Psalm 12:5-7

A recent issue of the Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary Journal contained an article on "The Preservation of Scripture" by Academic Dean
William Combs. While gently rejecting the view of some fundamental Baptists, such as Edward Glenny* (former professor at Central Baptist
Seminary), who say the Bible nowhere promises the preservation of Scripture, Combs himself doesn't go much farther, claiming that the Bible
does not tell us in what manner or how purely the Scriptures will be preserved. It is apparent that the man has spent far too much time reading
the unbelieving works of modern textual critics, such as Bruce Metzger.

If a child of God follows Combs' advice about the Bible, he would be forced to master many ancient languages as well as the "science" of textual criticism in order to sift through the entire documentary evidence in an attempt to somehow reconstruct the "original autographs." This is a task that 99.9% of born against Christians are not equipped to do, even assuming that modern
textual criticism is a true and exact and believing science (which it is not). As Combs examines various Bible passages that have traditionally been used to support the doctrine of preservation, he sees only a vague,
ill-defined promise that is almost meaningless in practice.

When he comes to Psalm 12:6,7, Combs takes the position which has become popular in recent years that this Psalm does not promise pure reservation of God's canonical words.

Dr. Thomas Stouse, Emmanuel Baptist Theological Seminary, has produced an excellent critique of Combs' article. Following is the section of Dr. Strouse's critique that refutes Combs' position on Psalm 12:6,7 --

"Combs assures the reader that the original words are pure and inerrant words, but does not know how purely they are preserved (p. 15). Of course
the retort is that if the pure originals are not preserved purely, then how can they be preserved at all. Is one to understand that God has promised to preserve His pure originals impurely? Combs does concede that these verses
'might be a general promise of preservation.' Next, Combs argues that the grammar of 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'), which Combs affirms to be 'a fairly direct promise of preservation' of the written form of the Torah (p. 18).

As the KJV/TR bibliologists have argued all along, both the context and the grammar
(proximity rule and accepted gender discordance) of Psm. 12:6-7 demand the teaching of the preservation of the Lord's pure words for every generation.

"Next, Combs quotes the NIV rendering 'you will keep us safe and protect us.' to argue for the preservation of saints interpretation. However, the NIV's translation of 'us' for 'them' is based on inferior Hebrew texts influenced by Greek. Furthermore, the context of the whole Psalm argues forcefully for the preservation of the words of God which are the antidote for the words of men in every generation.

"Combs and his ilk do not have a convincing grammatical, biblical or theological argument for the 'preservation of saints' interpretation in
Psm. 12:6-7. The proper, contextual exegesis of this passage teaches that the Lord has preserved the pure originals intact for every generation" (Dr. Thomas Strouse, "Article Review," April 2001).

 

One would think that the original document upon which the Psalmist wrote Psalm 12:6-7 (minus the verse distinctions of course) was still around today. If one examined the KJV translation, you would have to come to that conclusion. My question is this: does anyone in the KJV camp know where I can view this valuable document? Surely God preserved this document.

The KJV is a bad translation at this point. Someone please interact with the gender distinctions in the passage.

Actually, the KJV isn't just bad at this point, it is wrong.

 

Sorry, but you are wrong. The KJV is very very good in translating the Hebrew in this verse. The KJV is very literal and as close to word for word here as any translation can be. The problem lies not in the translation, but in the assumptions made by English speakers. I refer to the statement "the rule of proximity requires 'words' to be the natural, contextual antecedent for 'them.'" This statement, of course, ignores the equally valid grammatical principle of both Hebrew and English grammar known as "the principle of the remoter antecedent." I have great respect for Tom Strouse and count him a friend and collegue, but I also reserve the right to disagree with him on this point.

This is an issue of interpretation not translation. As our English pronouns do not identify gender as readily as Hebrew does there is no other way to translate this verse using a literal translation philosophy.

 

Have you read Comb's article?

 

Would you then agree that this passage has an ambiguous meaning? Could the translators of the KJV have purposely translated this verse to apply equally to both popular views? Does this verse, in fact, declare the doctrine of providential preservation while at the same time declaring God's preservation of the poor and needy?

[ September 27, 2002, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Bob 63 ]

 

No I have not. The above two posts, as mentioned, are merely findings which I have submitted for your consideration.

 

That would be the explanation for all the confusion by KJVO advocates, right? It is more important to accurately convey the words the originals in the most literal way possible than to translate in a strict word for word way. Btw, I only use literal translations. The KJV is wrong, just not according to you.

Out like the Mariners in the playoffs (again).

 

No I have not. The above two posts, as mentioned, are merely findings which I have submitted for your consideration.</font>[/QUOTE]It would be worth your time to interact with it. Strouse misses the boat on a number of issues, including the primary one, namely, if God perfectly preserved his word, then where is it and why does no one agree on it?

The issue in this debate is not whether God has preserved his word or not. Everyone agrees on that. The issue is what does Scripture say about it and what form does that preservation take? That is where the disagreement is. Again, I challenge those who think that God perfectly preserved his word to identify the place where it is and to explain why there is so much variance. For instance, if one says the TR is the perfectly preserved word, then one must answer "which edition" and "where was the perfectly preserved word prior to that?" That is, in a nutshell, the problem with Strouse's position. If he really believes that "the Lord has preserved the pure originals intact for every generation" then the burden is on him to produce those pure originals or to tell us how he determined whatever edition of the TR to be the perfect copy of those pure originals. Additionally, Strouse would need to show how the "pure originals" were intact prior to Erasmus' editing of various manuscript evidence to form the TR. By definition, the TR (which I presume Strouse would claim is the perfect preservation of the pure originals) was not intact prior to 1535 (I believe is the date of the first edition). And he would have to explain why that "intact perfect preservaton" need additional editing over the years (almost 400 years from the 1535 first edition to 1894 Scrivener edition). If it was perfect, then why did it need so much editing? If it was perfect, why not translate the KJV from the first edition? If it is perfect, and God's word has been perfect and intact for every generation as Strouse claims, then why is the TR different than anything before it and what was the intact perfect perservation before 1535?

In other words, there are holes beyond measure in Strouse's well-meaning but ill-founded argument for his position. I admire his passion for the doctrine of Scripture. But his approach to the issues needs some more thought.

If you go to the DBTS website (www.dbts.edu) you will find a link to the DBTS journal, where several of Combs' article on the KJV issue can be found. WHile this article is not yet posted, you can there find information about how to get it and as well, read some of his other articles that will be helpful in understanding the issues involved.

[ September 27, 2002, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

No, I explained the source of the confusion.

When we translate the words in the most literal word for word way we translate what God said and leave the interpretation up to the reader. When a translator translates it to what he thinks it means, he is writing a commentary, not a translation.

And not according to the best Hebrew scholars in the world. In fact, the only one who seems to be saying it is translated wrong is you. Kinda all alone against every Christian in the world? I suspect your comments are based more on your own hubris than on the Hebrew and English.

Out like the hubris of the hyper-critical!

 

Another had posted here that he believes that the KJV is a 'bad' translation!! Hogwash!

Uh, no, it is a great translation, an that said from someone like me who is *not KJVO* and does not use the KJV often! DocCas is most correct in saying that the KJV translators were the best in the world (in their time) in the translation work from the Hebrew text.

Let's be careful in putting down the KJV regardless of where we (as individuals) are about whether we (as individuals) are KJV-only or not! Yes, in my *opinion* the NASB is better than the KJV *for the English speaking person today*, but I would say that the KJV/NKJV is definitely a great translation work!

 

I agree with Pastor Bob. I also believe that the KJV is the preserved, infallible Word of God. Why you ask? Because I believe, "Matthew 5:48  Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Our Father in Heaven is perfect, therefore everything he does is perfect. So yes, He can preserve His Word in a perfect bible. Why else would He say,
"1 Corinthians 13:10  But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away."

 

Did God not do anything until 1611? What perfect Bible did he preserve in 1605?

 

Well, the Geneva Bible would be a good canadate..[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]So in the Geneva Bible still perfect, or did it stop being perfect in 1611?

Eric

 

You know, this whole discussion is very quite amusing. LRL71 has made a point of sharing his impressive education with us and in so doing, must assume that we are all just a bunch of dumb, redneck hillbillies who are in awe over his ability to 'decipher' the Greek and Hebrew texts.
However, in all fairness, I would like to point out that there are actually numerous people that are more highly educated than LRL71 who completely disagree with his statements on the KJV (i.e. G.A. Riplinger, Laurence Vance, Samuel C. Gipp, Herbert Evans, Kevin James, Harold Tabb, Roy Branson, Barry Burton, Steve Sturgeon, James L. Melton, etc.)
Now simply because these individuals disagree with LRL71 doesn't mean they're the ones who are right. I will concede that. What has me really puzzled though, is how anyone who denies that God perfectly preserved His word can still place their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. If there is no inerrant Bible, than how do you know what is true? And don't give me the old 'accurate translation' answer. You don't have the original autographs to know what God really said. You are in essence placing your faith on something that you believe is not perfectly reliable.

 

So no one could put their faith in Christ before 1611, and then only if they believed the 1611 KJV was inerrant? Where was this inerrant Bible before 1611, and why did the KJV "correct" it? You see, your very question has created for you a paradox. Do you not comprehend this *simple* point???

Wrong. My faith is in Christ, not the ability of some 17th century Anglican scholars.

 

Brian T - As to where the "Bible" was before 1611, the KJV is derived from the Greek Textus Receptus and the Hebrew Masoretic text. Before 1611, there was William Tyndale (who was killed for translating the Bible into English), and before him there was Wycliffe, etc. For a better understanding of manuscript evidence and an answer to your question "where was the Bible before 1611" you should read the works of Dean John Burgon, especially his book entitled 'The Traditional Text'.
As far as where you place your faith, I have no doubt that you place your faith in Christ, but it is odd that the source from which you derive your belief in Christ (the Bible), you believe is not completely accurate. If some parts of it are false, how do you decide which parts are true?

 

No, I already understand where the "Bible" was before 1611. I asked you where was the *inerrant* Bible, and why did the KJV correct it? If the TR, Masoretic, Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, Geneva, yadda yadda yadda, were "perfect", why does the KJV differ from them? You can't have it both ways.

Do you not see, this is what I'm asking you about prior to 1611?

 

Oh okay, so you think the NKJV is perfect too, since it is based on the Textus Receptus just like KJV?

Eric