Our Scriptural Confidence

[Anthony Pritchard]

[OK, I try again, without claiming anything about anything being wrong.]

Our Scriptural Confidence

The confidence of God’s people in the purity and accuracy of Holy Scripture does not begin with manuscript families, textual theories, or academic reconstruction. It begins with God Himself. Before any scribe ever copied a line, before any manuscript tradition ever formed, the Lord declared the nature of His words and the certainty of their preservation.

Psalm 12:6 says, “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.” Purity is the starting point. God’s words are not developing, evolving, or improving. They are pure. They are complete. They are perfect. The next verse establishes the doctrine of preservation. Psalm 12:7 says, “Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” Preservation is not the work of scribes. Preservation is not the work of scholars. Preservation is not the work of textual critics. Preservation is the work of God.

This is the foundation. Any text tradition that does not bear the marks of purity, stability, and preservation cannot be the text God kept. Any text tradition that exhibits instability, contradiction, omission, or editorial interference cannot be the text God preserved.

[chopped]

Our confidence in the accuracy of the Bible rests first on Psalm 12:6 and Psalm 12:7. The text families come after that. They are not the foundation. They are the evidence. The preserved text will be pure, stable, consistent, and received by the believing churches.

© A.K. Pritchard 1990, 2026 – Free to use with proper attribution.

 

[Logos1560]

The truth that is stated in Psalm 12:6 is the fact that "the words of the LORD are pure words," meaning 100% absolutely and wholly pure. Pure used in the particular context of describing the quality of the words of the LORD given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles would clearly be asserting 100% absolute, complete purity or perfection with no mixture of any impurities at all. After the assertion of fact, then an illustration, simile, or comparison is given [as] to confirm that truth, not to contradict it by suggesting that there were some impurities in the pure words given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles. Thus, the phrase "purified seven times" (Ps. 12:6) actually stated clearly concerning silver on earth is used to illustrate and affirm that the words of the LORD are 100% wholly, absolutely, completely, and perfectly pure when given by inspiration of God. This phrase about the refining or purification of silver obviously and clearly would not contradict the earlier assertion or statement of fact. That phrase does not indicate or assert that the words of the LORD are mostly pure, partially pure, or almost pure with a few impurities, defects, faults, corruptions, errors, or contaminants mixed in so that they needed to go through a gradual improvement or refining process of seven purifications in seven translations in different languages, in seven English translations, or in seven editions of the KJV.


In the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary, some words or phrases used to define the word pure include the following: “Unmixed,” “clear,” “free from mixture,” “separate from all heterogeneous or extraneous matter,” “real, true,” “incorrupt,” and “absolute, that and that only unconnected with anything else.” The unabridged Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary included the following in its definitions for pure: “free from defects; perfect, faultless,” and “free from anything that adulterates, taints, impairs, etc.; unmixed; clear” (p. 1463).

Words of the LORD asserted to be wholly and completely pure in the positive or absolute degree could not be made purer; therefore, they would not have any defects or impurities that need to be removed during a claimed purification process. Thus, the quality of being absolutely or completely pure and completely free from all impurities that is asserted concerning the words of the LORD could not be increased. Nothing can be asserted to be purer than what is already 100% absolutely pure according to the meaning of pure used in this context concerning the words of the LORD. Pure in the positive degree would simply make a true assertion concerning what is described as being pure, and it does not compare it to other things. Pure is clearly not used in a comparative degree concerning the 100% absolutely and completely pure and perfect words of the LORD. Every word of God is pure (Prov. 30:6). The commandment of the LORD is pure (Ps. 19:8). The law or the word of the LORD is perfect (Ps. 19:7). Pure words of the LORD would have the very same absolute, complete purity as very pure words (Ps. 119:140). The use of “very” would emphasize the fact of absolute purity, but it could not increase the purity of words that are already 100% wholly and absolutely pure.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

The truth that is stated in Psalm 12:6 is the fact that "the words of the LORD are pure words," meaning 100% absolutely and wholly pure. Pure used in the particular context of describing the quality of the words of the LORD given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles would clearly be asserting 100% absolute, complete purity or perfection with no mixture of any impurities at all. After the assertion of fact, then an illustration, simile, or comparison is given [as] to confirm that truth, not to contradict it by suggesting that there were some impurities in the pure words given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles. Thus, the phrase "purified seven times" (Ps. 12:6) actually stated clearly concerning silver on earth is used to illustrate and affirm that the words of the LORD are 100% wholly, absolutely, completely, and perfectly pure when given by inspiration of God. This phrase about the refining or purification of silver obviously and clearly would not contradict the earlier assertion or statement of fact. That phrase does not indicate or assert that the words of the LORD are mostly pure, partially pure, or almost pure with a few impurities, defects, faults, corruptions, errors, or contaminants mixed in so that they needed to go through a gradual improvement or refining process of seven purifications in seven translations in different languages, in seven English translations, or in seven editions of the KJV.


In the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary, some words or phrases used to define the word pure include the following: “Unmixed,” “clear,” “free from mixture,” “separate from all heterogeneous or extraneous matter,” “real, true,” “incorrupt,” and “absolute, that and that only unconnected with anything else.” The unabridged Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary included the following in its definitions for pure: “free from defects; perfect, faultless,” and “free from anything that adulterates, taints, impairs, etc.; unmixed; clear” (p. 1463).

Words of the LORD asserted to be wholly and completely pure in the positive or absolute degree could not be made purer; therefore, they would not have any defects or impurities that need to be removed during a claimed purification process. Thus, the quality of being absolutely or completely pure and completely free from all impurities that is asserted concerning the words of the LORD could not be increased. Nothing can be asserted to be purer than what is already 100% absolutely pure according to the meaning of pure used in this context concerning the words of the LORD. Pure in the positive degree would simply make a true assertion concerning what is described as being pure, and it does not compare it to other things. Pure is clearly not used in a comparative degree concerning the 100% absolutely and completely pure and perfect words of the LORD. Every word of God is pure (Prov. 30:6). The commandment of the LORD is pure (Ps. 19:8). The law or the word of the LORD is perfect (Ps. 19:7). Pure words of the LORD would have the very same absolute, complete purity as very pure words (Ps. 119:140). The use of “very” would emphasize the fact of absolute purity, but it could not increase the purity of words that are already 100% wholly and absolutely pure.

I appreciate the effort you put into defining pure, but none of that actually addresses the point I made in the post. Psalm 12:6–7 does not merely assert the purity of God’s words; it asserts God’s preservation of those pure words.

The structure of the passage is simple:

1. The words of the LORD are pure words (v. 6). That is the nature of the words as given.
2. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD; thou shalt preserve them (v. 7). That is the promise concerning their continuance.

Your entire reply focuses on the first half of the doctrine while leaving the second half untouched. I agree completely that God’s words are wholly pure, unmixed, and perfect. That is not in dispute. But Psalm 12 does not stop at purity; it moves directly to preservation, and it assigns that preservation to God, not to scribes, not to scholars, and not to textual critics.

The illustration of silver refined seven times is not about “seven translations” or “seven editions.” It is simply a simile affirming the absolute purity of the words God gave. But the next verse is not a simile. It is a promise. And the promise is that God Himself keeps and preserves His words forever.

That is the foundation of the post. Purity is the nature of the words. Preservation is the work of God.

My confidence in Scripture rests on both verses together, not on lexical analysis of one word in isolation.

 

[Logos1560]

The Bible doctrine of preservation would concern the exact same original-language words that proceeded from the mouth of God by inspiration to the prophets and apostles. Psalm 12:7 states nothing about Bible translations with different words.

The scriptural truths (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) that warn against adding to and taking away from the Scriptures would clearly and directly relate to the doctrine of preservation and to the making of copies of the original-language Scriptures. Pastor T. S. Luchon asserted: “Scripture proves that God wrote, in reference to His Word, instruction concerning copies” (From the Mind, p. 59). Richard Brash noted: “The Bible itself assumes that the Bible will be copied” (How God, p. 39).

Concerning which specific words did God directly state these warnings and instructions? These commands and instructions must embrace the Scriptures in the original languages since the very nature of translation requires that words may have to be added or omitted to make it understandable in another language. Thus, these verses were important instructions and warnings given particularly and directly concerning the Scriptures in the original languages. Would the meaning of these verses have to be reduced to nothing or near nothing to try to suggest that these warnings were directly given concerning Bible translations?

These verses (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) could also be understood to suggest that God gave to men an important role or responsibility in preservation of the Scriptures on earth. These commands or instructions would indicate the need and responsibility for the making of exact, accurate, faithful copies of the Scriptures in the original languages. These commands or instructions also demonstrate that the source being copied would be the standard and authority for evaluating the copy made from it. These instructions or warnings would also affirm or suggest that the later copies of Scripture would not be given or made by the means or process of a miracle of supernatural inspiration. For when a king [or whoever] copied them, he would have needed to make an accurate, exact, and complete copy of them to be able to “keep all the words” (Deut. 17:18-19).

Rolland McCune asserted: “The various warnings about adding to and subtracting from revelatory texts presuppose that the original documents were guaranteed to comprise God’s complete revelation and that subsequent copies were not” (Systematic Theology, p. 94). If the preservation of the Scriptures depended upon a continual miracle of God or on repeated miracles as some TR-only or KJV-only reasoning suggests, why was there any need for these scriptural instructions/warnings (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19)? Michael Heiser observed: “God doesn’t command people to avoid doing things that are impossible” (Bible Unfiltered, p. 133). Timothy Paul Jones noted: “Despite such warnings, copyists did introduce changes—sometimes intentionally; most often unintentionally” (Misquoting Truth, p. 42). Jason Harris observed: “The promise of verbally inerrant autographs is not synonymous with a promise of verbally accessible copies of those autographs” (Doctrine of Scripture, pp. 81-82). Jason Harris noted: “Scripture never tells us that copies of the autographs would be ‘word perfect’” (p. 84). Jason Harris wrote: “As we have seen, inspiration has to do with the origin of Scripture, not the copying of Scripture” (p. 82). Jason Harris asserted: “A copyist error has nothing to do with verbal, plenary inspiration” (Ibid.). Jason Harris noted: “Proof that God’s Word is verbally, plenarily inspired does not constitute proof that God’s Word is verbally, plenarily accessible” (p. 83).

 

[37818]

The next verse establishes the doctrie of preservation. Psalm 12:7 says, “Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”

False. "them" jn verse 7 is speaking of persons. See verse 7, 1611 Hebrew foot note.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

The Bible doctrine of preservation would concern the exact same original-language words that proceeded from the mouth of God by inspiration to the prophets and apostles. Psalm 12:7 states nothing about Bible translations with different words.

The scriptural truths (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) that warn against adding to and taking away from the Scriptures would clearly and directly relate to the doctrine of preservation and to the making of copies of the original-language Scriptures. Pastor T. S. Luchon asserted: “Scripture proves that God wrote, in reference to His Word, instruction concerning copies” (From the Mind, p. 59). Richard Brash noted: “The Bible itself assumes that the Bible will be copied” (How God, p. 39).

Concerning which specific words did God directly state these warnings and instructions? These commands and instructions must embrace the Scriptures in the original languages since the very nature of translation requires that words may have to be added or omitted to make it understandable in another language. Thus, these verses were important instructions and warnings given particularly and directly concerning the Scriptures in the original languages. Would the meaning of these verses have to be reduced to nothing or near nothing to try to suggest that these warnings were directly given concerning Bible translations?

These verses (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) could also be understood to suggest that God gave to men an important role or responsibility in preservation of the Scriptures on earth. These commands or instructions would indicate the need and responsibility for the making of exact, accurate, faithful copies of the Scriptures in the original languages. These commands or instructions also demonstrate that the source being copied would be the standard and authority for evaluating the copy made from it. These instructions or warnings would also affirm or suggest that the later copies of Scripture would not be given or made by the means or process of a miracle of supernatural inspiration. For when a king [or whoever] copied them, he would have needed to make an accurate, exact, and complete copy of them to be able to “keep all the words” (Deut. 17:18-19).

Rolland McCune asserted: “The various warnings about adding to and subtracting from revelatory texts presuppose that the original documents were guaranteed to comprise God’s complete revelation and that subsequent copies were not” (Systematic Theology, p. 94). If the preservation of the Scriptures depended upon a continual miracle of God or on repeated miracles as some TR-only or KJV-only reasoning suggests, why was there any need for these scriptural instructions/warnings (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19)? Michael Heiser observed: “God doesn’t command people to avoid doing things that are impossible” (Bible Unfiltered, p. 133). Timothy Paul Jones noted: “Despite such warnings, copyists did introduce changes—sometimes intentionally; most often unintentionally” (Misquoting Truth, p. 42). Jason Harris observed: “The promise of verbally inerrant autographs is not synonymous with a promise of verbally accessible copies of those autographs” (Doctrine of Scripture, pp. 81-82). Jason Harris noted: “Scripture never tells us that copies of the autographs would be ‘word perfect’” (p. 84). Jason Harris wrote: “As we have seen, inspiration has to do with the origin of Scripture, not the copying of Scripture” (p. 82). Jason Harris asserted: “A copyist error has nothing to do with verbal, plenary inspiration” (Ibid.). Jason Harris noted: “Proof that God’s Word is verbally, plenarily inspired does not constitute proof that God’s Word is verbally, plenarily accessible” (p. 83).

You’ve written a great deal about copying, warnings, and the limitations of human scribes, but none of that actually addresses the doctrine stated in Psalm 12:6–7.

Psalm 12 does not merely assert the purity of God’s words; it asserts God’s preservation of those pure words.

1. “The words of the LORD are pure words.” That is the nature of the words as given.
2. “Thou shalt keep them, O LORD; thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” That is the promise concerning their continuance.

Your reply focuses entirely on human copying, human responsibility, human limitations, and human warnings. But Psalm 12:7 does not assign preservation to scribes, copyists, scholars, or textual critics. It assigns preservation to God Himself.

The warnings in Deuteronomy, Proverbs, and Revelation concern the moral responsibility of men not to corrupt Scripture. They do not negate or replace the promise that God keeps and preserves His own words. Human responsibility and divine preservation are not competing doctrines; they are parallel truths.

The fact that men can err does not overturn the promise that God does not.

Psalm 12:7 is not about autographs only, nor does it restrict preservation to original‑language manuscripts. It simply states that God preserves His words. The text does not limit the promise to Hebrew and Greek, nor does it exclude the role of translators whom God raises up to give His words to His people in their own tongue.

My confidence rests on the text itself:

• Purity is the nature of the words God gave.
• Preservation is the work God promised to do.

Your citations about copyists, warnings, and academic opinions do not overturn the plain statement of Scripture.

That is the point I am making.

False. "them" jn verse 7 is speaking of persons. See verse 7, 1611 Hebrew foot note.

The claim that “them” in Psalm 12:7 refers to people is not supported by the text itself. The antecedent of a pronoun is determined by the nearest appropriate noun, and in Psalm 12 the nearest plural antecedent is “words” in verse 6.

Psalm 12:6 “The words of the LORD are pure words…”

Psalm 12:7 “Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them…”

The flow is simple:

1. Verse 5 speaks of oppressed people.
2. Verse 6 shifts to the words of the LORD.
3. Verse 7 continues the subject of verse 6, not verse 5.

The pronoun “them” follows immediately after the declaration about God’s words, not the earlier mention of people. Hebrew grammar allows pronouns to refer back to the most recent plural noun, and here that noun is “words.”

The 1611 marginal note you referenced is not inspired, not part of the Hebrew text, and not authoritative. It reflects an interpretive opinion, not the grammar of the passage. The inspired text says:

• God’s words are pure (v. 6).
• God keeps and preserves them (v. 7).

That is the doctrine of preservation. The text itself establishes it.

 

[Conan]

You’ve written a great deal about copying, warnings, and the limitations of human scribes, but none of that actually addresses the doctrine stated in Psalm 12:6–7.

Psalm 12 does not merely assert the purity of God’s words; it asserts God’s preservation of those pure words.

1. “The words of the LORD are pure words.” That is the nature of the words as given.
2. “Thou shalt keep them, O LORD; thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” That is the promise concerning their continuance.

Your reply focuses entirely on human copying, human responsibility, human limitations, and human warnings. But Psalm 12:7 does not assign preservation to scribes, copyists, scholars, or textual critics. It assigns preservation to God Himself.

The warnings in Deuteronomy, Proverbs, and Revelation concern the moral responsibility of men not to corrupt Scripture. They do not negate or replace the promise that God keeps and preserves His own words. Human responsibility and divine preservation are not competing doctrines; they are parallel truths.

The fact that men can err does not overturn the promise that God does not.

Psalm 12:7 is not about autographs only, nor does it restrict preservation to original‑language manuscripts. It simply states that God preserves His words. The text does not limit the promise to Hebrew and Greek, nor does it exclude the role of translators whom God raises up to give His words to His people in their own tongue.

My confidence rests on the text itself:

• Purity is the nature of the words God gave.
• Preservation is the work God promised to do.

Your citations about copyists, warnings, and academic opinions do not overturn the plain statement of Scripture.

That is the point I am making.

The claim that “them” in Psalm 12:7 refers to people is not supported by the text itself. The antecedent of a pronoun is determined by the nearest appropriate noun, and in Psalm 12 the nearest plural antecedent is “words” in verse 6.

Psalm 12:6 “The words of the LORD are pure words…”

Psalm 12:7 “Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them…”

The flow is simple:

1. Verse 5 speaks of oppressed people.
2. Verse 6 shifts to the words of the LORD.
3. Verse 7 continues the subject of verse 6, not verse 5.

The pronoun “them” follows immediately after the declaration about God’s words, not the earlier mention of people. Hebrew grammar allows pronouns to refer back to the most recent plural noun, and here that noun is “words.”

The 1611 marginal note you referenced is not inspired, not part of the Hebrew text, and not authoritative. It reflects an interpretive opinion, not the grammar of the passage. The inspired text says:

• God’s words are pure (v. 6).
• God keeps and preserves them (v. 7).

That is the doctrine of preservation. The text itself establishes it.

What does the marginal note say in the 1611 KJV? Isn't he talking about preserving people?

 

[Logos1560]

Psalm 12:7 is not about autographs only, nor does it restrict preservation to original‑language manuscripts. It simply states that God preserves His words. The text does not limit the promise to Hebrew and Greek, nor does it exclude the role of translators whom God raises up to give His words to His people in their own tongue.

Psalm 12:7 does not say anything about different words in a different language. Preservation of words would be a preservation of the exact same words, not different words. Are you claiming that God promised dynamic equivalent preservation or meaning preservation instead of word preservation?

Glenn Conjurske suggested that many KJV-only advocates “have never yet understood so much as the meaning of the word ‘preservation’” (Olde Paths, Jan., 1997, p. 14; Bible Version Controversy, p. 177). Glenn Conjurske asserted: “In its very nature preservation must be continuous, from beginning to end” (Ibid.). Glenn Conjurske added: “The ‘final form’ of anything which is preserved is just the same as it was the first day of its existence, and every day thereafter. This is the meaning of ‘preservation, and is certainly necessary to their doctrine of perfect preservation” (Ibid.; Bible Version, p. 177). Glenn Conjurske concluded: “The very meaning of ‘preservation’ necessitates that he [God] should keep it pure always, and not merely that he should restore it to purity after the passing of hundreds of years” (Bible Version, p. 63).

After citing 2 Timothy 2:2, KJV-only author David Cloud wrote: “ The words ‘the same’ describe the process of the preservation of inscripturated apostolic teaching” (Answering the Myths, p. 51; Why We Hold, pp. 61-62). Samuel Gipp maintained that “we have God promising to preserve the same words that He inspired” (Answer Book, p. 86). John C. Phillips acknowledged: “The word same means identical, not different or other” (King James Contender, May, 1980, p. 2).


Mickey Carter claimed: “Things that are different are not the same. Bibles that are different are not the same” (Things That Are Different, p. 77). Andrew Steers quoted: “Things that are different are not the same” (Is There, p. 35). William Grady declared: “A basic precept of logic states, ‘Things that are different are not the same’” (Given, p. 172). Phil Stringer also asserted: “Things that are different are not the same” (Unbroken Bible, p. 210). Caleb Garraway also declared: “Things that are different are not the same” (Pure Words, pp. 163, 253, 337, 360). Caleb Garraway asserted: “If they are different, they are not the same. They are not equal” (p. 252). M. H. Tabb wrote: “Things different are not the same” (Inspiration, p. 90). Lloyd Streeter wrote: “Things different are not the same” (Seventy-five Problems, p. 251). Pierre Coovert wrote: “”Things that are different are not the same, and to say that they are is foolishness” (Why I Don’t, p. 46). Craig Savige asserted: “The basic rule for consistency is: That which is different CANNOT be the same” (Why Faith Christians, p. 24). Jack McElroy wrote: “Like they say, things that are different can’t be the same” (Which Bible, p. 186). D. A. Waite wrote: “When words are different, the meaning, no matter how slightly, cannot possibly be the same” (Foes, p. 95).

 

[Deacon]

Arguing that Scripture (particularly Psalm 12) is the final word regarding Scripture’s preservation is an informal fallacy; a circular argument.
The preservation of God’s word to mankind is deduced from the character of God himself.

• God is truthful, faithful, and purposeful.
• God has revealed himself and his will to mankind.
• God intends that revelation to function as his authoritative Word to mankind.
• Therefore, it would be inconsistent with God's character and purposes for his revelation to become irretrievably lost or inaccessible to the people for whom he intended it.
• Consequently, divine preservation follows from God's nature and purposes, rather than merely from a claim made by Scripture.

Most theologians understand that preservation occurs through ordinary human means rather than direct miraculous intervention. However, advocates of certain textual positions (particularly some KJV advocates and TR proponents) often suggest that they believe preservation goes beyond secondary causation, inevitably leading some of them to extend preservation to the infallible preservation of a particular translation.

> Scripture does not say HOW God preserves his written word to mankind.
> Scripture does not say that God has preserved ALL OF SCRIPTURE to ALL OF MANKIND at ALL TIMES
> Scripture does not say anything about a particular translation of Scripture

Following the NT use of the OT, particularly how freely the authors used the text, there is an acceptable variety of translation techniques that are capable of transmitting God’s message.

Rob

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

What does the marginal note say in the 1611 KJV? Isn't he talking about preserving people?

A quick clarification about the 1611 marginal note you’re relying on.

The subject of the sentence in verse 6 is words, not people, and verse 7 continues that subject.

The note at Psalm 12:7 simply says:

“Heb. him, i.e., every one of them.”

That is a grammatical observation, not an interpretive ruling. The translators often flagged places where a Hebrew singular pronoun functions collectively. They did this in many passages. The note does not identify the antecedent, nor does it say the pronoun refers to people rather than words.

The antecedent must be determined by the inspired text itself, and the flow of Psalm 12 is straightforward:

Verse 5 speaks of oppressed people.
Verse 6 shifts the subject: “The words of the LORD are pure words.”
Verse 7 continues the subject introduced in verse 6.

The nearest plural antecedent is “words.” Hebrew grammar allows a singular pronoun to refer collectively to a plural noun, which is exactly what the marginal note acknowledges. It does not override the context.

If the pronoun referred back to the oppressed in verse 5, the Psalm’s movement would be: people to words to people again. But the Psalm is structured as complaint (vv. 1–4), God’s promise (v. 5), and David’s confidence in God’s words (vv. 6–7). Verse 6 is not an aside; it is the theological anchor of the psalm, and verse 7 continues that anchor.

So the 1611 note does not support the “people only” interpretation. It simply notes the Hebrew form. The text itself points to the words God has just described as pure.

That is why I maintain that Psalm 12:6–7 teaches both the purity of God’s words and God’s preservation of those words.

Marginal notes are not inspired Scripture.

 

[37818]

The claim that “them” in Psalm 12:7 refers to people is not supported by the text itself.

On the contrary.
Psalm 12:7, Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

1917, JPS, Psa 12:7 Tanakh-1917 {12:8} Thou wilt keep them, O LORD; Thou wilt preserve us from this generation for ever.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

On the contrary.
Psalm 12:7, Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

1917, JPS, Psa 12:7 Tanakh-1917 {12:8} Thou wilt keep them, O LORD; Thou wilt preserve us from this generation for ever.

The JPS 1917 does not change the antecedent.

The JPS translators made an interpretive choice in their rendering, but the Hebrew text did not change. The pronoun is still singular, and the antecedent is still determined by context, not by an English translation.

The subject introduced in verse 6 is “the words of the LORD.” Verse 7 continues that subject.

If “them” referred to people, the Psalm’s movement would be:

people - words - people again.

But the psalm does not do that. It moves from:

• complaint (vv. 1–4),
• God’s promise (v. 5),
• God’s words (v. 6),
• God’s preservation of those words (v. 7).

A translation that chooses “us” does not alter the Hebrew antecedent. It only reflects the translator’s interpretation.

The text itself still reads:

• words in verse 6,
• them in verse 7,
• with no plural noun between them except words.

So the claim remains: The subject of the sentence is words, not people.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

On the contrary.

To ignore, or to arbitrarily change the subject of a sentence to suit a preferred meaning, is to violate the rules of language.

Psalm 12:6 establishes the subject as the words of the LORD. Verse 7 continues that subject. Replacing ‘words’ with ‘people’ is not interpretation, it is a grammatical error.

 

[37818]

God’s preservation of those words (v. 7).

note: them from: Heb. him, etc: that is, every one of them, etc

See 1611 Psalm 12:7 note

 

[Conan]

To ignore, or to arbitrarily change the subject of a sentence to suit a preferred meaning, is to violate the rules of language.

Psalm 12:6 establishes the subject as the words of the LORD. Verse 7 continues that subject. Replacing ‘words’ with ‘people’ is not interpretation, it is a grammatical error.

The marginal note is part of the original 1611 KJV Translation. It's not there just for any old reason. God preserves his people. And hand copying scripture, or printing scripture is preservation, even with errors in them .

Verse 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

 

[Conan]

12 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

 

[37818]

Psalm 119:89, For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

 

[37818]

Proverbs 30:5, Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

12 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

The marginal note is not the inspired text. It is not Hebrew. It is not Scripture. It is not authoritative. It is an interpretive gloss written by the translators.

The inspired text is the Hebrew sentence itself, and the Hebrew sentence has a subject. That subject is introduced in verse 6:

“The words of the LORD are pure words.”

Verse 7 continues that subject:

“Thou shalt keep them, O LORD; thou shalt preserve them…”

To replace the subject of a sentence with a different one, especially one found two verses earlier, is not interpretation. It is a grammatical error.

You quoted the Psalm, and the flow is unmistakable:

• Verses 1–5: people
• Verse 6: shift to the words of the LORD
• Verse 7: continuation of the subject introduced in verse 6
• Verse 8: return to people

The subject of verse 7 is determined by the nearest plural antecedent that fits the sense. That antecedent is words, not people.

Your appeal to the marginal note does not change the grammar of the inspired text. The note is not Scripture. The Hebrew sentence is.

And the Hebrew sentence says:

God’s words are pure. God keeps and preserves them forever.

That is the doctrine of preservation stated plainly in the text itself.

If you want to argue otherwise, you must show, from the Hebrew grammar, that the pronoun them reaches backward past verse 6 to a different subject. The marginal note cannot do that. Only the text can.

And the text does not.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

12 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

Simply pasting the passage does not address the grammatical point. Verse 6 introduces a new subject, the words of the LORD. Verse 7 continues that subject. The pronoun them must refer to the nearest plural antecedent, which is words, not people.

The marginal note is not inspired Hebrew. The grammar of the sentence is.

If you want to argue that them refers to people, you must show, from the Hebrew grammar, how the pronoun reaches backward past verse 6 to a different subject.

Pasting the chapter does not do that.