Psalm 12:5-7

The problem with Moorman's argument is this: he assumes that since sometimes gender disagreement is possible, it has therefore occurred in Psa. 12:5-7.

However, since the Psalm reads perfectly fine when the masculine pronoun refers back to a masculine antecedent, the only reason to prefer a feminine antecedent would be a theological presupposition.

 

Well, surely that just proves my point. On this thread I kept being told it was impossible for Psalm 12:5-7 to be referring to God's words. But obviously, then it's not impossible. And since the AV reads very much as if it's the words that are inspired, and since its translators were much greater than any group around today, I say we stick with "words". In the end, it comes down to preference, as you said. I prefer the reading preserved in the AV.

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

 

Not that I agree with your assessment of their abilities, even they recogized "them" wasn't referring to the "words", as indicated by the marginal note in the 1611. I think this has already been mentioned.

 

Bartholomew,

I would also point out to you that even though the interpretation you "prefer" is not impossible , that does not mean that it is as likely to be correct as the alternative interpretation, which seems to be the better one. I agree that it is possible for you to understand the text as you do, but given that it is only just a possible interpretation, rather than the most likely according to the Hebrew grammar, I would suggest not giving it so much weight in trying to establish the doctrine of providential preservation. That doctrine can easily be established on much better grounds.

Pastork

 

Bartholomew said:

Well, surely that just proves my point. On this thread I kept being told it was impossible for Psalm 12:5-7 to be referring to God's words.

Well, it's not "impossible" in the sense that Hebrew grammar must never, never admit the possibility of pronoun and antecedent disagreeing in gender.

However, we are not dealing with general possibilities, but a specific wording in a specific Hebrew passage. The issue is not what it could say, but what it does say. Here there is an agreement between the pronoun and an antecedent. Therefore there is no need to invoke the exception; therefore, the "words preservation" interpretation is impossible. Why discard the preferred for the merely possible?

And since the AV reads very much as if it's the words that are inspired, and since its translators were much greater than any group around today, I say we stick with "words".

Since you are appealing to the greatness of the AV translators, let's look at the interpretation they gave the verse themselves. The footnote at Psa. 12:7 reads:

The KJV translators acknowledge that the literal translation of the pronoun "them" is "him" - which skips the words of verse 6 and goes right back to the poor and needy man of verse 5.

So we have the witness of the grammar, the witness of the context, and the witness of the translators. I see no reason left to prefer the "words preservation" spin except for sentimentalism.

 

And that is part of the problem Ransom. You judge by what you see. There is nothing wrong with basing an entire doctrine on a feeling and also calling everyone else a bible doubter/corrector/hater/questioner/twister/etc. You fail to notice that the doctrine is also based on sensationalism. So actually, the KJVO crowd has two foundations for the understanding of "them" to mean "words", sensationalism and sentimentalism.

If you would just open your mind and set aside truth for a time...