Study Page
Preservation and Psalm 12:6-7
A Look at the Controversy
Study Page
Preservation and Psalm 12:6-7
A Look at the Controversy
All scripture is from the King James Version unless otherwise noted.
Before beginning this study, I suggest you pray and ask God to guide you through this study.
I also suggest that you do you own study of this material in order to ensure its accuracy.
Copyright Notice
_________________________________________
NOTE: Roll mouse pointer over scripture references to view scripture in a pop up box.
{1} To the chief Musician upon Sheminith, A Psalm of David. Help, LORD; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men. {2} They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak. {3} The LORD shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things: {4} Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us? {5} For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him. {6} The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. {7} Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. {8} The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted. -Psalm 12 There is a controversy concerning this passage. Before we deal with that controversy, let us consider the context of this passage. David is comparing the words of the ungodly with the words of God. He is telling what the words of the ungodly will do to Godly people and how God will deal with them. God says he will protect the needy and stop the ungodly. David then says that God's words are pure, indicating that what God protects are His the pure words. He then says that God will preserve them. Here is the controversy. Does the "them" that God will preserve apply to His Words or to the poor and needy? Well it can be read either way. Briefly, the pronoun "them" is masculine while the antecedent (the word to which the pronoun refers), "words" is feminine. The next previous antecedent, "the needy" is masculine, so one argument states that the masculine pronoun "them" belongs to the masculine antecedent "the needy", making David say that God will preserve the poor and needy. This argument, as far as it goes, is on solid ground. Certainly, the pronoun and antecedent should match. In English, when speaking of a woman, assuming her name is Agnes, the feminine pronoun would always be used with the name Agnes when referring to this woman. One would not say, "The balloon belongs to Agnes and he will hold it." The correct statement would be, "The balloon belongs to Agnes and she will hold it." Antecedent and pronoun agree: Agnes is feminine and so is 'she'. However, In English the gender of most nouns is not nearly as substantial as in Greek or Hebrew. We usually refer to a ship as feminine ("She's a great ship, is the USS George Washington!"), but that is by no means a hard and fast concept. In many languages most words are associated with gender, so antecedent-pronoun agreement is usually required. In Biblical Hebrew a word is either masculine or feminine; there is no neuter gender in Hebrew. There is a rub, however. In many cases the Hebrew writer will use a feminine pronoun with a masculine antecedent (or vice versa) to make the point stronger. David is certainly making a strong case here. He may have added emphasis by using the feminine emrah (words) instead of the masculine emer for the antecedent "words". If this is the case, then David is saying that God will preserve His Words. There are several examples in the Psalms of the mismatch of gender between antecedent and pronoun. Let me quote Dr. Thomas Strouse, of Emmanuel Baptist Theological Seminary: Dr. Strouse shows several incidences in the Psalms where the feminine synonyms for 'words' become the antecedents for masculine pronouns. The reason for this is not to show God, who is masculine, in a feminine sense. The passages where this happens are listed in the quote. Note that all of his examples are from Psalm 119, which was written exclusively about the Word of God. Dr. Strouse also discusses another grammatical tenet called the rule of proximity. This rule states that the nearest antecedent is usually the one associated with a particular pronoun. In Psalm 12:6-7 the nearest antecedent to 'them' is the noun, 'words'. It is natural and contextual. One must look too far afield to find another antecedent for 'them' in v. 7. It is not natural or contextual to assign the poor to the pronoun 'them'. So there is a case for both arguments. Can we find a tie-breaker? Yes, at least two. The theme of the entire psalm is words. David speaks of the words of men and the words of God more that he speaks of the poor and the needy. The poor and needy accent the theme of words, but the main theme or emphasis is on words. In the first verses, David speaks about the words of men. In fact, he refers to the words of men nine times (speak, lips, speak, lips, tongue, speaketh, said, tongue and lips) in verses 1-4. In verse five he tells of God's promised deliverance of the Godly. Of that promise (which is God's Word), David uses the metaphor of purified silver to show the strength and reliability of that promise, which is the Words of God. There is a parallel here that would be left hanging if the preservation referred to the people and not the words. Let me diagram the structure using introversion and alternation to make the point: This makes good sense when poetry is employed instead of prose. The parallel is between the words of men and the Words of God. The first part of the psalm refers to the words of men, words that cannot be relied upon. The second Part refers to God, Words that are eternally true and potent. I believe this parallelism of the poetical structure of the Psalm leaves it in no doubt that David refers to the Words of God when he says they are to be preserved from generation to generation. Amazingly, the NIV shows this parallelism in its interpretation of the poetical structure. Yet, the NIV goes on to say in verse 7, "O LORD, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever", following Modern Textual Criticism. The second tie-breaker is the traditional understanding of this psalm. Has it been traditionally understood to mean that the people are preserved forever or that the words are preserved forever? "Next, [Academic Dean William Combs in an article for the Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary Journal] argues that the grammar of [Psalm 12] vv. 6-7 is against the word preservation interpretation. Instead, the gender differences between the masculine plural pronominal suffix 'them' and its antecedent feminine plural 'words' forces one to look for another antecedent which is masculine plural (i.e., 'poor' and 'needy' in v. 5). "However two important grammatical points overturn his argument. First, the rule of proximity requires 'words' to be the natural, contextual antecedent for 'them.' Second, it is not uncommon, especially in the Psalter, for feminine plural noun synonyms for the 'words' of the Lord to be the antecedent for masculine plural pronouns/pronominal suffixes, which seem to 'masculinize' the verbal extension of the patriarchal God of the Old Testament. Several examples of this supposed gender difficulty occur in Psm. 119. In verse 111, the feminine plural 'testimonies' is the antecedent for the masculine plural pronoun 'they.' Again, in three passages the feminine plural synonyms for 'words' have masculine plural pronominal suffixes (vv. 129, 152, 167). These examples include Psm. 119:152 ('Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou has founded them for ever')…"
A. Men's words are flattering, deceitful, and proud.
a. Those words are to be cut off.
1. The humble oppressed. God will deliver them.
a. Those words are preserved forever
1. Like purified silver
Here is another way to view it:
Men's words are:
flattering, double hearted, proud
God's words are:
who have said, "we shall prevail"
yet they will be cut off Pure, tried, purified seven times.
thou shalt keep them, O Lord,
thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever Torch Bible Commentaries, written by J.H. Eaton states: "...but we may rather follow the main Hebrew tradition: "Thou O Lord shalt keep them (i.e. watch over the words to fulfill them…)"
Eaton claims that the main Hebrew tradition is that God will preserve His words rather than He will preserve the poor and needy. The following authorities agree that this passage refers to the words and not the poor and needy: Rabbin Ezra (Aben Ezra) of the 11th Century, Michael Ayguan (14th Century), Martin Luther, Coverdale Bible (16th Century), Geneva Bible (16th Century), Henry Ainsworth (17th Century), and John Wesley (18th Century). Matthew Poole (17th Century) says it can be taken either way.
Even with these tie-breakers, we must accede that there is not a general consensus in Christian circles as to the exact meaning of this passage. Having said that, then we must decide for ourselves which is true.
I opt for the words. I agree with Michael Ayguan, who said, "Keep them: that is, not as the passage is generally taken, Keep or guard Thy people, but Thou shalt keep, or make good, Thy words: and by doing so, shalt preserve him--him, the needy, him, the poor--from this generation." If God's words are preserved forever and from generation to generation, then so are His people.
Another reason that I believe that David was speaking of the Words of God is that the new translations, based on eclectic Hebrew texts, declare otherwise. Since this understanding of the passage completely discredits the premise that the supposed "oldest manuscripts" (Aleph, B, C, D, etc.) are best, modern translators use a reading that is in opposition to the preserved words point of view. I do not accuse any person of that tactic because I cannot prove it. But I can assure you that Satan is subtle and crafty enough to use such a tactic without the knowledge of the person making the choice of readings.
One more statement will make this discussion complete. There has always been ambiguity in this passage. I believe the ambiguity is placed here because God will preserve both the people, and His words. In fact that is the theme of Peter Van Kleeck, in The Genius of Ambiguity . He summarizes,
"...the only sure conclusion is that there is no consensus within the English Bible tradition for the interpretation of "them" in Psalm 12:7 and it was precisely this lack of agreement within the tradition which was the genius of the ambiguity of the King James Version's rendering. ... by choosing a Greek-Latin basis the modern versions elect to overlook the Reformation's Hebrew basis for translation in Psalm 12:6-7; and the churchly tradition in the new versions is censored by not including a translation that is broad enough to include both interpretations--oppressed people and God's words."
The Bible, as a whole, states that God's Word endures forever. Here are some further proof texts that God preserves His word:
Ps 100:5 For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.
Ps 119:89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.
Ps 119:152 Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever.
Ps 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.
Isa 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
Isaiah 55:11 "So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it."
Matthew 24:35 "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."
1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
1Pe 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
Since God's Word abides forever, and from generation to generation (Psalm 100:5), then that means (at least to me) that His Word is pure (Psalm 12:6) and will be available to all (every, not missing any-Psalm 100:5) generations. If that is the case (and it is), then His Word must have been extant from the time that Vaticanus was shelved in the Twelfth Century until it was rediscovered in the Nineteenth Century. That is seven hundred years. If the new versions, based on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are truly the Word of God, then why were they hidden from view for seven hundred years (400 in the case of Sinaiticus)? Since many modern version supporters militantly dislike the King James Version and cast dispersions on its accuracy, then, accordingly, the English-speaking world must have been without the true Word of God for those several hundred years.
My conclusion is that Psalm 12:6-6 simply states the obvious, in agreement with the whole Bible, that the words of God will be preserved forever. And if His words are preserved, then so are the poor and needy.
To reject outright that God preserves His scriptures to all generations is to show that there is an agenda afoot. It is a hidden agenda, and in many cases it is even hidden from the person with the agenda (Satan is able to do this). The Bible as a whole plainly teaches that God preserves His words to all generations. There are many witnesses to the fact. A few are listed above. This outright rejection of such an easily established Biblical constant is disingenuous.
The agenda of those that make such a readily disputed claim is easily established. They want to sell books. Hence they wish to say that the so called "oldest and best" manuscripts are indeed the best because they are closer to the originals, and because the words of God are preserved by men, the closer to the original manuscripts, the more accurate the texts. A second part of the agenda (and this is the part that the Devil may hide even from those with this agenda) is that they wish to disparage the King James Bible as inaccurate and thus not worthy of use. I repeat, then, that if that is the case, then the English-speaking world was without an accurate Bible for 400 years! That is nonsense!
I watched a video tape from Paul Ankerberger. It was purportedly a balanced look at the KJV controversy. There were two panels. One consisted of men representing publishers of some modern translations. The other was made up of men on the KJV only side of the debate. It was apparent that these men were chosen to take a lopsided look at the controversy.
The modern translation people had many scholarly arguments against the KJV only position. Their arguments were easily disproved but the opposing panel had no clue as to how to disprove them. The pro-KJV folks used several emotion based arguments, such as the KJV is easier to memorize (a very subjective view), and that many people have been saved by reading the KJV (This is another easily disputed argument. It can also be said that many folks have been saved reading the NIV. It is the Holy Spirit that saves men and not the Bible they read). The one biblical argument of the pro-KJV panel was Psalm 12:6-7. The modernists blew this one out of the water using the arguments outlined in this paper. The pro-KJV folks had no idea how to refute their argument. So they went back to their emotion based arguments.
It is obvious that the producers of this video chose the men involved to prove that the KJV crowd is kooky, and that they (to quote a famous atheist) are "largely poor, uneducated and easy to command". Had they truly wanted a fair debate, there are many men and women who are capable of effectively arguing in favor of the KJV. These folks are scholars and have scholarly arguments. Yet the producers chose not to use these people because their agenda would have been compromised. There was nothing fair or balanced about this video. It was a blatant attempt to put those fundamentalists in their place.
Shame on the producers of this video. They claim to be Christians, yet they had no problem predicating the lie that this was a balanced debate. Jesus said not one jot or title of the law would pass away. Let me quote the ninth commandment, (pardon me for using the inaccurate KJV) "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor". This is echoed in the New Testament: "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, (10) For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine" (1Timothy 1:9-10). They lied when they called it a balanced debate. It was not balanced and the producers knew it. Yet they continued to attempt to deceive the viewers that it was balanced.
There is something wrong with a doctrine that requires lies, innuendo, and disingenuousness to sustain it. I would say that it is caused by corrupted wisdom. Who has corrupted wisdom? Ezekiel 28:17, "Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee." These words are about Satan, who was a liar from the beginning. Satan would certainly oppose the teaching that God preserves His words to all generations. He would wish to destroy that God-declared doctrine of truth in favor of a man-based doctrine of falsehood.
________________________________________________
▪ This work is undertaken in the Name of Jesus Christ our Lord.