Our Scriptural Confidence

[37818]

@Anthony Pritchard,

Psalm 12:6, The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

 

[Silverhair]

What seems to be have been missed in the previous comments is the truth that because God's word is true those that trust in Him will be kept. Even though we will go through trials we can hold to the promises of God.

So verse 7 can be read as referring to either or both God's word and those that believe.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

The danger here is real. It is a matter of hermeneutics. If we can go back into a previous sentence, take an older subject, and assign it to a new sentence that already has its own subject, then the rules of interpretation collapse. Language becomes fluid, antecedents become optional, and rightly dividing the Word of truth becomes impossible.

Psalm 12:6 establishes the subject clearly: “The words of the LORD are pure words.” The subject is the words. Verse 7 continues the sentence and continues the subject unless the text itself changes it. There is no grammatical signal that the subject has shifted. The pronoun “them” must refer to the nearest stated antecedent, which is the words. Bringing people from a past sentence into a new sentence that already has its own subject is not interpretation, it is reassignment.

If subjects can be reassigned at will, then any verse can be made to say anything. That is why subject continuity matters. The text itself determines the meaning, not our preference for importing nouns from earlier sentences. The subject of the verse is the words, period.

 

[Silverhair]

The danger here is real. It is a matter of hermeneutics. If we can go back into a previous sentence, take an older subject, and assign it to a new sentence that already has its own subject, then the rules of interpretation collapse. Language becomes fluid, antecedents become optional, and rightly dividing the Word of truth becomes impossible.

Psalm 12:6 establishes the subject clearly: “The words of the LORD are pure words.” The subject is the words. Verse 7 continues the sentence and continues the subject unless the text itself changes it. There is no grammatical signal that the subject has shifted. The pronoun “them” must refer to the nearest stated antecedent, which is the words. Bringing people from a past sentence into a new sentence that already has its own subject is not interpretation, it is reassignment.

If subjects can be reassigned at will, then any verse can be made to say anything. That is why subject continuity matters. The text itself determines the meaning, not our preference for importing nouns from earlier sentences. The subject of the verse is the words, period.

When you look at the verses in context you will see, as I said before, that the words "will keep them" can refer to God's word [vs 6] or to those that keep His word. [vs 5]


6 Because of the plunder of the poor, because of the cry of the needy, Now I will rise, the Lord shall say; I will grant them salvation, He shall speak concerning them.

ומִשֹּׁ֥ד עֲנִיִּים֘ מֵֽאֶנְקַ֪ת אֶבְי֫וֹנִ֥ים עַתָּ֣ה אָ֖קוּם יֹאמַ֣ר יְהֹוָ֑ה אָשִׁ֥ית בְּ֜יֵ֗שַׁע יָפִ֥יחַ לֽוֹ:

7 The sayings of the Lord are pure sayings, like silver refined, exposed to the earth, clarified sevenfold.

זאִֽמֲר֣וֹת יְהֹוָה֘ אֲמָר֪וֹת טְהֹ֫ר֥וֹת כֶּ֣סֶף צָ֖רוּף בַּֽעֲלִ֣יל לָאָ֑רֶץ מְ֜זֻקָּ֗ק שִׁבְעָתָֽיִם:

8 You, O Lord, shall guard them; You shall guard him from this generation forever.

חאַתָּ֣ה יְהֹוָ֣ה תִּשְׁמְרֵ֑ם תִּצְּרֶ֓נּוּ | מִן־הַדּ֖וֹר ז֣וּ לְעוֹלָֽם:

https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16233/jewish/Chapter-12.htm

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

When you look at the verses in context you will see, as I said before, that the words "will keep them" can refer to God's word [vs 6] or to those that keep His word. [vs 5]


6 Because of the plunder of the poor, because of the cry of the needy, Now I will rise, the Lord shall say; I will grant them salvation, He shall speak concerning them.

ומִשֹּׁ֥ד עֲנִיִּים֘ מֵֽאֶנְקַ֪ת אֶבְי֫וֹנִ֥ים עַתָּ֣ה אָ֖קוּם יֹאמַ֣ר יְהֹוָ֑ה אָשִׁ֥ית בְּ֜יֵ֗שַׁע יָפִ֥יחַ לֽוֹ:

7 The sayings of the Lord are pure sayings, like silver refined, exposed to the earth, clarified sevenfold.

זאִֽמֲר֣וֹת יְהֹוָה֘ אֲמָר֪וֹת טְהֹ֫ר֥וֹת כֶּ֣סֶף צָ֖רוּף בַּֽעֲלִ֣יל לָאָ֑רֶץ מְ֜זֻקָּ֗ק שִׁבְעָתָֽיִם:

8 You, O Lord, shall guard them; You shall guard him from this generation forever.

חאַתָּ֣ה יְהֹוָ֣ה תִּשְׁמְרֵ֑ם תִּצְּרֶ֓נּוּ | מִן־הַדּ֖וֹר ז֣וּ לְעוֹלָֽם:

https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16233/jewish/Chapter-12.htm

The grammatical issue remains unchanged. The danger here is not about choosing one interpretation over another; it is about maintaining hermeneutical integrity. If we can go back into a previous sentence, take an older subject, and assign it to a new sentence that already has its own subject, then the rules of interpretation collapse. Language becomes fluid, antecedents become optional, and rightly dividing the Word of truth becomes impossible.

Psalm 12:6 establishes the subject explicitly: “The words of the LORD are pure words.” The subject is the words. Verse 7 continues the sentence and continues the subject unless the text itself changes it. There is no grammatical signal that the subject has shifted. The pronoun “them” must refer to the nearest stated antecedent, which is the words. Bringing people from a past sentence into a new sentence that already has its own subject is not interpretation, it is reassignment.

Appealing to the broader context does not override the grammar of the sentence. Context informs meaning, but it does not replace the rules of antecedents. If subjects can be reassigned at will, then any verse can be made to say anything. That is why subject continuity matters. The text itself determines the meaning, not our preference for importing nouns from earlier sentences. The subject of the verse is the words, period.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

If we can alter the rules of language to suit our preferences, exegesis truly becomes eisegesis, and truth becomes the victim, no longer able to be determined.

When Scripture becomes malleable, truth itself becomes undefinable, because the text no longer governs meaning, the interpreter does.

“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.” 2 Peter 1:20

 

[JonC]

[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.

I believe often the issue with men trying to decide a translation is good or bad (is "God's Word" verses is not "God's Word") is a lack of understanding about God's Word. They get caught up in different translation choices that do not suit what they are looking for, but they are examining Scripture as a reference book rather than a narrative.

Most translations are God's Word (actually, all legitimate translations are God's Word, but many we call "translations" are more like expository writings on the biblical text).

In other words, God preserves His Word, and His Word transcends translation. When we read our bible, whether the NIV, NASB, KJV, NKJV, NIV, HCSB, NET, we are reading God's Word.

Words are symbols. Someyimes men get caught up in the symbols and miss the ideas that those symbols represent.

Scripture even testifies to this (many times OT passages quoted in the NT are presented for what the words represent rather than quoting the exact words verbatim).

 

[Silverhair]

The grammatical issue remains unchanged. The danger here is not about choosing one interpretation over another; it is about maintaining hermeneutical integrity. If we can go back into a previous sentence, take an older subject, and assign it to a new sentence that already has its own subject, then the rules of interpretation collapse. Language becomes fluid, antecedents become optional, and rightly dividing the Word of truth becomes impossible.

Psalm 12:6 establishes the subject explicitly: “The words of the LORD are pure words.” The subject is the words. Verse 7 continues the sentence and continues the subject unless the text itself changes it. There is no grammatical signal that the subject has shifted. The pronoun “them” must refer to the nearest stated antecedent, which is the words. Bringing people from a past sentence into a new sentence that already has its own subject is not interpretation, it is reassignment.

Appealing to the broader context does not override the grammar of the sentence. Context informs meaning, but it does not replace the rules of antecedents. If subjects can be reassigned at will, then any verse can be made to say anything. That is why subject continuity matters. The text itself determines the meaning, not our preference for importing nouns from earlier sentences. The subject of the verse is the words, period.

That God has preserved His word can be established by many verses in scripture. And I have even agreed with what you have said, God has preserved His word, but that is not what Psalm 12 is speaking to. What we see is that those knowing that God's word is trustworthy can cry out to God in their need. Does that mean that we will never face trials, no, but we can trust in Him to keep us through them.

The third person plural pronominal suffix on the verb is masculine, referring back to the "oppressed" and "needy" in Psa_12:5 (both of those nouns are plural in form), suggesting that the verb means "protect" here. The suffix does not refer to אִמֲרוֹת (’imarot, "words") in Psa_12:6, because that term is feminine gender. NET

Psalms 12:7

Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Thou shalt keep them, O Lord - namely, thy people in safety from their persecutors. From this generation. The corruption was so universal (Psa_12:1) that the ungodly represent the spirit of the age "from" which the Lord would "preserve" His own chosen few. Compare Gal_1:4; 1Jn_5:19. JFB

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

That God has preserved His word can be established by many verses in scripture. And I have even agreed with what you have said, God has preserved His word, but that is not what Psalm 12 is speaking to. What we see is that those knowing that God's word is trustworthy can cry out to God in their need. Does that mean that we will never face trials, no, but we can trust in Him to keep us through them.

The third person plural pronominal suffix on the verb is masculine, referring back to the "oppressed" and "needy" in Psa_12:5 (both of those nouns are plural in form), suggesting that the verb means "protect" here. The suffix does not refer to אִמֲרוֹת (’imarot, "words") in Psa_12:6, because that term is feminine gender. NET

Psalms 12:7

Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Thou shalt keep them, O Lord - namely, thy people in safety from their persecutors. From this generation. The corruption was so universal (Psa_12:1) that the ungodly represent the spirit of the age "from" which the Lord would "preserve" His own chosen few. Compare Gal_1:4; 1Jn_5:19. JFB

You are not engaging the grammatical argument. You are appealing to commentary instead of addressing subject continuity, antecedents, or the sentence structure of Psalm 12:6–7. The issue is not whether preservation is taught elsewhere. The issue is what this passage says.

Your grammatical claim is also incorrect. The NET note assumes that a Hebrew pronominal suffix must always match the grammatical gender of its antecedent. That is a category error. Hebrew does not operate that way. Hebrew pronominal suffixes frequently take masculine forms when the antecedent is a collective or abstract noun, even when the noun itself is grammatically feminine.

This is normal Hebrew usage. Examples include:

• Torah (feminine) taking masculine pronominal reference when treated collectively.
• Mitzvot (feminine plural) taking masculine pronominal reference in multiple passages.
• Edut (feminine) taking masculine pronominal reference in Psalm 119.

Hebrew does this constantly. It is not unusual. It is standard.

The NET note is not inspired. It is not authoritative. And it is not consistent with the way Hebrew actually uses pronominal suffixes. It cannot override the subject already established in verse 6, nor can it justify importing a different subject from an earlier sentence.

The grammatical structure of Psalm 12:6–7 remains unchanged. The subject is the words.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

The question that begs to be answered is simple: Does the interpreter govern Scripture, or does Scripture govern the interpreter?

 

[Silverhair]

You are not engaging the grammatical argument. You are appealing to commentary instead of addressing subject continuity, antecedents, or the sentence structure of Psalm 12:6–7. The issue is not whether preservation is taught elsewhere. The issue is what this passage says.

Your grammatical claim is also incorrect. The NET note assumes that a Hebrew pronominal suffix must always match the grammatical gender of its antecedent. That is a category error. Hebrew does not operate that way. Hebrew pronominal suffixes frequently take masculine forms when the antecedent is a collective or abstract noun, even when the noun itself is grammatically feminine.

This is normal Hebrew usage. Examples include:

• Torah (feminine) taking masculine pronominal reference when treated collectively.
• Mitzvot (feminine plural) taking masculine pronominal reference in multiple passages.
• Edut (feminine) taking masculine pronominal reference in Psalm 119.

Hebrew does this constantly. It is not unusual. It is standard.

The NET note is not inspired. It is not authoritative. And it is not consistent with the way Hebrew actually uses pronominal suffixes. It cannot override the subject already established in verse 6, nor can it justify importing a different subject from an earlier sentence.

The grammatical structure of Psalm 12:6–7 remains unchanged. The subject is the words.

That is what seems to be your blind spot. You are looking at one verse and ignoring the context.

Verse 5-7 are clear. We can trust God's word when we are told He will preserve those that trust in Him. That is what Psalm 12 is telling us. It may seem that the wicked will prevail, God reassured the righteous that they would overcome.

You have made the assumption that is what the NET commentary is doing. The NET comment was made in relation to the text under consideration.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

That is what seems to be your blind spot. You are looking at one verse and ignoring the context.

I am not ignoring context. I am refusing to replace grammar with commentary. Verses 5–7 form a unit, but they do not erase subject continuity or override the antecedent established in verse 6. The question is not what the theme of the Psalm is. The question is what the sentence in verses 6–7 says.

You are appealing to the general message of the psalm instead of addressing the grammatical structure of the passage. That is the blind spot I am pointing out. Context does not give us permission to reassign pronouns away from their nearest antecedent, nor does it allow us to import a subject from a previous sentence when a new subject has already been established.

Your grammatical claim remains incorrect. The NET note assumes that Hebrew pronominal suffixes must always match the grammatical gender of the antecedent. That is simply not how Hebrew works. Hebrew frequently uses masculine pronominal reference for collective or abstract nouns that are grammatically feminine. This is standard usage, not an anomaly.

Examples include:

• Torah (feminine) taking masculine pronominal reference when treated collectively.
• Mitzvot (feminine plural) taking masculine pronominal reference in multiple passages.
• Edut (feminine) taking masculine pronominal reference in Psalm 119.

This is normal Hebrew behavior. It is not unusual. It is not rare. It is not exceptional.

The NET note is not inspired, not authoritative, and not consistent with the broader patterns of Hebrew pronominal usage. It cannot override the subject already established in verse 6, nor can it justify importing “the poor” or “the needy” from verse 5 into a different sentence with a different subject.

The grammatical structure of Psalm 12:6–7 remains unchanged. The subject is the words.

 

[Silverhair]

I am not ignoring context. I am refusing to replace grammar with commentary. Verses 5–7 form a unit, but they do not erase subject continuity or override the antecedent established in verse 6. The question is not what the theme of the psalm is. The question is what the sentence in verses 6–7 says.

You are appealing to the general message of the psalm instead of addressing the grammatical structure of the passage. That is the blind spot I am pointing out. Context does not give us permission to reassign pronouns away from their nearest antecedent, nor does it allow us to import a subject from a previous sentence when a new subject has already been established.

Your grammatical claim remains incorrect. The NET note assumes that Hebrew pronominal suffixes must always match the grammatical gender of the antecedent. That is simply not how Hebrew works. Hebrew frequently uses masculine pronominal reference for collective or abstract nouns that are grammatically feminine. This is standard usage, not an anomaly.

Examples include:

• Torah (feminine) taking masculine pronominal reference when treated collectively.
• Mitzvot (feminine plural) taking masculine pronominal reference in multiple passages.
• Edut (feminine) taking masculine pronominal reference in Psalm 119.

This is normal Hebrew behavior. It is not unusual. It is not rare. It is not exceptional.

The NET note is not inspired, not authoritative, and not consistent with the broader patterns of Hebrew pronominal usage. It cannot override the subject already established in verse 6, nor can it justify importing “the poor” or “the needy” from verse 5 into a different sentence with a different subject.

The grammatical structure of Psalm 12:6–7 remains unchanged. The subject is the words.

You are correct I am appealing to the general message of the psalm. The psalm tells us that God's word is trustworthy and those that trust in His word will be preserved.

The subject of psalm 12 is the people. Some speak falsehood with flattering lips. Some are oppressed and needy. What is God's response, I will now arise, I will bring safety to him who yearns. What does David say in response to this, You, O LORD, will keep them; You will preserve him from this generation forever.

The psalm is not about God preserving His word but rather it is about preserving those that trust in His word.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

You are correct I am appealing to the general message of the psalm. The psalm tells us that God's word is trustworthy and those that trust in His word will be preserved.

The subject of psalm 12 is the people. Some speak falsehood with flattering lips. Some are oppressed and needy. What is God's response, I will now arise, I will bring safety to him who yearns. What does David say in response to this, You, O LORD, will keep them; You will preserve him from this generation forever.

The psalm is not about God preserving His word but rather it is about preserving those that trust in His word.

A psalm can contain multiple subjects. What is in dispute is which subject governs the sentence in verses 6–7. Multiple subjects in a psalm do not give us permission to override the rules of antecedents or to reassign pronouns away from the nearest stated subject.

You are appealing to the theme of the psalm, not the syntax of the passage. The theme does not determine the antecedent. The grammar does.

Psalm 12 contains several subjects across its verses, the wicked, the oppressed, the needy, the LORD, and His words. But the presence of multiple subjects in the psalm does not mean that every pronoun can be assigned to whichever subject we prefer. Subject continuity is determined by the sentence, not by the chapter.

Verse 6 establishes a clear, explicit subject: “The words of the LORD are pure words.” Verse 7 continues that sentence. There is no grammatical signal that the subject has changed. The pronoun “them” must refer to the nearest antecedent, which is the words.

Appealing to the broader message of the psalm does not override the grammar of the sentence. Context informs meaning, but it does not replace syntax. If we can take a pronoun in a new sentence and assign it to a subject from a previous sentence that already has its own subject, then antecedents become optional and interpretation becomes arbitrary.

Your argument is thematic, not grammatical. You are describing what the psalm talks about, not what the sentence says. The psalm can have many subjects, but the sentence in verses 6–7 has one.

The grammatical structure remains unchanged. The subject is the words.

Why it matters even if other passages teach preservation.

Because if we allow ourselves to alter the subject of Psalm 12:6–7, we have granted ourselves permission to alter the subject of any passage whenever it suits our preference.

That is the danger.

This is not about winning a verse or a debate. This is about protecting the integrity of interpretation.

If we can take:

• a pronoun,
• in a new sentence,
• with a clearly stated subject,

and then override that subject by appealing to the “general message of the psalm,” then we have destroyed the rules of antecedents, grammar, and subject continuity.

And once those rules are gone, Scripture becomes plastic.

 

[Silverhair]

A psalm can contain multiple subjects. What is in dispute is which subject governs the sentence in verses 6–7. Multiple subjects in a psalm do not give us permission to override the rules of antecedents or to reassign pronouns away from the nearest stated subject.

You are appealing to the theme of the psalm, not the syntax of the passage. The theme does not determine the antecedent. The grammar does.

Psalm 12 contains several subjects across its verses, the wicked, the oppressed, the needy, the LORD, and His words. But the presence of multiple subjects in the psalm does not mean that every pronoun can be assigned to whichever subject we prefer. Subject continuity is determined by the sentence, not by the chapter.

Verse 6 establishes a clear, explicit subject: “The words of the LORD are pure words.” Verse 7 continues that sentence. There is no grammatical signal that the subject has changed. The pronoun “them” must refer to the nearest antecedent, which is the words.

Appealing to the broader message of the psalm does not override the grammar of the sentence. Context informs meaning, but it does not replace syntax. If we can take a pronoun in a new sentence and assign it to a subject from a previous sentence that already has its own subject, then antecedents become optional and interpretation becomes arbitrary.

Your argument is thematic, not grammatical. You are describing what the psalm talks about, not what the sentence says. The psalm can have many subjects, but the sentence in verses 6–7 has one.

The grammatical structure remains unchanged. The subject is the words.

Why it matters even if other passages teach preservation.

Because if we allow ourselves to alter the subject of Psalm 12:6–7, we have granted ourselves permission to alter the subject of any passage whenever it suits our preference.

That is the danger.

This is not about winning a verse or a debate. This is about protecting the integrity of interpretation.

If we can take:

• a pronoun,
• in a new sentence,
• with a clearly stated subject,

and then override that subject by appealing to the “general message of the psalm,” then we have destroyed the rules of antecedents, grammar, and subject continuity.

And once those rules are gone, Scripture becomes plastic.

You have said the same thing more than once but it still does not change what the psalm is intended to tell us. God preserves those that trust in Him. I do not doubt that God has preserved His word but that is not the main thrust of this psalm.

Thou shalt keep them That is, the persons referred to in Psa_12:5 - the poor and the needy who were suffering from the wrongs inflicted on them. Barnes

God did bring forth the Israelites from Babylon, according to his word; he separated them from that generation. and reinstated them in their own land, according to his word; and most certainly he has preserved them from generation to generation to the present day, in a most remarkable manner. Clarke


Verse 7 asserts that the Lord guards, preserves, and keeps those who cry to Him for help, as in v.1, hearing their cry and never deserting them, and all who cry to Him in need and in faith in all generations, Psa_145:18-19; Heb_13:5. GHBC

Thou shalt keep them, O Lord - namely, thy people in safety from their persecutors. From this generation. The corruption was so universal (Psa_12:1) that the ungodly represent the spirit of the age "from" which the Lord would "preserve" His own chosen few. Compare Gal_1:4; 1Jn_5:19. JFB

The third person plural pronominal suffix on the verb is masculine, referring back to the "oppressed" and "needy" in Psa_12:5 (both of those nouns are plural in form), suggesting that the verb means "protect" here. The suffix does not refer to אִמֲרוֹת (’imarot, "words") in Psa_12:6, because that term is feminine gender. NET

Thou shalt keep them—That is, thy people, thy suffering people, though surrounded on all sides by wicked persecutors.
Thou shalt preserve them—Hebrew, Thou wilt preserve him, the persecuted saint, the singular being used as a personification. Whedon

And on the counter side

This answer of Jehovah is most precious. It promises the preservation of the trusting. The psalmist breaks out in praise of the purity of Jehovah's words and declares that Jehovah will "keep them" and "preserve them." The "them" here refers to the words. There is no promise of widespread revival or renewal. It is the salvation of a remnant and the preservation of His own words which Jehovah promises. Morgan


And we also see as I have said that God preserves both

There are some manuscripts and Bible translations that render this You shall keep us, O Lord, You shall preserve us. Yet, according to VanGemeren, there is legitimate manuscript support for the rendering You shall keep them . . . You shall preserve them. We can take it as true that God will keep and preserve both His Word and His people. Guzik

The "them" and "him" in Psa_12:7 in the NASB probably refer to the vulnerable godly of Psa_12:5. The NIV calls them "us." Alternatively, David may have meant God's promises (Psa_12:6), but this seems less likely. David received encouragement and confidence from the Word of God that assured him of divine protection from the smug liars he found on every hand. Constable

It seems you are so focused on what you see in the text that you overlook what the message of the psalm is. But as you can see not all agree with your view.