some human religious groups label me as 'Christian' while other humans do not ? What matters is Holy יהוה words of Righteous judgment to me: "Well done, good & faithful servant." (Matthew 25:14-30) OR "Depart from me. I never knew you." (Exekiel 18 & Matthew 7:21-23)

FWIW: personally not know what human religious group labels describe my childlike faith that Rejoices in worship of Jesus as יהוה Lord along with Rejoicing in worship of יהוה Father & יהוה Breath The Holy (One plural unified יהוה God). Every day am Thankful to see all Nature Praising יהוה 😍

These comments completely miss the point of my "translation" question to you, which was to confront you with a discomfiting situation analogous to the one your question provided to me.

My idea questions were follow-up to public CD forum replies. Noted 'Christian' idea questions lacked direct answer while expressing indignation, which implies believers of Roman gods would not use 'Christian' to describe study results that do not worship Jesus Christ as יהוה God.

This second reference to "believers of Roman gods" is no more useful or relevant to our discussion than was the first one. This new reference suffers the additional burden of a lack of clarity. I don't know what you mean by "study results that do not worship Jesus Christ as  יהוה God." How can "study results" worship anyone or anything?

Seem to remember many, many replies of "That's NOT what the text says." about disagreeable belief ideas (using third person appeal to an unnamed belief authority while lacking Scripture counter-point ideas for respectful online discussion). Irony is use of third person authoritative statements about what "the text themselves say" while not believing third person יהוה deity by Jesus: "The Son of Man" (right hand of יהוה)

"That's NOT what text says" declares my view of your claim about what a text says.

You claimed that I "deliberately [do] not want to see what Scripture truly says about Jesus being God," which declared your view of my motives and intentions, not my ideas. First, you have no way to prove your claim (which happens to be false, by the way) because you don't know my heart. Second, even if you knew my heart, your claim would be contrary to CD guidelines which call us to criticize ideas NOT people. If you want to criticize my views on the deity of Christ, criticize away! But don't accuse me of "deliberately" not wanting to see the truth of Scripture.

Praying to speak/write יהוה Truth in Love using Kind words, which includes desire, if possible, to be Peaceable. יהוה convicts of sin, not me.

If you want peace in these forums, comply with their guidelines which direct you and the rest of us to criticize ideas, not people.

Passionate theological discourse about God ideas include ones intensely believed by CD participant(s), which can be (mis)interpreted as personal criticism. At times, respectful online discussions may have idea 'sparks' per Proverbs 27:17 As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.

You quoted from the guidelines, but you didn't quote enough from them. They ALSO say, "You may wish to voice a contradictory opinion. That’s fine, but remember to criticize ideas, not people. Please avoid: Name-calling, Ad hominem attacks, Reacting to a post’s tone rather than responding to its content."

In my view, the guidelines reduce to this: In these forums, you're welcome to hold, state, and defend your views, and to disagree with others' views... on issues. Target your critiques on the ideas people state NOT the people who state those ideas.

Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Idea 'No evasion.' without naming a king in the Psalmist's (David's) day repeats evasion, which implies idea ''Psalm 2.7, in context, refers to a king in the Psalmist's day.' lacks plausibility, especially when compared with Zechariah 9:9 (LEB) Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem! Look! Your king comes to you; he is righteous and victorious, humble and riding on a donkey, and on a male donkey, the foal of a female donkey! that implies none of the previous human being kings of Israel, Northern Kingdom (Samaria), & Southern Kingdom (Judah) was the Psalm 2 יהוה "chosen king", whose entry on a donkey was revealed in Matthew 21:1-11, Mark 11:1-11, Luke 19:28-40, John 12:12-19. Zechariah prophecied ~500 years after David (& after all Psalms written) while being ~500 years before "My Son" יהוה Jesus King Righteousness fulfillment.

@Bill_Coley I can't name "a king in the Psalmist's... day" when the text of the Psalm neither names nor substantively hints at the identity of the referenced king.

What words in Psalm 2 indicate יהוה planned fulfillment by a human being king 'in the Psalmist's day' ? Seems speculative fantasy for a Psalmist or Prophet to write יהוה planned prophecies about the future (accurate centuries later) while misinterpreting יהוה plans to be during author's human life (escapes Praising יהוה for יהוה prophecies about יהוה Jesus being fulfilled because idea 'Jesus cannot be יהוה' seems more important).

@Bill_Coley  [BTW, neither does the text of Psalm 2 report that the "day" of the psalmist was "David's" day. Such a claim reports your personal faith claim, but not the claim of the Psalm itself.]

[BTW, occasional hypocrisy focus on me that disrespects Acts 4:25-26 Scripture basis for Psalm 2 Davidic authorship while not providing any verifiable evidence for Acts 4:25-26 being incorrect, which reads to me as unfounded speculation about my personal faith claim.]

@Bill_Coley You're welcome to link Zechariah 9.9 to Psalm 2.7, but neither verse supports such a link. More importantly, when I referred to the in-context meaning of Psalm 2.7, I meant to limit the focus of the comments to the Psalm 2 text. Hence, what Zechariah or any other biblical text likely written in another setting, at another time, and for other purposes says is not germane to the in-context meaning of Psalm 2. I meant to ask, what does Psalm 2 tell us about the identity of the king referenced in Psalm 2.7?

Psalm 2:7 יהוה Yahweh said to me:  “You are My Son; ...

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Jewish idea is stringing pearls together (scripture explains scripture). Psalm 2 is truthfullly consistent with Gospels & 2 Peter voice of יהוה Father speaking from Heaven to identity יהוה Jesus as "My Son" in Matthew 3:17, Matthew 17:5, Mark 1:11, Mark 9:7, Luke 3:22, Luke 9:35, & 2 Peter 1:17 

@Bill_Coley This is reminiscent of our disagreement about the meaning of the term "in-context." I contended that the Psalm itself gives us no information about the identity of the referenced king. What you conclude based on the "pearls" of Scripture that you choose to string together is up to you, but is also not responsive to the point I made.

To me, words have contextual meaning in a clause, sentence, paragraph, larger context, which includes יהוה overall Holy Righteous Love story.

@Bill_Coley Jerusalem is a physical location on earth, a city cited this way in Psalm 2.6: "For the Lord declares, “I have placed my chosen king on the throne, in Jerusalem, on my holy mountain.” The phrase "on my holy mountain" there serves as an appositive.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus To me, appositive "on my holy mountain" shows Holy Heaven location.

@Bill_Coley I rescind my previous take on the meaning of "on my holy mountain" in Psalm 2.6. Somehow I misread the text, and now contend that "on my holy mountain" refers to the geographical location of Jerusalem. There ARE verses in which "holy mountain" means God's residence (Psalm 3.4; 43.3), but more often the phrase refers to Jerusalem's physical location (Psalm 48.1; 87.1; 99.9; Isaiah 27.13; 66.20) or the city itself (Psalm 48.2). In Psalm 2, in my view, "holy mountain" refers to the physical location of Jerusalem.

Which existed first: יהוה Chosen King OR יהוה Holy Mountain ? What was new for Psalm 2:6 Chosen King placement ?

Psalm 2:6 names "holy mountain" while Davidic Psalms 3:4, 15:1 plus anonymous Psalm 43.3 does not (Psalms 42 & 44 titles show Sons of Korah).

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Elevated to the position of King assumes a time the King was not King (similar to idea 'there was a time Jesus was not' that simply disagrees with pre-existence of Jesus in John 17:5 & John 17:24). Since Adam chose to sin (Genesis 3), how long/often have people & nations been battling יהוה ?

@Bill_Coley In my view, it's not controversial to contend there was a time when a king wasn't the king. Wasn't there a time when Saul wasn't king? when David wasn't king? when Solomon and Rehoboam and Jeroboam weren't "kings"? Certainly my suggestion that there was a time when a king referenced in the Old Testament wasn't king has nothing do with the "pre-existence" of Jesus or any Genesis 3 battle between "people & nations" and "יהוה."

Concur human being kings have 'a time when a king wasn't the king' (along with physical world existing before birth). Contrast is יהוה Jesus existing before יהוה (Let us ...) created physical realm so Psalm 2:6 placement is pre-existing יהוה Chosen King on created יהוה Holy Mountain.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Humanly wonder how much David understood when writing Psalm 22 (crucifixion description) and Psalm 16 (quoted in Acts 2:25-28 & Acts 13:35).

@Bill_Coley I think our understanding of psalmists' knowledge and awareness is quite limited. 

Concur while remembering Luke 10:21-24

@Bill_Coley But the psalmists' views are not our first priority, it seems to me, when we study other writers' uses of the psalmists' work. For example, in-context Psalm 22 is not about a crucifixion. Jesus quotes from it while on the cross, and obviously finds common ground with its opening questions to God, but the psalm itself is not about a crucifixion (we should note that the Gospels don't tell us how much of the psalm Jesus actually quoted; he might have meant to cite only the assertions of divine abandonment found in its opening verses).

Original language manuscripts lack numbering for locating Scripture text. Page, Chapter, & Verse numbering are relatively recent along with white space between words on a line. Chabod.org has informative article: How Is the Torah Made ? Many Jews hearing Jesus saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” (that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”) would remember Psalm 22 context.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus If idea about Psalm 20 being written after David's lifetime is correct, then Scripture title is a lie (not consistent with יהוה truth).

@Bill_Coley I define "lie" as a falsehood declared while knowing that it's false. New Testament writers had no way of knowing what we know today about the authorship of the Psalms, and hence in my view could not have "lied" in their assertions of Davidic authorship.

Whoever wrote "of David" in Psalm 20 Title was intentional: if not David, then impersonator wrote a falsehood while knowing it is false.

Since no verifiable evidence was proffered to substantiate 'New Testament writers had no way of knowing what we know today about the authorship of the Psalms' so speculative fantasy again reads to me as a recent twist of Genesis 3:1 "Did God really say..."

@Bill_Coley AN ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE: The writer of 2 Samuel 24.1 declares that Jahweh incited David to conduct a census. The writer of 1 Chronicles 21.1 declares that it was Satan, not Jahweh, who incited David to conduct the census. Which writer lied?

2 Samuel 24:1 (LEB) Again יהוה Yahweh was angry with Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go count Israel and Judah.”

1 Chronicles 21:1 (LEB) Then Satan stood against Israel and urged David to count Israel.

Pondering 2 Samuel 24:1 wonder what Israel had done to make Holy Righteous Loving יהוה angry ? What needed disciplinary correction ?

Comparing 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1 reminds me of Job 1:6-2:6 interaction between יהוה Yahweh and Satan

@Bill_Coley The language of the Psalm [20] suggests it was NOT written by a king:

@Bill_Coley Those are the pleas of a king's subject, not the king himself.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Wonder how many Psalms were written by David when he was a shepherd caring for stinking sheep, prior to Samuel obeying יהוה to anoint David. Also wonder how many Psalms were written by David while fleeing from King Saul, who sought to kill David a number of times. Psalm 20:9 (LEB) Rescue, O Yahweh. Let the king answer us when we call. (noticed NLT has different king implication)

@Bill_Coley I interpret this as more speculation.

Puzzled by 'this' pronoun as 'this' could refer to plausibility of David writing Psalm 20 prior to death of King Saul (as 'the pleas of a king's subject') OR 'this' could refer to 'NLT has different king implication' (seems 'this' is a bit dismissive that lacks discussion ideas)

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Restating question: What contextual words from יהוה in Jeremiah 23:5-6 (LEB) provide substance for idea יהוה צדקנו does not describe Jesus ?

@Bill_Coley Whether the prophet's words "describe" Jesus was not my point. My point was that for the prophet the reference to a king was not a someone who would live 600 years in the future.

• @Bill_Coley Jeremiah 22 contains messages for Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, and Jehoiakin, all kings of the prophet's day.
• @Bill_Coley Jeremiah 23 begins with God's judgment against the leaders who have "destroyed and scattered the very ones they were expected to care for" (Jeremiah 23.1), a clear reference back to the kings referenced in the previous chapter. God's promise in Jeremiah 23.5-6 is in response to the conduct of those leaders. Why would the prophet predict that God's response to current day leaders will come in 600 years?

Jeremiah 23:2-3 (LEB) Therefore thus says יהוה Yahweh, the God of Israel concerning the shepherds who shepherd my people, “You yourselves have scattered my flock, and you have driven them away, and you do not attend to them. Look, I will punish you for the evil of your deeds,” declares יהוה Yahweh. “Then I myself will gather together the remnant of my flock from all the lands where I have driven them, and I will bring them back to their grazing place, and they will be fruitful, and they will become numerous.

Noticed יהוה did not specify how long for punishing 'evil of your deeds' plus future "will" gather, bring, fruitful, ... did not specify that current leaders would experience יהוה gathering, ... More time transition further into the future begins Jeremiah 23:5-6 (LEB) “Look, days are coming,” declares יהוה Yahweh, “when I will raise up for David a righteous branch, and he will reign as king, and he will achieve success, and he will do justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell in safety, and this is his name by which he will be called: ‘Yahweh יהוה is צדקנו our righteousness.’

In hindsight, “Look, days are coming,” turned out to be 600 years (per יהוה prophetic plan declaration). True prophets of יהוה say/write what יהוה wants said/written (per יהוה perfect Holy will), which may be a mystery to the prophet: e.g. Daniel 12:8-13 & Matthew 24:36-44 & Mark 13:32-37

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Concur יהוה authority (The Word quality being יהוה as stated in John 1:1c) gives יהוה Jesus free will choice to lay down his life & take it up again.

@Bill_Coley John 1.1 says the Word was God; it does NOT say Jesus was God.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus John 1:14 (LEB) And יהוה the Word became flesh and took up residence among us, and we saw his glory, glory as of the one and only from יהוה the Father, full of grace and truth. ... John 1:29-31 (LEB) On the next day he saw יהוה Jesus coming to him and said, “Look! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! This one is the one about whom I said, ‘After me is coming a man who is ahead of me, because he existed before me.’ And I did not know him, but in order that he could be revealed to Israel, because of this I came baptizing with water.”

@Bill_Coley None of those verses declares Jesus to be God:

• @Bill_Coley John 1.14 says "the Word," not God, became flesh
• @Bill_Coley John 1.29-31 says Jesus is "the Lamb of God," not God godself
• @Bill_Coley John the Baptist refers to a "man," not God, who existed before him.

What words in John 1:1-14 provide substance for idea '"the Word," not God, became flesh' ? When did The Word quality stop being יהוה ?

John 1:29-31 names the human body hosting יהוה The Word, whose purpose is consistent with Angelic announcement from יהוה in Matthew 1:21 (LEB) And she will give birth to a son, and you will call his name ‘Jesus,’ because he will save his people from their sins.”

Who was physically born first: John the Baptist OR Jesus ? (Luke 1:5-2:7) Since Jesus was physically born months after John the Baptist, please explain idea: 'John the Baptist refers to a "man," not God, who existed before him.'

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus How does God's annointing of Jesus not fulfill Psalm 2 chosen King ? (especially John 1:49)

@Bill_Coley Again, in my posts I've not addressed whether Psalm 2 or any other OT texts help us understand Jesus and his ministry. My focus has always been the intention of the original writers.

@Bill_Coley In its specifics, I find value in pieces, but not all, of the Psalm 2 text for helping us understand Jesus.

• @Bill_Coley In the psalm, God says to the King "today I have become your Father" (Psalm 2.7) which of course means that yesterday - the day before "today" - God hadn't been the king's "Father." To my reading of the Gospels, there was never a day when God wasn't Jesus' "Father."

First "Son" announcement from יהוה about יהוה Jesus is in Luke 1:26-38 (LEB) Now in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin legally promised in marriage to a man named Joseph of the house of David. And the name of the virgin was Mary. And he came to her and said, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.” But she was greatly perplexed at the statement, and was pondering what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in the womb and will give birth to a son, and you will call his name Jesus. This one will be great, and he will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David. And he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end. And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I have not had sexual relations with a man?” And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore also the one to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. And behold, your relative Elizabeth—she also has conceived a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month for her who was called barren. For nothing will be impossible with God.” So Mary said, “Behold, the Lord’s female slave! May it happen to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.

To my reading of Psalm 2:7, "today" is the day of Holy Conception inside Mary where יהוה The Word became flesh to dwell among human beings.

• @Bill_Coley In the psalm, God tells the son that he (the son) will "break" offending countries with "an iron rod and smash them like clay pots" (Isaiah 2.9), and God references the son's anger that "flares up in an instant" to destroy those who don't submit to the son (Isaiah 2.12). Jesus makes no such representations in the Gospels. 

Concur Psalm 2 contains prophetic revelations that are yet to happen.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Translation is a bit puzzling as idea question premise included original Acts 11:26 contextual meaning: believers of Roman gods using 'Christian' to describe people worshipping Jesus Christ as יהוה God (instead of worshipping Roman gods, obviously in daily human activities/interaction).

@Bill_Coley Acts 11.26 makes no mention of and has apparent connection to anyone's - believers of Roman gods or otherwise - "worshiping Jesus Christ as "יהוה God." As best as I can discern, you've projected your personal claim that Jesus is God into the Acts 11 text. You have every freedom in the world to do so, of course, but the text itself does not support the projection.

@Bill_Coley That noted, my translation of your previous question was spot on. Your question was, "If 'Christian' = worshipping Jesus as יהוה God (Acts 11:26 original meaning), would 'Christian' truly describe your belief ideas about Jesus ?" OF COURSE that means "If being a Christian means worshiping Jesus as God, are you "truly" a Christian?" In the most generous translations it means, "If being a Christian means worshiping Jesus as God, are your beliefs about Jesus "truly" Christian?"

Concur with 'most generous translations it means, "If being a Christian means worshiping Jesus as God, are your beliefs about Jesus "truly" Christian?"' (noting lack of direct answer while knowing what really matters is Holy יהוה words of Righteous Judgment in Heaven)

Suggest using Logos Bible Software to search for worship WITHIN {Milestone <Ac11.26>} whose results in my library include:

The Name ‘Christian’

‘And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.’

Acts 11:26

This is an interesting fact for all of us, since, whatever our differences, we are all proud of the name of Christians—more proud of that name than of any other name. Let us inquire (1) When, (2) Where, (3) Why, it was given to us.

I. When?—Not until twelve years apparently after the Ascension. Twelve long years of most intense life, of persecution, trial, growth, development, had passed over the Church before its members received any distinctive and abiding name. This serves to remind us that God cares for things, not names. God makes the things; man gives the names. Yet how much controversy is merely about names.

II. Where?—In Antioch. And if we ask what sort of place it was, we find:—

(a) It was beautiful. Situate on the Orontes, where it breaks through between Lebanon and Taurus; the scenery magnificent; itself splendidly adorned, and surrounded by groves and gardens.

(b) It was rich; the capital of Syria and third city of the world; centre of traffic and commerce between East and West.

(c) It was pleasure-loving; the meeting-place of lively Greek and self-indulgent Eastern, with every inducement and every advantage for enjoyment.

(d) It was wicked; always so in ancient heathen cities, but Antioch was exceptionally depraved. Rome was horribly bad; but when the satirist wished to say that Rome was made tenfold more corrupt, he wrote that the Orontes had emptied itself into the Tiber.

(e) It was heathen, very heathen. Here were the notorious groves of Daphne, where Apollo was worshipped with all magnificence and vice.

III. Why?—That is not quite so certain; but we may safely say it came about in this manner. The men of Antioch noticed some amongst them who differed from others—not that they were strangers by name or by face, but their behaviour was strange. The heathen were astonished and curious, and asked them: ‘Who has taught you this? Who has made you so different from what you were? Who has given you this new-fangled idea of the beauty and wealth and pleasure and sin (as you call it) of Antioch? Who has forbidden you to worship our gods with us, who are so kind to us, and let us enjoy ourselves so well?’ To this the answer was ever, ‘Christ.’ Christ has taught us that the world and its beauty pass away; but He has told us of a new heaven and a new earth far better. Christ has taught us to think but little of this world’s wealth, for He has given us treasure in heaven. Christ has taught us to look for higher pleasures than these of yours. Christ has taught us, above all, to know and to hate sin because He hates it. Christ has taught us not to worship your false gods, because He alone is worthy to be worshipped. ‘So,’ they would say, ‘this is your God and your Teacher, this Man Who was crucified and dead and buried under Pontius Pilate.’ ‘Yes,’ they would reply, ‘He was. For love of us He died; but He rose again and ascended into heaven, and He will come again to take us out of this world to Himself. Meanwhile we are His; we belong to Him, and serve Him, and wait for Him.’ Then some among the heathen would believe; the rest would scoff and call them ‘Christians.’

—Canon Winterbotham.

 Winterbotham, “The Name ‘Christian,’” in The Church Pulpit Commentary: Acts 11–Romans (London: J. Nisbet & Co., 1908), 19–20.

@Bill_Coley These comments completely miss the point of my "translation" question to you, which was to confront you with a discomfiting situation analogous to the one your question provided to me.

We agree ("translation" question to me lacked discomfiting situation).

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus My idea questions were follow-up to public CD forum replies. Noted 'Christian' idea questions lacked direct answer while expressing indignation, which implies believers of Roman gods would not use 'Christian' to describe study results that do not worship Jesus Christ as יהוה God.

@Bill_Coley This second reference to "believers of Roman gods" is no more useful or relevant to our discussion than was the first one. This new reference suffers the additional burden of a lack of clarity. I don't know what you mean by "study results that do not worship Jesus Christ as יהוה God." How can "study results" worship anyone or anything?

Clarification: believers of Roman gods would not use 'Christian' to describe those who value study results that do not worship Jesus Christ as יהוה God. While remembering Jewish religious leaders described n the Gospels, know study results can become an idol, which is more important to believe & maintain tradition than a living & learning abiding in יהוה Holy Righteous Love 😍

Keep Smiling 😊

Bill_Coley

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus posted:

What words in Psalm 2 indicate יהוה planned fulfillment by a human being king 'in the Psalmist's day' ? Seems speculative fantasy for a Psalmist or Prophet to write יהוה planned prophecies about the future (accurate centuries later) while misinterpreting יהוה plans to be during author's human life (escapes Praising יהוה for יהוה prophecies about יהוה Jesus being fulfilled because idea 'Jesus cannot be יהוה' seems more important).

Why does the psalmist have to specify that fulfillment of God's proclamation will come in the psalmist's day? Wouldn't such be the default interpretation of his words? If I say, "I'm going to see that movie," must I include the phrase "while I'm still alive" in order for you to presume that I mean I will see it while I'm still alive? Or when you read my statement, do you presume that I intend to see it while I'm still alive even though I don't specifically say so?

The Psalmist quotes rebellious earthly kings as conspiring against God and God's anointed (Psalm 2.1-3; present tense; ongoing action). In response to their rebellion, God laughs then terrifies them with news of the king now in place on the holy mountain. It is clearly THAT king - the one God has placed on the holy mountain (an action already completed) in response to the earth's currently rebellious kings - who in Psalm 2.7-9 declares God's decree and prediction that he - the king God has placed in response to the earth's currently rebellious kings - will break and shatter those other leaders.

In such a current-time setting, why would we expect the psalmist to make explicit mention of the timeframe of the fulfillment of God's declaration? Why wouldn't we presume the psalmist is talking about his time just as much as you would presume I'm talking about my time when I say I'm going to see a movie? What threat to those then-rebelling kings would the centuries-later fulfillment of God's decree have posed?

For me, this is neither "speculative fantasy" nor escape from praise due to God. It's the most sensible interpretation of the Psalm 2 text. I contend that the default understanding of the psalmist's words in their particular context should be that he's writing about his time.

[BTW, occasional hypocrisy focus on me that disrespects Acts 4:25-26 Scripture basis for Psalm 2 Davidic authorship while not providing any verifiable evidence for Acts 4:25-26 being incorrect, which reads to me as unfounded speculation about my personal faith claim.]

I have no idea how a report of how I read one of your claims supports your as-to-now undocumented assertion of my "occasional hypocrisy." I continue to wait for proof of your claim.

As to the dating of the Psalms, we have been down that road multiple times. I have neither the time, the interest, nor the ability to accurately-yet-succinctly summarize the extensive body of literature on the subject that I find persuasive. We simply disagree and should move on to more discussion-friendly issues.

Psalm 2:7 יהוה Yahweh said to me: “You are My Son; ...

In keeping with the question I raised, what does the phrase "You are my son" tell us about who the writer of Psalm 2 believes is the king whom he references?

To me, words have contextual meaning in a clause, sentence, paragraph, larger context, which includes יהוה overall Holy Righteous Love story.

I respect the importance for you of what you call the "יהוה overall Holy Righteous Love story," but I didn't ask about Scripture "overall." I asked about the psalm itself.

Which existed first: יהוה Chosen King OR יהוה Holy Mountain ? What was new for Psalm 2:6 Chosen King placement ?

For the psalmist, clearly the mountain existed before the chosen king.

I don't understand the question, "What was new for Psalm 2:6 Chosen King placement?"

Concur human being kings have 'a time when a king wasn't the king' (along with physical world existing before birth). Contrast is יהוה Jesus existing before יהוה (Let us ...) created physical realm so Psalm 2:6 placement is pre-existing יהוה Chosen King on created יהוה Holy Mountain.

I accept and respect your faith claim that Jesus is the king referenced in Psalm 2. As I have stated multiple times, my interest is not in NT fulfillment of the psalm, but rather in its author's original intentions.

Concur while remembering Luke 10:21-24

I appreciate the common ground as to the limits of our understanding of psalmists' knowledge, but the Luke passage you cite quotes Jesus' prayer of thanks for God's hiding the meaning of things from "those who think themselves wise and clever, and for revealing them to the childlike," as well as his assertion that the ones who "truly know" the Father are the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal the Father. What is the relevance to our discussion of a passage in which Jesus refers primarily to people - "those who think themselves wise and clever" and those to whom the Father has...and has not...revealed the Son?

Original language manuscripts lack numbering for locating Scripture text. Page, Chapter, & Verse numbering are relatively recent along with white space between words on a line. Chabod.org has informative article: How Is the Torah Made ? Many Jews hearing Jesus saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” (that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”) would remember Psalm 22 context.

My point was simply that the Gospels don't tell us how much of Psalm 22 quoted while on the cross, and had nothing to do with whether Jews hearing Jesus quote from the psalm would have remembered the words' original context.

Whoever wrote "of David" in Psalm 20 Title was intentional: if not David, then impersonator wrote a falsehood while knowing it is false.

In ancient times, ascribing written works to well known persons so as to garner attention and credibility for those works was a common and accepted practice.

In addition, in my view, it's not necessarily true that the ascription of Davidic authorship of Psalm 20 was placed there by the writer of the psalm. It's certainly possible that the ascription was added during the collection and editing of the collection.

Since no verifiable evidence was proffered to substantiate 'New Testament writers had no way of knowing what we know today about the authorship of the Psalms' so speculative fantasy again reads to me as a recent twist of Genesis 3:1 "Did God really say..."

My observations about New Testament writers were neither "speculative fantasy" nor twists on the serpent's question to Eve in Genesis 3, though I applaud the camp of your critique.

Pondering 2 Samuel 24:1 wonder what Israel had done to make Holy Righteous Loving יהוה angry ? What needed disciplinary correction ?

Comparing 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1 reminds me of Job 1:6-2:6 interaction between יהוה Yahweh and Satan

I welcome your comments, but ask again for an answer to the question I posed: Given your claim that material in Scripture that is inaccurate is a "lie," which OT writer lied about who incited David to conduct a census? By your standard, one of them had to have lied. Please identify the one who did.

Puzzled by 'this' pronoun as 'this' could refer to plausibility of David writing Psalm 20 prior to death of King Saul (as 'the pleas of a king's subject') OR 'this' could refer to 'NLT has different king implication' (seems 'this' is a bit dismissive that lacks discussion ideas)

What I interpreted as speculation was your wonder about the number of Psalms David wrote while he was a) "a shepherd caring for stinking sheep," and b) "fleeing from King Saul." No response to those wonders could be based on a biblical text or other historical data, and hence would in my view qualify as speculation.

Noticed יהוה did not specify how long for punishing 'evil of your deeds' plus future "will" gather, bring, fruitful, ... did not specify that current leaders would experience יהוה gathering, ... More time transition further into the future begins Jeremiah 23:5-6 (LEB) “Look, days are coming,” declares יהוה Yahweh, “when I will raise up for David a righteous branch, and he will reign as king, and he will achieve success, and he will do justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell in safety, and this is his name by which he will be called: ‘Yahweh יהוה is צדקנו our righteousness.’

For the I-can't-calculate how-manyeth time, my concern was, is, and will be the intentions of the prophet. In that regard, I ask again the question I posed to you in my previous post: Why would the prophet predict that God's response to current day leaders would come in 600 years? THAT IS, as the prophet wrote what he wrote, was he (the prophet) thinking that he (the prophet) was offering hope to his (the prophet's) current day readers (the prophet's original audience) or to readers centuries in the future?

What words in John 1:1-14 provide substance for idea '"the Word," not God, became flesh' ? When did The Word quality stop being יהוה ?

The words "and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1.14) provide substance to my claim that the Word, not God, became flesh.

As to what John means when he says "the Word was God," we've been down THAT road many times, on each of which I have acknowledged my lack of certainty about the meaning of what I call the pre-existence sayings found in John's Gospel. At this stage of my faith journey, I have concluded only that WHATEVER those sayings mean, their meaning must be consistent with the truth about Jesus' identity communicated in the rest of the New Testament. In my view, said truth is clearly that Jesus is not God, which means, again in my view, that the pre-existence sayings cannot mean Jesus is God. Were they to mean such, they would make a claim about Jesus that is directly contradicted by the vast majority of the NT. [NOTE: I accept and respect that you'll disagree with that claim. Please accept and respect it as my claim.]

John 1:29-31 names the human body hosting יהוה The Word, whose purpose is consistent with Angelic announcement from יהוה in Matthew 1:21 (LEB) And she will give birth to a son, and you will call his name ‘Jesus,’ because he will save his people from their sins.”

It's not clear to me from the Gospels what John the Baptist knew or believed about the logos, God's "Word." For example, in Matthew 11, from prison - that is, after he has baptized Jesus and identified him as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" - he sends his disciples to ask Jesus whether he (Jesus) is "the Messiah we've been expecting, or should we keep looking for someone else?" (Matthew 11.2-3; BTW, Jesus basically tells John's disciples to go back and tell him yes) If John the Baptist believed Jesus was the one hosting "The Word," why did he have to ask whether Jesus was the messiah?

Who was physically born first: John the Baptist OR Jesus ? (Luke 1:5-2:7) Since Jesus was physically born months after John the Baptist, please explain idea: 'John the Baptist refers to a "man," not God, who existed before him.'

John the Baptist expresses the "idea" that a "man" existed before him in John 1.30 (LEB): This one is the one about whom I said, ‘After me is coming a man who is ahead of me, because he existed before me.’

I commented on pre-existence sayings earlier in this post.

First "Son" announcement from יהוה about יהוה Jesus is in Luke 1:26-38 (LEB)

My comment was not about Luke 1, but rather about Psalm 2.

To my reading of Psalm 2:7, "today" is the day of Holy Conception inside Mary where יהוה The Word became flesh to dwell among human beings.

I see nothing in the Psalm that supports your reading of Psalm 2.7

Concur Psalm 2 contains prophetic revelations that are yet to happen.

When you revisit my previous post, you'll discover that your comment is not germane to the central thrust of my contention.

Concur with 'most generous translations it means, "If being a Christian means worshiping Jesus as God, are your beliefs about Jesus "truly" Christian?"' (noting lack of direct answer while knowing what really matters is Holy יהוה words of Righteous Judgment in Heaven)

I welcome you to your views on the Christianity of my Christianity. [FWIW, without fear of contradiction I declare that you are fully, completely, and blessedly a Christian (obviously I don't believe being a Christians means/requires that one must believe Jesus is not God).]

The direct answer to your question is that if being Christian means/requires worshiping Jesus as God, then no, my belief0s aren't "truly" Christian. Fortunately, from my point of view, being a Christian does not require worshiping Jesus as God because Jesus is not God.

Clarification: believers of Roman gods would not use 'Christian' to describe those who value study results that do not worship Jesus Christ as יהוה God. While remembering Jewish religious leaders described n the Gospels, know study results can become an idol, which is more important to believe & maintain tradition than a living & learning abiding in יהוה Holy Righteous Love 😍

I know neither the basis nor the relevance to our exchange of your speculation as to how "believers of Roman gods" would have responded to "study results that do not worship Jesus Christ as יהוה God."

As for idols, I suppose anything can become one.

Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus What words in Psalm 2 indicate יהוה planned fulfillment by a human being king 'in the Psalmist's day' ? Seems speculative fantasy for a Psalmist or Prophet to write יהוה planned prophecies about the future (accurate centuries later) while misinterpreting יהוה plans to be during author's human life (escapes Praising יהוה for יהוה prophecies about יהוה Jesus being fulfilled because idea 'Jesus cannot be יהוה' seems more important).

@Bill_Coley Why does the psalmist have to specify that fulfillment of God's proclamation will come in the psalmist's day? Wouldn't such be the default interpretation of his words?

No. Holy Truthful ways of יהוה (Who was, Who is, Who is to come) are way beyond human limitations. Genesis 3:15 was written ~3,500 years ago describing what was said nearly 6,000 years ago in the Garden of Eden, foreshadowing crucifixion aspect of nail piercing heel ~2,000 years ago.

@Bill_Coley If I say, "I'm going to see that movie," must I include the phrase "while I'm still alive" in order for you to presume that I mean I will see it while I'm still alive? Or when you read my statement, do you presume that I intend to see it while I'm still alive even though I don't specifically say so?

Speaking/writing as a human about your own activity plans implies while humanly able. For one loving יהוה first, phrase "I'm going to see that movie," is preceded by יהוה willing. Thankful for a few movies helping Holy יהוה Love appreciation: Watch The Word Bible & Kendrick brothers.

@Bill_Coley ... In such a current-time setting, why would we expect the psalmist to make explicit mention of the timeframe of the fulfillment of God's declaration? Why wouldn't we presume the psalmist is talking about his time just as much as you would presume I'm talking about my time when I say I'm going to see a movie?

Curious about presumption ('his time') of psalmist/prophet humanly understanding Holy יהוה fulfillment plans (per יהוה perfect Holy will), may be a mystery to the psalmist/prophet: e.g. Daniel 12:8-13 & Matthew 24:36-44 & Mark 13:32-37

English verbs emphasize time of action (e.g. 'In such a current-time setting'). In contrast, Hebrew verbs emphasize kind of action. Greek verbs have primary kind of action emphasis with secondary time of action (in between Hebrew & English). Thankful for Hebrew language learning from reading "The Biblical Hebrew Companion for Bible Software Users: Grammatical Terms Explained for Exegesis". Logos Hebrew Morphology has 35 Hebrew verb stems with 8 Tams for nuanced kinds of action expressed in Holy יהוה inspiration.

@Bill_Coley What threat to those then-rebelling kings would the centuries-later fulfillment of God's decree have posed?

Psalm 2 lacks chronological identification of the rebelling kings of the earth.

@Bill_Coley For me, this is neither "speculative fantasy" nor escape from praise due to God. It's the most sensible interpretation of the Psalm 2 text. I contend that the default understanding of the psalmist's words in their particular context should be that he's writing about his time.

Reminds me of ingeniously concocted myths in Peter's second letter that includes 2 Peter 1:16-21 (LEB + יהוה) For we did not make known to you the power and coming of our יהוה Lord Jesus Christ by following ingeniously concocted myths, but by being eyewitnesses of that one’s majesty. For he received honor and glory from יהוה God the Father when a voice such as this was brought to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” And we ourselves heard this voice brought from heaven when we were with him on the holy mountain, and we possess as more reliable the prophetic word, to which you do well if you pay attention to it as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, recognizing this above all, that every prophecy of scripture does not come about from one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men carried along by the יהוה Holy Spirit spoke from יהוה God.

@Bill_Coley  [BTW, neither does the text of Psalm 2 report that the "day" of the psalmist was "David's" day. Such a claim reports your personal faith claim, but not the claim of the Psalm itself.]

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus [BTW, occasional hypocrisy focus on me that disrespects Acts 4:25-26 Scripture basis for Psalm 2 Davidic authorship while not providing any verifiable evidence for Acts 4:25-26 being incorrect, which reads to me as unfounded speculation about my personal faith claim.]

@Bill_Coley I have no idea how a report of how I read one of your claims supports your as-to-now undocumented assertion of my "occasional hypocrisy." I continue to wait for proof of your claim.

Lack of any verifiable evidence that Acts 4:25-26 was factually wrong about Davidic authorship of Psalm 2 is disappointing for idea discussion. FWIW: internet search site:christiandiscourse.net "fourth time" found a tendency for idea information before asking for #th time (puzzling).

@Bill_Coley As to the dating of the Psalms, we have been down that road multiple times. I have neither the time, the interest, nor the ability to accurately-yet-succinctly summarize the extensive body of literature on the subject that I find persuasive. We simply disagree and should move on to more discussion-friendly issues.

Without any verifiable evidence, idea "the dating of the Psalms" reads as an ingeniously concocted myth. Which is more important: Holy יהוה inspired truthful words OR 'extensive ... persuasive' comments written by human being(s) ?

@Bill_Coley I meant to ask, what does Psalm 2 tell us about the identity of the king referenced in Psalm 2.7?

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Psalm 2:7 יהוה Yahweh said to me: “You are My Son; ...

@Bill_Coley In keeping with the question I raised, what does the phrase "You are my son" tell us about who the writer of Psalm 2 believes is the king whom he references?

Answer to "I meant to ask" question is: Psalm 2:7 יהוה Yahweh said to me: “You are My Son; ... that is truthfullly consistent with Gospels & 2 Peter voice of יהוה Father speaking from Heaven to identity יהוה Jesus as "My Son" in Matthew 3:17, Matthew 17:5, Mark 1:11, Mark 9:7, Luke 3:22, Luke 9:35, & 2 Peter 1:17  (reflection on Psalm 2:7 about timing: could be immediately spoken before יהוה The Word left Holy Heaven throne to take on human flesh to dwell among human beings, which is "dethroning" instead of 'the occasion of God's selection of the king to the throne')

Appears "I meant to ask" question had a hidden human myopic focus that is quite puzzling since we agree that "our understanding of psalmists' knowledge and awareness is quite limited". Personally not know what David really understood about יהוה truthful words when writing Psalm 2 while being certain David experienced Holy יהוה Righteous presence while writing that included Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Humility, Self-Control.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Which existed first: יהוה Chosen King OR יהוה Holy Mountain ? What was new for Psalm 2:6 Chosen King placement ?

@Bill_Coley For the psalmist, clearly the mountain existed before the chosen king.

Chabad.org has => Why Wash Hands for Bread? Amazon product page for a Masoret Washing Cup includes NETILAT YADAYIM BLESSING: Baruch ata Adonai, Eloheinu Melech ha-olam, asher kidshanu b’mitzvotav vitzivanu al n’tilat yadayim. Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, who has sanctified us with Your commandments, and commanded us concerning the washing of the hands. 

Traditional Jewish blessings recognize יהוה Lord our God is King of the universe (created the mountain). To me, idea 'For the psalmist, clearly the mountain existed before the chosen king.' is an eisegetical example (clearly worded as an appeal to an unnamed authority: self doubt results).

@Bill_Coley I don't understand the question, "What was new for Psalm 2:6 Chosen King placement?"

Since יהוה The Will (Father) & יהוה The Word (Son) existed before יהוה created, the Holy mountain was new for יהוה King of the Universe placement (different than coronation of human king since the mountain existed before human birth).

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Concur human being kings have 'a time when a king wasn't the king' (along with physical world existing before birth). Contrast is יהוה Jesus existing before יהוה (Let us ...) created physical realm so Psalm 2:6 placement is pre-existing יהוה Chosen King on created יהוה Holy Mountain.

@Bill_Coley I accept and respect your faith claim that Jesus is the king referenced in Psalm 2. As I have stated multiple times, my interest is not in NT fulfillment of the psalm, but rather in its author's original intentions.

Since we agree that "our understanding of psalmists' knowledge and awareness is quite limited", puzzled by intense myopic focus on human author's original intentions instead of Holy יהוה inspired intentions (with prophetic fulfillments) ?

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Concur while remembering Luke 10:21-24

@Bill_Coley I appreciate the common ground as to the limits of our understanding of psalmists' knowledge, but the Luke passage you cite quotes Jesus' prayer of thanks for God's hiding the meaning of things from "those who think themselves wise and clever, and for revealing them to the childlike," as well as his assertion that the ones who "truly know" the Father are the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal the Father. What is the relevance to our discussion of a passage in which Jesus refers primarily to people - "those who think themselves wise and clever" and those to whom the Father has...and has not...revealed the Son?

David being a man after יהוה God's heart had childlike faith (yet humanly do not know what David understood about יהוה planned fulfillments centuries later while writing many Psalms). Without faith, is impossible to please יהוה (per Hebrews 11:1-7). Unbelief is a reason for יהוה Son not to reveal יהוה Truth. Luke 10:21-24 also includes many kings & prophets desired to see/hear what יהוה disciples saw/heard.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Original language manuscripts lack numbering for locating Scripture text. Page, Chapter, & Verse numbering are relatively recent along with white space between words on a line. Chabod.org has informative article: How Is the Torah Made ? Many Jews hearing Jesus saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” (that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”) would remember Psalm 22 context.

@Bill_Coley My point was simply that the Gospels don't tell us how much of Psalm 22 quoted while on the cross, and had nothing to do with whether Jews hearing Jesus quote from the psalm would have remembered the words' original context.

Was any Holy יהוה inspired Scripture written by a human being not familiar with Jewish ways ? In places, did Gospel writers leave out explanations of well known Jewish customs & ways ? Written Scripture conventions (lacking page, chapter, & verse numbering) during the time of Jesus would have caused Psalm 22 context to be remembered. FWIW: literal Bible translation style assumes reader is familiar with Jewish customs & ways while dynamic Bible translations can include variety of cross-cultural wording.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Whoever wrote "of David" in Psalm 20 Title was intentional: if not David, then impersonator wrote a falsehood while knowing it is false.

@Bill_Coley In ancient times, ascribing written works to well known persons so as to garner attention and credibility for those works was a common and accepted practice.

@Bill_Coley In addition, in my view, it's not necessarily true that the ascription of Davidic authorship of Psalm 20 was placed there by the writer of the psalm. It's certainly possible that the ascription was added during the collection and editing of the collection.

Without any verifiable evidence, am reading another ingeniously concocted myth. Researching Biblical Archeology found a paper that included:

If biblical archaeology (including as it should, textual and geographical study) is the primary means for reconstructing the original context of Scripture, it is fair to ask how Jews and Christians understood that context before the advent of the discipline in the late nineteenth century. Part of this history is the quest for a proper hermeneutical approach. Through the history of biblical interpretation, each interpreter must account in some way for the author and the reader. E. D. Hirsch Jr., was correct in declaring that all human interaction navigates between the perspectives of the author and the interpreter. In the process of interpretation it is most logical therefore to start with the author and his or her original intent as it was understood in original context. This is so because the authors of Scripture were not only divinely inspired but also historically and culturally bound. While it must be acknowledged at the outset that the presuppositions and context of the reader play a role, unless the interpreters begin with authorial intent they risk becoming “self-imaging authors,” and not interpreters at all. The first question is not, “What do I think or feel about this passage?” but “What does the passage actually say?”

Herein lies the initial appeal of the two-step hermeneutic as spelled out by the elder E. D. Hirsch in 1967. This hermeneutical principle guides many biblical scholars, including Scott Hafemann, who characterizes the process as follows:

… this will mean a commitment to original language exegesis, the study of the history of Israel and the early Church within its cultural contexts, an analysis of Church history as the history of the interpretation of the Bible, a development of a biblical theology of redemptive history, and an investigation of the issues of contemporary life.

 Daniel I. Block, Israel: Ancient Kingdom or Late Invention? (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2008).

@Bill_Coley AN ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE: The writer of 2 Samuel 24.1 declares that Jahweh incited David to conduct a census. The writer of 1 Chronicles 21.1 declares that it was Satan, not Jahweh, who incited David to conduct the census. Which writer lied?

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus 2 Samuel 24:1 (LEB) Again יהוה Yahweh was angry with Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go count Israel and Judah.”

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus 1 Chronicles 21:1 (LEB) Then Satan stood against Israel and urged David to count Israel.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Pondering 2 Samuel 24:1 wonder what Israel had done to make Holy Righteous Loving יהוה angry ? What needed disciplinary correction ?

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Comparing 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1 reminds me of Job 1:6-2:6 interaction between יהוה Yahweh and Satan

@Bill_Coley I welcome your comments, but ask again for an answer to the question I posed: Given your claim that material in Scripture that is inaccurate is a "lie," which OT writer lied about who incited David to conduct a census? By your standard, one of them had to have lied. Please identify the one who did.

Please quote words for idea "Given your claim" (not obvious to me so we disagree about my intended meaning). Looking at my February 22 reply found 'inaccurate' used once:

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Distraction & irrelevant <> inaccurate (different ideas).

Also found 'lie' used once: (also in my February 27 reply, which could have been quoted instead of using a distracting link)

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus If idea about Psalm 20 being written after David's lifetime is correct, then Scripture title is a lie (not consistent with יהוה truth).

Different Jewish authors of 1-2 Samuel and 1-2 Chronicles offered different points of view, which is consistent with Job 1:6-2:6 interaction between יהוה Yahweh and Satan: accusation (Satan), authorization (יהוה), activity (Satan). FWIW: have noticed your inability to express my claims in a way that agrees with my intended meaning (have seen many crafty twists so my CD reply purpose is learning more about יהוה Holy Truth ideas while appears your reply intent is stating your faith belief ideas without any verifiable evidence so they read as ingeniously concocted myths).

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Noticed יהוה did not specify how long for punishing 'evil of your deeds' plus future "will" gather, bring, fruitful, ... did not specify that current leaders would experience יהוה gathering, ... More time transition further into the future begins Jeremiah 23:5-6 (LEB) “Look, days are coming,” declares יהוה Yahweh, “when I will raise up for David a righteous branch, and he will reign as king, and he will achieve success, and he will do justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell in safety, and this is his name by which he will be called: ‘Yahweh יהוה is צדקנו our righteousness.’

@Bill_Coley For the I-can't-calculate how-manyeth time, my concern was, is, and will be the intentions of the prophet. In that regard, I ask again the question I posed to you in my previous post: Why would the prophet predict that God's response to current day leaders would come in 600 years? THAT IS, as the prophet wrote what he wrote, was he (the prophet) thinking that he (the prophet) was offering hope to his (the prophet's) current day readers (the prophet's original audience) or to readers centuries in the future?

Idea 'For the I-can't-calculate how-manyeth time, my concern was, is, and will be ...' reminded me of Galatians 6:6-10 (... θεὸς οὐ μυκτηρίζεται ...)

Noticed no comment about my previous reply that already answered 'intentions of the prophet' to hear & obey יהוה to do יהוה Holy will:

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus In hindsight, “Look, days are coming,” turned out to be 600 years (per יהוה prophetic plan declaration). True prophets of יהוה say/write what יהוה wants said/written (per יהוה perfect Holy will), which may be a mystery to the prophet: e.g. Daniel 12:8-13 & Matthew 24:36-44 & Mark 13:32-37

Another true prophet of יהוה hearing & obeying is in Revelation 10:1-11 (my prayers ask יהוה to help me know when יהוה prophecies are fulfilled)

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus What words in John 1:1-14 provide substance for idea '"the Word," not God, became flesh' ? When did The Word quality stop being יהוה ?

@Bill_Coley The words "and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1.14) provide substance to my claim that the Word, not God, became flesh.

@Bill_Coley As to what John means when he says "the Word was God," we've been down THAT road many times, on each of which I have acknowledged my lack of certainty about the meaning of what I call the pre-existence sayings found in John's Gospel. At this stage of my faith journey, I have concluded only that WHATEVER those sayings mean, their meaning must be consistent with the truth about Jesus' identity communicated in the rest of the New Testament. In my view, said truth is clearly that Jesus is not God, which means, again in my view, that the pre-existence sayings cannot mean Jesus is God. Were they to mean such, they would make a claim about Jesus that is directly contradicted by the vast majority of the NT. [NOTE: I accept and respect that you'll disagree with that claim. Please accept and respect it as my claim.]

[claim] reminds me of 2 Timothy 2:22-26 (LEB) But flee from youthful desires, and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, in company with those who call upon the יהוה Lord from a pure heart. But avoid foolish and uninformed controversies, because you know that they produce quarrels. And the slave of the יהוה Lord must not quarrel, but be kind toward everyone, skillful in teaching, tolerant, correcting those who are opposed with gentleness, seeing whether perhaps יהוה God may grant them repentance to a knowledge of the truth, and they will come to their senses again and escape from the trap of the devil, being held captive by him to do his will.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus John 1:29-31 names the human body hosting יהוה The Word, whose purpose is consistent with Angelic announcement from יהוה in Matthew 1:21 (LEB) And she will give birth to a son, and you will call his name ‘Jesus,’ because he will save his people from their sins.”

@Bill_Coley It's not clear to me from the Gospels what John the Baptist knew or believed about the logos, God's "Word." For example, in Matthew 11, from prison - that is, after he has baptized Jesus and identified him as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" - he sends his disciples to ask Jesus whether he (Jesus) is "the Messiah we've been expecting, or should we keep looking for someone else?" (Matthew 11.2-3; BTW, Jesus basically tells John's disciples to go back and tell him yes) If John the Baptist believed Jesus was the one hosting "The Word," why did he have to ask whether Jesus was the messiah?

Jewish Chabad.org Moshiach 101 includes:

The Jewish messiah is a human being, a descendant of King David, who will lead the Jewish people back to the Land of Israel, where they serve G‑d in peace, leading the nations of the world in attaining an understanding of the Creator.

Prophecies about יהוה The Word being יהוה anointed King remain to be fulfilled: e.g. Psalm 2, Zechariah 9:10-17. John the Baptist was expecting יהוה The Messiah as יהוה conquering King, not the suffering servant described in Isaiah 52:13-53:12 & Psalm 22 whose Holy lamb sacrifice takes away the sins of the world. For by grace are you saved by faith: believe יהוה provided a Holy human blood substitute way for anyone who wants to turn from their sins by agreeing (confessing) with יהוה about their sins so יהוה will faithfully forgive + lovingly cleanse from unrighteousness.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Who was physically born first: John the Baptist OR Jesus ? (Luke 1:5-2:7) Since Jesus was physically born months after John the Baptist, please explain idea: 'John the Baptist refers to a "man," not God, who existed before him.'

@Bill_Coley John the Baptist expresses the "idea" that a "man" existed before him in John 1.30 (LEB): This one is the one about whom I said, ‘After me is coming a man who is ahead of me, because he existed before me.’

Greek does not have an indefinite article (a) so "a man" ἀνὴρ (anarthrous) describes quality of physical male human body hosting יהוה The Word.

Keep Smiling 😊

Bill_Coley

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus posted:

No. Holy Truthful ways of יהוה (Who was, Who is, Who is to come) are way beyond human limitations. Genesis 3:15 was written ~3,500 years ago describing what was said nearly 6,000 years ago in the Garden of Eden, foreshadowing crucifixion aspect of nail piercing heel ~2,000 years ago.

At issue here are the "human limitations" of the psalmist and his original readers, which have been, are, and will always be my concern. For reasons that aren't clear to me, despite my many invitations to do so, we've yet to engage directly on the intentions and expectations of the writers and their original audiences.

Speaking/writing as a human about your own activity plans implies while humanly able. For one loving יהוה first, phrase "I'm going to see that movie," is preceded by יהוה willing. Thankful for a few movies helping Holy יהוה Love appreciation: Watch The Word Bible & Kendrick brothers.

And I contend that when the psalmist's human original readers read about a king whom God had already placed on the throne, they naturally interpreted that action as something that had already taken place. That is, they quite naturally inferred that the psalmist wrote about a king in their era, not hundreds of years in the future because that's what the text says.

Curious about presumption ('his time') of psalmist/prophet humanly understanding Holy יהוה fulfillment plans (per יהוה perfect Holy will), may be a mystery to the psalmist/prophet: e.g. Daniel 12:8-13 & Matthew 24:36-44 & Mark 13:32-37

So is your argument that the psalmist might have THOUGHT he was writing about, and the psalmist's original readers might have THOUGHT they were reading about a king of their era, but in reality they weren't? Such an argument is a non sequitur because the issue I've raised is exactly and only what the psalmist and his original readers had in THEIR minds, whether they were correct or not. If the psalmist THOUGHT he was writing about a king of his era, then the answer to my question as to whom the psalmist intended to refer when he wrote about a king God had placed on the throne is a king of his era, any "Holy יהוה fulfillment plans" notwithstanding.

English verbs emphasize time of action (e.g. 'In such a current-time setting'). In contrast, Hebrew verbs emphasize kind of action. Greek verbs have primary kind of action emphasis with secondary time of action (in between Hebrew & English). Thankful for Hebrew language learning from reading "The Biblical Hebrew Companion for Bible Software Users: Grammatical Terms Explained for Exegesis". Logos Hebrew Morphology has 35 Hebrew verb stems with 8 Tams for nuanced kinds of action expressed in Holy יהוה inspiration.

As for Psalm 2.6, how would the "kind of action" God spoke about been different had God said "I will set my king on Zion" rather than "I have set my king on Zion"?

Psalm 2 lacks chronological identification of the rebelling kings of the earth.

In Psalm 2, it's temporality more than chronology. God refers to nations "in tumult... plotting in vain," and to rulers who "conspire together." Those are actions currently ongoing (Psalm 2.1-2). That being the case, I rephrase my previous question: How would the "kind of action" God referenced been different had God referred to nations that "will be in tumult" and "will plot/conspire" rather than those which "conspire" and are "plotting"?

Reminds me of ingeniously concocted myths in Peter's second letter...

Your critique morphs from "speculative fantasy" to "ingeniously concocted myths." In neither edition of your critique did you offer ANY substantive engagement with the issue I raised. The upside to such an approach is that it shortens my replies.

Lack of any verifiable evidence that Acts 4:25-26 was factually wrong about Davidic authorship of Psalm 2 is disappointing for idea discussion. FWIW: internet search site:christiandiscourse.net "fourth time" found a tendency for idea information before asking for #th time (puzzling).

The issue is your STILL-unproven claim of my "occasional hypocrisy" as to CD forum guidelines and expectations, and not the factual accuracy of my comments about Acts 4.25-26. The reason you haven't proven your claim, of course, is that your claim is false.

Without any verifiable evidence, idea "the dating of the Psalms" reads as an ingeniously concocted myth. Which is more important: Holy יהוה inspired truthful words OR 'extensive ... persuasive' comments written by human being(s) ?

It's a source of personal pride that my "myths" are more "ingeniously concocted" than just about anybody's.

Since human beings are the ones who read, interpret, and search for "Holy יהוה inspired truthful words," your question offers a false choice.

Answer to "I meant to ask" question is: Psalm 2:7 יהוה Yahweh said to me: “You are My Son; ... that is truthfullly consistent with Gospels & 2 Peter voice of יהוה Father speaking from Heaven to identity יהוה Jesus as "My Son" in Matthew 3:17, Matthew 17:5, Mark 1:11, Mark 9:7, Luke 3:22, Luke 9:35, & 2 Peter 1:17 (reflection on Psalm 2:7 about timing: could be immediately spoken before יהוה The Word left Holy Heaven throne to take on human flesh to dwell among human beings, which is "dethroning" instead of 'the occasion of God's selection of the king to the throne')

Verses in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and 2 Peter cannot tell us what Psalm 2 tells us about the identity of the king referenced in Psalm 2.

Appears "I meant to ask" question had a hidden human myopic focus that is quite puzzling since we agree that "our understanding of psalmists' knowledge and awareness is quite limited". Personally not know what David really understood about יהוה truthful words when writing Psalm 2 while being certain David experienced Holy יהוה Righteous presence while writing that included Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Humility, Self-Control.

In my view, we know as much about a biblical writer's understanding as his words tell us. In Psalm 2, it's clear that the writer refers to a king already on the throne because that's what his words tell us. I don't believe God inspired the psalmist to write misleading words.

Traditional Jewish blessings recognize יהוה Lord our God is King of the universe (created the mountain). To me, idea 'For the psalmist, clearly the mountain existed before the chosen king.' is an eisegetical example (clearly worded as an appeal to an unnamed authority: self doubt results).

You asked the question. I answered it.

Since יהוה The Will (Father) & יהוה The Word (Son) existed before יהוה created, the Holy mountain was new for יהוה King of the Universe placement (different than coronation of human king since the mountain existed before human birth).

In Psalm 2, there is no indication that the psalmist refers to the placement of a "יהוה King of the Universe." What was that "eisegetical" thing you mentioned?

Since we agree that "our understanding of psalmists' knowledge and awareness is quite limited", puzzled by intense myopic focus on human author's original intentions instead of Holy יהוה inspired intentions (with prophetic fulfillments) ?

Whether you're "puzzled" by my "myopic focus" or not, I still wait for your direct engagement with my questions about the messages biblical writers intended and their original audiences discerned. I find it telling that you have refused to offer such engagement despite my numerous invitations.

David being a man after יהוה God's heart had childlike faith (yet humanly do not know what David understood about יהוה planned fulfillments centuries later while writing many Psalms). Without faith, is impossible to please יהוה (per Hebrews 11:1-7). Unbelief is a reason for יהוה Son not to reveal יהוה Truth. Luke 10:21-24 also includes many kings & prophets desired to see/hear what יהוה disciples saw/heard.

How is "unbelief" relevant to our discussion of the meaning of biblical texts? Are you suggesting that one of us suffers from "unbelief" and therefore is unable to see the true meaning of texts? If so, please identify which one of us, in your view, so suffers.

Was any Holy יהוה inspired Scripture written by a human being not familiar with Jewish ways ? In places, did Gospel writers leave out explanations of well known Jewish customs & ways ? Written Scripture conventions (lacking page, chapter, & verse numbering) during the time of Jesus would have caused Psalm 22 context to be remembered. FWIW: literal Bible translation style assumes reader is familiar with Jewish customs & ways while dynamic Bible translations can include variety of cross-cultural wording.

I've not contended that people of Jesus' time wouldn't have been aware of the Psalm 22 context of his words. I've contended only that the Gospels don't tell us HOW MUCH of the Psalm Jesus actually quoted.

Without any verifiable evidence, am reading another ingeniously concocted myth. Researching Biblical Archeology found a paper that included:

When it comes to myths, I concoct with the best of them.

.... "In the process of interpretation it is most logical therefore to start with the author and his or her original intent as it was understood in original context. This is so because the authors of Scripture were not only divinely inspired but also historically and culturally bound. While it must be acknowledged at the outset that the presuppositions and context of the reader play a role, unless the interpreters begin with authorial intent they risk becoming “self-imaging authors,” and not interpreters at all. The first question is not, “What do I think or feel about this passage?” but “What does the passage actually say?”....

 Daniel I. Block, Israel: Ancient Kingdom or Late Invention? (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2008).

This has been EXACTLY my point about Psalm 2, a point on which, to-date, you've refused to engage directly, choosing instead to offer claims of "speculative fantas(ies)" and "ingeniously concocted myths." I await the post in which your embrace and implementation of the words you quoted will be as evident as have been your dismissive characterizations of my views.

Please quote words for idea "Given your claim" (not obvious to me so we disagree about my intended meaning). Looking at my February 22 reply found 'inaccurate' used once:

In the February 22 post, you wrote, "If idea about Psalm 20 being written after David's lifetime is correct, then Scripture title is a lie (not consistent with יהוה truth)."

Also found 'lie' used once: (also in my February 27 reply, which could have been quoted instead of using a distracting link)

I take your suggestion, but note that I linked to the post in which you described as a "lie" an inaccurate statement in the biblical text.

Different Jewish authors of 1-2 Samuel and 1-2 Chronicles offered different points of view, which is consistent with Job 1:6-2:6 interaction between יהוה Yahweh and Satan: accusation (Satan), authorization (יהוה), activity (Satan). FWIW: have noticed your inability to express my claims in a way that agrees with my intended meaning (have seen many crafty twists so my CD reply purpose is learning more about יהוה Holy Truth ideas while appears your reply intent is stating your faith belief ideas without any verifiable evidence so they read as ingeniously concocted myths).

So that my "inability to express (your) claims in a way that agrees with (your) intended meaning" doesn't get in the way: What did you mean when you said, "If idea about Psalm 20 being written after David's lifetime is correct, then Scripture title is a lie (not consistent with יהוה truth)"?

And since you've yet to address directly the issue I raised about David's census, I'll ask it a different way (and PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE answer this question directly, without further evasion): Who incited David to conduct the census for which God ultimately gave him three punishment choices, famine, enemies, or plague? Please quote the Scripture text upon which you base your answer.

Noticed no comment about my previous reply that already answered 'intentions of the prophet' to hear & obey יהוה to do יהוה Holy will:

Your comment was not germane to the subject of my concern, which was and remains the intention of the content of the prophet's writings, not the prophets' more generalized spiritual priorities. Of course the prophets wanted to hear and obey God. My focus is and remains on the meaning of the words the prophets used.

Another true prophet of יהוה hearing & obeying is in Revelation 10:1-11 (my prayers ask יהוה to help me know when יהוה prophecies are fulfilled)

We've been talking about OT texts, not Revelation. I choose not to pursue a new focus.

[claim] reminds me of 2 Timothy 2:22-26 (LEB) But flee from youthful desires, and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, in company with those who call upon the יהוה Lord from a pure heart. But avoid foolish and uninformed controversies, because you know that they produce quarrels. And the slave of the יהוה Lord must not quarrel, but be kind toward everyone, skillful in teaching, tolerant, correcting those who are opposed with gentleness, seeing whether perhaps יהוה God may grant them repentance to a knowledge of the truth, and they will come to their senses again and escape from the trap of the devil, being held captive by him to do his will.

Another dismissive and passive-aggressive critique that at its core is about people - namely me - not ideas.

Jewish Chabad.org Moshiach 101 includes:

The Jewish messiah is a human being, a descendant of King David, who will lead the Jewish people back to the Land of Israel, where they serve G‑d in peace, leading the nations of the world in attaining an understanding of the Creator.

Prophecies about יהוה The Word being יהוה anointed King remain to be fulfilled: e.g. Psalm 2, Zechariah 9:10-17. John the Baptist was expecting יהוה The Messiah as יהוה conquering King, not the suffering servant described in Isaiah 52:13-53:12 & Psalm 22 whose Holy lamb sacrifice takes away the sins of the world. For by grace are you saved by faith: believe יהוה provided a Holy human blood substitute way for anyone who wants to turn from their sins by agreeing (confessing) with יהוה about their sins so יהוה will faithfully forgive + lovingly cleanse from unrighteousness.

We agree as to ancient Jewish understanding of "messiah."

I guess it's possible that from prison John the Baptist wanted to know whether Jesus was ALSO the messiah, but such an interpretation must contend with this from John 1:

24 Then the Pharisees who had been sent 25 asked him, “If you aren’t the Messiah or Elijah or the Prophet, what right do you have to baptize?” 26 John told them, “I baptize with water, but right here in the crowd is someone you do not recognize. 27 Though his ministry follows mine, I’m not even worthy to be his slave and untie the straps of his sandal.” 28 This encounter took place in Bethany, an area east of the Jordan River, where John was baptizing. 29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! 30 He is the one I was talking about when I said, ‘A man is coming after me who is far greater than I am, for he existed long before me.’ 31 I did not recognize him as the Messiah, but I have been baptizing with water so that he might be revealed to Israel.” 

John the Baptist says Jesus is one whom he didn't recognize as the Messiah, but who existed long before him and who takes away the sins of the world." That sure sounds like he understood the fullness of Jesus' identity shortly after the baptism and before his imprisonment, which to my reading makes difficult to understand the question he sends to Jesus from prison.

Greek does not have an indefinite article (a) so "a man" ἀνὴρ (anarthrous) describes quality of physical male human body hosting יהוה The Word.

I'm not an original languages person, so I defer to your knowledge about indefinite articles. In the LEB's translation of John 1.30, however, in the second clause of his self-quotation John the Baptist refers to "he," which in context seems obviously to refer back to the "man" cited in the first clause of the self-quotation. That is, in context, the "man" in the verse seems to refer to a specific male person.

As for your description of Jesus as the person "hosting" The Word, I agree. Jesus is the person in whom the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus No. Holy Truthful ways of יהוה (Who was, Who is, Who is to come) are way beyond human limitations. Genesis 3:15 was written ~3,500 years ago describing what was said nearly 6,000 years ago in the Garden of Eden, foreshadowing crucifixion aspect of nail piercing heel ~2,000 years ago.

@Bill_Coley At issue here are the "human limitations" of the psalmist and his original readers, which have been, are, and will always be my concern. For reasons that aren't clear to me, despite my many invitations to do so, we've yet to engage directly on the intentions and expectations of the writers and their original audiences.

Disappointed by lack of idea interaction with my direct engagement from February 27 => True prophets of יהוה say/write what יהוה wants said/written (per יהוה perfect Holy will), which may be a mystery to the prophet: e.g. Daniel 12:8-13 & Matthew 24:36-44 & Mark 13:32-37

Hebrew imperfect verb expresses incomplete action: 'have been, are, and will always be' (human implication is death changing 'will always be')

@Bill_Coley And I contend that when the psalmist's human original readers read about a king whom God had already placed on the throne, they naturally interpreted that action as something that had already taken place. That is, they quite naturally inferred that the psalmist wrote about a king in their era, not hundreds of years in the future because that's what the text says.

Internet search for "Baruch atah Adonai, Eloheinu Melech ha-olam," finds a number of Jewish blessings that begin: "Blessed are you, our God King of the Universe," so like psalmist David, personally believe Psalm 2:6 King is יהוה our God like Jewish Blessings & Deuteronomy 6:4, who was King in David's life, who is King in my life now, and who will be King forever. Psalm 2 text includes יהוה three times plus Adonai (Lord) once.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Curious about presumption ('his time') of psalmist/prophet humanly understanding Holy יהוה fulfillment plans (per יהוה perfect Holy will), may be a mystery to the psalmist/prophet: e.g. Daniel 12:8-13 & Matthew 24:36-44 & Mark 13:32-37

@Bill_Coley So is your argument that the psalmist might have THOUGHT he was writing about, and the psalmist's original readers might have THOUGHT they were reading about a king of their era, but in reality they weren't? Such an argument is a non sequitur because the issue I've raised is exactly and only what the psalmist and his original readers had in THEIR minds, whether they were correct or not. If the psalmist THOUGHT he was writing about a king of his era, then the answer to my question as to whom the psalmist intended to refer when he wrote about a king God had placed on the throne is a king of his era, any "Holy יהוה fulfillment plans" notwithstanding.

Puzzled by assumption that 'a king of his era' cannot be Holy יהוה Eloheinu (plural God of us). Amusing 'non sequitur' THOUGHT twists, which is different than my argument: '... may be a mystery to the psalmist/prophet & original audience(s) too.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus English verbs emphasize time of action (e.g. 'In such a current-time setting'). In contrast, Hebrew verbs emphasize kind of action. Greek verbs have primary kind of action emphasis with secondary time of action (in between Hebrew & English). Thankful for Hebrew language learning from reading "The Biblical Hebrew Companion for Bible Software Users: Grammatical Terms Explained for Exegesis". Logos Hebrew Morphology has 35 Hebrew verb stems with 8 Tams for nuanced kinds of action expressed in Holy יהוה inspiration.

@Bill_Coley As for Psalm 2.6, how would the "kind of action" God spoke about been different had God said "I will set my king on Zion" rather than "I have set my king on Zion"?

English 'will set' & 'have set' express interpretive time aspects about set, which are not in the Psalm 2:6 verb: Qal stem is simple action (other stems have more kind of action nuance: causative, passive, reflexive), Perfect tam is complete. Thankful for Hebrew Perfect Exegetical Insight:

It is sometimes difficult to capture the sense of the Hebrew verb, which views the action in terms of its being complete or incomplete, by an English verb, which views the action in terms of the time in which it takes place. If we use the present tense in English, that leaves open the possibility that the verbal action being specified did not also take place in the past. For example, the statement “I like the taste of coffee” leaves open the possibility that such was not always the case. Knowing how the Hebrew verbal system works can help us to avoid such misinterpretations.

 Michael Williams, The Biblical Hebrew Companion for Bible Software Users: Grammatical Terms Explained for Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), 89.

Septuagint translation of Hebrew verb has Greek Aorist tense so Jewish scholars ~2,200 years ago interpreted Psalm 2:6 set as action simply happened (albeit am doubtful about secondary past time of action in Greek Aorist tense having any applicability for translation of Hebrew verbs).

@Bill_Coley In Psalm 2, it's temporality more than chronology. God refers to nations "in tumult... plotting in vain," and to rulers who "conspire together." Those are actions currently ongoing (Psalm 2.1-2). That being the case, I rephrase my previous question: How would the "kind of action" God referenced been different had God referred to nations that "will be in tumult" and "will plot/conspire" rather than those which "conspire" and are "plotting"?

Same Hebrew verbs for "will" & "are" since time of action is not expressed by Hebrew verbs, which is different than English (two verbs in Psalm 2:1-2 express perfect completed action while two verbs express imperfect: plotting, establish). Thankful for Hebrew Imperfect Exegetical Insight:

In Exodus 3:14 Moses asks God to tell him what to say to the people when they ask who sent Moses to them. God tells Moses, “This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘[אֶהְיֶה] has sent me to you.’ ” The three-consonant root היה (meaning “to be”) has an א in front of it, indicating that it is a 1cs Imperfect verb, so the subject of the verb is “I.” But how should we translate the verbal idea? “I will be”? “I am”? “I have been”? The answer is yes, yes, and yes. Because the basic sense of the verb is “to exist,” and God has always existed and always will exist, the Imperfect verb includes all of these senses. Indeed, elsewhere God describes himself as “the Alpha and Omega … who is, and who was, and who is to come” (Revelation 1:8).

In English, however, our verbal system operates on the basis of time, unlike the Hebrew verbal system, which operates on the basis of whether or not the action is regarded as completed. So how can we translate this Hebrew verb that indicates continuing existence unrestricted by time into the English language, where action is expressed in terms of the time in which it occurs? Well, we do the best we can. Most English translations opt for the present tense and render the designation God gives himself as “I am.” Recognizing the significance of the Hebrew Imperfect conjugation, however, gives the reader the advantage of seeing that God is describing himself not just as being present then, but rather as being continually present. The omnipresence of God is an essential foundation of a believer’s confidence. And it provides a greater depth of understanding for the “I am” in the words of the Son of God at the end of Matthew’s gospel (28:20): “And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

 Michael Williams, The Biblical Hebrew Companion for Bible Software Users: Grammatical Terms Explained for Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), 53.

Prayerfully pondering chronology of Psalm 2 for what Holy יהוה inspired David to write (as Hebrew verbs lack temporal relationship insight).

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Reminds me of ingeniously concocted myths in Peter's second letter...

@Bill_Coley Your critique morphs from "speculative fantasy" to "ingeniously concocted myths." In neither edition of your critique did you offer ANY substantive engagement with the issue I raised. The upside to such an approach is that it shortens my replies.

Noticed '...' quoting intentionally left out 2 Peter 1:16-21 (LEB + יהוה) that has substance for the issue you raised => For we did not make known to you the power and coming of our יהוה Lord Jesus Christ by following ingeniously concocted myths, but by being eyewitnesses of that one’s majesty. For he received honor and glory from יהוה God the Father when a voice such as this was brought to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” And we ourselves heard this voice brought from heaven when we were with him on the holy mountain, and we possess as more reliable the prophetic word, to which you do well if you pay attention to it as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, recognizing this above all, that every prophecy of scripture does not come about from one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men carried along by the יהוה Holy Spirit spoke from יהוה God.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Without any verifiable evidence, idea "the dating of the Psalms" reads as an ingeniously concocted myth. Which is more important: Holy יהוה inspired truthful words OR 'extensive ... persuasive' comments written by human being(s) ?

@Bill_Coley It's a source of personal pride that my "myths" are more "ingeniously concocted" than just about anybody's.

How does Proverbs 16:18 'haughty of spirit' compare with Matthew 5:3 'poor in spirit' ? Is the Kingdom of Heaven for the 'haughty of spirit' ?

@Bill_Coley Since human beings are the ones who read, interpret, and search for "Holy יהוה inspired truthful words," your question offers a false choice.

As a human being, am Thankful can ask Holy יהוה to 'Uncover my eyes, that I may look at wonderful things from your law.' Psalm 119:18 (LEB) while remembering 2 Peter 1:16-21 guidance about prophecy interpretation needing Holy יהוה insight (not doable correctly by my own reasoning).

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Answer to "I meant to ask" question is: Psalm 2:7 יהוה Yahweh said to me: “You are My Son; ... that is truthfullly consistent with Gospels & 2 Peter voice of יהוה Father speaking from Heaven to identity יהוה Jesus as "My Son" in Matthew 3:17, Matthew 17:5, Mark 1:11, Mark 9:7, Luke 3:22, Luke 9:35, & 2 Peter 1:17 (reflection on Psalm 2:7 about timing: could be immediately spoken before יהוה The Word left Holy Heaven throne to take on human flesh to dwell among human beings, which is "dethroning" instead of 'the occasion of God's selection of the king to the throne')

@Bill_Coley Verses in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and 2 Peter cannot tell us what Psalm 2 tells us about the identity of the king referenced in Psalm 2.

Psalm 2:7 (LEB + kind) I will tell (incomplete) the decree; Yahweh said (complete) to me: “You are my son; today I have begotten (complete) you.

My prayerful understanding of Psalm 2:7 is the complete verb action happened ~1,000 years later as יהוה The Word left Holy Heaven throne to take on human flesh to dwell among human beings. Psalm 2:7 incomplete verb action of telling/announcing the decree included voice of יהוה Father speaking from Heaven to identity יהוה Jesus as "My Son" so Psalm 2:7 provides how to identify יהוה anointed king in Psalm 2.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Appears "I meant to ask" question had a hidden human myopic focus that is quite puzzling since we agree that "our understanding of psalmists' knowledge and awareness is quite limited". Personally not know what David really understood about יהוה truthful words when writing Psalm 2 while being certain David experienced Holy יהוה Righteous presence while writing that included Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Humility, Self-Control.

@Bill_Coley In my view, we know as much about a biblical writer's understanding as his words tell us. In Psalm 2, it's clear that the writer refers to a king already on the throne because that's what his words tell us. I don't believe God inspired the psalmist to write misleading words.

Psalm 2:6 (LEB + kind) “But as for me, I have set (complete) my king on Zion, my holy mountain.”

My prayerful understanding of Psalm 2:6 is the complete verb action happened ~3,000 years earlier concurrent with יהוה creating Holy mountain.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Since יהוה The Will (Father) & יהוה The Word (Son) existed before יהוה created, the Holy mountain was new for יהוה King of the Universe placement (different than coronation of human king since the mountain existed before human birth).

@Bill_Coley In Psalm 2, there is no indication that the psalmist refers to the placement of a "יהוה King of the Universe." What was that "eisegetical" thing you mentioned?

Every psalmist, including David, and original audience were Jewish. The Mishnah is an important component of Judaism canon as Jewish oral law and tradition were written ~170 years after crucifixion & resurrection of יהוה Jesus, which is still revered by Jews today. The first grouping of items (BERAKHOT) starts with instruction about reciting The Schema => Deuteronomy 6:4–9, Deuteronomy 11:13–21 & Numbers 15:37–41 twice daily, morning and evening, which includes two Blessings before reciting The Shema and one Blessing after, containing "Blessed are you, Lord, our God, King of the Universe" to seal the Blessings. Thankful "Jacob Neusner, The Mishnah : A New Translation (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1988)" is in my Logos Bible Software library. Deuterocanonical verse 2 Maccabees 7:9 could be translated:

His last words were, “You bloody butcher! You can kill us, but God is the King of the universe, and he will raise us from the dead and give us eternal life, because we died rather than disobey his Law.”

 Roger A. Bullard and Howard A. Hatton, A Handbook on 1-2 Maccabees, ed. Paul Clarke et al., United Bible Societies’ Handbooks (Reading, UK: United Bible Societies, 2011), 816.

2 Maccabees dates back to 124 BC (~155 years before crucifixion & resurrection of יהוה Jesus), within nine centuries of David writing Psalms 2. Searching Second Temple resources in Logos Bible Software for king NEAR (universe,world) included Greek Esther 13:7-10

Addition C

1Then Mordecai prayed to the Lord, calling to remembrance all the works of the Lord.

2He said, “O Lord, Lord, you rule as King over all things, for the universe is in your power and there is no one who can oppose you when it is your will to save Israel, 3for you have made heaven and earth and every wonderful thing under heaven. 

 Michael V. Fox, “Additions to Esther,” in Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture: Translation, ed. Louis H. Feldman, James L. Kugel, and Lawrence H. Schiffman, vol. 1 (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2013), 102–103.

Zechariah 14:9 (LEB + יהוה) And יהוה Yahweh will be king over all the earth; on that day יהוה Yahweh will be one and his name one.

1 Samuel 8:7 (LEB + יהוה) Then יהוה Yahweh said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people concerning all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them.

Exodus 15:18 (LEB + יהוה) יהוה Yahweh will reign as king forever and ever.”

Psalm 2 יהוה annointed king is יהוה who is King of the Universe forever and ever. In contrast is human being sinful rejection of יהוה as King.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Since we agree that "our understanding of psalmists' knowledge and awareness is quite limited", puzzled by intense myopic focus on human author's original intentions instead of Holy יהוה inspired intentions (with prophetic fulfillments) ?

@Bill_Coley Whether you're "puzzled" by my "myopic focus" or not, I still wait for your direct engagement with my questions about the messages biblical writers intended and their original audiences discerned. I find it telling that you have refused to offer such engagement despite my numerous invitations.

Puzzled by description 'numerous invitations' while remembering many faith belief ideas stated (appealed to an unnamed authority), which were not inviting for idea discussion. Thankful for S.O.A.P. => Scripture (Where ?) Observe (What jumps out ?) Apply (What to do ?) Pray. Thankful for יהוה causing thoughts to jump out. At times, Observe becomes: What is original יהוה truth in original context ? includes Jewish cultural insights with truthful consistency in overall Holy יהוה Love story.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus David being a man after יהוה God's heart had childlike faith (yet humanly do not know what David understood about יהוה planned fulfillments centuries later while writing many Psalms). Without faith, is impossible to please יהוה (per Hebrews 11:1-7). Unbelief is a reason for יהוה Son not to reveal יהוה Truth. Luke 10:21-24 also includes many kings & prophets desired to see/hear what יהוה disciples saw/heard.

@Bill_Coley How is "unbelief" relevant to our discussion of the meaning of biblical texts? Are you suggesting that one of us suffers from "unbelief" and therefore is unable to see the true meaning of texts? If so, please identify which one of us, in your view, so suffers.

Matthew 13:57-58 (LEB + יהוה) And they were offended by him. But יהוה Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own hometown and in his own household.” And he did not perform many miracles in that place because of their unbelief.

Peter's words in 2 Peter 1:16-21 remind me of יהוה Jesus pre-existence sayings as Peter experienced יהוה Glory at the Mount of Transfiguration before the brutal crucifixion of יהוה Jesus, which included Peter denying even knowing יהוה Jesus three times, resulted in lots of bitter tears before יהוה Jesus died as the Holy Lamb of God substitutionary sacrifice to take away the sins of the world. After the resurrection, יהוה Jesus asked Peter three times: 'Do you Love me ?' with discipleship commands for Peter. Thankful for Peter obeying יהוה dream to go to Roman house of Cornelius. Yet Paul later needed to rebuke Peter in Antioch because of Peter's hypocritical behavior. Thankful for Holy יהוה Love that faithfully continues.

Thankful for a sad time in my life where יהוה truth was hidden from me because of my choices to keep sinning with self-afflicted drug addiction, which is an "unbelief" form (pridefully choosing self over יהוה). Thankful for Holy יהוה Love transformation in my life while still being a work in progress. Many years ago could not imagine an hour of prayer. Now cannot imagine an hour without prayer. Thankful for Holy יהוה presence 😍

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Without any verifiable evidence, am reading another ingeniously concocted myth. Researching Biblical Archeology found a paper that included:

@Bill_Coley When it comes to myths, I concoct with the best of them.

ingeniously concocted myths => "unbelief" of יהוה truth.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus .... "In the process of interpretation it is most logical therefore to start with the author and his or her original intent as it was understood in original context. This is so because the authors of Scripture were not only divinely inspired but also historically and culturally bound. While it must be acknowledged at the outset that the presuppositions and context of the reader play a role, unless the interpreters begin with authorial intent they risk becoming “self-imaging authors,” and not interpreters at all. The first question is not, “What do I think or feel about this passage?” but “What does the passage actually say?”....

 Daniel I. Block, Israel: Ancient Kingdom or Late Invention? (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2008).

@Bill_Coley This has been EXACTLY my point about Psalm 2, a point on which, to-date, you've refused to engage directly, choosing instead to offer claims of "speculative fantas(ies)" and "ingeniously concocted myths." I await the post in which your embrace and implementation of the words you quoted will be as evident as have been your dismissive characterizations of my views.

Paper also included ...

Herein lies the initial appeal of the two-step hermeneutic as spelled out by the elder E. D. Hirsch in 1967. This hermeneutical principle guides many biblical scholars, including Scott Hafemann, who characterizes the process as follows:

… this will mean a commitment to original language exegesis, the study of the history of Israel and the early Church within its cultural contexts, an analysis of Church history as the history of the interpretation of the Bible, a development of a biblical theology of redemptive history, and an investigation of the issues of contemporary life.

Thankful for learning Greek, which has given me new meaning to phrase: "That's Greek to Me !" as I can read some passages of Greek New Testament while other passages are Greek to me. The Apostle John preferred shorter Greek sentences with smaller vocabulary so 1st John is typically part of first year Greek language learning. A lesson learned from doing my own stilted literal translation of Jude is nuanced Greek verbal insights are lacking in English, especially kind of action that is primary in Greek (& Hebrew verbs). Currently learning Hebrew exegetical insights so now can recognize a number of Hebrew words. Likewise learning Jewish culture because every Scripture writer was familiar with Jewish ways, which includes explanation of some well known Jewish customs left out as the author was writing to an original audience familiar with Jewish traditions. Hence, question "What does the passage actually say?" to me becomes: What is original יהוה truth in original context ? includes Jewish cultural insights with truthful consistency in overall Holy יהוה Love story.

@Bill_Coley As to what John means when he says "the Word was God," we've been down THAT road many times, on each of which I have acknowledged my lack of certainty about the meaning of what I call the pre-existence sayings found in John's Gospel. At this stage of my faith journey, I have concluded only that WHATEVER those sayings mean, their meaning must be consistent with the truth about Jesus' identity communicated in the rest of the New Testament. In my view, said truth is clearly that Jesus is not God, which means, again in my view, that the pre-existence sayings cannot mean Jesus is God. Were they to mean such, they would make a claim about Jesus that is directly contradicted by the vast majority of the NT. [NOTE: I accept and respect that you'll disagree with that claim. Please accept and respect it as my claim.]

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus [claim] reminds me of 2 Timothy 2:22-26 (LEB) But flee from youthful desires, and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, in company with those who call upon the יהוה Lord from a pure heart. But avoid foolish and uninformed controversies, because you know that they produce quarrels. And the slave of the יהוה Lord must not quarrel, but be kind toward everyone, skillful in teaching, tolerant, correcting those who are opposed with gentleness, seeing whether perhaps יהוה God may grant them repentance to a knowledge of the truth, and they will come to their senses again and escape from the trap of the devil, being held captive by him to do his will.

@Bill_Coley Another dismissive and passive-aggressive critique that at its core is about people - namely me - not ideas.

Reminder of 2 Timothy 2:22-26 (LEB) included for me motivation for ongoing CD idea discussions as Holy יהוה faithfully loves us (while hating our sins). Also reminded me about skillful teaching, which includes sharing Scripture & verifiable evidence while being kind and using gentle words.

Keep Smiling 😊

Bill_Coley

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus posted:

Disappointed by lack of idea interaction with my direct engagement from February 27 => True prophets of יהוה say/write what יהוה wants said/written (per יהוה perfect Holy will), which may be a mystery to the prophet: e.g. Daniel 12:8-13 & Matthew 24:36-44 & Mark 13:32-37

Hebrew imperfect verb expresses incomplete action: 'have been, are, and will always be' (human implication is death changing 'will always be')

So your contention is that the intention of the prophets was solely to "say/write what יהוה want(ed) said/written," even if what they said/wrote could have been a "mystery" to them? Is it your view that as they wrote, the prophets believed that what they were writing might be a mystery to themselves (and to their original readers)? Did the prophets' original readers believe that what they were reading might be a mystery to themselves?

More germane to our discussion: When the Psalmist wrote what we call Psalm 2.6, did he believe he was writing about a king already on his throne, or a king who would be born years, perhaps centuries, later? And when the psalm's original readers read what we call Psalm 2.6, did they believe they were reading about a king already on his throne, or a king who would be born years, perhaps centuries, later? I'm not asking whether either the psalmist or his readers was right!! I'm asking what you contend each believed about what they wrote and read as they wrote and read it.

Internet search for "Baruch atah Adonai, Eloheinu Melech ha-olam," finds a number of Jewish blessings that begin: "Blessed are you, our God King of the Universe," so like psalmist David, personally believe Psalm 2:6 King is יהוה our God like Jewish Blessings & Deuteronomy 6:4, who was King in David's life, who is King in my life now, and who will be King forever. Psalm 2 text includes יהוה three times plus Adonai (Lord) once.

I contend that Psalm 2 doesn't say what you "personally believe" it says. We disagree.

Puzzled by assumption that 'a king of his era' cannot be Holy יהוה Eloheinu (plural God of us). Amusing 'non sequitur' THOUGHT twists, which is different than my argument: '... may be a mystery to the psalmist/prophet & original audience(s) too.

There is no indication in Psalm 2 that the king on the throne is God. In Psalm 2.6, God says "I have placed my king on the throne," the king who, in Psalm 2.7, quotes God's encouragement and authorization to him. It makes no grammatical sense to me for God to quote what God told God about God's reign as king. It makes much more sense for a human king to quote what God told him about his (the king's) reign as king.

English 'will set' & 'have set' express interpretive time aspects about set, which are not in the Psalm 2:6 verb: Qal stem is simple action (other stems have more kind of action nuance: causative, passive, reflexive), Perfect tam is complete. Thankful for Hebrew Perfect Exegetical Insight:

Septuagint translation of Hebrew verb has Greek Aorist tense so Jewish scholars ~2,200 years ago interpreted Psalm 2:6 set as action simply happened (albeit am doubtful about secondary past time of action in Greek Aorist tense having any applicability for translation of Hebrew verbs).

I admire your grasp of Hebrew linguistics, but on this matter it doesn't help me. I'll ask my question another way: How can a non-original languages person know whether an action reported in the Old Testament has already taken place? What form of the verb "set," if any, would have to be found in Psalm 2.6 in order for us accurately to conclude that God's "setting" of a king on Zion has already taken place?

Same Hebrew verbs for "will" & "are" since time of action is not expressed by Hebrew verbs, which is different than English (two verbs in Psalm 2:1-2 express perfect completed action while two verbs express imperfect: plotting, establish). Thankful for Hebrew Imperfect Exegetical Insight:

When the LEB quotes God as saying in Psalm 2.6 "I have set my king on Zion, my holy mountain," it sure sounds like a "perfect completed action." What form of the verb "set" would the LEB use to convey a "setting" of a king that has been completed?

Prayerfully pondering chronology of Psalm 2 for what Holy יהוה inspired David to write (as Hebrew verbs lack temporal relationship insight).

"I have set" to me reads like it communicates a "temporal relationship." What words could the psalmist have used to report God's completed "setting" of a king on Zion?

Noticed '...' quoting intentionally left out 2 Peter 1:16-21 (LEB + יהוה) that has substance for the issue you raised

In fact I did intentionally leave out the 2 Peter reference... because that text does NOT engage the substance of the issue I raised, which was the time frame to which the writer of Psalm 2 referred and his original readers understood by his quotation of God as saying "I have set my king on Zion...." Nothing in the 2 Peter text says anything about what that writer meant by those words, or what said writer's original readers understood by them.

How does Proverbs 16:18 'haughty of spirit' compare with Matthew 5:3 'poor in spirit' ? Is the Kingdom of Heaven for the 'haughty of spirit' ?

Haughtiness of spirit is IN NO WAY akin to the poverty of spirit to which Jesus refers in the beatitudes.

Pride is among the most frequently decried sins in the Bible, so no, the Kingdom is not for the "haughty of spirit.". . . But it might be for those who "concoct" "myths" more "ingeniously" than most!... at least that's what I'm banking on.

As a human being, am Thankful can ask Holy יהוה to 'Uncover my eyes, that I may look at wonderful things from your law.' Psalm 119:18 (LEB) while remembering 2 Peter 1:16-21 guidance about prophecy interpretation needing Holy יהוה insight (not doable correctly by my own reasoning).

You're not the only one among us who relies on holy help to understand God's word.

Psalm 2:7 (LEB + kind) I will tell (incomplete) the decree; Yahweh said (complete) to me: “You are my son; today I have begotten (complete) you.

My prayerful understanding of Psalm 2:7 is the complete verb action happened ~1,000 years later as יהוה The Word left Holy Heaven throne to take on human flesh to dwell among human beings. Psalm 2:7 incomplete verb action of telling/announcing the decree included voice of יהוה Father speaking from Heaven to identity יהוה Jesus as "My Son" so Psalm 2:7 provides how to identify יהוה anointed king in Psalm 2.

"Yahweh said..." is "complete," but "I have set..." is not?

The phrase "I will tell" comes from the king, not from God, and in context simply introduces the "decree" which immediately follows. It's as if there's a silent but implied "now" in the phrase: "I will (now) tell the decree," and he then quotes God's decree.

There is nothing in the text of Psalm 2 that supports your "prayerful understanding" of it. The action God references clearly is action the king God has placed on the throne will take during his reign, which according to the language of the Psalm, has already begun.

Psalm 2:6 (LEB + kind) “But as for me, I have set (complete) my king on Zion, my holy mountain.”

My prayerful understanding of Psalm 2:6 is the complete verb action happened ~3,000 years earlier concurrent with יהוה creating Holy mountain.

Now you contend that God's setting of a king is a completed action. How could it be a completed action, but not be fulfilled for another 1,000 years? The verb "set " in the verse refers to a king, not to the "Holy Mountain." So this is another "prayerful understanding" of yours for which I see no textual support. According to the text, the action God has completed is the placement of God's king on the throne in Zion, an action which could not have happened ~3,000 years earlier.

Every psalmist, including David, and original audience were Jewish. The Mishnah is an important component of Judaism canon as Jewish oral law and tradition were written ~170 years after crucifixion & resurrection of יהוה Jesus, which is still revered by Jews today. The first grouping of items (BERAKHOT) starts with instruction about reciting The Schema => Deuteronomy 6:4–9, Deuteronomy 11:13–21 & Numbers 15:37–41 twice daily, morning and evening, which includes two Blessings before reciting The Shema and one Blessing after, containing "Blessed are you, Lord, our God, King of the Universe" to seal the Blessings. Thankful "Jacob Neusner, The Mishnah : A New Translation (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1988)" is in my Logos Bible Software library. Deuterocanonical verse 2 Maccabees 7:9 could be translated:

His last words were, “You bloody butcher! You can kill us, but God is the King of the universe, and he will raise us from the dead and give us eternal life, because we died rather than disobey his Law.”

 Roger A. Bullard and Howard A. Hatton, A Handbook on 1-2 Maccabees, ed. Paul Clarke et al., United Bible Societies’ Handbooks (Reading, UK: United Bible Societies, 2011), 816.

None of the verses you cited demonstrates the presence of the phrase "King of the Universe" in Psalm 2, or that king's placement on Zion in the same Psalm. You're welcome to read such an assertion into the text, but in my view you should label such a reading as one of your "prayerful understandings."

Puzzled by description 'numerous invitations' while remembering many faith belief ideas stated (appealed to an unnamed authority), which were not inviting for idea discussion. Thankful for S.O.A.P. => Scripture (Where ?) Observe (What jumps out ?) Apply (What to do ?) Pray. Thankful for יהוה causing thoughts to jump out. At times, Observe becomes: What is original יהוה truth in original context ? includes Jewish cultural insights with truthful consistency in overall Holy יהוה Love story.

On multiple occasions I've invited you to tell me what the writer of Psalm 2 and his original readers understood the psalmist's words to mean as he wrote them and they read them. To my reading, you've yet to accept any of those invitations.

Matthew 13:57-58 (LEB + יהוה) And they were offended by him....

Peter's words in 2 Peter 1:16-21 remind me of יהוה Jesus pre-existence sayings....

Thankful for a sad time in my life where יהוה truth was hidden from me because ....

I asked whether you were asserting that one of us suffers from "unbelief" and is therefore unable to see the true meaning of texts. If that was your assertion, I also asked you to identify which one of us, in your view, so suffers. Since the three paragraphs of your response made no reference to my questions, I ask them again.

ingeniously concocted myths => "unbelief" of יהוה truth.

Is THIS another way for you to assert that I suffer from "unbelief"?

Thankful for learning Greek, which has given me new meaning to phrase: "That's Greek to Me !" as I can read some passages of Greek New Testament while other passages are Greek to me. The Apostle John preferred shorter Greek sentences with smaller vocabulary so 1st John is typically part of first year Greek language learning. A lesson learned from doing my own stilted literal translation of Jude is nuanced Greek verbal insights are lacking in English, especially kind of action that is primary in Greek (& Hebrew verbs). Currently learning Hebrew exegetical insights so now can recognize a number of Hebrew words. Likewise learning Jewish culture because every Scripture writer was familiar with Jewish ways, which includes explanation of some well known Jewish customs left out as the author was writing to an original audience familiar with Jewish traditions. Hence, question "What does the passage actually say?" to me becomes: What is original יהוה truth in original context ? includes Jewish cultural insights with truthful consistency in overall Holy יהוה Love story.

If this means you believe that an early step of our engagement with biblical texts must be objectively to answer the question, "what does the text itself actually say?" then we agree.

Reminder of 2 Timothy 2:22-26 (LEB) included for me motivation for ongoing CD idea discussions as Holy יהוה faithfully loves us (while hating our sins). Also reminded me about skillful teaching, which includes sharing Scripture & verifiable evidence while being kind and using gentle words.

And you chose to implement your commitment to kindness and the use of "gentle words" in your CD idea discussions by calling to my attention an off-topic NT passage the target of whose actions are people who need "repentance to a knowledge of truth," and to "come to their senses" so that they can escape "the trap of the devil."

1. Our discussion in this thread is not about people held "captive" by the devil or those who need to "come to their senses."
2. CD forum guidelines explicitly direct us away from criticism of people, guidance which I think your passive-aggressive response here clearly violates.
3. If you think I suffer from "unbelief" and am held "captive" by the devil and therefore need to "come to my senses," just say it. Don't cloak your judgment in the sweet-sounding but blatantly untrue intentions conveyed by words such as "kind" and "gentle words."
4. Your numerous dismissive comments about me - not my ideas - over the months of our exchange have made clear your penchant for personal commentary. Own it. Acknowledge your judgmental spirit, your willingness to object to the poster, not just to the poster's ideas. What else could possibly prompt you to raise to my attention a profoundly off-topic text about people who need to "come to their senses" and escape entrapment by the devil? I've asked you six, eight, ten times (?) over the months of our exchanges to stop the personal commentary, the dismissive and passive-aggressive suggestions about me rather than my ideas. You've chosen time and again to deny my requests, so I won't ask you again. Now I ask only that you own your conduct and acknowledge your judgmental spirit.

In my previous post, I asked you yet other questions that you chose to avoid. Here they are again:

1. So that my "inability to express (your) claims in a way that agrees with (your) intended meaning" doesn't get in the way: What did you mean when you said, "If idea about Psalm 20 being written after David's lifetime is correct, then Scripture title is a lie (not consistent with יהוה truth)"?
2. And since you've yet to address directly the issue I raised about David's census, I'll ask it a different way (and PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE answer this question directly, without further evasion): Who incited David to conduct the census for which God ultimately gave him three punishment choices, famine, enemies, or plague? Please quote the Scripture text upon which you base your answer.

Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus

@Bill_Coley In my previous post, I asked you yet other questions that you chose to avoid. Here they are again:

My previous reply draft (& this one) received CD message about too many characters so shortened some comments so could post reply.

@Bill_Coley 1. So that my "inability to express (your) claims in a way that agrees with (your) intended meaning" doesn't get in the way: What did you mean when you said,

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus If idea about Psalm 20 being written after David's lifetime is correct, then Scripture title is a lie (not consistent with יהוה truth)

Holy יהוה does not lie, truth is consistent. Living & learning Hebrew Psalm title can be Attribution OR Dedication (same Hebrew preposition):

Nearly all the Hebrew psalms have a title which gives the name of the person to whom it is attributed or to whom it is dedicated, either “by” or “for” (the Hebrew le may mean either. Often there is information about the type of composition and also a musical direction, and sometimes there is a brief statement of the circumstances under which the psalm was composed. There are thirty-four so-called “orphan psalms,” which have no title; in the Septuagint only seventeen psalms lack a title.

a. Authorship. David appears as the author of seventy-three psalms. Others who are cited as writers of the psalms are: Moses (Psa 90); Solomon (Psa 72; 127); Asaph (Psa 50; 73–83); the group of Korah (Psa 42–49; 84; 85; 87; 88); Heman the Ezrahite (Psa 88); and Ethan the Ezrahite (Psa 89). It is to be noticed that Psalm 88 is attributed to the group of Korah and to Heman. There is no certainty about the precise meaning of “Jeduthun,” which appears in rsv as a proper name in the titles of Psalms 39, 62, and 77.

There is much difference of opinion about how certain we can be that the people to whom the psalms are attributed actually did compose them. The translator, however, is bound to include this information, since it is part of the final form in which the psalms were accorded canonical status (see section 6, below).

 Robert G. Bratcher and William David Reyburn, A Translator’s Handbook on the Book of Psalms, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1991), 9–10.

Hebrew text for Psalm 20:title includes מִזְמ֥וֹר לְדָוִֽד׃ A psalm of David. (OR A psalm for David). Textual apparatus/criticism about Psalm 20:title does not have any questionable wording, which included Septuagint translation critical apparatus. Logos Bible Software Basic Search in Resources Lang:English -Type:Bible for title WITHIN 11 WORDS (psalm OR <ps>) WITHIN 16 WORDS (author OR authorship OR attributed) WITHIN 32 WORDS composed results included: (took nearly an hour to search my library)

CRITICISM AND DAVIDIC AUTHORSHIP

Critics have offered a number of arguments to contradict the biblical claim that David wrote psalms. Their arguments and the refutation offered by Archer are summarized below.

1. Psalms attributed to David speak of the king in the third person rather than the first person (e.g., Ps 20, 21 etc.). Answer: A number of ancient writers (e.g., Xenophon, Julius Caesar) referred to themselves in the third person. First-person speeches attributed to Yahweh in the Old Testament frequently shift from first to third person.

2. Psalms attributed to David speak of the sanctuary as already standing (e.g., Ps 5, 27, etc.) when in fact the temple was not constructed until after David was dead. Answer: The terminology “temple,” “house of Yahweh,” and the like are used of the tabernacle long before the time of David (Josh 6:24; Judg 18:31; 1 Sam 1:9). Furthermore, David sometimes uses terminology like “booth” and “tent” (Ps 27). Such language would not be appropriate for Solomon’s temple.

3. The psalms attributed to David reflect the influence of the Aramaic language, hence must come from the later period when Aramaic was the international language. Answer: The biblical text indicates that David had extensive contact with the Aramean states. Furthermore, even the Ras Shamra (Ugaritic) texts which are earlier than David, reflect the influence of the Aramaic language. Thus the presence of Aramaic influence in a psalm cannot disqualify David as the author.

4. David would not have the time nor the inclination to compose poetry. Answer: The psalm titles, and the historical and prophetic books testify to the importance of music and poetry in the career of David. Indeed he was called “the sweet psalmist of Israel” (2 Sam 23:1).

Psalm 18 is a virtual duplicate of David’s Song of Thanksgiving when he had been delivered from all his enemies (2 Sam 22:2–51). Kirkpatrick comments on the creative genius reflected in this composition. He then remarks: “If such a Psalm could have been written by David, so might many others.”

Davidic authorship of many psalms is confirmed by New Testament usage. Some of those psalms which are anonymous in the Psalter are specifically attributed to him. In no case, however, is any psalm attributed to David in the New Testament which the Hebrew title attributes to another writer. Some argue that “David” was simply the name assigned to the Book of Psalms in New Testament times. A survey of New Testament usage, however, indicates that both Jesus and his disciples assumed without question that David was the personal author of many of the psalms. Sometimes the very argument which is being made depends on Davidic authorship (cf. Matt 22:45).

 James E. Smith, The Wisdom Literature and Psalms, Old Testament Survey Series (Joplin, MO: College Press Pub. Co., 1996), 190–191.

Still am not aware of any verifiable evidence about "the Dating of the Psalms" not according with traditional Jewish opinion about Davidic authorship and editorial gathering (documented in several extra-biblical sources).

@Bill_Coley 2. And since you've yet to address directly the issue I raised about David's census, I'll ask it a different way : Who incited David to conduct the census for which God ultimately gave him three punishment choices, famine, enemies, or plague? Please quote the Scripture text upon which you base your answer.

Puzzled by idea assertion 'since you've yet to address directly the issue I raised about David's census' as have succinctly answered twice previously.

Jewish authors of 2 Samuel 24:1-25 and 1 Chronicles 21:1-17 provided different points of view, consistent with Job 1:6-2:6 interaction between יהוה Yahweh and Satan: accusation (Satan's repeated accusations aggravated Holy יהוה righteous angry with Israel), authorization (by Holy יהוה for census to be done), activity (by Holy יהוה & Satan to incite/urge David many times about census), repentance (by David), punishment options (from Holy יהוה), merciful choice (by David). Prayerfully pondering nature of Holy יהוה & Satan provided insight for census being sinful: Holy Righteous Truthful nature of יהוה includes Love, Joy, Peace, Patience (Perserverance), Kindness (Gentleness), Goodness, Faithfulness, Humility, Self-Control while free will of our spiritual adversary wants to pridefully assert self (wants to be worshipped) above יהוה. Imperative (command) from Holy יהוה to David: "Go Count" was action needed for Holy discipline of Israel & Judah. Repeated prideful (selfish) urging by our spiritual adversary, Satan, provided sinful motivation for census. Joab recognized prideful "I" reason in David for census (Joab's pride had resulted in murder so log in Joab's eye saw speck in David's). Yet King David pridefully chose to proceed with census. Our spiritual adversary, the Father of Lies, has lots of experience in repeatedly provoking human beings with prideful (selfish) thoughts, resulting in sin action choices (even when humanly know action is sinful that displeases Holy יהוה). Humanly not know if Holy יהוה needed to remove/reduce Holy protection in/around King David to allow our spiritual adversary's prideful thought prodding to be chosen for sinful census action (remembering King David's earlier sinful choices with Bathsheba). Thankful Holy יהוה Righteous Love is greater than spiritual lies with Holy יהוה salvation from sin (Holy יהוה Yeshua). Thankful for Romans 7 (wretched man: reminds me of me) followed by Romans 8 (now no condemnation for those who are in Holy יהוה Yeshua HaMoshiach).

2 Samuel 24:1 (LEB + kind) "Again (Hif'el imperfect) Yahweh was angry (infinitive construct) with Israel, and he incited (Hif'el imperfect) David against them, saying (infinitive construct), “Go (imperative) count (imperative) Israel and Judah.”" => causing/declaring repetition (Hif'el imperfect) of יהוה to be angry (infinitive construct) with Israel. יהוה incited repeatedly causing/declaring (Hif'el imperfect) David against them, to say (infinitive construct) command (imperative) "Go count Israel and Judah."

1 Chronicles 21:1 (LEB + kind) "Then Satan stood (imperfect) against Israel and urged (imperfect) David to count Israel." => Then stood Satan's repeated accusations (imperfect) against Israel and repetitious urgings (imperfect) for David to count Israel.

Contextual words in 2 Samuel 24:1-25 and 1 Chronicles 21:1-17 provide chronological sequencing of events as Hebrew verbs lack time of action.

Reading 16 Mar 2021 reply found a number of your questions already answered in my 15 Mar 2021 reply (seems ideas & questions written quickly followed by posting without redacting any questions having my answer). Honestly writing question content responses (within my faith belief frame of reference seeking Holy יהוה consistent truth in Scripture). My apologies if this reply missed any question(s).

Question wording "What does the text itself actually say?" implies Scripture passage is the unnamed authority. My question names my authority: What is original Holy יהוה truth in original context ? includes Jewish cultural insights with truthful consistency in overall Holy יהוה Love story. Thankful Holy יהוה Truth is a treasure hunt where sparkling gems are revealed in Holy יהוה perfect timing. Thankful to be living & learning with desire intensifying to Be Holy as יהוה is Holy, includes Righteous Love  😍 (human challenge: bring ALL my thoughts captive to glorify Holy יהוה)

My original language learning goal is understanding what's lacking in English translations: English is not Greek nor Hebrew, particularly in verbal action. Comparing English translations provides original language range of meaning insights while lacking nuanced verbal action intensity.

Researching questions is helping me, especially Hebrew exegetical insights. Thankfully building Morphology Visual Filters for Logos Bible Software so can "see" Hebrew range of verbal expression in Lexham Hebrew Bible (LHB) and any Bible having reverse interlinear alignment with LHB, e.g. Lexham English Bible (LEB), New Living Translation (NLT), ... Thankful for free sharing of Visual Filters, which enables others to copy & use.

Thankful for The Biblical Hebrew Companion for Bible Software Users: Grammatical Terms Explained for Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015) having 54 Biblical Hebrew exegetical examples (skipping/skimming over "What it looks like" sections since Logos Bible Software already has Hebrew & Aramaic spelling analyzed with morphological tagging). Highly recommended reading for use with Logos Morphology Visual Filters.

Thankful for "The Israel Bible Daily Inspirations" (Israel365, 2018), ISBN 9781732572713, which has Hebrew verse with transliteration on next line showing acCENted syllabLES. Hebrew word formation, acCENting, and reading direction are different than English. Transliteration is helping me see Hebrew vowel points (& three consonants functioning as vowels) in some words (humanly not yet understand vocaliZAtion pattern when acCENT tends to be the LAST syllabLE or next to the LAST). FWIW: Yahweh leaves out the vowel of the acCENted middle sylLABle. Thinking about acCENted Yahweh causes me to pause for HoLIness Worship & Praise, which helps me appreciate reason for Jewish Synagogue reading of Scripture saying אדני Adonai (Lord) instead of correctly pronouncing Holy יהוה (allows Scripture reading without HoLIness pausing).

Masculine exegetical insight is in Proverbs 6:19 where LEB "a false witness who breathes lies and sends out discord between brothers." literally translates ending masculine plural, brothers, so English readers need to know Hebrew uses masculine group for mixture of grammatical genders. NLT has "a false witness who pours out lies, a person who sows discord in a family." interpreting masculine group as family. Am reminded of majestic plural for three voices (plural) unified in One יהוה (plus provides ongoing insight for Greek New Covenant "men" & "brothers" usage).

Reflexive kind of action illustration is Greek middle voice that English does not have, where the subject participates in action with action effect reflexively in/on the subject: e.g. Philippians 4:8 (LEB + kind) Finally, brothers, whatever things are (present tense = continous action in present time) true, whatever things are honorable, whatever things are right, whatever things are pure, whatever things are pleasing, whatever things are commendable, if there is any excellence of character and if anything praiseworthy, think (imperative reflexive present tense) about these things.

Thankful for a Bible study inside prison where one of the "residents" commented about "true, honorable, right, pure, pleasing, commendable, excellence of character, praiseworthy" being attrbutes of Holy יהוה. Thinking (Focusing thoughts) about Holy יהוה often results in actions glorifying Holy יהוה followed by reflecting about Holy יהוה will being done by our actions reflexively affects thinking & thoughts. Present tense imperative could be expressed in English using commanding tone of voice as: "Be thinking about ..." or "Be focusing thoughts about ...". (with earlier command in Philippians 4:4 to "Always Be Rejoicing in יהוה Lord). Jewish author, Apostle Paul, wrote "brothers" in Philippians 4:8 as an inclusive group term for every human being who is choosing to Love Holy יהוה first: יהוה Lord Father, יהוה Lord Jesus Christ, יהוה Lord Breath the Holy

Psalm 2 (LEB + kind) Why are nations in (complete) tumult, and countries plotting (incomplete) in vain? The kings of the earth establish (incomplete reflexive) themselves, and the rulers conspire (complete reflexive) together against יהוה Yahweh and his anointed: “Let us (incomplete causative) tear off their bonds, and cast (incomplete causitive) their cords from us!” He who sits (participle) enthroned in the heavens laughs (incomplete). The אדני Lord derides (incomplete) them. Then he speaks (incomplete causitive) to them in his wrath, and in his fury he terrifies (incomplete causitive) them: “But as for me, I have set (complete) my king on Zion, my holy mountain.” I will tell (incomplete causitive) the decree; יהוה Yahweh said (complete) to me: “You are my son; today I have begotten (complete) you. Ask (imperative) from me and I will make (incomplete) the nations your heritage, and your possession the ends of the earth. You will break (incomplete) them with an iron rod. Like a potter’s vessel you will shatter (incomplete causitive) them.” So then, O kings, be wise (imperative causitive). Be warned, O rulers (participle) of the earth. Serve (imperative) יהוה Yahweh with fear, and rejoice (imperative) with trembling. Kiss (imperative causitive) the Son lest he be angry (incomplete) and you perish (incomplete) on the way, for his anger burns (incomplete) quickly. Blessed are all who (participle) take refuge in him.

Hebrew perfect verb conjugation expresses complete action when done while not having any time aspect (can be past, present, and/or future). Psalm 2:6 “But as for me, I have set (complete) my king on Zion, my holy mountain.” includes translator(s) past time belief. Jewish Publication Society 1917 Tanakh has English perfect tense: ‘Truly it is I that have established My king upon Zion, My holy mountain.’ that is consistent with Exodus 15:18 (LEB + kind) יהוה Yahweh will reign (incomplete) as king forever and ever.” (Torah => Jewish Blessing: 'our God King of the Universe')

Hebrew imperfect verb conjugation expresses incomplete action while not having any time aspect (can be past, present, and/or future). Psalm 2:7 I will tell (incomplete causitive) the decree; Yahweh said (complete) to me: “You are my son; today I have begotten (complete) you.

Current Jewish year is 5781, which may be missing 165 years. Jewish year counting has creation ending year 1 with Adam & Eve creation on the first day of year 2. Knowing one day is as a thousand years to Holy יהוה who created time, this earth is approaching an age of six "days" where the seventh "day" could be 1,000 year reign of Holy יהוה Jesus as King Righteousness on earth. My prayerful understanding of Psalm 2:6 complete verb action set my King (Holy יהוה The Word) happened ~3,000 years earlier during Holy יהוה creation of Holy mountain while Psalm 2:7 complete verb action happened ~1,000 years later as Holy יהוה The Word left Holy Heaven throne to be hosted in a male human body for dwelling among human beings. Psalm 2:7 incomplete causitive verb action of telling/announcing (speaker's volotional cause) the decree later included voice of Holy יהוה Lord Father speaking from Heaven to identity Holy יהוה Lord Jesus as "My Son" so Psalm 2:7 provides how to identify יהוה anointed king in Psalm 2.

Current example of 'The kings of the earth establish (incomplete reflexive) themselves' is worldwide health organizations promoting a 'vaccine' that contains human cell changers to keep making infectious spike protein(s) for immune system reaction, which is different than previous vaccines having a weakened/dead disease sample for human body immune system reaction creating anti-bodies to guard against subsequent disease infection. The name coronavirus means crown virus (COVID), which reminds me of kings/rulers as many monarchs set crowns on their heads.

2 Peter 1:16-21 (LEB + יהוה) For we did not make known to you the power and coming of our יהוה Lord Jesus Christ by following ingeniously concocted myths, but by being eyewitnesses of that one’s majesty. For he received honor and glory from יהוה God the Father when a voice such as this was brought to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” And we ourselves heard this voice brought from heaven when we were with him on the holy mountain, and we possess as more reliable the prophetic word, to which you do well if you pay attention to it as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, recognizing this above all, that every prophecy of scripture does not come about from one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men carried along by the יהוה Holy Spirit spoke from יהוה God.

True prophets of Holy יהוה Lord say/write what Holy יהוה Lord wants said/written (per Holy יהוה Lord perfect will), may be a mystery to prophets & original audiences: e.g. Daniel 12:8-13 & Matthew 24:36-44 & Mark 13:32-37 Currently still do not know the date & time of Holy יהוה Lord Jesus return to earth. Interpretation of Holy יהוה Lord prophecy needs Holy יהוה Lord wisdom (does not come from human being's own interpretation).

True prophets of Holy יהוה Lord say/write what Holy יהוה Lord wants said/written (per Holy יהוה Lord perfect will), which may have immediate fulfillment: e.g. Korah's rebellion in Numbers 16:1-40, during the prophet's days: e.g. Hananiah, the False Prophet in Jeremiah 28:1-7, or in the future: e.g. The Righteous Branch in Jeremiah 23:5-6 (LEB + kind) “Look, days are coming (participle),” declares יהוה Yahweh, “when I will raise (complete causitive) up for David a righteous branch, and he will reign (complete) as king, and he will achieve success (complete causitive), and he will do (complete) justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved (incomplete reflexive), and Israel will dwell (incomplete) in safety, and this is his name by which he will be called (incomplete): יהוה צדקנו ‘Yahweh is our righteousness.’

A true aspect of Holy יהוה Lord Righteous Justice being complete is no higher authority for appeal. Thankful for Holy יהוה Lord being the one who causes scripture text to jump out: sparkling gem(s) and/or loving discipline for personal growth, which may result in human being choices (after death is no opportunity to choose different beliefs/actions). Every human being chooses what to really, really, really love most: self OR Holy יהוה that has eternal placement: hateful torments (away from Holy יהוה Love) OR Righteous worship of Holy יהוה Lord God that has no more suffering.

Phrase "That's NOT what text says" expresses dismissive judgment, especially when nothing offered for further idea discussion: e.g. Scripture, verifiable evidence. Thankful for my interaction with "How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth" by Fee & Stuart many years ago with ongoing lesson learned to know Scripture context: word, sentence, paragraph, larger unit (as many interpretation issues lack credibility in meaningful context appropriate for Scripture genre). Hence my ongoing preference for paragraph snippets of Scripture, especially knowing chapter & verse numbering are relatively recent additions, which has disruptive placement into original author's thoughtful expression. For example, Philippians 4:5 is in the middle of a Greek sentence. Disappointed by quotes of Philippians 4:6-7 "Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to יהוה God. And the peace of יהוה God that surpasses all understanding will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus." that leaves out "The יהוה Lord is near" reason for not being anxious about anything.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus How does Proverbs 16:18 'haughty of spirit' compare with Matthew 5:3 'poor in spirit' ? Is the Kingdom of Heaven for the 'haughty of spirit' ?

@Bill_Coley Haughtiness of spirit is IN NO WAY akin to the poverty of spirit to which Jesus refers in the beatitudes.

We agree. Thankful for "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see יהוה God." Looking forward to seeing Holy יהוה Lord God face to face 😍 (after being on my knees to worship Holy יהוה Lord God)

@Bill_Coley Pride is among the most frequently decried sins in the Bible, so no, the Kingdom is not for the "haughty of spirit.". . . But it might be for those who "concoct" "myths" more "ingeniously" than most!... at least that's what I'm banking on.

If Jesus is truly Holy יהוה Lord King Righteousness, might Jesus & Holy יהוה Lord Father be Righteously angry with one teaching ingenious myths ?

Primary CD thread purpose is Holy יהוה Lord The Word Jesus encounters, whose Righteous Judgment is True. After reading "23 Minutes in Hell" by Bill Wiese, I have no desire for anyone to experience eternal torment away from Holy יהוה Love (while not liking human sin choices, especially my own). Thankful for many idea discussions so have experienced encounters with Holy יהוה Lord Jesus & Holy יהוה Lord Father 😍 Thankful for numerous prayers 🙏 (beyond my human counting) with Holy יהוה Lord Breath the Holy for CD participants & many other people. Thankful for Holy יהוה Lord God answering various prayers 😍 (certain Holy יהוה Lord God has heard the prayers, but humanly do not know what will happen)

2 Timothy 2:22-26 (LEB) But flee from youthful desires, and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, in company with those who call upon the יהוה Lord from a pure heart. But avoid foolish and uninformed controversies, because you know that they produce quarrels. And the slave of the יהוה Lord must not quarrel, but be kind toward everyone, skillful in teaching, tolerant, correcting those who are opposed with gentleness, seeing whether perhaps יהוה God may grant them repentance to a knowledge of the truth, and they will come to their senses again and escape from the trap of the devil, being held captive by him to do his will.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Reminder of 2 Timothy 2:22-26 (LEB) included for me motivation for ongoing CD idea discussions as Holy יהוה faithfully loves us (while hating our sins). Also reminded me about skillful teaching, which includes sharing Scripture & verifiable evidence while being kind and using gentle words.

@Bill_Coley And you chose to implement your commitment to kindness and the use of "gentle words" in your CD idea discussions by calling to my attention an off-topic NT passage the target of whose actions are people who need "repentance to a knowledge of truth," and to "come to their senses" so that they can escape "the trap of the devil."

Thankful for S.O.A.P. => Scripture (Where ?) Observe (What jumps out ?) Apply (What to do ?) Pray 🙏  Thankful for Holy יהוה Lord God being the One who causes Scripture text to jump out. Thankful for many יהוה HoLIness pauses for worship & prayer 🙏 while composing this reply 😍



Keep Smiling 😊

[Deleted User]

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus wrote:

My previous reply draft (& this one) received CD message about too many characters so shortened some comments so could post reply.

Not only your "previous message" had too many characters .... just about all your posts are far too long for a forum platform to be an effective communication. .... in order for others to keep 😊 you'd be well advised to shorten any messages and replies.

Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus wrote:

My previous reply draft (& this one) received CD message about too many characters so shortened some comments so could post reply.

@Wolfgang Not only your "previous message" had too many characters .... just about all your posts are far too long for a forum platform to be an effective communication. .... in order for others to keep 😊 you'd be well advised to shorten any messages and replies.

Puzzling CD forum advice so reviewed What is Christian Debate? Thankful for respectful Theological idea discussions using loving and kind words.

Thankful for silent confirmation about my language understanding/analysis ideas being factually correct. Caveat: my belief ideas resulting from literal language singular & plural word usage inspired by Holy יהוה Lord God appear 'irrational, illogical and nonsense' to a different belief idea frame of reference. To me, belief idea 'irrational, illogical and nonsense' implies Holy יהוה Lord God inspired plural word mistakes (puzzling).

Noticed my February 14 reply to your previous reply on February 14 included a Biblical idea question for you:

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Curious if Genesis 1:26 in your favorite English Bible has: 'Then God said, “Let me make man in my image, after my likeness.' ? If not, what is 'us' & 'our' plural in one singular God ?

Genesis 1:26-27 (LEB + kind) And God (plural) said (incomplete singular), “Let us make (incomplete plural) humankind in our image and according to our likeness, and let them rule (imperative plural) over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of heaven, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every moving thing that moves (participle singular) upon the earth.” So God created (incomplete singular) humankind in his image, in the likeness of God he created (complete singular) him, male and female he created (complete singular) them.

Genesis 1:26-27 (LXX + kind) καὶ εἶπεν (aorist indicative singular for Qal imperfect singular) ὁ θεός (singular) Ποιήσωμεν (aorist subjunctive plural for Qal imperfect plural: make) ἄνθρωπον κατʼ εἰκόνα ἡμετέραν καὶ καθʼ ὁμοίωσιν· καὶ ἀρχέτωσαν (present imperative plural for Qal imperfect Jussive plural) τῶν ἰχθύων τῆς θαλάσσης καὶ τῶν πετεινῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῶν κτηνῶν καὶ πάσης τῆς γῆς καὶ πάντων τῶν ἑρπετῶν τῶν ἑρπόντων (present participle plural for Qal participle singular) ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. καὶ ἐποίησεν (aorist indicative singular for Qal imperfect singular) ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον, κατʼ εἰκόνα θεοῦ ἐποίησεν (aorist indicative singular for Qal perfect singular) αὐτόν· ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν (aorist indicative singular for Qal perfect singular) αὐτούς.

Living & learning that "let us make humankind" in Genesis 1:26 is incomplete verbal action: composed of complete action creating male plus complete action creating female. Genesis 2:15-25 expands on verbal action expressed in Genesis 1:26-27 that includes Adam (created male) naming every beast and bird before God fashioned female from one of Adam's bones. Also noticed singular & plural being a bit different between Hebrew (LEB has Reverse Interlinear alignment with Lexham Hebrew Bible) and Septuagint (LXX) translation over a century before birth of Jesus.

Thankful can bend my knees while praying  🙏 Ephesians 3:41-21 (LEB) On account of this, I bend my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, that he may grant you according to the riches of his glory to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in the inner person, that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith (you having been firmly rooted and established in love), in order that you may be strong enough to grasp together with all the saints what is the breadth, and length, and height, and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, in order that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God. Now to the one who is able to do beyond all measure more than all that we ask or think, according to the power that is at work in us, to him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen.

Thankful for Holy יהוה Lord God Righteous Loving presence being beyond my ability to describe using human words. Thankful Holy יהוה Lord God is Unique, who has three distinct voices: Holy יהוה Lord Father (The Will) & Holy יהוה Lord Jesus (The Word) & Holy יהוה Lord Breath the Holy. In contrast, created human beings have one voice with physical limitation of occupying one place at a time. Uniqueness of One God includes spiritually ruling in Holy Heaven (Holy יהוה Lord Father) while simultaneously having one human physical body host Holy יהוה Lord Jesus (The Word spiritual portion in One God).

Keep Smiling 😊

Bill_Coley

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus posted:

Holy יהוה does not lie, truth is consistent.

We agree. I don't contend that anyone "lied" when it came to the attribution of the psalms' authors. Conformance with the literary conventions of the ancient day, in my view, does not qualify as lying.

"There is much difference of opinion about how certain we can be that the people to whom the psalms are attributed actually did compose them...."

The first resource you quoted seems only to say that translators must note the presence of introductions such as "A Psalm of David" because they're in the text. I agree. I also agree with the resource that there is a difference of opinion as to whether David wrote any/some/all of the Psalms. I respect but disagree with the arguments made by the second resource your quoted.

Still am not aware of any verifiable evidence about "the Dating of the Psalms" not according with traditional Jewish opinion about Davidic authorship and editorial gathering (documented in several extra-biblical sources).

I doubt that resources which focus on "traditional Jewish opinion about Davidic authorship and editorial gathering" will give much if any credence to the proposition that people other than David wrote the Psalms.

I have neither the time nor the patience to compile a bibliography on the matter. We simply disagree.

Imperative (command) from Holy יהוה to David: "Go Count" was action needed for Holy discipline of Israel & Judah. Repeated prideful (selfish) urging by our spiritual adversary, Satan, provided sinful motivation for census. Joab recognized prideful "I" reason in David for census (Joab's pride had resulted in murder so log in Joab's eye saw speck in David's). Yet King David pridefully chose to proceed with census.

You SEEM to be saying that God and Satan co-incited David to conduct the census - God, because God needed justification to punish/discipline Israel and Judah; and Satan, to add a sinful motive to David's decision to conduct the census.

• Neither text about the census proffers such a division of responsibility for the incitement. One says God incited David, the other says Satan incited David. There is no partnership such as exists in the opening chapters of Job. But how do we know such a partnership exists in Job? The text tells us! There is no such partnership - no hint of such a partnership - in 2 Samuel 24 or 1 Chronicles 21.
• I read your interpretation of the census story to mean you believe God set up Israel and Judah for punishment: God said, "I need a reason to discipline those people, so I will direct David to do something that, with Satan's help, he will do for the wrong reason." David took the bait, and God had cause to discipline the people... to the tune of 70,000 killed by a pestilence.
• What happened to God's counsel through Moses found at Deuteronomy 24.16? “Parents must not be put to death for the sins of their children, nor children for the sins of their parents. Those deserving to die must be put to death for their own crimes" If, as both relevant texts claim, because David conducted a census, God caused a pestilence that killed 70,000, did God violate Deuteronomy 24.16? If not, for whose sin(s) do the relevant texts say those 70,000 people died? (David makes a related point in 2 Samuel 24.17 and 1 Chronicles 21.17, but the texts don't report a response from God.)

Hebrew perfect verb conjugation expresses complete action when done while not having any time aspect (can be past, present, and/or future). Psalm 2:6 “But as for me, I have set (complete) my king on Zion, my holy mountain.” includes translator(s) past time belief. Jewish Publication Society 1917 Tanakh has English perfect tense: ‘Truly it is I that have established My king upon Zion, My holy mountain.’ that is consistent with Exodus 15:18 (LEB + kind) יהוה Yahweh will reign (incomplete) as king forever and ever.” (Torah => Jewish Blessing: 'our God King of the Universe')

Your excursus into linguistics and grammatical constructions is admirable, but too long and multi-dimensional for my consumption. To my undeveloped senses, your argument here is flexible enough to cover all possible counterarguments with the simple retort: Biblical Hebrew doesn't express time frames, so when a text says God "has done" something it's the same as if God had said "I will do it." In my view, that's an all-purpose rhetorical escape hatch to which there is no productive reason to reply. We disagree.

Phrase "That's NOT what text says" expresses dismissive judgment, especially when nothing offered for further idea discussion: e.g. Scripture, verifiable evidence.

"That's NOT what the text says" expresses my assessment/judgment on the accuracy of your interpretation of a text. There are countless things texts don't say. If you believe that a text indeed DOES say what you say it says, your most helpful response, in my view, would be to quote from the text its portions that say what you claim it says. You basically never do that because... the texts I claim don't say what you say they say basically never say what you claim they say.

We agree. Thankful for "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see יהוה God." Looking forward to seeing Holy יהוה Lord God face to face 😍 (after being on my knees to worship Holy יהוה Lord God)

How was your question about haughtiness of spirit and the Kingdom at all germane to our discussion of the deity of Christ?

If Jesus is truly Holy יהוה Lord King Righteousness, might Jesus & Holy יהוה Lord Father be Righteously angry with one teaching ingenious myths ?

I believe you missed the sarcasm of my claims about the ingenuity of my myth-making.

Thankful for S.O.A.P. => Scripture (Where ?) Observe (What jumps out ?) Apply (What to do ?) Pray 🙏 Thankful for Holy יהוה Lord God being the One who causes Scripture text to jump out. Thankful for many יהוה HoLIness pauses for worship & prayer 🙏 while composing this reply

Perhaps you can explain how a passage about people who need "repentance to a knowledge of truth," and to "come to their senses" so that they can escape "the trap of the devil" "jump(ed) out" at you in a discussion of our respective understandings of the deity of Christ in forums whose expectations call for participants to "criticize ideas, not people."

Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Holy יהוה does not lie, truth is consistent.

@Bill_Coley We agree. I don't contend that anyone "lied" when it came to the attribution of the psalms' authors. Conformance with the literary conventions of the ancient day, in my view, does not qualify as lying.

We agree Holy יהוה Lord God does not lie, truth is consistent. We disagree about idea of conformance with literary conventions for Psalm titles.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Still am not aware of any verifiable evidence about "the Dating of the Psalms" not according with traditional Jewish opinion about Davidic authorship and editorial gathering (documented in several extra-biblical sources).

@Bill_Coley I doubt that resources which focus on "traditional Jewish opinion about Davidic authorship and editorial gathering" will give much if any credence to the proposition that people other than David wrote the Psalms.

@Bill_Coley I have neither the time nor the patience to compile a bibliography on the matter. We simply disagree.

Deuteronomy 19:15 (LEB) The testimony of a single witness may not be used to convict with respect to any crime and for any wrongdoing in any offense that a person committed; on the evidence of two witnesses or on the evidence of three witnesses a charge shall be sustained.

Without two or three verifiable witnesses, idea "the Dating of the Psalms" simply lacks credibility (still not know of any factual evidence about any Psalm not written by/for anyone named in Psalm title). To me, a bibliography can have many entries, but my current bibliography for idea "the Dating of the Psalms" simply has nothing (puzzled by evasive rationale, which implies not one verifiable factual witness found).

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Imperative (command) from Holy יהוה to David: "Go Count" was action needed for Holy discipline of Israel & Judah. Repeated prideful (selfish) urging by our spiritual adversary, Satan, provided sinful motivation for census. Joab recognized prideful "I" reason in David for census (Joab's pride had resulted in murder so log in Joab's eye saw speck in David's). Yet King David pridefully chose to proceed with census.

@Bill_Coley You SEEM to be saying that God and Satan co-incited David to conduct the census - God, because God needed justification to punish/discipline Israel and Judah; and Satan, to add a sinful motive to David's decision to conduct the census.

@Bill_Coley * Neither text about the census proffers such a division of responsibility for the incitement. One says God incited David, the other says Satan incited David. There is no partnership such as exists in the opening chapters of Job. But how do we know such a partnership exists in Job? The text tells us! There is no such partnership - no hint of such a partnership - in 2 Samuel 24 or 1 Chronicles 21.

If story of Job was well known to Jewish authors of Samuel & Chronicles + original Jewish audience, then incitement interaction repeat not needed.

@Bill_Coley * I read your interpretation of the census story to mean you believe God set up Israel and Judah for punishment: God said, "I need a reason to discipline those people, so I will direct David to do something that, with Satan's help, he will do for the wrong reason." David took the bait, and God had cause to discipline the people... to the tune of 70,000 killed by a pestilence.

Concur (humanly wonder what many individuals in Israel had chosen to do many times (incomplete action) to anger Holy יהוה Lord God again)

@Bill_Coley * What happened to God's counsel through Moses found at Deuteronomy 24.16? “Parents must not be put to death for the sins of their children, nor children for the sins of their parents. Those deserving to die must be put to death for their own crimes" If, as both relevant texts claim, because David conducted a census, God caused a pestilence that killed 70,000, did God violate Deuteronomy 24.16? If not, for whose sin(s) do the relevant texts say those 70,000 people died? (David makes a related point in 2 Samuel 24.17 and 1 Chronicles 21.17,  but the texts don't report a response from God.)

Thankful for Righteous judgment by Holy יהוה Lord God while humanly not knowing relationship of pestilence deaths (by angel from Holy יהוה Lord God) & individual sinful choices. Personally believe complete truthful conformance with Deuteronomy 24:16 & Ezekiel 18.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Hebrew perfect verb conjugation expresses complete action when done while not having any time aspect (can be past, present, and/or future). Psalm 2:6 “But as for me, I have set (complete) my king on Zion, my holy mountain.” includes translator(s) past time belief. Jewish Publication Society 1917 Tanakh has English perfect tense: ‘Truly it is I that have established My king upon Zion, My holy mountain.’ that is consistent with Exodus 15:18 (LEB + kind) יהוה Yahweh will reign (incomplete) as king forever and ever.” (Torah => Jewish Blessing: 'our God King of the Universe')

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Hebrew imperfect verb conjugation expresses incomplete action while not having any time aspect (can be past, present, and/or future). Psalm 2:7 I will tell (incomplete causitive) the decree; Yahweh said (complete) to me: “You are my son; today I have begotten (complete) you.

@Bill_Coley Your excursus into linguistics and grammatical constructions is admirable, but too long and multi-dimensional for my consumption. To my undeveloped senses, your argument here is flexible enough to cover all possible counterarguments with the simple retort: Biblical Hebrew doesn't express time frames, so when a text says God "has done" something it's the same as if God had said "I will do it." In my view, that's an all-purpose rhetorical escape hatch to which there is no productive reason to reply. We disagree.

To me, idea "Biblical Hebrew ... We disagree." really expresses disagreement with Holy יהוה Lord God inspired wording in original languages.

Biblical Hebrew & Aramaic verbs lack time frame expression (past, present, and/or future) while contextual words can provide chronological context for verbal actions. To me, all translations of original language Holy יהוה Lord God inspired words fall a bit short of the original יהוה truth wording. Thankful to be learning Biblical Hebrew & Aramaic exegetical insights (along with comparing insights to various Hebrew & Aramaic grammars for language translation learning that helps me verify conceptual understanding). Thankful for Logos Bible Software visual filters so color highlighting with some inserted graphics allows me to "see" range of Hebrew & Aramaic verbal kinds of action in English & Hebrew (want to digest all 54 exegetical insights in The Biblical Hebrew Companion for Bible Software Users: Grammatical Terms Explained for Exegesis before publicly sharing my "Logos Aramaic Morphology - Verbs" and "Logos Hebrew Morphology - Verbs" visual filters for others to freely copy & use).

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Phrase "That's NOT what text says" expresses dismissive judgment, especially when nothing offered for further idea discussion: e.g. Scripture, verifiable evidence.

@Bill_Coley "That's NOT what the text says" expresses my assessment/judgment on the accuracy of your interpretation of a text. There are countless things texts don't say. If you believe that a text indeed DOES say what you say it says, your most helpful response, in my view, would be to quote from the text its portions that say what you claim it says. You basically never do that because... the texts I claim don't say what you say they say basically never say what you claim they say.

Concur phrase "That's NOT what text says" expresses judgment (dismissive from my view, but accurate according to your faith belief ideas). Puzzled by hypocritical guidance (remembering many disappointments from your previous replies where nothing was offered for respectful CD Theological idea discussion using kind and loving words). In contrast, my CD replies that received "That's NOT what text says" response typically quoted Scripture reason for my text view. Thankful Holy יהוה Lord God inspired words translated into English being better than my words (reason for me to quote Scripture text, especially as thread purpose includes Holy יהוה Lord God encounters).

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Without any verifiable evidence, idea "the dating of the Psalms" reads as an ingeniously concocted myth. Which is more important: Holy יהוה inspired truthful words OR 'extensive ... persuasive' comments written by human being(s) ?

@Bill_Coley It's a source of personal pride that my "myths" are more "ingeniously concocted" than just about anybody's.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus How does Proverbs 16:18 'haughty of spirit' compare with Matthew 5:3 'poor in spirit' ? Is the Kingdom of Heaven for the 'haughty of spirit' ?

@Bill_Coley Haughtiness of spirit is IN NO WAY akin to the poverty of spirit to which Jesus refers in the beatitudes.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus We agree. Thankful for "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see יהוה God." Looking forward to seeing Holy יהוה Lord God face to face 😍 (after being on my knees to worship Holy יהוה Lord God)

@Bill_Coley How was your question about haughtiness of spirit and the Kingdom at all germane to our discussion of the deity of Christ?

Disappointed by idea "the Dating of the Psalms" having no verifiable evidence provided by the one who wants idea to be respected as credible.

@Bill_Coley Pride is among the most frequently decried sins in the Bible, so no, the Kingdom is not for the "haughty of spirit.". . . But it might be for those who "concoct" "myths" more "ingeniously" than most!... at least that's what I'm banking on.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus If Jesus is truly Holy יהוה Lord King Righteousness, might Jesus & Holy יהוה Lord Father be Righteously angry with one teaching ingenious myths ?

@Bill_Coley I believe you missed the sarcasm of my claims about the ingenuity of my myth-making.

Publicly posted replies lacked sarcism indication: appeared consistent with faith belief ideas plus evaded question: Which is more important: Holy יהוה inspired truthful words OR 'extensive ... persuasive' comments written by human being(s) ?

@Bill_Coley As to what John means when he says "the Word was God," we've been down THAT road many times, on each of which I have acknowledged my lack of certainty about the meaning of what I call the pre-existence sayings found in John's Gospel. At this stage of my faith journey, I have concluded only that WHATEVER those sayings mean, their meaning must be consistent with the truth about Jesus' identity communicated in the rest of the New Testament. In my view, said truth is clearly that Jesus is not God, which means, again in my view, that the pre-existence sayings cannot mean Jesus is God. Were they to mean such, they would make a claim about Jesus that is directly contradicted by the vast majority of the NT. [NOTE: I accept and respect that you'll disagree with that claim. Please accept and respect it as my claim.]

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus [claim] reminds me of 2 Timothy 2:22-26 (LEB) But flee from youthful desires, and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, in company with those who call upon the יהוה Lord from a pure heart. But avoid foolish and uninformed controversies, because you know that they produce quarrels. And the slave of the יהוה Lord must not quarrel, but be kind toward everyone, skillful in teaching, tolerant, correcting those who are opposed with gentleness, seeing whether perhaps יהוה God may grant them repentance to a knowledge of the truth, and they will come to their senses again and escape from the trap of the devil, being held captive by him to do his will.

@Bill_Coley Another dismissive and passive-aggressive critique that at its core is about people - namely me - not ideas.

Apologies for me lacking insight for what words Holy יהוה Lord God causes to jump out, which were interpreted as dismissive critique in an online Theological discussion thread whose purpose includes Holy יהוה Lord God encounters (using loving and kind words for theology experience).

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Thankful for S.O.A.P. => Scripture (Where ?) Observe (What jumps out ?) Apply (What to do ?) Pray 🙏 Thankful for Holy יהוה Lord God being the One who causes Scripture text to jump out. Thankful for many יהוה HoLIness pauses for worship & prayer 🙏 while composing this reply

@Bill_Coley Perhaps you can explain how a passage about people who need "repentance to a knowledge of truth," and to "come to their senses" so that they can escape "the trap of the devil" "jump(ed) out" at you in a discussion of our respective understandings of the deity of Christ in forums whose expectations call for participants to "criticize ideas, not people."

Thankful for S.O.A.P. being easy to explain along with being amazed by Holy יהוה Lord God interaction (includes items for me to 🙏 Pray with Thanksgiving to Holy יהוה Lord God along with me asking what to think & do that pleases Holy יהוה Lord God: e.g. skillful teaching that includes sharing Scripture & verifiable evidence using kind and loving words, which are appropriate for respectful CD Theological idea discussions). Thankful for the Joy of Holy יהוה Lord God being my strength, which now includes Proverbs 25:20 awareness since Joy of Holy יהוה Lord God in me has been interpreted by ones with heavy hearts as singing songs (stings a lot, which was not my intent so my prayers include when to be silent). Thankful for 1 Thessalonians 5:11-26 having the most imperative verbs in one Scripture passage of the entire Greek New Covenant:

1 Thessalonians 5 (LEB + יהוה & imperative) Now concerning the times and the seasons, brothers, you have no need of anything to be written to you, for you yourselves well know that the day of the יהוה Lord is coming in the same way as a thief in the night. Whenever they say “Peace and security,” then sudden destruction will overtake them like the birth pains of a pregnant woman, and they will not possibly escape. But you, brothers, are not in the darkness, so that the day should catch you like a thief, for you are all sons of light and sons of day. We are not of the night nor of darkness. So then, we must not sleep like the rest, but must be on the alert and be self-controlled. For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk, are drunk at night. But because we are of the day, we must be sober, by putting on the breastplate of faith and love and as a helmet the hope of salvation, because יהוה God did not appoint us for wrath, but for the obtaining of salvation through our יהוה Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, so that whether we are awake or asleep, we will live at the same time with him. Therefore encourage one another and build up each other, just as indeed you are doing. Now we ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and rule over you in the יהוה Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them beyond all measure in love, because of their work. Be at peace among yourselves. And we urge you, brothers, admonish the disorderly, console the discouraged, help the sick, be patient toward all people. See to it that no one pays back evil for evil to anyone, but always pursue good toward one another and toward all people. Rejoice always, pray constantly, give thanks in everything; for this is the will of יהוה God for you in Christ Jesus. Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies, but examine all things; hold fast to what is good. Abstain from every form of evil. Now may the יהוה God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your spirit and soul and body be kept complete, blameless at the coming of our יהוה Lord Jesus Christ. The one who calls you is faithful, who also will do this. Brothers, pray for us. Greet all the brothers with a holy kiss. I adjure you by the Lord, have this letter read aloud to all the brothers. The grace of our יהוה Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

FWIW: during a News broadcast, description of front line workers becoming eligible for COVID 'vaccine' included "security" for their "peace" of mind so am anticipating sudden destruction soon.

Keep Smiling 😊

Bill_Coley

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus posted:

Without two or three verifiable witnesses, idea "the Dating of the Psalms" simply lacks credibility (still not know of any factual evidence about any Psalm not written by/for anyone named in Psalm title). To me, a bibliography can have many entries, but my current bibliography for idea "the Dating of the Psalms" simply has nothing (puzzled by evasive rationale, which implies not one verifiable factual witness found).

Here are two witnesses, though I doubt you will accept them as "verifiable":

-- (1) Personal Names. The superscriptions of seventy-three psalms mention David; others mention Jeduthun (Psalms 39; 62; 77; see 1 Chr 16:41–42; 25:1–8), Heman (Psalm 88; see 1 Kgs 4:31; 1 Chr 2:6; 6:17; 16:41–42; 25:1–8), Ethan (Psalm 89; see 1 Kgs 4:31; 1 Chr 2:6), Solomon (Psalms 72; 127), Moses (Psalm 90), the Korahites (Psalms 42; 44–49; 84–85; 87–88), and the Asaphites (Psalms 50; 73–83). While it is possible in some cases that these names indicate authorship (see above on the personal/historical method), it is more likely that they originated in the process of collection. David, for instance, was remembered as the initiator of psalmody in worship (see 1 Chr 16:7–43). To be sure, the chronicler wrote hundreds of years after the actual time of David, but the memory may be an ancient one. In any case, it is more likely that many psalms were attributed to David as a result of this memory rather than as a result of Davidic authorship. Similarly, the process of collection accounts for the association of thirteen psalms with specific moments in David’s life (see Psalms 3; 7; 18; 34; 51; 52; 54; 56; 57; 59; 60; 63; 142). These references should not be construed as historically accurate, but neither should they be dismissed as irrelevant. Rather, they provide an illustrative narrative context for hearing and interpreting particular psalms as well as a clue to the appropriateness of imagining narrative contexts for other psalms that do not contain superscriptions.

Mccann, J. C., Jr. (1994–2004). The Book of Psalms. In L. E. Keck (Ed.), New Interpreter’s Bible (Vol. 4, pp. 655–656). Nashville: Abingdon Press.

-- 4. Historical Interpretation. These approaches existed alongside historical interpretations, and one of the ‘senses’ which Scripture was believed to possess was the historical, even when greater value was placed upon the other interpretations. Attempts at providing historical occasions for the creation of the psalms, often in the life of David, can be seen in the headings of many of them. It is probable that these are not original but were added later (the LXX contains headings which are absent from the Heb., or additions to headings, in some forty-four psalms: e.g. Ps 70 (MT 71): ‘Of (by) David, of the sons of Jonadab, and of the first who were taken captive’, and Ps 143 (MT 144): ‘Of (by) David, concerning Goliath’). Some of the traditions found in these titles are echoed in the Mishnah (e.g. M. Tamid 7.4 sets out the seven psalms which ‘the levites used to sing in the Temple’ on each of the days of the week: Ps 24 (LXX ‘A psalm of (by) David on the first day of the week’); 48 (LXX ‘on the second day of the week’); 82; 94 (LXX ‘on the fourth day of the week’); 81 (the Old Latin has ‘fifth day of the week’); 93 (LXX ‘on the day before the sabbath when the earth was inhabited; praise of a song of David’); 92, where the MT has ‘A Song for the Sabbath Day’, showing that they are genuinely Jewish and not peculiar to the Old Greek version. When, according to Mark, Jesus quoted Ps 110 (Mk 12:36), both he and his hearers accepted that David had written the psalm and that its meaning was to be found in that context. The historical interpretation came to the forefront of psalm study from the time of the Enlightenment, and much modern study has been devoted to determining the date and authorship of individual psalms. Conservative scholars presented arguments for Davidic authorship, while liberal ones proposed a wide range of datings, some as late as the second century BCE.

Barton, J., & Muddiman, J. (Eds.). (2001). Oxford Bible Commentary (Job 42:1). New York: Oxford University Press.

By my desire not to compile a bibliography on the question of the authorship of the Psalms, I did not mean to imply that I could not find "one verifiable factual witness" to support my claims. You inferred that to be the case, but I did not imply it.

If story of Job was well known to Jewish authors of Samuel & Chronicles + original Jewish audience, then incitement interaction repeat not needed.

Here you present another argument to which there is no productive reason to respond. First, we have to assume that the story of Job was well known to those authors and their readers. THEN we have to assume that those two groups of people understood the significance and applicability of Job's story in the same way. AND FINALLY, we have to assume that the first two assumptions were in fact the reasons the authors chose not to mention the incitement interaction in their respective renderings of the story. What was that thing about reliance on an "unnamed authority" to which you have referred on multiple occasions in our exchanges?

@Bill_Coley * I read your interpretation of the census story to mean you believe God set up Israel and Judah for punishment: God said, "I need a reason to discipline those people, so I will direct David to do something that, with Satan's help, he will do for the wrong reason." David took the bait, and God had cause to discipline the people... to the tune of 70,000 killed by a pestilence.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Concur (humanly wonder what many individuals in Israel had chosen to do many times (incomplete action) to anger Holy יהוה Lord God again)

What matters for the question I asked is the fact that one story says God incited David to conduct the census, while the other story says Satan did the inciting. Neither story reports or even hints at a partnership between God and Satan.

Thankful for Righteous judgment by Holy יהוה Lord God while humanly not knowing relationship of pestilence deaths (by angel from Holy יהוה Lord God) & individual sinful choices. Personally believe complete truthful conformance with Deuteronomy 24:16 & Ezekiel 18.

I appreciate the candor of this response, but in my view, the texts make clear the origins - and the confusion - of the census:

• In 2 Samuel 24.1, God is "again... angry with Israel," and so "incite(s) David against them." After conducting the census, David feels guilt, confesses, asks forgiveness, and receives from God three options for action God will take against David ("Go and speak to David, ‘Thus says Yahweh, three things I am laying on you; choose for yourself one of them and I will do it to you.’ ” 2 Samuel 24.12, LEB). In 2 Samuel 24.17, David pleads for God's punishment to target him, not his people.
• In 1 Chronicles 21.1, Satan stands against Israel and urges David to conduct a census; the text contains no reference to or hint of divine anger against Israel. In the 1 Chronicles telling of the story, David confesses after God strikes Israel (1 Chronicles 21.7-8). As in the 2 Samuel 24 version, God plans action against David (1 Chronicles 21.10), and David questions the fairness of inflicting punishment on the populace for a mistake that he alone made (1 Chronicles 21.17).

So who incites David to conduct a census? According to the two accounts, either God or Satan... but not both.

Why does God incite David? In 2 Samuel 24, apparently as pretext to punish the wider population. In 1 Chronicles 21, as punishment for David's conduct of a census.

Why does Satan incite David? The 1 Chronicles 21 story doesn't tell us. The 2 Samuel 24 story doesn't mention Satan.

Why do 70,000 people die? In the 2 Samuel 24 story, because God is angry with them. In the 1 Chronicles 21 story, because God chooses to inflict them with a pestilence as punishment for David's conduct of a census.

With that as background, I re-submit the question I posed in my previous text: For whose sin(s) did those 70,000 people die, and did their deaths violate Deuteronomy 24.16? In the 2 Samuel 24 story, apparently for their own sins, so their deaths did not violate Deut 24.16. In the 1 Chronicles 21 story, apparently for David's sin, so their deaths did violate Deut 24.16.

If you dispute my rendering of the two stories, or the conclusions I draw from them, please cite the verse(s) in the stories that support your view.

To me, idea "Biblical Hebrew ... We disagree." really expresses disagreement with Holy יהוה Lord God inspired wording in original languages.

I respect your view.

Concur phrase "That's NOT what text says" expresses judgment (dismissive from my view, but accurate according to your faith belief ideas). Puzzled by hypocritical guidance (remembering many disappointments from your previous replies where nothing was offered for respectful CD Theological idea discussion using kind and loving words). In contrast, my CD replies that received "That's NOT what text says" response typically quoted Scripture reason for my text view. Thankful Holy יהוה Lord God inspired words translated into English being better than my words (reason for me to quote Scripture text, especially as thread purpose includes Holy יהוה Lord God encounters).

To my understanding of the word, it's not "dismissive" to conclude that a Bible text doesn't say what another person says it says. It would be "dismissive" for me to say that your view of what a Bible text says doesn't matter and isn't worth my consideration, but that's not I've said.

And again you allege my hypocrisy. Last time it was my "occasional hypocrisy"... which you couldn't prove because your claim was false. Now it's my "hypocritical guidance"... which you won't be able to prove either because this latest claim is also false. From early on in my CD forums participation, I've had the same message: Conform to the expectation that we will "criticize ideas, not people." If you want to avoid this issue, simply critique my ideas, observations, and conclusions, but not me.

Disappointed by idea "the Dating of the Psalms" having no verifiable evidence provided by the one who wants idea to be respected as credible.

And here's a good example of my point about the CD forums' expectation: If you're "disappointed by idea 'the Dating of the Psalms' having no verifiable evidence," then tell me you're "disappointed by idea 'the Dating of the Psalms' having no verifiable evidence." But leave out references to "haughtiness of spirit" and questions as to whether the same is welcome in the Kingdom, when the clear implication of those words, as is evident by your response here, is that you're leveling a critique against me, my spirit, and my eternal destiny, not just my ideas. Criticize ideas, not people.

Publicly posted replies lacked sarcism indication: appeared consistent with faith belief ideas plus evaded question: Which is more important: Holy יהוה inspired truthful words OR 'extensive ... persuasive' comments written by human being(s) ?

Because my posts have long included sarcasm, and the sarcasm of my myth-making reference was as frothy as it was, I didn't even think about labeling it.

As to your suggestion that I evaded your question about the relative importance of those two items, I point out that I directly responded to your question in THIS POST: "Since human beings are the ones who read, interpret, and search for "Holy יהוה inspired truthful words," your question offers a false choice."

Apologies for me lacking insight for what words Holy יהוה Lord God causes to jump out, which were interpreted as dismissive critique in an online Theological discussion thread whose purpose includes Holy יהוה Lord God encounters (using loving and kind words for theology experience).

In my view, it's not hard to identify as inappropriate for these forums expressions of disagreement with other posters which include references to Bible texts that proscribe quarrels with people who need to "come to their senses" and "escape from the trap of the devil" so as not to do the Devil's "will" (2 Timothy 2.22-26, LEB). In forums whose expectation is that participants will "criticize ideas, not people," there is nothing "loving and kind" about the use of such Bible texts to express disagreement.

Thankful for S.O.A.P. being easy to explain along with being amazed by Holy יהוה Lord God interaction (includes items for me to 🙏 Pray with Thanksgiving to Holy יהוה Lord God along with me asking what to think & do that pleases Holy יהוה Lord God: e.g. skillful teaching that includes sharing Scripture & verifiable evidence using kind and loving words, which are appropriate for respectful CD Theological idea discussions).

I don't object to "respectful" or "kind and loving words." I object to violations of the CD forums' expectation that we will "criticize ideas, not people."

Thankful for the Joy of Holy יהוה Lord God being my strength, which now includes Proverbs 25:20 awareness since Joy of Holy יהוה Lord God in me has been interpreted by ones with heavy hearts as singing songs (stings a lot, which was not my intent so my prayers include when to be silent). Thankful for 1 Thessalonians 5:11-26 having the most imperative verbs in one Scripture passage of the entire Greek New Covenant:

Criticize ideas, not people (or what you believe are their "heavy hearts").

Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Without two or three verifiable witnesses, idea "the Dating of the Psalms" simply lacks credibility (still not know of any factual evidence about any Psalm not written by/for anyone named in Psalm title). To me, a bibliography can have many entries, but my current bibliography for idea "the Dating of the Psalms" simply has nothing (puzzled by evasive rationale, which implies not one verifiable factual witness found).

@Bill_Coley Here are two witnesses, though I doubt you will accept them as "verifiable":

Concur so my bibliography for your idea "the Dating of the Psalms" still has nothing. In contrast, a Dead Sea Scroll describes Davidic compositions:

The Psalter’s fivefold structure, according to rabbinic tradition, finds correspondence with the Torah or Pentateuch, as noted specifically in the Midrash Tehellim in the 1st cent. bce. While the Hebrew psalter features David’s name in seventy-three psalm titles, later versions, like the Greek and Syriac, cite his name even more frequently, leading to the assumption that David was author of the entire Psalter. The Greek translation (LXX), e.g., ascribes fourteen more psalms to David. The psalm scroll from Cave 11 at Qumran describes David as having composed a total of 4,050 psalms, which “he spoke through … prophecy which had been given to him from before the Most High” (11Q5 XXVII, 11; DSSSE vol. 2). Also, the LXX version of Ps 151 refers to David having fashioned a “psaltery” (LXX Ps 151:2).

 William P. Brown, “Psalms, Book Of,” ed. Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2006–2009), 663.

Quoting from (Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition) DSSSE (translations from Hebrew into English) vol. 2

Col. xxvii

1 2 Sam 23:7 and the wood of an axe, and with fire they are completely burned on the place.

2 Blank (Compositions of David) And David, son of Jesse, was wise, and a light like the light of the sun, /and/ learned,

3 Blank and discerning, and perfect in all his paths before God and men. And

4 Blank yhwh gave him a discerning and enlightened spirit. And he wrote psalms:

5 three thousand six hundred; and songs to be sung before the altar over the perpetual

6 offering of every day, for all the days of the year: three hundred

7 and sixty-four; and for the sabbath offerings: fifty-two songs; and for the offerings of the first days of

8 the months, and for all the days of the festivals, and for the «Day» of Atonement: thirty songs.

9 And all the songs which he spoke were four hundred and forty-six. And songs

10 to perform over the possessed: four. The total was four thousand and fifty.

11 All these he spoke through (the spirit of) prophecy which had been given to him from before the Most High. Blank

Col. xxviii

3 Psalm 151A A Halleluia of David, son of Jesse. I was smaller than my brothers and the youngest of my father’s sons; he made me

4 shepherd of his flock and ruler over his kid goats. My hands made a flute, my fingers a lyre,

5 and I gave glory to yhwh. I said to myself: the mountains do not witness

6 to me, nor do the hills proclaim on my behalf, the trees my words and the flock my deeds.

7 Who, then, is going to announce and who will speak and who will recount my deeds? The Lord of all saw, the God

8 of all, he heard, and he listened. He sent his prophet to anoint me, Samuel

9 to make me great. My brothers went out to meet him, handsome of figure and handsome of appearance. Though they were tall of stature,

10 handsome Blank by their hair, yhwh God did not choose them, but sent to fetch me

11 from behind the flock and anointed me with holy oil, and made me leader of his people /and ruler/ over the sons of

12 his covenant. Blank

13 Psalm 151B Beginning of David’s po[w]er, after God’s prophet had anointed him. Then I saw a Philistine

14 threatening from the ra[nks of the Philistines.] I […] … […]

 Florentino Garcı́a Martı́nez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, “The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (translations)” (Leiden; New York: Brill, 1997–1998), 1179.

The word "lyre" in line 4 of Col. xxvii (LXX Psalms 151:2) translates ψαλτήριον (psaltērion is the transliteration of Greek letters into English letters, which is the “psaltery” mentioned in 'New Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible'). Another translation for ψαλτήριον is harp (musical instrument).

@Bill_Coley By my desire not to compile a bibliography on the question of the authorship of the Psalms, I did not mean to imply that I could not find "one verifiable factual witness" to support my claims. You inferred that to be the case, but I did not imply it.

Disappointed that two or three verifiable factual witnesses have not been proffered to give your idea "the Dating of the Psalms" honest credibility.

Noticed both quoted resources included appeals to unnamed authority: "It is more likely ..., It is probable ..." (confirms opinions being different). Seems opinions about later composition of Psalms ignores King David having musical instruments made to Praise God 1 Chronicles 23:5 plus organizing Musicians in 1 Chronicles 25.

@Bill_Coley * Neither text about the census proffers such a division of responsibility for the incitement. One says God incited David, the other says Satan incited David. There is no partnership such as exists in the opening chapters of Job. But how do we know such a partnership exists in Job? The text tells us! There is no such partnership - no hint of such a partnership - in 2 Samuel 24 or 1 Chronicles 21.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus If story of Job was well known to Jewish authors of Samuel & Chronicles + original Jewish audience, then incitement interaction repeat not needed.

@Bill_Coley Here you present another argument to which there is no productive reason to respond. First, we have to assume that the story of Job was well known to those authors and their readers. THEN we have to assume that those two groups of people understood the significance and applicability of Job's story in the same way. AND FINALLY, we have to assume that the first two assumptions were in fact the reasons the authors chose not to mention the incitement interaction in their respective renderings of the story. What was that thing about reliance on an "unnamed authority" to which you have referred on multiple occasions in our exchanges?

My opinion is the story of Job happened before promised land conquest by Israel for two Biblical reasons:

1. Burnt offerings in Job 1:1-5 and Job 42:7-9 are different than offerings by Levitical priests (while being like Numbers 23 burnt offerings).
2. Job lived 140 years (Job 42:16). Logos Bible search for hundred WITHIN 7 WORDS years finds seven other people after Genesis who lived over 100 years: Levi 133 years (Exodus 6:16), Kohath 133 years (Exodus 6:18), Amram 137 years (Exodus 6:20), Aaron 123 years (Numbers 33:39), Moses 120 years (Deuteronomy 34:7), Joshua 110 years (Joshua 24:29 & Judges 2:8), Jehoiada 130 years (2 Chronicles 24:15)

@Bill_Coley * I read your interpretation of the census story to mean you believe God set up Israel and Judah for punishment: God said, "I need a reason to discipline those people, so I will direct David to do something that, with Satan's help, he will do for the wrong reason." David took the bait, and God had cause to discipline the people... to the tune of 70,000 killed by a pestilence.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Concur (humanly wonder what many individuals in Israel had chosen to do many times (incomplete action) to anger Holy יהוה Lord God again)

@Bill_Coley What matters for the question I asked is the fact that one story says God incited David to conduct the census, while the other story says Satan did the inciting. Neither story reports or even hints at a partnership between God and Satan.

Bible Search for <Person Job> includes results in Ezekiel 14:14-20 (and James 5:11). If the Chronicler was Ezra, then Ezekiel's prophecies predate Chronicles being written by over 125 years. Holy יהוה Lord God inspired wording has 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21 complementing each other without repeating earlier well known interaction described in the story of Job.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Thankful for Righteous judgment by Holy יהוה Lord God while humanly not knowing relationship of pestilence deaths (by angel from Holy יהוה Lord God) & individual sinful choices. Personally believe complete truthful conformance with Deuteronomy 24:16 & Ezekiel 18.

@Bill_Coley I appreciate the candor of this response, but in my view, the texts make clear the origins - and the confusion - of the census: ...

@Bill_Coley So who incites David to conduct a census? According to the two accounts, either God or Satan... but not both.

Thankful Holy יהוה Lord God truth remains consistent so my answer remains both per well known interaction described in the story of Job.

@Bill_Coley Why does God incite David? In 2 Samuel 24, apparently as pretext to punish the wider population. In 1 Chronicles 21, as punishment for David's conduct of a census.

@Bill_Coley Why does Satan incite David? The 1 Chronicles 21 story doesn't tell us. The 2 Samuel 24 story doesn't mention Satan.

@Bill_Coley Why do 70,000 people die? In the 2 Samuel 24 story, because God is angry with them. In the 1 Chronicles 21 story, because God chooses to inflict them with a pestilence as punishment for David's conduct of a census.

@Bill_Coley With that as background, I re-submit the question I posed in my previous text: For whose sin(s) did those 70,000 people die, and did their deaths violate Deuteronomy 24.16? In the 2 Samuel 24 story, apparently for their own sins, so their deaths did not violate Deut 24.16. In the 1 Chronicles 21 story, apparently for David's sin, so their deaths did violate Deut 24.16.

@Bill_Coley If you dispute my rendering of the two stories, or the conclusions I draw from them, please cite the verse(s) in the stories that support your view.

Thankful Holy יהוה Lord God inspired wording of 2 Samuel 24 & 1 Chronicles 21 is consistent with the story of Job where Holy יהוה Lord God chose what to explain about Holy יהוה Lord God Righteous Justice actions. Job 40:8-13 (LEB) “Indeed, would you annul my justice? Would you condemn me, so that you might be righteous? Or do you have an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his? Adorn yourself with pride and dignity, and clothe yourself with splendor. Pour out the overflowing of your anger, and look at all the proud, and humble them. Look at all the proud, humble them, and tread down the wicked where they stand. Hide them in the dust together; bind their faces in the grave.

FWIW: while researching dating of Job writing (my opinion is different), encountered an intriguing paragraph in one of the Top 2 commentaries

The Comment proper is in constant tension between the part and the whole. Believing as I do that verse-by-verse interpretation can be an abuse of the text, and that what appears in many commentaries as a worthily thorough and detailed interpretation can be in fact a steadfast and systematic refusal to confront the primary questions of meaning, I have had to be in movement all the time between the smallest detail and the larger wholes. My normal method has been to set down first my understanding of the larger unit, whether the chapter, the strophe or the verse, and then to support that interpretation with a more detailed treatment of the individual sentences and words. At every point I have tried to be conscious of the book as a whole, and of how the sentence under consideration contributes to the total work. At every point also I have been asking how this sentence is connected, in thought, with the previous sentences, and how the argument of the speaker is being developed.

 David J. A. Clines, Job 1–20, vol. 17, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1989), xxxii.

FYI: Septuagint (LXX) translation has 1-4 Kingdoms where 1-2 Samuel = 1-2 Kingdoms and 1-2 Kings = 3-4 Kingdoms.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Phrase "That's NOT what text says" expresses dismissive judgment, especially when nothing offered for further idea discussion: e.g. Scripture, verifiable evidence.

@Bill_Coley "That's NOT what the text says" expresses my assessment/judgment on the accuracy of your interpretation of a text. There are countless things texts don't say. If you believe that a text indeed DOES say what you say it says, your most helpful response, in my view, would be to quote from the text its portions that say what you claim it says. You basically never do that because... the texts I claim don't say what you say they say basically never say what you claim they say.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Concur phrase "That's NOT what text says" expresses judgment (dismissive from my view, but accurate according to your faith belief ideas). Puzzled by hypocritical guidance (remembering many disappointments from your previous replies where nothing was offered for respectful CD Theological idea discussion using kind and loving words). In contrast, my CD replies that received "That's NOT what text says" response typically quoted Scripture reason for my text view. Thankful Holy יהוה Lord God inspired words translated into English being better than my words (reason for me to quote Scripture text, especially as thread purpose includes Holy יהוה Lord God encounters).

@Bill_Coley To my understanding of the word, it's not "dismissive" to conclude that a Bible text doesn't say what another person says it says. It would be "dismissive" for me to say that your view of what a Bible text says doesn't matter and isn't worth my consideration, but that's not I've said.

Phrase "That's NOT what text says" was previously used many times to authoritatively express your interpretative text opinion while dismissing further idea discussion (nothing offered for idea discussion inferred/implied your view of what the text says is all that really matters to you).

@Bill_Coley And again you allege my hypocrisy. Last time it was my "occasional hypocrisy"... which you couldn't prove because your claim was false. Now it's my "hypocritical guidance"... which you won't be able to prove either because this latest claim is also false. From early on in my CD forums participation, I've had the same message: Conform to the expectation that we will "criticize ideas, not people." If you want to avoid this issue, simply critique my ideas, observations, and conclusions, but not me.

Idea observation is reception of CD forum words differs from CD poster intent.

What is Christian Debate? begins:

What is Christian Debate?

This is your go-to place for respectful online theological discussion. Feel free to pose Bible questions, spark theological discourse, and connect with people all over the world who are passionate about the Word.

Christian Debate is a hub for biblical learning, growth, and community. Please keep your questions and comments respectful and polite. Treat others in this forum like you would treat your neighbor at church—don’t be afraid to voice your opinion, but do it with love and kindness.

🙏my prayerful intent is writing Holy יהוה Lord God Truth in Love using kind words (conform with CD expectations). Thankful this thread discussion is helping me grow in Biblical learning. Ongoing challenge for passionate theological discussion is recognizing Biblical text idea(s) can feel like personal critique, especially by one staunchly "owning" what the text says idea that simply disagrees with Holy יהוה Lord God Truth. Proverbs 27:17 (LEB) As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. * (* Literally “a man sharpens the faces of his friend”)

🙏my prayers to Holy יהוה Lord God include what to write peacefully for encounter with Holy יהוה Lord God (knowing each person chooses what to really, really, really love the most & Truthful encounter can spark/sting as Holy יהוה Lord God convicts for Biblical learning and growth).

Thankful great Hallel (Praise) Psalm 136 repeats phrase "for his loyal love endures forever." that reminds me about Holy יהוה Lord God Love for all CD participants and readers.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Without any verifiable evidence, idea "the dating of the Psalms" reads as an ingeniously concocted myth. Which is more important: Holy יהוה inspired truthful words OR 'extensive ... persuasive' comments written by human being(s) ?

@Bill_Coley It's a source of personal pride that my "myths" are more "ingeniously concocted" than just about anybody's.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus How does Proverbs 16:18 'haughty of spirit' compare with Matthew 5:3 'poor in spirit' ? Is the Kingdom of Heaven for the 'haughty of spirit' ?

@Bill_Coley Haughtiness of spirit is IN NO WAY akin to the poverty of spirit to which Jesus refers in the beatitudes.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus We agree. Thankful for "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see יהוה God." Looking forward to seeing Holy יהוה Lord God face to face 😍 (after being on my knees to worship Holy יהוה Lord God)

@Bill_Coley How was your question about haughtiness of spirit and the Kingdom at all germane to our discussion of the deity of Christ?

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Disappointed by idea "the Dating of the Psalms" having no verifiable evidence provided by the one who wants idea to be respected as credible.

@Bill_Coley And here's a good example of my point about the CD forums' expectation: If you're "disappointed by idea 'the Dating of the Psalms' having no verifiable evidence," then tell me you're "disappointed by idea 'the Dating of the Psalms' having no verifiable evidence." But leave out references to "haughtiness of spirit" and questions as to whether the same is welcome in the Kingdom, when the clear implication of those words, as is evident by your response here, is that you're leveling a critique against me, my spirit, and my eternal destiny, not just my ideas. Criticize ideas, not people.

Please remember your idea "the Dating of the Psalms" had been earlier expressed a number of times ("We now know ..." authoritatively) without any verifiable evidence for respectable idea credibilty. Bible question about "haughtiness of spirit" followed 'personal pride' evasion. Thankful for encounter with Holy יהוה Lord God Truthful Love: every human chooses what to love most so their love belief (assimilated thoughts) shows in their words & deeds, which will be righteously judged by Holy יהוה Lord God for eternal destiny.

@Bill_Coley Because my posts have long included sarcasm, and the sarcasm of my myth-making reference was as frothy as it was, I didn't even think about labeling it.

For respectful theological idea discussions, personally avoid sarcasm plus seldom recognize sarcasm (my desire is simple honesty so can enjoy abiding in Holy יהוה Lord God more). In a forum setting, sarcasm & humor are quite challenging to communicate.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Apologies for me lacking insight for what words Holy יהוה Lord God causes to jump out, which were interpreted as dismissive critique in an online Theological discussion thread whose purpose includes Holy יהוה Lord God encounters (using loving and kind words for theology experience).

@Bill_Coley In my view, it's not hard to identify as inappropriate for these forums expressions of disagreement with other posters which include references to Bible texts that proscribe quarrels with people who need to "come to their senses" and "escape from the trap of the devil" so as not to do the Devil's "will" (2 Timothy 2.22-26, LEB). In forums whose expectation is that participants will "criticize ideas, not people," there is nothing "loving and kind" about the use of such Bible texts to express disagreement.

Thankful CD expectations include Biblical learning ideas, which encourages Holy יהוה Lord God encounters.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Thankful for the Joy of Holy יהוה Lord God being my strength, which now includes Proverbs 25:20 awareness since Joy of Holy יהוה Lord God in me has been interpreted by ones with heavy hearts as singing songs (stings a lot, which was not my intent so my prayers include when to be silent). Thankful for 1 Thessalonians 5:11-26 having the most imperative verbs in one Scripture passage of the entire Greek New Covenant:

@Bill_Coley Criticize ideas, not people (or what you believe are their "heavy hearts").

Puzzling since my Scripture idea words had no people criticism intended. Humanly lack insights into "heavy hearts" of other (while my own heart sings new songs of Praise & Thanksgiving to Holy יהוה Lord God during the day along with praying often, which includes needing Holy יהוה Lord God guidance for my words & deeds, which includes weeping with those who are weeping 😥 & Rejoicing with those who are Rejoicing 😍).

Keep Smiling 😊

Bill_Coley

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus posted:

Concur so my bibliography for your idea "the Dating of the Psalms" still has nothing. In contrast, a Dead Sea Scroll describes Davidic compositions:

I disagree. I think your bibliography for my idea now has at least two entries. Yes, you dispute the conclusions of those entries - which is your choice - but unless you believe bibliographies may only include resources that support your views, you certainly you have two resources which support my view. (There are countless others.)

 William P. Brown, “Psalms, Book Of,” ed. Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2006–2009), 663. . . .

 Florentino Garcı́a Martı́nez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, “The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (translations)” (Leiden; New York: Brill, 1997–1998), 1179.

Am I correct to assume that since these resources agree with your views, they ARE part of your bibliography on the question of Davidic authorship of the Psalms?

Disappointed that two or three verifiable factual witnesses have not been proffered to give your idea "the Dating of the Psalms" honest credibility.

Again, you dispute the views expressed by the resources I quoted, just as on many occasions I have disputed the views of the resources you quoted. I don't find it "disappointing" that you rely on resources with which I disagree, and I'm not sure of the basis for your disappointment. We disagree, as do the resources we rely on.

Noticed both quoted resources included appeals to unnamed authority: "It is more likely ..., It is probable ..." (confirms opinions being different). Seems opinions about later composition of Psalms ignores King David having musical instruments made to Praise God 1 Chronicles 23:5 plus organizing Musicians in 1 Chronicles 25.

I guess it's that "dishonest credibility" of my resources. I should have read their prefaces, which no doubt flag the resources' use of dishonesty in their arguments. My bad.

My opinion is the story of Job happened before promised land conquest by Israel for two Biblical reasons: . . .

Neither of your "biblical reasons" responds to any of the three assumptions I claimed were necessary to accept your theory of the story of Job's contribution to the Davidic census stories. Said assumptions were, 1) the story of Job was well known to those authors and their readers; 2) those two groups of people understood the significance and applicability of Job's story in the same way; 3) the first two assumptions were in fact the reasons the authors chose not to mention the incitement interaction in their respective renderings of the story.

Bible Search for <Person Job> includes results in Ezekiel 14:14-20 (and James 5:11). If the Chronicler was Ezra, then Ezekiel's prophecies predate Chronicles being written by over 125 years. Holy יהוה Lord God inspired wording has 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21 complementing each other without repeating earlier well known interaction described in the story of Job.

On the basis of what "unnamed authority" do you conclude that God inspired the writers of 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21 to assign responsibility for the incitement of the census to two different and never-associated figures, God and Satan? How do those accounts complement each other when they so clearly contradict each other? Where in the text of either account do you find support for your view?

Thankful Holy יהוה Lord God truth remains consistent so my answer remains both per well known interaction described in the story of Job.

Nothing in either account supports your view. You're of course welcome to read your view into the accounts, but there is nothing in the text to support your doing so.

Thankful Holy יהוה Lord God inspired wording of 2 Samuel 24 & 1 Chronicles 21 is consistent with the story of Job where Holy יהוה Lord God chose what to explain about Holy יהוה Lord God Righteous Justice actions. Job 40:8-13 (LEB) “Indeed, would you annul my justice? Would you condemn me, so that you might be righteous? Or do you have an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his? Adorn yourself with pride and dignity, and clothe yourself with splendor. Pour out the overflowing of your anger, and look at all the proud, and humble them. Look at all the proud, humble them, and tread down the wicked where they stand. Hide them in the dust together; bind their faces in the grave.

I asked you to cite verse(s) from the two accounts that support your view and dispute mine. You didn't do so, I assume because there are no verses in the accounts that support your view or dispute mine.

Phrase "That's NOT what text says" was previously used many times to authoritatively express your interpretative text opinion while dismissing further idea discussion (nothing offered for idea discussion inferred/implied your view of what the text says is all that really matters to you).

When you contend that a text says "XYZ," and in response I contend that that's not what the text says, all you have to do is quote from the text to demonstrate that in fact it does say "XYZ." You basically never do so, turning instead to other, at-best tangentially related, resources and arguments. In my view, once I note that a text doesn't say what you say it says, there isn't anything else to say. If you want to dispute my contention, simply quote from the text to demonstrate my error.

Idea observation is reception of CD forum words differs from CD poster intent.

What is Christian Debate? begins: . . .

🙏my prayerful intent is writing Holy יהוה Lord God Truth in Love using kind words (conform with CD expectations). Thankful this thread discussion is helping me grow in Biblical learning. Ongoing challenge for passionate theological discussion is recognizing Biblical text idea(s) can feel like personal critique, especially by one staunchly "owning" what the text says idea that simply disagrees with Holy יהוה Lord God Truth. Proverbs 27:17 (LEB) As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. * (* Literally “a man sharpens the faces of his friend”)

🙏my prayers to Holy יהוה Lord God include what to write peacefully for encounter with Holy יהוה Lord God (knowing each person chooses what to really, really, really love the most & Truthful encounter can spark/sting as Holy יהוה Lord God convicts for Biblical learning and growth).

Thankful great Hallel (Praise) Psalm 136 repeats phrase "for his loyal love endures forever." that reminds me about Holy יהוה Lord God Love for all CD participants and readers.

None of this explains the basis for your claim about my alleged "hypocritical guidance."

This becomes a frustrating experience when you accuse me - not my ideas! - of something, but then change the subject when I ask you to back up your accusation.

Please remember your idea "the Dating of the Psalms" had been earlier expressed a number of times ("We now know ..." authoritatively) without any verifiable evidence for respectable idea credibilty. Bible question about "haughtiness of spirit" followed 'personal pride' evasion. Thankful for encounter with Holy יהוה Lord God Truthful Love: every human chooses what to love most so their love belief (assimilated thoughts) shows in their words & deeds, which will be righteously judged by Holy יהוה Lord God for eternal destiny.

I don't know about the "personal pride evasion" to which you refer. In forums where the expectation is that we will "criticize ideas, not people," however, it seems to me that all of us should avoid discussions of our own or each others' "personal pride" or "eternal destiny."

For respectful theological idea discussions, personally avoid sarcasm plus seldom recognize sarcasm (my desire is simple honesty so can enjoy abiding in Holy יהוה Lord God more). In a forum setting, sarcasm & humor are quite challenging to communicate.

I can't imagine that any CD poster would genuinely boast about the "ingenuity" of his or her "myth-making" as I did in my previous post. Of course that was sarcasm.

Thankful CD expectations include Biblical learning ideas, which encourages Holy יהוה Lord God encounters.

CD expectations ALSO include an encouragement to posters to "criticize ideas, not people."

Puzzling since my Scripture idea words had no people criticism intended. Humanly lack insights into "heavy hearts" of other (while my own heart sings new songs of Praise & Thanksgiving to Holy יהוה Lord God during the day along with praying often, which includes needing Holy יהוה Lord God guidance for my words & deeds, which includes weeping with those who are weeping 😥 & Rejoicing with those who are Rejoicing 😍).

2 Timothy 2.22-26, which you raised in our exchange, proscribes quarrels with people who need to "come to their senses" and "escape from the trap of the devil" so as not to do the Devil's "will." If not to criticize people, why did you cite that text? What connection did you believe people who "need to come to their senses" and "escape from the trap of the Devil" had to the on-topic issues we're discussing in this thread? And exactly whom did you mean to refer when you quoted a text about such people?

Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Without two or three verifiable witnesses, idea "the Dating of the Psalms" simply lacks credibility (still not know of any factual evidence about any Psalm not written by/for anyone named in Psalm title). To me, a bibliography can have many entries, but my current bibliography for idea "the Dating of the Psalms" simply has nothing (puzzled by evasive rationale, which implies not one verifiable factual witness found).

@Bill_Coley Here are two witnesses, though I doubt you will accept them as "verifiable":

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Concur so my bibliography for your idea "the Dating of the Psalms" still has nothing. In contrast, a Dead Sea Scroll describes Davidic compositions:

@Bill_Coley I disagree. I think your bibliography for my idea now has at least two entries. Yes, you dispute the conclusions of those entries - which is your choice - but unless you believe bibliographies may only include resources that support your views, you certainly you have two resources which support my view. (There are countless others.)

Observation: 'There are countless others.' reads to me as hyperbole. Thus far, my logos searches have found nothing verifiable, only opinion: synopsis is Hallel Psalms were used in Jewish Temple worship after Babylonian exile. Unsubstantiated idea is composition during/after exile, especially Psalm 137. Accurate content => composition during/after exile OR prophetic fulfillment (written centuries earlier).

My fictional (unsupported claim) bibliography about Psalms composition includes your quoted resources.

 The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible

 The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (translations)

@Bill_Coley Am I correct to assume that since these resources agree with your views, they ARE part of your bibliography on the question of Davidic authorship of the Psalms?

No. They are in my factual bibliography about Psalms composition.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Disappointed that two or three verifiable factual witnesses have not been proffered to give your idea "the Dating of the Psalms" honest credibility.

@Bill_Coley Again, you dispute the views expressed by the resources I quoted, just as on many occasions I have disputed the views of the resources you quoted. I don't find it "disappointing" that you rely on resources with which I disagree, and I'm not sure of the basis for your disappointment. We disagree, as do the resources we rely on.

Your March 21 comment "I respect but disagree with the arguments made by the second resource your quoted." expressed opinion, but lacked objective rationale for disagreement. Repeating first Davidic Psalm authorship criticism & refutation:

1. Psalms attributed to David speak of the king in the third person rather than the first person (e.g., Ps 20, 21 etc.). Answer: A number of ancient writers (e.g., Xenophon, Julius Caesar) referred to themselves in the third person. First-person speeches attributed to Yahweh in the Old Testament frequently shift from first to third person.

 James E. Smith, The Wisdom Literature and Psalms, Old Testament Survey Series (Joplin, MO: College Press Pub. Co., 1996), 190–191.

Genesis 1 example: "Let Us create ..." Genesis 18:17-19 is an example of first to third person shift. Leviticus has many third person expressions spoken to Moses: e.g. offerings for יהוה Yahweh (instead of 'for me'). Hence concur with יהוה Yahweh idea.

Curious about "honest discussion" for this thread ? your 'honest discussion' definition on March 24 in a different CD thread included:

@Bill_Coley An objective, science-based analysis of what caused the tragedy

Currently controlled demolition theory for World Trade Center towers is as credible as your 'the Dating of Psalms' idea (many unsupported claims for both ideas). Primary science tenet is repeatability: e.g. examining Dead Sea Scrolls using recognized methods of investigation => David composed 4,050 Psalms. Searching “The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (translations)” for Ezra OR Nehemiah found nothing. Searching for psalms NEAR wrote found one author: David.

Your reply on March 24 about 'honest discussion' definition also included:

@Bill_Coley No unsupported claims that are given the same standing, the same evidentiary value as claims that have been reviewed, tested, and accepted as accurate by rigorous and recognized methods of investigation

Should your idea "the Dating of the Psalms" be treated as having 'evidentiary value' for "honest discussion" ?

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Noticed both quoted resources included appeals to unnamed authority: "It is more likely ..., It is probable ..." (confirms opinions being different). Seems opinions about later composition of Psalms ignores King David having musical instruments made to Praise God 1 Chronicles 23:5 plus organizing Musicians in 1 Chronicles 25.

@Bill_Coley I guess it's that "dishonest credibility" of my resources. I should have read their prefaces, which no doubt flag the resources' use of dishonesty in their arguments. My bad.

Disappointed by lack of scholarly sources cited for "It is more likely ..." & "It is probable ..." so cannot investigate: e.g. What was likely/probable assessment criteria ? New Interpreter's Bible preface includes three lists of people: Editorial Board, Consultants, & Contributors (seems current scholarship assumes older critical scholarship is credible and obviously well known)

CRITICAL STUDY OF THE BOOK OF PSALMS

For centuries, interpreters of the psalms assumed that they were written by the persons whose names appear in the superscriptions. Since David’s name appears in the superscriptions of seventy-three psalms, interpreters often have assumed by generalization that David must have written most of the untitled psalms as well. With the emergence of critical scholarship in the nineteenth century, these assumptions began to be questioned. Even so, at the beginning of the twentieth century, the psalms were still understood primarily as the work of pious individuals (although not necessarily the persons whose names appear in the superscriptions) who composed prayers and songs either for their private devotional use or in response to particular historical events. Thus scholars were intent upon determining and attempting to describe the authors of the psalms, to discern the historical circumstances of their composition, and to date each psalm as specifically as possible. The tendency was to date most of the psalms very late (third to second century bce) and to view them as evidence of an individualized spirituality that was superior to the corporate worship of earlier centuries of Israelite and Judean history.

 J. Clinton Mccann Jr., “The Book of Psalms,” in New Interpreter’s Bible, ed. Leander E. Keck, vol. 4 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994–2004), 643.

New CD thread could be: "What are evolutionary effects on Bible Study & Intrepretation ?" In 1859, book "On the Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin was published so new CD thread could ask:

• What does critical scholarship question about Scripture ?
• What rationale for dating most psalms being composed very late (third to second century BCE) ?
• Are critical scholars trustworthy for blind belief: "it is more likely ..." ? (little child in me simply wonders: more likely than what ?)

Humanly wonder how many relatively recent critical scholars are like Jewish Sanhedrin members (religious lawyers & judges) during time of Jesus who lost their first love for Holy יהוה Lord God so they valued their scholarly study results & traditions more than truly Loving God.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus My opinion is the story of Job happened before promised land conquest by Israel for two Biblical reasons: . . .

@Bill_Coley Neither of your "biblical reasons" responds to any of the three assumptions I claimed were necessary to accept your theory of the story of Job's contribution to the Davidic census stories. Said assumptions were, 1) the story of Job was well known to those authors and their readers; 2) those two groups of people understood the significance and applicability of Job's story in the same way; 3) the first two assumptions were in fact the reasons the authors chose not to mention the incitement interaction in their respective renderings of the story.

For the story of Job to be well known, story needed to predate census story writings. Biblical text has two objective reasons for Job knowability.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Bible Search for <Person Job> includes results in Ezekiel 14:14-20 (and James 5:11). If the Chronicler was Ezra, then Ezekiel's prophecies predate Chronicles being written by over 125 years. Holy יהוה Lord God inspired wording has 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21 complementing each other without repeating earlier well known interaction described in the story of Job.

@Bill_Coley On the basis of what "unnamed authority" do you conclude that God inspired the writers of 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21 to assign responsibility for the incitement of the census to two different and never-associated figures, God and Satan? How do those accounts complement each other when they so clearly contradict each other? Where in the text of either account do you find support for your view?

Curious if your question has an "unnamed authority" answer from your perspective. My named authority is Holy יהוה Lord God inspiration, who chose what needed repetition along with what to leave mysterious: e.g. Righteous justice rationale (again angry) not shared with humans.

FWIW: when initially found <Person Job> in Ezekiel 14:14-20 (Noah, Daniel, Job) wondered about story of Job knowability until researching relative timing found: If the Chronicler was Ezra, then Ezekiel's prophecies predate Chronicles being written by over 125 years. My human speculation is wondering how many times the Chronicler (Ezra) meditated on the story of Job before writing Chronicles.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Thankful Holy יהוה Lord God inspired wording of 2 Samuel 24 & 1 Chronicles 21 is consistent with the story of Job where Holy יהוה Lord God chose what to explain about Holy יהוה Lord God Righteous Justice actions. Job 40:8-13 (LEB) “Indeed, would you annul my justice? Would you condemn me, so that you might be righteous? Or do you have an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his? Adorn yourself with pride and dignity, and clothe yourself with splendor. Pour out the overflowing of your anger, and look at all the proud, and humble them. Look at all the proud, humble them, and tread down the wicked where they stand. Hide them in the dust together; bind their faces in the grave.

@Bill_Coley I asked you to cite verse(s) from the two accounts that support your view and dispute mine. You didn't do so, I assume because there are no verses in the accounts that support your view or dispute mine.

We disagree about 2 Samuel 24 & 1 Chronicles 21 being contradictory. To me, 2 Samuel 24 & 1 Chronicles 21 are truthfully consistent within overall Holy יהוה Lord God inspired context. Parallels of 2 Samuel 24 & 1 Chronicles 21 reveal different story aspects about David's census.

@Bill_Coley So who incites David to conduct a census? According to the two accounts, either God or Satan... but not both.

We disagree about "not both" plus disagree about Holy יהוה Lord God inspiration. To me true prophets of יהוה say/write what יהוה wants said/written (per יהוה perfect Holy will), which may be a mystery to the prophet: e.g. Daniel 12:8-13 & Matthew 24:36-44 & Mark 13:32-37 so your previous silence about these Scriptures infers my inspiration mystery idea is credible, which also applies to 2 Samuel 24 & 1 Chronicles 21.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Phrase "That's NOT what text says" was previously used many times to authoritatively express your interpretative text opinion while dismissing further idea discussion (nothing offered for idea discussion inferred/implied your view of what the text says is all that really matters to you).

@Bill_Coley When you contend that a text says "XYZ," and in response I contend that that's not what the text says, all you have to do is quote from the text to demonstrate that in fact it does say "XYZ." You basically never do so, turning instead to other, at-best tangentially related, resources and arguments. In my view, once I note that a text doesn't say what you say it says, there isn't anything else to say. If you want to dispute my contention, simply quote from the text to demonstrate my error.

Better for honest CD idea discussion is providing objective rationale with your response: "That's NOT what text says" that has countless NOT possibilities so humanly not know what your phrase is NOT saying: e.g. 'not a kumquat'

@Bill_Coley None of this explains the basis for your claim about my alleged "hypocritical guidance."

Looking back found three 'NOT what the text says' replies lacking objective rationale for honest idea discussion:

October 2019 @Bill_Coley That's simply not what 2 Corinthians 5:16-21 or any other text says.

January 10 @Bill_Coley You're welcome to that application of the Psalm, but your interpretation is clearly not what the Psalmist has in mind.

January 18 @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Jeremiah 23:6 (NLT) And this will be his name: ‘The יהוה Lord Is Our Righteousness.’ ... (so Jeremiah 23:5 descendant is יהוה in a male human body)

January 20 @Bill_Coley That's not what the text says.

Jeremiah 23:5-6 (NLT + יהוה next to Lord translation) “For the time is coming,” says the יהוה Lord, “when I will raise up a righteous descendant from King David’s line. He will be a King who rules with wisdom. He will do what is just and right throughout the land. And this will be his name: ‘The יהוה Lord Is Our Righteousness.’ In that day Judah will be saved, and Israel will live in safety.

Right Click on Lord in Logos Bible Software shows translation of Hebrew יהוה (lemma visual filter can be used to insert יהוה into English text)

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Without any verifiable evidence, idea "the dating of the Psalms" reads as an ingeniously concocted myth. Which is more important: Holy יהוה inspired truthful words OR 'extensive ... persuasive' comments written by human being(s) ?

@Bill_Coley It's a source of personal pride that my "myths" are more "ingeniously concocted" than just about anybody's.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus How does Proverbs 16:18 'haughty of spirit' compare with Matthew 5:3 'poor in spirit' ? Is the Kingdom of Heaven for the 'haughty of spirit' ?

@Bill_Coley Haughtiness of spirit is IN NO WAY akin to the poverty of spirit to which Jesus refers in the beatitudes.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus We agree. Thankful for "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see יהוה God." Looking forward to seeing Holy יהוה Lord God face to face 😍 (after being on my knees to worship Holy יהוה Lord God)

@Bill_Coley How was your question about haughtiness of spirit and the Kingdom at all germane to our discussion of the deity of Christ?

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Disappointed by idea "the Dating of the Psalms" having no verifiable evidence provided by the one who wants idea to be respected as credible.

@Bill_Coley And here's a good example of my point about the CD forums' expectation: If you're "disappointed by idea 'the Dating of the Psalms' having no verifiable evidence," then tell me you're "disappointed by idea 'the Dating of the Psalms' having no verifiable evidence." But leave out references to "haughtiness of spirit" and questions as to whether the same is welcome in the Kingdom, when the clear implication of those words, as is evident by your response here, is that you're leveling a critique against me, my spirit, and my eternal destiny, not just my ideas. Criticize ideas, not people.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Please remember your idea "the Dating of the Psalms" had been earlier expressed a number of times ("We now know ..." authoritatively) without any verifiable evidence for respectable idea credibilty. Bible question about "haughtiness of spirit" followed 'personal pride' evasion. Thankful for encounter with Holy יהוה Lord God Truthful Love: every human chooses what to love most so their love belief (assimilated thoughts) shows in their words & deeds, which will be righteously judged by Holy יהוה Lord God for eternal destiny.

@Bill_Coley I don't know about the "personal pride evasion" to which you refer. In forums where the expectation is that we will "criticize ideas, not people," however, it seems to me that all of us should avoid discussions of our own or each others' "personal pride" or "eternal destiny."

My previous reply included your publicly posted idea quoted from March 13 "It's a source of personal pride ..." while evading my question.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus For respectful theological idea discussions, personally avoid sarcasm plus seldom recognize sarcasm (my desire is simple honesty so can enjoy abiding in Holy יהוה Lord God more). In a forum setting, sarcasm & humor are quite challenging to communicate.

@Bill_Coley I can't imagine that any CD poster would genuinely boast about the "ingenuity" of his or her "myth-making" as I did in my previous post. Of course that was sarcasm.

Thankful for Holy changes in me, which included sarcasm dropping out of my communication style over a decade ago. Thankful for 1 John 1:9 sin confession (17 pages), God's forgiveness & cleansing from unrighteousness. Thankful for simple honesty replacement. FWIW: pondered truthfulness of your "myths" being more "ingeniously concocted" than just about anybody's (realized my lack of objective criteria for comparison while appreciating honest candor with words being truthful to me). Also did not have Scripture for myth idea discussion.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Apologies for me lacking insight for what words Holy יהוה Lord God causes to jump out, which were interpreted as dismissive critique in an online Theological discussion thread whose purpose includes Holy יהוה Lord God encounters (using loving and kind words for theology experience).

@Bill_Coley In my view, it's not hard to identify as inappropriate for these forums expressions of disagreement with other posters which include references to Bible texts that proscribe quarrels with people who need to "come to their senses" and "escape from the trap of the devil" so as not to do the Devil's "will" (2 Timothy 2.22-26, LEB). In forums whose expectation is that participants will "criticize ideas, not people," there is nothing "loving and kind" about the use of such Bible texts to express disagreement.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Thankful CD expectations include Biblical learning ideas, which encourages Holy יהוה Lord God encounters.

@Bill_Coley CD expectations ALSO include an encouragement to posters to "criticize ideas, not people."

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Puzzling since my Scripture idea words had no people criticism intended. Humanly lack insights into "heavy hearts" of other (while my own heart sings new songs of Praise & Thanksgiving to Holy יהוה Lord God during the day along with praying often, which includes needing Holy יהוה Lord God guidance for my words & deeds, which includes weeping with those who are weeping 😥 & Rejoicing with those who are Rejoicing 😍).

@Bill_Coley 2 Timothy 2.22-26, which you raised in our exchange, proscribes quarrels with people who need to "come to their senses" and "escape from the trap of the devil" so as not to do the Devil's "will." If not to criticize people, why did you cite that text? What connection did you believe people who "need to come to their senses" and "escape from the trap of the Devil" had to the on-topic issues we're discussing in this thread? And exactly whom did you mean to refer when you quoted a text about such people?

My preferred Bible interaction habit is paragraph(s) for Scripture context (with chapter & verse numbers not displayed in Logos Bible Software). In the LEB, 2 Timothy 2:22-26 is one paragraph, which had one idea reminder for me from your John 1:1 acknowledged "lack of certainty about the meaning" plus many words jumping out at me:

2 Timothy 2:22-26 (LEB) But flee from youthful desires, and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, in company with those who call upon the יהוה Lord from a pure heart. But avoid foolish and uninformed controversies, because you know that they produce quarrels. And the slave of the יהוה Lord must not quarrel, but be kind toward everyone, skillful in teaching, tolerant, correcting those who are opposed with gentleness, seeing whether perhaps יהוה God may grant them repentance to a knowledge of the truth, and they will come to their senses again and escape from the trap of the devil, being held captive by him to do his will.

My reading of 2 Timothy 2:22-26 does not proscribe quarrels while Holy יהוה Lord God has many words jumping out at me about my Lord God's expectations of me for CD posting, which includes lots of prayers 🙏 with ongoing Love for You because God Loves You. ❤️To me, one idea trap of the devil is simply not grasping the meaning of John 1:1-5 (LEB) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. This one was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and apart from him not one thing came into being that has come into being. In him was life, and the life was the light of humanity. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.

Greek grammar lesson learned about John 1:1 is The Word quality was being יהוה Lord God while יהוה Lord God was being more than The Word. Thankful for the Pastor who taught my first year Greek class, which included John 1:1 grammatical explanation using objective rules (repeatable). Thankful for Biblical Greek exegetical insight:

The nominative case is the case that the subject is in. When the subject takes an equative verb like “is” (i.e., a verb that equates the subject with something else), then another noun also appears in the nominative case—the predicate nominative. In the sentence, “John is a man,” “John” is the subject and “man” is the predicate nominative. In English the subject and predicate nominative are distinguished by word order (the subject comes first). Not so in Greek. Since word order in Greek is quite flexible and is used for emphasis rather than for strict grammatical function, other means are used to distinguish subject from predicate nominative. For example, if one of the two nouns has the definite article, it is the subject.

As we have said, word order is employed especially for the sake of emphasis. Generally speaking, when a word is thrown to the front of the clause it is done so for emphasis. When a predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis. A good illustration of this is John 1:1c. The English versions typically have, “and the Word was God.” But in Greek, the word order has been reversed. It reads,

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

and God was the Word.

We know that “the Word” is the subject because it has the definite article, and we translate it accordingly: “and the Word was God.” Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind: (1) why was θεός thrown forward? and (2) why does it lack the article?

In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: “What God was, the Word was” is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father. John’s wording here is beautifully compact! It is, in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find. As Martin Luther said, the lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism.

 William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek: Grammar, ed. Verlyn D. Verbrugge, Third Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 27.

In the Indicative mood (truthful from the speaker's or writer's point of view) are four Greek tenses whose action can be in past time:

Indicative Mood:

Present: imperfective aspect, present time

Future: either perfective or imperfective aspect, expected action or state

Imperfect: imperfective aspect, past time

Aorist: perfective aspect, past time

Perfect: present state of affairs arising from a previous action

Pluperfect: past state of affairs arising from a previous action

 Benjamin Chapman and Gary Steven Shogren, Greek New Testament Insert, 2nd ed., revised. (Quakertown, PA: Stylus Publishing, 1994).

The three "is" equative verbs in John 1:1 are imperfect tense, Indicative mood (continuing or progressive action in past time) so John 1:1 can be translated => In the beginning was being the Word, and the Word was being with God, and the Word was being God.

The Word quality was being God is simply consistent with Holy God inspired wording: Eloheinu (plural God of us) and Elohim (plural God) => the Unique God. Also is consistent with Jesus experiencing God's Glory & Love before time was created with physical realm (John 17:5 & John 17:24).

Keep Smiling 😊

Bill_Coley

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus posted:

Observation: 'There are countless others.' reads to me as hyperbole. Thus far, my logos searches have found nothing verifiable, only opinion: synopsis is Hallel Psalms were used in Jewish Temple worship after Babylonian exile. Unsubstantiated idea is composition during/after exile, especially Psalm 137. Accurate content => composition during/after exile OR prophetic fulfillment (written centuries earlier).

Not hyperbole. The way I used the phrase, "countless others" meant simply what it most commonly means: Many. A lot. Too many to provide an accurate count, at least not readily.

The idea of exilic composition/collection is clearly "unsubstantiated" in your view, a view to which you're welcome. The idea is NOT "unsubstantiated" in the view of many scholars (and no, I'm not going to list those "many scholars").

Psalm 137 describes events that have already happened, not events still to come:

Beside the rivers of Babylon, we sat and wept as we thought of Jerusalem.   We put away our harps,  hanging them on the branches of poplar trees. For our captors demanded a song from us. Our tormentors insisted on a joyful hymn:  “Sing us one of those songs of Jerusalem!” But how can we sing the songs of the LORD while in a pagan land?  (Psalm 137.1-3)

There is nothing in the text to suggest that the writer is predicting future events. Once again, you're free to read your view into the text, but nothing in the text supports your doing so.

No. They are in my factual bibliography about Psalms composition.

I respect the certainty with which you hold your views.

Your March 21 comment "I respect but disagree with the arguments made by the second resource your quoted." expressed opinion, but lacked objective rationale for disagreement. Repeating first Davidic Psalm authorship criticism & refutation:

I simply don't have the time or the interest to create researched critiques of the many sources you cite in your posts.

1. Psalms attributed to David speak of the king in the third person rather than the first person (e.g., Ps 20, 21 etc.). Answer: A number of ancient writers (e.g., Xenophon, Julius Caesar) referred to themselves in the third person. First-person speeches attributed to Yahweh in the Old Testament frequently shift from first to third person.

 James E. Smith, The Wisdom Literature and Psalms, Old Testament Survey Series (Joplin, MO: College Press Pub. Co., 1996), 190–191.

There is no indication in Psalm 20 or Psalm 21 that David is the referenced king. You and your resource are welcome to read that view into the text, but there is nothing in the text to support your doing so.

Genesis 1 example: "Let Us create ..." Genesis 18:17-19 is an example of first to third person shift. Leviticus has many third person expressions spoken to Moses: e.g. offerings for יהוה Yahweh (instead of 'for me'). Hence concur with יהוה Yahweh idea.

In Leviticus 1, the text makes clear that God is giving Moses the script/text to provide to the people (Leviticus 1.1-2), a text in which the pronoun "me" would make no sense. For example,

"When you present an animal as an offering to the LORD, you may take it from your herd of cattle or your flock of sheep and goats." (Leviticus 1.3)

If the text Moses read to the people replaced "LORD" with "me," Moses would have had to stop and say, "that's 'me' as in God, not me as in me, Moses."). Cumbersome, awkward, and rendered unnecessary by giving Moses a text whose pronouns he wouldn't have to unravel.

My point is there's no "first to third person shift" in Leviticus 1. Please cite other verse(s) in the book that provide actual such shifts.

Currently controlled demolition theory for World Trade Center towers is as credible as your 'the Dating of Psalms' idea (many unsupported claims for both ideas). Primary science tenet is repeatability: e.g. examining Dead Sea Scrolls using recognized methods of investigation => David composed 4,050 Psalms. Searching “The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (translations)” for Ezra OR Nehemiah found nothing. Searching for psalms NEAR wrote found one author: David.

In my view, your claim is false, but again, I have neither the time nor the interest to produce the necessary proof of your error. You're welcome to your views.

Should your idea "the Dating of the Psalms" be treated as having 'evidentiary value' for "honest discussion" ?

In its original context, my "evidentiary value" assessment referred to an "honest discussion of the WTC tragedy" - why buildings collapsed - not to a discussion of the dating of biblical compositions, which is a very different kind of discussion. But in professional biblical scholarship, yes, my understanding of the dating of the Psalms IS supported by evidence and by professionals in the field. Not all in the field, of course, but many. I have neither the time nor the interest to produce documentation, ESPECIALLY documentation that YOU would find credible.

Disappointed by lack of scholarly sources cited for "It is more likely ..." & "It is probable ..." so cannot investigate: e.g. What was likely/probable assessment criteria ? New Interpreter's Bible preface includes three lists of people: Editorial Board, Consultants, & Contributors (seems current scholarship assumes older critical scholarship is credible and obviously well known)

As I have said, I have neither the time nor the interest to create the kinds of posts that I think you're seeking. The evidence you seek exists, but I am not going to find it for you.

You're welcome to embrace the resources that you embrace, as I believe I'm welcome to embrace the resources I embrace.

Humanly wonder how many relatively recent critical scholars are like Jewish Sanhedrin members (religious lawyers & judges) during time of Jesus who lost their first love for Holy יהוה Lord God so they valued their scholarly study results & traditions more than truly Loving God.

Humanly wonder how your humanly wonder is relevant to the on-topic issues we're discussing.

For the story of Job to be well known, story needed to predate census story writings. Biblical text has two objective reasons for Job knowability.

Job's predating the census writings is a necessary condition for it to have been well known, of course, but it's not a sufficient condition. Even if Job was written before the census accounts, it doesn't mean the story was well known to the authors of those accounts, or that those authors then used that well known story as the basis for their accounts. Hence, I asked you to cite verses from the accounts to demonstrate the truth of your claim. To date, at least, you have chosen not to do so, I presume because there are no such verses in the accounts.

Curious if your question has an "unnamed authority" answer from your perspective. My named authority is Holy יהוה Lord God inspiration, who chose what needed repetition along with what to leave mysterious: e.g. Righteous justice rationale (again angry) not shared with humans.

In my view, your post here reflects yet more of your reading your personal views into a text. There is nothing in either text to suggest God's desire for "repetition" and mystery in the census accounts. Neither account is mysterious as to who incited David to conduct the census.

FWIW: when initially found <Person Job> in Ezekiel 14:14-20 (Noah, Daniel, Job) wondered about story of Job knowability until researching relative timing found: If the Chronicler was Ezra, then Ezekiel's prophecies predate Chronicles being written by over 125 years. My human speculation is wondering how many times the Chronicler (Ezra) meditated on the story of Job before writing Chronicles.

You questioned the credibility of my resources, but now propose to me your "human speculation" about the Chronicler's possible meditation on the story of Job?

Even if Ezra knew about Job, it doesn't prove that he intended his census incitement story to reflect the mystery of a God-Satan partnership.

We disagree about 2 Samuel 24 & 1 Chronicles 21 being contradictory. To me, 2 Samuel 24 & 1 Chronicles 21 are truthfully consistent within overall Holy יהוה Lord God inspired context. Parallels of 2 Samuel 24 & 1 Chronicles 21 reveal different story aspects about David's census.

You responded to my expression of an opinion about one of your resources with this: "Your March 21 comment "I respect but disagree with the arguments made by the second resource your quoted." expressed opinion, but lacked objective rationale for disagreement," but now provide nothing more than your "to me" opinion of the purported consistency between the two census accounts?

We disagree about "not both" plus disagree about Holy יהוה Lord God inspiration. To me true prophets of יהוה say/write what יהוה wants said/written (per יהוה perfect Holy will), which may be a mystery to the prophet: e.g. Daniel 12:8-13 & Matthew 24:36-44 & Mark 13:32-37 so your previous silence about these Scriptures infers my inspiration mystery idea is credible, which also applies to 2 Samuel 24 & 1 Chronicles 21.

More "to me" claims. That's fine with me, by the way!! I just can't imagine that it's okay with you given the frequency with which you have dismissed several of my "to me"-type claims.

I asked you to cite sections of the census texts that support your view. You chose not to do so, I'm still assuming because nothing in either text supports your view.

To my reading of them, the Daniel, Matthew, and Mark texts are of no relevance to the question of who incited David to conduct the census. Hence, you may infer from my "silence" about them anything you wish, but that silence did not imply any such thing (FYI, to "infer" is something hearers and readers - in this case, you - do, NOT what speakers and writers - in this case, I - do. Hence my post did not "infer" anything. YOU, as the reader, may well have drawn (correct or incorrect) inferences from it, but my words did not offer any. As the writer, I might have "implied" something via my words, however, since writers and speakers, NOT readers and listeners, imply.)

Better for honest CD idea discussion is providing objective rationale with your response: "That's NOT what text says" that has countless NOT possibilities so humanly not know what your phrase is NOT saying: e.g. 'not a kumquat'

If you say "the text says "XYZ," and I don't think the text says "XYZ," what else is there for me to say? Should I go through the verses one by one saying "THAT verse doesn't say 'XYZ,' and THAT verse doesn't say 'XYZ'"...? If a text says what you say it says, simply quote from the text to demonstrate my error. The fact that you basically never do that strongly suggests the truth of my claims.

Looking back found three 'NOT what the text says' replies lacking objective rationale for honest idea discussion:

If a text in fact says what I say it doesn't say, simply quote from the text to demonstrate my error.

My previous reply included your publicly posted idea quoted from March 13 "It's a source of personal pride ..." while evading my question.

That "personal pride" comment was part of my sarcastic swipe at your off-topic claims about my "ingenious myth-making." In my view, your question deserved nothing more than that.

Thankful for Holy changes in me, which included sarcasm dropping out of my communication style over a decade ago. Thankful for 1 John 1:9 sin confession (17 pages), God's forgiveness & cleansing from unrighteousness. Thankful for simple honesty replacement. FWIW: pondered truthfulness of your "myths" being more "ingeniously concocted" than just about anybody's (realized my lack of objective criteria for comparison while appreciating honest candor with words being truthful to me). Also did not have Scripture for myth idea discussion.

You're welcome to the forms of rhetoric that have value to you. Sarcasm is among the communication techniques I have valued and employed consistently over the last five decades, since I was age 12 or 13. Chances are good that neither of us is going to surrender our loyalties to our preferred forms of communication.

My reading of 2 Timothy 2:22-26 does not proscribe quarrels while Holy יהוה Lord God has many words jumping out at me about my Lord God's expectations of me for CD posting, which includes lots of prayers 🙏 with ongoing Love for You because God Loves You. ❤️To me, one idea trap of the devil is simply not grasping the meaning of John 1:1-5 (LEB) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. This one was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and apart from him not one thing came into being that has come into being. In him was life, and the life was the light of humanity. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.

Our posts in these threads are to be about issues, not about people. The expectation that we will "criticize ideas, not people" proscribes commentary about people who, in our views, "need to come to their senses," or "escape from the trap of the Devil," or in other ways fall into what you here call "idea trap(s) of the devil." I ask you again: If not to criticize people, why did you use a text from 2 Timothy 2 the objects of whose recommended conduct include people who need "repentance to a knowledge of the truth," to "come to their senses," and to "escape from the trap of the Devil"? In forums whose expectation is that participants will "criticize ideas, not people," how was your use of such a text either acceptable or on-topic?

As for your comments about the "Word" in John 1, we've been down that road multiple times. I refer you to those exchanges.

Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus

@Bill_Coley Psalm 137 describes events that have already happened, not events still to come: ...

@Bill_Coley There is nothing in the text to suggest that the writer is predicting future events. Once again, you're free to read your view into the text, but nothing in the text supports your doing so.

Objective observation is anonymous Psalm 137 text does not say when text was written: either during exile OR earlier prophecy. Psalm 137 text words describing Babylon are bland, generic => rivers, captors, tormentors, foreign land, daughter, children.

Researching "Dating of the Psalms" idea found composition during 400 years of prophetic silence was debunked decades ago:

The issue of the date of the psalms is closely tied to that of authorship. The following discussion is based on the assumption that the authorship claims of the headings are reliable.

Psalm 90 by Moses is the earliest datable psalm. It was written about 1407 b.c. The psalms of David and Asaph would have been composed between 1020 and 975 b.c. Two psalms (Ps 72, 127) comes from the period of Solomon’s reign, about 950 b.c. Dating the sons of Korah and the two Ezrahites who are mentioned as authors is difficult. Presumably they were preexilic. Of the psalms which carry no titles, some were undoubtedly Davidic (e.g., Ps 2 and 33) and the others date from a later period. A few are as late as the exile. Psalm 126 is the latest datable psalm. It comes from the period of restoration from captivity about 525 b.c. No convincing argument has been made for dating any of the psalms later than about 400 b.c.

The old liberal view that some of the psalms date to the Maccabean period between the Old and New Testaments has been discredited in recent years. The Ugaritic texts reveal an advanced poetic tradition in Canaan centuries before David. A large number of striking parallels between the biblical psalms and the Ugaritic poetry has been pointed out. These parallels suggest that the Israelites adapted a poetic genre which they found already highly developed by the culture which surrounded them in Canaan.19 Much of the phraseology of the psalms was current in Palestine long before the time of David. Hence one is hard pressed on linguistic grounds any longer to deny Davidic authorship of the psalms.

Nahum Sarna amasses abundant evidence against the Maccabean theory of authorship. Among his more telling points are these: (1) The Psalter is free of Greek linguistic influence; (2) the theology of the Psalter is wholly devoid of Hellenistic concepts; and (3) psalms known to have been written during or shortly after the Maccabean period—those found in the Qumran library—indicate significant linguistic, stylistic, structural, thematic, and theological departures from the biblical psalms.

 James E. Smith, The Wisdom Literature and Psalms, Old Testament Survey Series (Joplin, MO: College Press Pub. Co., 1996), 191–192.

Your first "witness" on March 24 proffered for your "Dating on the Psalms" idea was New Interpreter's Bible (NIB) published in 2004, which provided contemporary scholarship example of intentional incompleteness => left out reference(s) to recently published contrary evidence about "it is more likely ..." along with providing nothing for verifiable evdence research => perplexed by desire to avoid likelihood objective critique.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Disappointed that two or three verifiable factual witnesses have not been proffered to give your idea "the Dating of the Psalms" honest credibility.

@Bill_Coley Again, you dispute the views expressed by the resources I quoted, just as on many occasions I have disputed the views of the resources you quoted. I don't find it "disappointing" that you rely on resources with which I disagree, and I'm not sure of the basis for your disappointment. We disagree, as do the resources we rely on.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Your March 21 comment "I respect but disagree with the arguments made by the second resource your quoted." expressed opinion, but lacked objective rationale for disagreement. Repeating first Davidic Psalm authorship criticism & refutation:

@Bill_Coley I simply don't have the time or the interest to create researched critiques of the many sources you cite in your posts.

Idea discussion improvement would be "dispute/disagree because ..." that includes who/what/when/where/why/how idea(s).

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus quote: 1. Psalms attributed to David speak of the king in the third person rather than the first person (e.g., Ps 20, 21 etc.). ...

@Bill_Coley There is no indication in Psalm 20 or Psalm 21 that David is the referenced king. 

Logos Bible Search in Lexham Hebrew Bible (LHB) for king WITHIN 2 WORDS <LogosMorphHeb ~ V??3?????> finds Psalm 20:10 & Psalm 21:2 (LHB Psalm 21:1 is the title). Psalm 21 reminds me of 2 Samuel 7 (so we disagree about king indication). Psalm 20 reminds me of Jewish Blessings that include King of the Universe description for יהוה Yahweh => Psalm 20:9 (LEB) Rescue, O יהוה Yahweh. Let the king answer us when we call.

@Bill_Coley You and your resource are welcome to read that view into the text, but there is nothing in the text to support your doing so.

Logos Bible Search objectively found third person verbal wording for Davidic Psalms idea: 'the king in the third person.'

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus ... First-person speeches attributed to Yahweh in the Old Testament frequently shift from first to third person.

@Bill_Coley Please cite other verse(s) in the book that provide actual such shifts.

Old Testament Survey Series: The Wisdom Literature and Psalms did not provide shift examples so looked at cited footnote source:

Authorship of the Davidic Psalms

As we shall presently see, the rationalist critics take a very skeptical view of the reliability of the psalm titles and largely disregard their value as mere speculations of later rabbis. Having thus disposed of the evidence of the titles, the critics tend to reject the possibility, on theoretical grounds, that David could have composed any of the psalms in the Psalter. (Eissfeldt allows him only one or two.) These are the principal arguments advanced in rejecting the claims of Davidic authorship:

1. Some of the psalms attributed to David speak of the king in the third person rather than in the first person (e.g., 20, 21, 61, 63, 72, 110). One would expect an author to refer to himself as I or thou rather than he. There is, however, abundant evidence that ancient authors referred to themselves frequently in the third person. In classical literature, for instance, there can be no doubt that Xenophon was the author of The Anabasis; nevertheless, he refers to himself almost always in the third person. The same is true of Julius Caesar in his Gallic Wars. Repeatedly in the Old Testament we find Jehovah quoted as speaking of Himself in the third person. Even in the Ten Commandments which begin in the first person (“I am Yahweh thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt”), there is an occasional shift to the third person (“for Yahweh will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain”). It is therefore out of the question to use this matter of the third person as a criterion for ruling out authorship.

...

 Gleason Archer Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 3rd. ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), 488.

Used Logos Bible Software to find examples showing יהוה Yahweh speaking shift from first "I" to third person יהוה Yahweh (with pronoun or verb):

Genesis 18:17-19 (LEB) Then יהוה Yahweh said, “Shall I conceal from Abraham what I am going to do? Abraham will surely become a great and strong nation, and all the nations of the earth will be blessed on account of him. For I have chosen him, that he will command his children and his household after him that they will keep the way of יהוה Yahweh, to do righteousness and justice, so that יהוה Yahweh may bring upon Abraham that which he said to him.”

Exodus 19:9-12 (LEB) And יהוה Yahweh said to Moses, “Look, I am going to come to you in a thick cloud in order that the people will hear when I speak with you and will also trust in you forever.” And Moses told the words of the people to יהוה Yahweh. And Yahweh said to Moses, “Go to the people and consecrate them today and tomorrow. They must wash their clothes, and they must be prepared for the third day, because on the third day, יהוה Yahweh will go down on Mount Sinai before the eyes of all the people. And you must set limits for the people all around, saying, ‘Guard yourselves against going up to the mountain and touching its edge. Anyone touching the mountain will certainly be put to death.

Exodus 20:4-7 (LEB) “You shall not make for yourself a divine image with any form that is in the heavens above or that is in the earth below or that is in the water below the earth. You will not bow down to them, and you will not serve them, because I am יהוה Yahweh your God, a jealous God, punishing the guilt of the parents on the children on the third and on the fourth generations of those hating me, and showing loyal love to thousands of generations of those loving me and of those keeping my commandments. “You shall not misuse the name of יהוה Yahweh your God, because יהוה Yahweh will not leave unpunished anyone who misuses his name.

Exodus 30:1-10 (LEB) “And you will make an altar for burning incense; you will make it of acacia wood, a cubit its length and a cubit its width—it will be square—and two cubits its height, its horns of one piece with it. And you will overlay it with pure gold, its top and its sides all around and its horns, and you will make for it a gold molding all around. And you will make two gold rings for it; under its molding on two opposite sides you will make them as holders for poles to carry it with them. You will make the poles of acacia wood, and you will overlay them with gold. And you will put it before the curtain that is upon the ark of the testimony, before the atonement cover, which is on the testimony, there where I will meet with you. “And on it Aaron will turn fragrant incense into smoke; each morning when he tends the lamps, he will turn it into smoke. And when Aaron sets up the lamps at twilight, he will turn it into smoke—incense of continuity—before יהוה Yahweh throughout your generations. You will not offer on it strange incense or a burnt offering or a grain offering, and you will not pour a libation on it. And Aaron will make atonement on its horns one time in the year from the blood of the sin offering of the atonement; one time in the year he will make atonement on it throughout your generations; it is a most holy thing for יהוה Yahweh.”

Exodus 31:12-17 (LEB) And יהוה Yahweh spoke to Moses and said, “And you, speak to the Israelites, saying, ‘Surely you must keep my Sabbaths, because it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, in order to know that I am יהוה Yahweh, who consecrates you. And you must keep the Sabbath, because it is holy for you; defilers of it will surely be put to death, because anyone who does work on it—that person will be cut off from among his people. On six days work can be done, and on the seventh is a Sabbath of complete rest, a holy day for יהוה Yahweh; anyone doing work on the Sabbath day will surely be put to death. The Israelites will pay attention to the Sabbath in order to fulfill the Sabbath throughout their generations as a lasting covenant. It is a sign between me and the Israelites forever, because in six days יהוה Yahweh made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh he ceased and recovered.”

Exodus 33:19 (LEB) And he said, “I myself will cause all my goodness to pass over before you, and I will proclaim the name of יהוה Yahweh before you, and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will show compassion to whom I will show compassion.”

Leviticus 19:1-8 (LEB) Then יהוה Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to all the community of the Israelites, and say to them, ‘You must be holy, because I, יהוה Yahweh your God, am holy. Each of you must revere your mother and your father, and you must keep my Sabbaths; I am יהוה Yahweh your God. You must not turn to idols, and you must not make for yourselves gods of cast metal; I am יהוה Yahweh your God. “ ‘And when you sacrifice a sacrifice of fellowship offerings to יהוה Yahweh, you must sacrifice it for your acceptance. It must be eaten on the day of your sacrifice and the next day; but the remainder must be burned up in the fire by the third day. And if it is indeed eaten on the third day, it is unclean meat; it shall not be regarded as accepted. And the one who eats it shall bear his guilt, because he has profaned יהוה Yahweh’s holiness, and that person shall be cut off from his people.

Leviticus 26:44-46 (LEB) And in spite of this, when they are in the land of their enemies I will not reject them, and I will not abhor them to destroy them, to break my covenant with them, because I am יהוה Yahweh their God. And I will remember the first covenant for them—whom I brought out from the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations to be their God. I am יהוה Yahweh.’ ” These are the rules and the regulations and the laws that יהוה Yahweh gave between himself and the Israelites on Mount Sinai through Moses.

Numbers 12:6-8 (LEB) and he said, “Please hear my words: If there is a prophet among you, I, יהוה Yahweh, will make myself known to him in a vision. I will speak to him in a dream. Not so with my servant Moses; in all my house he is faithful. I will speak to him mouth to mouth, in clearness, not in riddles; and he will look at the form of יהוה Yahweh. Why were you not afraid to speak against my servant, against Moses?”

Numbers 14:20-21 (LEB) יהוה Yahweh said, “I have forgiven them according to your word; but as I am alive, the glory of יהוה Yahweh will fill all the earth.

Deuteronomy 2:2-7 (LEB) יהוה Yahweh spoke to me, saying, ‘Long enough you have been skirting this mountain; turn yourselves north, and instruct the people, saying, “You are about to cross through the territory of your brothers, the descendants of Esau, who are living in Seir; they will be afraid of you, and so be very careful. Do not get involved in battle with them, for I will not give you any of their land, not even a foot’s breadth of it; since I have given Mount Seir as a possession for Esau. You shall buy food from them so that you may eat; and also you shall purchase water from them with money so that you may drink. The fact of the matter is, יהוה Yahweh your God has blessed you in all the work you have done; he knows your travels with respect to this great wilderness; forty years יהוה Yahweh your God has been with you; you have not lacked a thing.” ’

Deuteronomy 5:6-12 (LEB) ‘I am יהוה Yahweh your God, who brought you out from the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery. There shall not be for you other gods besides me. ‘You shall not make for yourself a divine image of any type of form that is in the heaven above or that is on the earth beneath or that is in the water under the earth. ‘You shall not bow down to them, and you shall not serve them, for I, יהוה Yahweh your God, am a jealous God, punishing the guilt of fathers upon their children and upon the third and upon the fourth generation of those hating me, but showing loyal love to thousands of those who love me and of those who keep my commandments. ‘You shall not take up the name of יהוה Yahweh your God for a worthless purpose, for יהוה Yahweh will not leave unpunished anyone who uses his name for a worthless purpose. ‘Observe the Sabbath day to make it holy, just as יהוה Yahweh your God has commanded you.

1 Samuel 10:17-19 (LEB) Then Samuel summoned the people to יהוה Yahweh at Mizpah, and he said to the Israelites, “Thus says יהוה Yahweh the God of Israel: ‘I brought Israel up from Egypt, and I delivered you from the hand of the Egyptians and from the hand of all the kingdoms that were oppressing you.’ But you today have rejected your God who always delivers you from all of your calamities and your distresses. You have said to him, ‘No, but you must appoint a king over us!’ So then present yourselves before יהוה Yahweh by your tribes and by your clans.”

2 Samuel 7:8-11 (LEB) So then, thus you shall say to my servant David, ‘Thus says יהוה Yahweh of hosts, “I took you from the pasture from following the sheep to be a leader over my people, over Israel, and I have been with you everywhere you went. I have cut off all of your enemies from in front of you, and I will make a great name for you, as the name of the great ones who are on the earth. I will make a place for my people Israel, and I will plant them so that they can dwell in their own place. They will not tremble any longer, and the children of wickedness will not afflict them again, as in the former days. In the manner that I appointed judges over my people Israel, I will give you rest from all your enemies. And יהוה Yahweh declares to you that יהוה Yahweh will build a house for you.

2 Samuel 12:7-9 (LEB) Then Nathan said to him, “You are the man! Thus says יהוה Yahweh the God of Israel: ‘I anointed you as king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I gave you the household of your master and the women of your master into your lap. I also gave you the house of Israel and Judah; if that had been too little, I would have added to you much more. Why have you despised the word of יהוה Yahweh by doing evil in his eyes? Uriah the Hittite you have struck down with the sword, and his wife you have taken to yourself as wife! You have killed him with the sword of the Ammonites!

Isaiah 1:2-4 (LEB) Hear, heavens, and listen, earth, for יהוה Yahweh has spoken: “I reared children and I brought them up, but they rebelled against me. An ox knows its owner and a donkey the manger of its master. Israel does not know; my people do not understand. Ah, sinful nation, a people heavy with iniquity, offspring of evildoers, children who deal corruptly. They have forsaken יהוה Yahweh; they have despised the holy one of Israel. They are estranged and gone backward.

List of passages showing יהוה Yahweh speaking shift from first "I" to third person יהוה Yahweh is incomplete. Isaiah 1:2-4 reminded me about demonic description of Jesus as the "Holy One" in Mark 1:22-28 and Luke 4:31-37 plus Peter's sermon included "Holy One" in Acts 2:14-36

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Currently controlled demolition theory for World Trade Center towers is as credible as your 'the Dating of Psalms' idea (many unsupported claims for both ideas). Primary science tenet is repeatability: e.g. examining Dead Sea Scrolls using recognized methods of investigation => David composed 4,050 Psalms. Searching “The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (translations)” for Ezra OR Nehemiah found nothing. Searching for psalms NEAR wrote found one author: David.

@Bill_Coley In my view, your claim is false, but again, I have neither the time nor the interest to produce the necessary proof of your error. You're welcome to your views.

From my factual research thus far, simply doubt your idea/ability "to produce the necessary proof of your error" has any verifiable evidence.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Should your idea "the Dating of the Psalms" be treated as having 'evidentiary value' for "honest discussion" ?

@Bill_Coley In its original context, my "evidentiary value" assessment referred to an "honest discussion of the WTC tragedy" - why buildings collapsed - not to a discussion of the dating of biblical compositions, which is a very different kind of discussion. But in professional biblical scholarship, yes, my understanding of the dating of the Psalms IS supported by evidence and by professionals in the field. Not all in the field, of course, but many. I have neither the time nor the interest to produce documentation, ESPECIALLY documentation that YOU would find credible.

Objective, verifiable facts are important for credible idea discussion. In contrast, our spiritual adversary is the undisputed guru of deceptively mixing lies & truth. Does repeating unsubstantiated opinion a lot somehow transform an opinion into truthful fact ?

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Disappointed by lack of scholarly sources cited for "It is more likely ..." & "It is probable ..." so cannot investigate: e.g. What was likely/probable assessment criteria ? New Interpreter's Bible preface includes three lists of people: Editorial Board, Consultants, & Contributors (seems current scholarship assumes older critical scholarship is credible and obviously well known)

@Bill_Coley As I have said, I have neither the time nor the interest to create the kinds of posts that I think you're seeking. The evidence you seek exists, but I am not going to find it for you.

Simply doubt verifiable evidence for your idea "the Dating of the Psalms" even exists. Factual historical evidence is different than 19th century human reasoning for "dating of the Psalms" opinion published many times.

@Bill_Coley You're welcome to embrace the resources that you embrace, as I believe I'm welcome to embrace the resources I embrace.

Should truthful idea(s) be discarded due to feeling uncomfortable ?

Researching Dead Sea Scrolls about the story of Job found ancient translation insights: (11QtgJob => Cave 11 Qumran Targum Job)

6. 11QtgJob and the Belief of its Ancient Translations

i) In dealing with the book of Job it is not surprising that the oldest references to Aramaic translations always relate to it.

ii) Some scholars state that 11QtgJob is not to be seen as a coincidental discovery on account thereof.

iii) The following suggested points could possibly be considered why Job is seen as important and why the book stirs so much activity in regard to matters of translation: 1) The belief according to widespread tradition that the earliest recorded witness of Job was written by Moses. Arguments against this belief is based on a few reasons such as: a) Job’ affinity with other Old Testament books; b) Why nothing in terms of the great deliverance from Egyptian slavery or Red Sea experience is mentioned, especially since there is an indication of the pyramids; c) That “after this Job lived a hundred and forty years” in which Jehovah provided ample time for him to have recorded this unique and challenging life experience.

iv) Job is regarded as the sole receiver of Paleo-Hebrew script outside the Qumranic manuscripts of the Pentateuch;

v) Job, according to the Talmud and certain Syriac manuscripts, follows the Pentateuch, and the difficulties in regard to the language usage in Job, raises further questions.

vi) Moreover, Targums of Job of various kinds as mentioned below, may after a further detailed study surprisingly lead us back to an ancient form of the Hebrew text.

 Leander Chalice, The Dead Sea Scrolls of Job from Cave 4 and Cave 11 (Leander Chalice, 2013), 27–28.

Ancient Hebrew is verifiable evidence about story of Job predating Holy יהוה Lord God inspiration of 2 Samuel & 1 Chronicles by many centuries.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus For the story of Job to be well known, story needed to predate census story writings. Biblical text has two objective reasons for Job knowability.

@Bill_Coley Job's predating the census writings is a necessary condition for it to have been well known, of course, but it's not a sufficient condition. Even if Job was written before the census accounts, it doesn't mean the story was well known to the authors of those accounts, or that those authors then used that well known story as the basis for their accounts. Hence, I asked you to cite verses from the accounts to demonstrate the truth of your claim. To date, at least, you have chosen not to do so, I presume because there are no such verses in the accounts.

Logos Bible Search for <Person Job> in Lexham Hebrew Bible finds 1,391 results in two books: 17 in Ezekiel 14:14-20 (9th book in the Prophets) and 1,374 in the Book of Job (2nd book in the Writings, which begins with Psalms). Only other mention of Job is in James 5:11 that confirms Jewish audiences in the first century knew the story of Job. Humanly not know when annual Jewish learning cycle began including story of Job.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus FWIW: when initially found <Person Job> in Ezekiel 14:14-20 (Noah, Daniel, Job) wondered about story of Job knowability until researching relative timing found: If the Chronicler was Ezra, then Ezekiel's prophecies predate Chronicles being written by over 125 years. My human speculation is wondering how many times the Chronicler (Ezra) meditated on the story of Job before writing Chronicles.

@Bill_Coley You questioned the credibility of my resources, but now propose to me your "human speculation" about the Chronicler's possible meditation on the story of Job?

My apologies for my human idea speculation, which proves my humanity (with silver hair, gold on teeth, ...), who is still living & learning (plus looking for Jewish tradition beginning to annually read/discuss Old Covenant, which has been done for many centuries).

April 1 @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Looking back found three 'NOT what the text says' replies lacking objective rationale for honest idea discussion:

April 2 @Bill_Coley If a text in fact says what I say it doesn't say, simply quote from the text to demonstrate my error.

My April 1 reply included text quoting, which was no joke to demonstrate error expressed earlier by "That's not what the text says." that lacked any objective who/what/when/where/why/how idea(s) for discussion.

January 18 @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Jeremiah 23:6 (NLT) And this will be his name: ‘The יהוה Lord Is Our Righteousness.’ ... (so Jeremiah 23:5 descendant is יהוה in a male human body)

January 20 @Bill_Coley That's not what the text says.

April 1 @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Jeremiah 23:5-6 (NLT + יהוה next to Lord translation) “For the time is coming,” says the יהוה Lord, “when I will raise up a righteous descendant from King David’s line. He will be a King who rules with wisdom. He will do what is just and right throughout the land. And this will be his name: ‘The יהוה Lord Is Our Righteousness.’ In that day Judah will be saved, and Israel will live in safety.

April 1 @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Right Click on Lord in Logos Bible Software shows translation of Hebrew יהוה (lemma visual filter can be used to insert יהוה into English text)

Jeremiah wrote down words from Holy יהוה Lord God (not prophet's thoughts, but Holy יהוה Lord God describing human body descendant).

@Bill_Coley  In forums whose expectation is that participants will "criticize ideas, not people," how was your use of such a text either acceptable or on-topic?

CD forum => What is Christian Debate? begins with:

What is Christian Debate?

This is your go-to place for respectful online theological discussion. Feel free to pose Bible questions, spark theological discourse, and connect with people all over the world who are passionate about the Word.

Christian Debate is a hub for biblical learning, growth, and community. Please keep your questions and comments respectful and polite. Treat others in this forum like you would treat your neighbor at church—don’t be afraid to voice your opinion, but do it with love and kindness.

Thankful for 2 Timothy 2:22-26 sparking theological ideas, in accordance with CD forum expectations. Thankful Holy יהוה Lord God causes scripture words to jump out (God intimately knows individual human choices what to really, really, really love the most).

Keep Smiling 😊

[Deleted User]

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus, what was the point of the above theological seminary lecture of many words? how about a 1-2 paragraph summary identifying what you meant to communicate?

Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus

@Wolfgang posted:

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus, what was the point of the above theological seminary lecture of many words? how about a 1-2 paragraph summary identifying what you meant to communicate?

Primary point => Objective, verifiable facts are important for credible idea discussion.

My 9 April reply had two new questions. Curious about your answers:

• Does repeating unsubstantiated opinion a lot somehow transform an opinion into truthful fact ?
• Should truthful idea(s) be discarded due to feeling uncomfortable ?

Using shift to 3rd person for third question: knowing @Wolfgang has CD reputation for conspiracy ideas, likewise curious about @Wolfgang conspiracy idea(s) concerning New Interpreter's Bible (NIB) being intentionally incomplete ?

NIB "Dating of the Psalms" contemporary scholarship left out any reference(s) to recently published contrary evidence about likelihood. For example, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction by Gleason Archer Jr was published a decade prior to NIB, which had four discussions about Davidic Psalm authorship. Also NIB did not provide any older scholarship support for "it is more likely ..." that was quoted by @Bill_Coley on March 24 

-- (1) Personal Names. The superscriptions of seventy-three psalms mention David; others mention Jeduthun (Psalms 39; 62; 77; see 1 Chr 16:41–42; 25:1–8), Heman (Psalm 88; see 1 Kgs 4:31; 1 Chr 2:6; 6:17; 16:41–42; 25:1–8), Ethan (Psalm 89; see 1 Kgs 4:31; 1 Chr 2:6), Solomon (Psalms 72; 127), Moses (Psalm 90), the Korahites (Psalms 42; 44–49; 84–85; 87–88), and the Asaphites (Psalms 50; 73–83). While it is possible in some cases that these names indicate authorship (see above on the personal/historical method), it is more likely that they originated in the process of collection. David, for instance, was remembered as the initiator of psalmody in worship (see 1 Chr 16:7–43). To be sure, the chronicler wrote hundreds of years after the actual time of David, but the memory may be an ancient one. In any case, it is more likely that many psalms were attributed to David as a result of this memory rather than as a result of Davidic authorship. Similarly, the process of collection accounts for the association of thirteen psalms with specific moments in David’s life (see Psalms 3; 7; 18; 34; 51; 52; 54; 56; 57; 59; 60; 63; 142). These references should not be construed as historically accurate, but neither should they be dismissed as irrelevant. Rather, they provide an illustrative narrative context for hearing and interpreting particular psalms as well as a clue to the appropriateness of imagining narrative contexts for other psalms that do not contain superscriptions.

Mccann, J. C., Jr. (1994–2004). The Book of Psalms. In L. E. Keck (Ed.), New Interpreter’s Bible (Vol. 4, pp. 655–656). Nashville: Abingdon Press.

FWIW: puzzled by similar theological summary not being requested of @Bill_Coley. My 9 April reply had 638 new words from me with Bible verses and resource quotes to answer questions from April 2 reply by @Bill_Coley that had 1,371 new words.

Keep Smiling 😊

Bill_Coley

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus posted:

Objective observation is anonymous Psalm 137 text does not say when text was written: either during exile OR earlier prophecy. Psalm 137 text words describing Babylon are bland, generic => rivers, captors, tormentors, foreign land, daughter, children.

Whether the psalmist's description of Judah's captivity in Babylon is "bland" or "generic" is of no consequence to the tense of the verbs he uses in that description. "We sat and wept" and "as we thought of Jerusalem" (Psalm 137.1), and "our captors demanded" (Psalm 137.3) all describe completed actions; "[h]ow can we sing... while" does not (Psalm 137.4).

Researching "Dating of the Psalms" idea found composition during 400 years of prophetic silence was debunked decades ago:

Your first "witness" on March 24 proffered for your "Dating on the Psalms" idea was New Interpreter's Bible (NIB) published in 2004, which provided contemporary scholarship example of intentional incompleteness => left out reference(s) to recently published contrary evidence about "it is more likely ..." along with providing nothing for verifiable evdence research => perplexed by desire to avoid likelihood objective critique.

As I declared in my previous post, in my view, you and I are both welcome to rely on the resources of our respective choices.

Idea discussion improvement would be "dispute/disagree because ..." that includes who/what/when/where/why/how idea(s).

I regularly offer such responses. What I don't have time for or interest in is responding to every resource you quote, many times in great number, at great length, and of dubious relevance to the issues under discussion.

Logos Bible Search in Lexham Hebrew Bible (LHB) for king WITHIN 2 WORDS <LogosMorphHeb ~ V??3?????> finds Psalm 20:10 & Psalm 21:2 (LHB Psalm 21:1 is the title). Psalm 21 reminds me of 2 Samuel 7 (so we disagree about king indication). Psalm 20 reminds me of Jewish Blessings that include King of the Universe description for יהוה Yahweh => Psalm 20:9 (LEB) Rescue, O יהוה Yahweh. Let the king answer us when we call.

My claim to which this was your response was that there is no indication in Psalms 20 and 21 that David is the referenced king. The verses you cite provide no such indication. That is, the "king indication" upon which you note that we disagree was the whole point of my previous assertion, one that neither your narrative nor its included texts challenge.

Logos Bible Search objectively found third person verbal wording for Davidic Psalms idea: 'the king in the third person.'

Let's assume David is the author of Psalms 23 and 51. I think it's hard to imagine his writing BOTH in such personal confession and petition (23 & 51) AND distanced third-person imagery (20 & 21). Rhetorically and stylistically, it's hard to imagine that ANY one writer penned both 20/21 AND 23/51.

Old Testament Survey Series: The Wisdom Literature and Psalms did not provide shift examples so looked at cited footnote source:

Authorship of the Davidic Psalms

I asked for examples of first-to-third person shifts in the book of Leviticus, not for additional information about Davidic authorship of the psalms (this applies to most of the texts you next cited, except....)

Leviticus 19:1-8 (LEB) 

From Leviticus, yes, but part of God's manuscript given to Moses to present to the Israelites (Leviticus 19.1-2). Rhetorically, it's not surprising to find a reference to "the LORD" in Lev. 19.5, when in Lev. 19.4 God declared "I am the LORD your God."

Leviticus 26:44-46 (LEB) 

From Leviticus, yes, but the purported first-to-third person shift doesn't occur within God's speech; the third person reference to God arises in the narrator's summary found in v.46, which of course is not unexpected.

List of passages showing יהוה Yahweh speaking shift from first "I" to third person יהוה Yahweh is incomplete. Isaiah 1:2-4 reminded me about demonic description of Jesus as the "Holy One" in Mark 1:22-28 and Luke 4:31-37 plus Peter's sermon included "Holy One" in Acts 2:14-36

Again, I asked for examples in the book of Leviticus.

From my factual research thus far, simply doubt your idea/ability "to produce the necessary proof of your error" has any verifiable evidence.

I welcome you to your doubts.

Objective, verifiable facts are important for credible idea discussion. In contrast, our spiritual adversary is the undisputed guru of deceptively mixing lies & truth. Does repeating unsubstantiated opinion a lot somehow transform an opinion into truthful fact ?

No more than repeating references to Satan a lot in our exchanges somehow grants those references thread relevance or obedience to the posting expectations of these forums.

Simply doubt verifiable evidence for your idea "the Dating of the Psalms" even exists. Factual historical evidence is different than 19th century human reasoning for "dating of the Psalms" opinion published many times.

You and I don't share the same doubts about the issue of the psalms' creation.

Should truthful idea(s) be discarded due to feeling uncomfortable ?

In welcoming each of us to the resources of our respective choices, in no way am I suggesting that either of us should for any reason discard "truthful ideas."

Ancient Hebrew is verifiable evidence about story of Job predating Holy יהוה Lord God inspiration of 2 Samuel & 1 Chronicles by many centuries. ...

Logos Bible Search for <Person Job> in Lexham Hebrew Bible finds 1,391 results in two books: 17 in Ezekiel 14:14-20 (9th book in the Prophets) and 1,374 in the Book of Job (2nd book in the Writings, which begins with Psalms). Only other mention of Job is in James 5:11 that confirms Jewish audiences in the first century knew the story of Job. Humanly not know when annual Jewish learning cycle began including story of Job.

As I noted in my previous response, Job's predating the two census narratives is a necessary but NOT sufficient condition to prove census account reliance on Job's prologue's report of a God-Satan dialogue. You must also demonstrate that the authors of the two accounts knew about, agreed with, and intentionally incorporated the essence of that dialogue in their accounts. To-date, you have done none of those things. What MIGHT WELL prove such reliance, however, are quotations from the two census accounts themselves. In previous and successive posts, I've both asked you to provide such quotations and reminded you that you have yet to provide them. At some point - a point which I think has arrived - it will be reasonable for me to infer your acknowledgement that neither census account text supports your view of a God-Satan partnership.

My apologies for my human idea speculation, which proves my humanity (with silver hair, gold on teeth, ...), who is still living & learning (plus looking for Jewish tradition beginning to annually read/discuss Old Covenant, which has been done for many centuries).

I don't object to your "human idea speculation," especially when you overtly label it. I object to your holding my posts to a different standard than you hold your own.

My April 1 reply included text quoting, which was no joke to demonstrate error expressed earlier by "That's not what the text says." that lacked any objective who/what/when/where/why/how idea(s) for discussion.

Your April 1 reply referenced Jeremiah 23.5-6, a text I engaged directly this way in a January 15 post:

"The Jeremiah verse does NOT say the one God will raise up will be God. The verse says the name of the one God will raise will remind people that God is their righteousness. The language of the text makes this clear when it quotes God as saying "'For the time is coming,' says the LORD, 'when I will raise up a righteous descendant from King David’s line. He will be a King who rules with wisdom. He will do what is just and right throughout the land.'" 

"There is no indication in text that God will raise up one who is also God. Rather, the text says God will raise up a descendant of David's (ergo, human). Your reading of the passage to mean God will raise up one who also is God reflects your personal faith claims, not the text itself."

Jeremiah wrote down words from Holy יהוה Lord God (not prophet's thoughts, but Holy יהוה Lord God describing human body descendant).

I welcome you to your view of the Jeremiah text, but in my view, the text itself doesn't support your interpretation (see above). In other words, that's not what the text says.

Thankful for 2 Timothy 2:22-26 sparking theological ideas, in accordance with CD forum expectations. Thankful Holy יהוה Lord God causes scripture words to jump out (God intimately knows individual human choices what to really, really, really love the most).

Christian Debate is ALSO a "hub" for exchanges in which participants "criticize ideas, not people." So I ask you again: Other than to criticize people, why did you cite a 2 Timothy text the objects of whose recommended conduct include people (not ideas) who need "repentance to a knowledge of the truth," to "come to their senses," and to "escape from the trap of the Devil"? In forums whose expectations preclude criticism of people, how was that text either appropriate or on-topic? PLEASE answer my questions directly.

Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Objective observation is anonymous Psalm 137 text does not say when text was written: either during exile OR earlier prophecy. Psalm 137 text words describing Babylon are bland, generic => rivers, captors, tormentors, foreign land, daughter, children.

@Bill_Coley Whether the psalmist's description of Judah's captivity in Babylon is "bland" or "generic" is of no consequence to the tense of the verbs he uses in that description. "We sat and wept" and "as we thought of Jerusalem" (Psalm 137.1), and "our captors demanded" (Psalm 137.3) all describe completed actions; "[h]ow can we sing... while" does not (Psalm 137.4).

English time in verb tense is translation opinion, which happened over 2,000 years after exile (so past time/tense was chosen for translation into English, which does not have verbal action expression without time). Hebrew verbal action is viewed entirety as simple, complete, incomplete, imperative, jussive (other words provide time expression). Psalm 137 could have been composed during exile OR earlier prophecy (same words).

Psalm 137:1-6 (LEB + kind of action) By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat (complete), yes, we wept (complete), when we remembered (simple verbal noun) Zion. On the willows in her midst, we hung (complete) up our lyres. For there our captors asked (complete) of us words of a song, and our tormentors asked of us jubilation, “Sing (incomplete imperative) for us from a song of Zion.” How could we sing (incomplete) the song of יהוה Yahweh in a foreign land? If I forget (incomplete) you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget (incomplete jussive). Let my tongue cling (incomplete jussive) to the roof of my mouth, if I do not remember (incomplete) you, if do not I exalt (incomplete) Jerusalem above my highest joy.

Greek verbal system has kind of action primary with time of action secondary. Least expressive Greek verb is Aorist tense (it happened), which was chosen by Jewish scholars for Greek LXX translation of all verbs in Psalm 137:1-6. Psalm 137:5 has mixture of 1st & 3rd person verbs (with jussive volitional action). To me, bland Babylonian descriptions imply earlier prophecy, especially when contrasted with Babylonian details in Daniel.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Researching "Dating of the Psalms" idea found composition during 400 years of prophetic silence was debunked decades ago:

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Your first "witness" on March 24 proffered for your "Dating on the Psalms" idea was New Interpreter's Bible (NIB) published in 2004, which provided contemporary scholarship example of intentional incompleteness => left out reference(s) to recently published contrary evidence about "it is more likely ..." along with providing nothing for verifiable evdence research => perplexed by desire to avoid likelihood objective critique.

@Bill_Coley As I declared in my previous post, in my view, you and I are both welcome to rely on the resources of our respective choices.

To me, the idea of choosing unsubstantiated opinion feels like sand for a house foundation while verifiable truthful evidence feels like a rock.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Idea discussion improvement would be "dispute/disagree because ..." that includes who/what/when/where/why/how idea(s).

@Bill_Coley I regularly offer such responses. What I don't have time for or interest in is responding to every resource you quote, many times in great number, at great length, and of dubious relevance to the issues under discussion.

😪(time/interest reasons seem dismissive of verifiable truthful evidence that is contrary to your "Dating of the Psalms" unsubstantiated opinion)

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus quote: 1. Psalms attributed to David speak of the king in the third person rather than the first person (e.g., Ps 20, 21 etc.). ...

@Bill_Coley There is no indication in Psalm 20 or Psalm 21 that David is the referenced king. 

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Logos Bible Search in Lexham Hebrew Bible (LHB) for king WITHIN 2 WORDS <LogosMorphHeb ~ V??3?????> finds Psalm 20:10 & Psalm 21:2 (LHB Psalm 21:1 is the title). Psalm 21 reminds me of 2 Samuel 7 (so we disagree about king indication). Psalm 20 reminds me of Jewish Blessings that include King of the Universe description for יהוה Yahweh => Psalm 20:9 (LEB) Rescue, O יהוה Yahweh. Let the king answer us when we call.

@Bill_Coley My claim to which this was your response was that there is no indication in Psalms 20 and 21 that David is the referenced king. The verses you cite provide no such indication. That is, the "king indication" upon which you note that we disagree was the whole point of my previous assertion, one that neither your narrative nor its included texts challenge.

Quoted source prior to your claim included 'speak of the king in the third person rather than the first person' so my reply included an objective search for 3rd person king is in Psalms 20 and 21 (verified). Quoted source did not specify who is the referenced 3rd person king. Next replied to your claim about David not being the referenced king in Psalm 21 and Psalm 20. We disagree about Psalms 21 while agreeing David is not the king in Psalm 20. Elaborating on parallel text indications between Psalm 21 and 2 Samuel 7: (e.g. great, delight, blessings, forever)

Psalm 21:1-5 (LEB) O יהוה Yahweh, the king will rejoice in your strength, and how greatly he will delight in your help. You have given him the desire of his heart, and have not withheld the request of his lips. Selah For you meet him with blessings of good things. You set on his head a crown of fine gold. He asked life from you; you gave it to him— length of days forever and ever. His honor is great because of your help. Splendor and majesty you have bestowed upon him.

2 Samuel 7:8-13 (LEB) So then, thus you shall say to my servant David, ‘Thus says יהוה Yahweh of hosts, “I took you from the pasture from following the sheep to be a leader over my people, over Israel, and I have been with you everywhere you went. I have cut off all of your enemies from in front of you, and I will make a great name for you, as the name of the great ones who are on the earth. I will make a place for my people Israel, and I will plant them so that they can dwell in their own place. They will not tremble any longer, and the children of wickedness will not afflict them again, as in the former days. In the manner that I appointed judges over my people Israel, I will give you rest from all your enemies. And יהוה Yahweh declares to you that יהוה Yahweh will build a house for you. When your days are full and you lie down with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring after you who will go out from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He will build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.

Intimate promise from יהוה Yahweh to King David included speaking shift from first person "I" to third person יהוה Yahweh. King Jesus experienced God's Glory & Love when time & physical realm had not yet been created by יהוה Yahweh so King Jesus had no reason to ask for life (already was being The Word portion of יהוה Yahweh forever). Also יהוה Yahweh eternally exists so is not the king in Psalm 21. King Righteous Jesus is on David's throne forever.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Logos Bible Search objectively found third person verbal wording for Davidic Psalms idea: 'the king in the third person.'

@Bill_Coley Let's assume David is the author of Psalms 23 and 51. I think it's hard to imagine his writing BOTH in such personal confession and petition (23 & 51) AND distanced third-person imagery (20 & 21). Rhetorically and stylistically, it's hard to imagine that ANY one writer penned both 20/21 AND 23/51.

Hebrew language has different distance between first and third person compared to English. Jussive verbs use third person to express willful choice (volitional action). For example, every verse in Psalm 150 commands Praise to God, including Jussive third person verb in Psalm 150:6.

We disagree about David composing many Psalms. While remembering range of expression in 8,000 hymns/poems written by Fanny J. Crosby, can easily imagine David, a man after God's own heart, composing 4,050 Psalms (as documented in the Psalm scroll from Cave 11 at Qumran).

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus ... First-person speeches attributed to Yahweh in the Old Testament frequently shift from first to third person.

@Bill_Coley Please cite other verse(s) in the book that provide actual such shifts.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Old Testament Survey Series: The Wisdom Literature and Psalms did not provide shift examples so looked at cited footnote source:

Quoted: Authorship of the Davidic Psalms

@Bill_Coley I asked for examples of first-to-third person shifts in the book of Leviticus, not for additional information about Davidic authorship of the psalms (this applies to most of the texts you next cited, except....)

Communication clarity: 'Please cite other verse(s) in Leviticus that provide actual such shifts.' would have had me focus on Leviticus examples.

Your request 'Please cite other verse(s) in the book that provide actual such shifts.' reminded me of "the book" having idea about יהוה Yahweh speaking shift from first person "I" to third person יהוה Yahweh while lacking Old Testament example(s). Hence, included quote from cited footnote source that had some speaking shift examples (along with expanded Davidic authorship discussion in first argument; left out the rest).

My apologies for including Leviticus earlier that has many third person examples, but lacked speaking shifts. Summarized argument in "the book" seems to overstate person shift speaking occurrences by using 'frequently'. Yet noticed Leviticus has יהוה Yahweh inspired mixture of 1st and 3rd person references for יהוה Yahweh, which includes one speaking shift from 1st to 3rd person (definitely not 'frequently' in Leviticus).

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus From my factual research thus far, simply doubt your idea/ability "to produce the necessary proof of your error" has any verifiable evidence.

@Bill_Coley I welcome you to your doubts.

Appreciate welcome that confirms simple doubt about your "Dating of the Psalms" idea having any verifiable evidence (otherwise you would have quoted and/or linked to two OR three factual witnesses to provide credibility for your idea, as you have done in other CD forum discussions).

We agree objective, verifiable facts are important for credible idea discussion.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Should truthful idea(s) be discarded due to feeling uncomfortable ?

@Bill_Coley In welcoming each of us to the resources of our respective choices, in no way am I suggesting that either of us should for any reason discard "truthful ideas."

We agree truthful ideas should be kept & integrated into study results, even when the truth is uncomfortable with previous study ideas. To me, integrating truthful learning can be quite challenging: older dogs (like me) can learn new tricks, but takes lots & lots of practice. Integrating Biblical learning also includes many, many prayers to Holy יהוה Lord God for Help with my intense desire to Be Holy as God is Holy ❤️ (am a work in progress who is Thankful for incremental changes toward God's Holiness while experiencing God's wonderful Holy presence more often)

Concerning 2 Timothy 2:22-26 my previous CD replies are still directly relevant. (similar to your repeat about Jeremiah 23:5-6 text ideas, where my understanding of Holy יהוה Lord God inspired wording simply disagrees with your text interpretation & belief idea about who Jesus cannot be).

Keep Smiling 😊

Bill_Coley

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus posted:

English time in verb tense is translation opinion, which happened over 2,000 years after exile (so past time/tense was chosen for translation into English, which does not have verbal action expression without time). Hebrew verbal action is viewed entirety as simple, complete, incomplete, imperative, jussive (other words provide time expression). Psalm 137 could have been composed during exile OR earlier prophecy (same words).

As I read your post, to choose an era for the composition of Psalm 137, you believe we have a choice: We can choose to believe that "sat" in v.1 reports an action that's been completed - the choice every English language translation makes - or we can choose to believe that "sat" reports an action still to occur, on the grounds that the Psalm "could have been composed" as "earlier prophecy." I choose to accept the unanimous judgment of the English language translations.

Greek verbal system has kind of action primary with time of action secondary. Least expressive Greek verb is Aorist tense (it happened), which was chosen by Jewish scholars for Greek LXX translation of all verbs in Psalm 137:1-6. Psalm 137:5 has mixture of 1st & 3rd person verbs (with jussive volitional action). To me, bland Babylonian descriptions imply earlier prophecy, especially when contrasted with Babylonian details in Daniel.

You choose to believe "sat" references an action still to occur. May we welcome each other to our respective choices.

To me, the idea of choosing unsubstantiated opinion feels like sand for a house foundation while verifiable truthful evidence feels like a rock.

My view is "unsubstantiated" in your view because you dismiss the resources I cited in its defense. I welcome you to your assessment of those resources and the foundation on which you believe they rest.

😪(time/interest reasons seem dismissive of verifiable truthful evidence that is contrary to your "Dating of the Psalms" unsubstantiated opinion)

I am dismissive - as in, unwilling to engage - of what I view as the lengthy, numerous, and off-topic quotations from Logos resources that you often add to your posts. You display an admirable grasp of how to search for content from your library. Well done. In my view, however, your use of your resources often creates labyrinthine post segments that are hard to follow or respond to, frequently because they comment on matters not germane to the subjects under review.

Quoted source prior to your claim included 'speak of the king in the third person rather than the first person' so my reply included an objective search for 3rd person king is in Psalms 20 and 21 (verified). Quoted source did not specify who is the referenced 3rd person king. Next replied to your claim about David not being the referenced king in Psalm 21 and Psalm 20. We disagree about Psalms 21 while agreeing David is not the king in Psalm 20. Elaborating on parallel text indications between Psalm 21 and 2 Samuel 7: (e.g. great, delight, blessings, forever)

I suggest we welcome the common ground over Psalm 20, and accept our disagreement about Psalm 21.

Intimate promise from יהוה Yahweh to King David included speaking shift from first person "I" to third person יהוה Yahweh. King Jesus experienced God's Glory & Love when time & physical realm had not yet been created by יהוה Yahweh so King Jesus had no reason to ask for life (already was being The Word portion of יהוה Yahweh forever). Also יהוה Yahweh eternally exists so is not the king in Psalm 21. King Righteous Jesus is on David's throne forever.

Psalm 21 describes a king who is submissive, subservient, and dependent on God:

• The king rejoices in God's strength (Psalm 21.1)
• God has given the king everything the king requests (Psalm 21.2)
• The king asked God to preserve his life (Psalm 21.4)
• God clothes the king "with splendor and majesty" (Psalm 21.5)
• God endowed the king with "eternal blessings," presumably meaning he didn't have them before the endowment (Psalm 21.6)
• The king trusts in God (Psalm 21.7)

In my view, that's a description neither of one who lived centuries later, nor of one who is God. I'm confident we'll disagree.

We disagree about David composing many Psalms. While remembering range of expression in 8,000 hymns/poems written by Fanny J. Crosby, can easily imagine David, a man after God's own heart, composing 4,050 Psalms (as documented in the Psalm scroll from Cave 11 at Qumran).

Given the authority you ascribe to the assertion that Psalm 137 "could have been composed" as "earlier prophecy," I am not surprised by the authority you apparently give to what you can "easily imagine" about David's composing thousands of Psalms.

Communication clarity: 'Please cite other verse(s) in Leviticus that provide actual such shifts.' would have had me focus on Leviticus examples.

I intended the sentence that immediately preceded the one that expressed my request for an example to denote my interest in Leviticus passages only: "My point is there's no "first to third person shift" in Leviticus 1. Please cite other verse(s) in the book that provide actual such shifts." We obviously didn't interpret that introductory sentence's role in the same way.

My apologies for including Leviticus earlier that has many third person examples, but lacked speaking shifts. Summarized argument in "the book" seems to overstate person shift speaking occurrences by using 'frequently'. Yet noticed Leviticus has יהוה Yahweh inspired mixture of 1st and 3rd person references for יהוה Yahweh, which includes one speaking shift from 1st to 3rd person (definitely not 'frequently' in Leviticus).

This explains our divergent points of view on Leviticus. Thanks.

Appreciate welcome that confirms simple doubt about your "Dating of the Psalms" idea having any verifiable evidence (otherwise you would have quoted and/or linked to two OR three factual witnesses to provide credibility for your idea, as you have done in other CD forum discussions).

I intended no confirmation of your doubt, if by confirmation you mean concession to or agreement with. When I welcomed you to your doubt about my ability to produce evidence to support my views, I meant only to express respect for your view and for your right to hold it. I dispute the accuracy of your doubt, but welcome you to hold it.

We agree truthful ideas should be kept & integrated into study results, even when the truth is uncomfortable with previous study ideas. To me, integrating truthful learning can be quite challenging: older dogs (like me) can learn new tricks, but takes lots & lots of practice. Integrating Biblical learning also includes many, many prayers to Holy יהוה Lord God for Help with my intense desire to Be Holy as God is Holy ❤️ (am a work in progress who is Thankful for incremental changes toward God's Holiness while experiencing God's wonderful Holy presence more often)

We're all works in progress, or so I've concluded. (Often I'm a work in regress. 🙂)

I often push the people who participate in the Bible studies I lead by telling them that among Bible study's biggest challenges is creating a view of the text that incorporates, or at least is aware of, the whole of Scripture, including its tensions and, in my view, obvious contradictions.

Concerning 2 Timothy 2:22-26 my previous CD replies are still directly relevant. (similar to your repeat about Jeremiah 23:5-6 text ideas, where my understanding of Holy יהוה Lord God inspired wording simply disagrees with your text interpretation & belief idea about who Jesus cannot be).

I've asked this question multiple times. Since you've STILL yet to address it directly, I ask it yet again, this time, in a different manner: 2 Timothy 2.22-26 (LEB) reads this way (emphasis added)...

22 Run from anything that stimulates youthful lusts. Instead, pursue righteous living, faithfulness, love, and peace. Enjoy the companionship of those who call on the Lord with pure hearts. 

23 Again I say, don’t get involved in foolish, ignorant arguments that only start fights. 24 A servant of the Lord must not quarrel but must be kind to everyone, be able to teach, and be patient with difficult people. 25 Gently instruct those who oppose the truth. Perhaps God will change those people’s hearts, and they will learn the truth. 26 Then they will come to their senses and escape from the devil’s trap. For they have been held captive by him to do whatever he wants. 

How are this text's advisories about dealing with troublesome people - be they "difficult," in opposition to the truth, in need of coming to their senses or escaping from the devil - in any way relevant to our discussion of the deity of Christ or our disagreement about the meaning of Jeremiah 23.5-6, ESPECIALLY in forums whose expectations direct posters to "criticize ideas, not people"? PLEASE, answer this question directly, by which I'm asking you to tell me specifically how the advisories about dealing with troublesome people are relevant to the topic of our discussion in this thread.

Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus English time in verb tense is translation opinion, which happened over 2,000 years after exile (so past time/tense was chosen for translation into English, which does not have verbal action expression without time). Hebrew verbal action is viewed entirety as simple, complete, incomplete, imperative, jussive (other words provide time expression). Psalm 137 could have been composed during exile OR earlier prophecy (same words).

@Bill_Coley As I read your post, to choose an era for the composition of Psalm 137, you believe we have a choice: We can choose to believe that "sat" in v.1 reports an action that's been completed - the choice every English language translation makes - or we can choose to believe that "sat" reports an action still to occur, on the grounds that the Psalm "could have been composed" as "earlier prophecy." I choose to accept the unanimous judgment of the English language translations.

Psalm 137 Hebrew text does not have any time indication when composed: ~1,000 BC (David) or ~600 BC (Daniel). Psalm 137:7 describes an aspect about Jerusalem destruction that likely parallels Ezekiel 25:12-14

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Greek verbal system has kind of action primary with time of action secondary. Least expressive Greek verb is Aorist tense (it happened), which was chosen by Jewish scholars for Greek LXX translation of all verbs in Psalm 137:1-6. Psalm 137:5 has mixture of 1st & 3rd person verbs (with jussive volitional action). To me, bland Babylonian descriptions imply earlier prophecy, especially when contrasted with Babylonian details in Daniel.

@Bill_Coley You choose to believe "sat" references an action still to occur. May we welcome each other to our respective choices.

Greek LXX translation has title "By David" added by Jewish Scripture Scholars. Puzzled by human reasoning preference for recent English translation done over 2,000 years after exile compared to Greek LXX translation expression less than 400 years after Jewish exile to Babylon. Thankful for recent Lexham English Septuagint (for Jewish Scholar translation commentary about Hebrew/Aramaic Old Covenant text).

Apologies for me not joining welcome idea since will not encourage someone God loves intensely to build a house on sand. Concur every person chooses what to really, really, really love the most. Humanly impossible for me to make a belief choice for you.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus To me, the idea of choosing unsubstantiated opinion feels like sand for a house foundation while verifiable truthful evidence feels like a rock.

@Bill_Coley My view is "unsubstantiated" in your view because you dismiss the resources I cited in its defense. I welcome you to your assessment of those resources and the foundation on which you believe they rest.

Cited New Interpreter's Bible (NIB) stated "it is more likely ..." without providing rationale basis so could not verify validity of concluding idea => unsubstantiated opinion. To avoid being gullible, have learned to test everything so can keep what is good (while discarding lies, evil, ...).

FWIW: searching my Logos library for phrase "it is more likely" finds NIB second overall with 78 results (only Biblia Hebraica Quinta: Apparatus Criticus has more with 136 results, while The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary and NET Bible First Edition Notes are tied for third with 74 results each).

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus 😪(time/interest reasons seem dismissive of verifiable truthful evidence that is contrary to your "Dating of the Psalms" unsubstantiated opinion)

@Bill_Coley I am dismissive - as in, unwilling to engage - of what I view as the lengthy, numerous, and off-topic quotations from Logos resources that you often add to your posts. You display an admirable grasp of how to search for content from your library. Well done. In my view, however, your use of your resources often creates labyrinthine post segments that are hard to follow or respond to, frequently because they comment on matters not germane to the subjects under review.

To me, only Holy יהוה Lord God is worthy of blind belief & obedience as God completely knows everything (plus God has proved ❤️ His Loving Faithfulness to me many, many times). Hence, perplexed by blind belief in "likely" contemporary human scholarship (per Romans 3:9-31) along with desire to avoid likelihood objective critique. Germane idea reads to me as your knowledge of what you believe, which does want to be confused by truthful facts, especially uncomfortable contrary evidence: e.g. relevant quotes from published resources in my Logos library.

Intimate promise from יהוה Yahweh to King David included speaking shift from first person "I" to third person יהוה Yahweh. King Jesus experienced God's Glory & Love when time & physical realm had not yet been created by יהוה Yahweh so King Jesus had no reason to ask for life (already was being The Word portion of יהוה Yahweh forever). Also יהוה Yahweh eternally exists so is not the king in Psalm 21. King Righteous Jesus is on David's throne forever.

@Bill_Coley Psalm 21 describes a king who is submissive, subservient, and dependent on God:

* The king rejoices in God's strength (Psalm 21.1) ...

@Bill_Coley In my view, that's a description neither of one who lived centuries later, nor of one who is God. I'm confident we'll disagree.

The יהוה Lord is my shepherd ... is consistent with Psalm 21, written by King David, who was anointed by Samuel with oil as God's choice for King.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus We disagree about David composing many Psalms. While remembering range of expression in 8,000 hymns/poems written by Fanny J. Crosby, can easily imagine David, a man after God's own heart, composing 4,050 Psalms (as documented in the Psalm scroll from Cave 11 at Qumran).

@Bill_Coley Given the authority you ascribe to the assertion that Psalm 137 "could have been composed" as "earlier prophecy," I am not surprised by the authority you apparently give to what you can "easily imagine" about David's composing thousands of Psalms.

David improvised music per Amos 6:5 (LEB) Alas for those who sing to the tune of the harp; like David they improvise on instruments of music.

Solomon wrote 1,005 songs + 3,000 proverbs: 1 Kings 4:32 (LEB) He spoke three thousand proverbs, and his songs were one thousand and five.

After David & Solomon, noted no righteous king of Judah had song(s) ascribed to them. Thankful for amazing variety of new songs in my heart to Praise God 😍

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Appreciate welcome that confirms simple doubt about your "Dating of the Psalms" idea having any verifiable evidence (otherwise you would have quoted and/or linked to two OR three factual witnesses to provide credibility for your idea, as you have done in other CD forum discussions).

@Bill_Coley I intended no confirmation of your doubt, if by confirmation you mean concession to or agreement with. When I welcomed you to your doubt about my ability to produce evidence to support my views, I meant only to express respect for your view and for your right to hold it. I dispute the accuracy of your doubt, but welcome you to hold it.

Lacking verifiable witnesses => Silence speaks volumes about your "Dating of the Psalms" idea lacking credibility. My "testing" research has found credible contrary evidence while not finding anything credible for Psalms having David in the title having been written by somebody else.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus We agree truthful ideas should be kept & integrated into study results, even when the truth is uncomfortable with previous study ideas. To me, integrating truthful learning can be quite challenging: older dogs (like me) can learn new tricks, but takes lots & lots of practice. Integrating Biblical learning also includes many, many prayers to Holy יהוה Lord God for Help with my intense desire to Be Holy as God is Holy ❤️ (am a work in progress who is Thankful for incremental changes toward God's Holiness while experiencing God's wonderful Holy presence more often)

@Bill_Coley We're all works in progress, or so I've concluded. (Often I'm a work in regress. 🙂)

@Bill_Coley I often push the people who participate in the Bible studies I lead by telling them that among Bible study's biggest challenges is creating a view of the text that incorporates, or at least is aware of, the whole of Scripture, including its tensions and, in my view, obvious contradictions.

Thankful Holy יהוה Lord God truth is consistent (albeit humanly challenging to comprehend at times, especially prophecy yet to be fulfilled). Truth does not lie. Truth does not fear factual evidence. Thankful for original language insights in numerous Scripture passages => more & more amazement of God's Holy Love story ❤️ (along with appreciating all translations leave out some original language insights)

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Concerning 2 Timothy 2:22-26 my previous CD replies are still directly relevant. (similar to your repeat about Jeremiah 23:5-6 text ideas, where my understanding of Holy יהוה Lord God inspired wording simply disagrees with your text interpretation & belief idea about who Jesus cannot be).

@Bill_Coley I've asked this question multiple times. Since you've STILL yet to address it directly, I ask it yet again, this time, in a different manner: 2 Timothy 2.22-26 (LEB) reads this way (emphasis added)...

@Bill_Coley 22 Run from anything that stimulates youthful lusts. Instead, pursue righteous living, faithfulness, love, and peace. Enjoy the companionship of those who call on the Lord with pure hearts. 

@Bill_Coley 23 Again I say, don’t get involved in foolish, ignorant arguments that only start fights. 24 A servant of the Lord must not quarrel but must be kind to everyone, be able to teach, and be patient with difficult people. 25 Gently instruct those who oppose the truth. Perhaps God will change those people’s hearts, and they will learn the truth. 26 Then they will come to their senses and escape from the devil’s trap. For they have been held captive by him to do whatever he wants. 

@Bill_Coley How are this text's advisories about dealing with troublesome people - be they "difficult," in opposition to the truth, in need of coming to their senses or escaping from the devil - in any way relevant to our discussion of the deity of Christ or our disagreement about the meaning of Jeremiah 23.5-6, ESPECIALLY in forums whose expectations direct posters to "criticize ideas, not people"? PLEASE, answer this question directly, by which I'm asking you to tell me specifically how the advisories about dealing with troublesome people are relevant to the topic of our discussion in this thread.

What jumped out to me when reading 'those who oppose the truth' is lack of any credible evidence for your "Dating of the Psalms" idea while dismissing (unwilling to engage) contrary truthful evidence as not being germane for discussion. Also what jumped out to me was reliance on artificial verse numbering (added ~500 years ago). Seriously, artificial verse numbering has numerous alignment issues with original language sentences. Paul had a tendency for long sentences (lots of thoughts connected together), which is broken up by verse numbering: e.g. 2 Timothy 2:23-26 is one Greek sentence (was broken up into six sentences by NLT while LEB has two sentences). Concerning deity of Christ, while writing was reminded of John 1:1 language evidence by credible Greek Scholar, William Mounce, being dismissed on April 2.

FWIW: Years ago inquired at a Christian College about textbook being used for first year Greek class => Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar by William Mounce (who also wrote Greek for the Rest of Us - highly recommended from my past reading & discussion with a friend). My quoting of Paul's two Greek sentences in 2 Timothy 2:22-26 (LEB) has Holy יהוה Lord God jumping out words at me about my CD forum replies.

CD forum => What is Christian Debate? provides context for 'criticize ideas, not people':

What is Christian Debate?

This is your go-to place for respectful online theological discussion. Feel free to pose Bible questions, spark theological discourse, and connect with people all over the world who are passionate about the Word.

Christian Debate is a hub for biblical learning, growth, and community. Please keep your questions and comments respectful and polite. Treat others in this forum like you would treat your neighbor at church—don’t be afraid to voice your opinion, but do it with love and kindness.

This Is a Civilized Place for Public Discussion

Please treat others with the same love, courtesy, respect, and kindness that you would if you were having a conversation in a church. Use these guidelines to keep this a clean, well-lighted place for civilized public discussion.

Improve the Discussion

Leave every thread better than you found it. With each new post, work to improve the quality of the discussion.

We care deeply about the topics discussed here. Be respectful about them and the people discussing them, even if you disagree.

Browse for a few minutes before you post a new thread to help us keep things tidy. You may find that someone has already started a thread about the same subject to which you can contribute. Use this forum’s tools to limit clutter. Rather than signing your posts, fill out your signature information and post an avatar.

Be Agreeable, Even When You Disagree

You may wish to voice a contradictory opinion. That’s fine, but remember to criticize ideas, not people. Please avoid:

* Name-calling

* Ad hominem attacks

* Reacting to a post’s tone rather than responding to its content

If You See a Problem, Flag It

It’s everyone’s job to make this forum a healthy, happy place for discourse. When you see bad behavior, don’t reply. A reply consumes energy and draws more attention to the offending post. Just flag it. When enough flags accrue, action will be taken, either automatically or by a moderator.

Thankful for 2 Timothy 2:22-26 sparking theological idea discussion, in accordance with CD forum purpose (in a thread for encounters with יהוה Jesus, who intensely Loves ❤️ every person with desire for each person to choose 'Jesus is יהוה Lord' to experience Joy abundantly, which includes Holy Righteous freedom from sin & spiritual bondage by the father of lies). Thankful Holy יהוה Lord God causes scripture words to jump out. God intimately knows individual human choices what to really, really, really love the most. Thankful for S.O.A.P. (after praying Psalm 119.18)

• Scripture: Where at ?
• Observe: What jumps out ?
• Apply: What to do ?
• Pray 🙏 (can include Psalm 46:10)

At times, Observe => What is original truth in original context ? (includes original language, especially nuanced verbal expression that can have translation issues due to languages having different verbal emphasis)

My favorite Bible Study question is: What jumps out ?

Keep Smiling 😊

Bill_Coley

In my view, our discussion in this thread has reached the end of its productive life (and probably did so long ago!) Our many posts have testified to our profound disagreements about the deity of Christ, as well as matters related to the interpretation and inerrancy of Scripture. So be it. Though I disagree with them, I respect your points of view, and celebrate the faith nurtured in you by them.

I wish you well and expect that we will meet again in other threads, but at least for me, it won't be in this one.

Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus

@Bill_Coley In my view, our discussion in this thread has reached the end of its productive life (and probably did so long ago!) Our many posts have testified to our profound disagreements about the deity of Christ, as well as matters related to the interpretation and inerrancy of Scripture. So be it. Though I disagree with them, I respect your points of view, and celebrate the faith nurtured in you by them.

Concur we have profound disagreements. Thankful for my pastor pointing out online theological discussion is not likely to change beliefs. Sadly if believe Jesus is not יהוה God, then Colossians 3:12-17 lacks יהוה awe & worship for letting the word of Christ (Messiah Jesus) dwell in you richly.

Thankful for many posts 😍 plus continuing to Pray 🙏 Thankful King Righteous יהוה Jesus has been given all authority on heaven and earth by יהוה Father so will judge human actions correctly at appropriate time with eternal consequences. 🙏 Praying to Be Holy as God is Holy ❤️

If truly Jesus is יהוה Lord, would Lord יהוה Jesus be Righteously angry with one teaching Jesus cannot be Holy יהוה God ?

Keep Smiling 😊