Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
My estimate was that they covered about 1/4 to 1/3 of the Psalms. The rest they skipped, with a few disparaging remarks, because "it didn't fit."
|
I tried to read the Psalms in detail in the Recovery Version, which I still own, and gave up in the 34th chapter and skimmed the rest.
So here is an introduction, so you can get my point, and my sense was that the trend continued through the whole book of Psalms. That is how I estimated that they actually addressed 1/4 to 1/3 of the Psalms.
LSM introduces the Psalms as either written by "fallen man's concept", i.e. the tree of knowledge of good and evil, or by a "revelation of Christ". LSM with the "God's economy" template, naturally gets to decide which are which.
So that was the introduction in Psalm 1 (see footnote on 1:1), which chapter is a "natural concept" psalm.
Then Psalm 2 is a revelation of Christ.
Then Psalms 3 through 7 were written according to "David's concept". Sorry, no Christ there, according to Lee.
Then Psalm 8 is a "revelation of Christ" psalm.
Then Psalms 9-15 are full of the concepts of good and evil, and void of Christ. See footnotes in 9:3 and 15:1. The intervening psalms pass without mention.
Then psalm 16 is a "revelation" psalm.
Then psalms 17-21 are "David's concept" psalms. See footnote 17:1. Out of the first 21 chapters of the Psalms, only 3 have any value according to the 'God's economy' metric. The rest are seen merely as placeholders, or worse.
So we are supposed to believe that David was limited by his "concepts" while Mr. Lee entertained no concepts? All I see in the Psalms footnotes are concepts, and rather shallow and rudimentary ones at that.