Psalm 12:7

[Keith M]

While doing some internet research this morning, I came across an article which uses the Hebrew to show exactly why Psalm 12:7 cannot possibly refer to the preservation of words as some people believe.

The article can be found at http://www.kjv-only.com/psalm12.html and is a part of the http://www.kjv-only.com/ web site.

 

[robycop3]

Brian useta be a member here, didn't he? I know he useta run the BVDB till he turned it over to Scott Mc Clare a coupla years ago.

Something to bear in mind is that the entire Psalm 12 was written about the time when David was fleeing from Saul, and, while he was feeling a little depressed about it, he still relied upon GOD to keep him safe. As all the other Psalms, it was a SONG, with praise of God interspersed with some of David's feelings. David was relying upon God to preserve his life & those of his friends who'd followed him into exile.

Rather than go into another ad-nauseam discussion of the Psalm 12:6-7 thingie again, I'll just say that it in no way points to any preservation of God's word in any particular language or version. If anyone can prove otherwise, have at it.

 

[Rufus_1611]

While doing some internet research this morning, I came across an article which uses the Hebrew to show exactly why Psalm 12:7 cannot possibly refer to the preservation of words as some people believe.

The article can be found at http://www.kjv-only.com/psalm12.html and is a part of the http://www.kjv-only.com/ web site.

While researching your comments, I came across verses in the Holy Bible that precede Psalm 12:7, which uses the English, to show exactly why Psalm 12:7 is referring to the preservation of the words of the LORD.

1Help, LORD; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men.

2They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak.​

What do they speak in vanity? Words, and their words come from flattering lips and a double heart.

3The LORD shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things:​

The Lord will take care of their flattering, proud words.

4Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us?​

Their words will not prevail.

5For 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.

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

The words of the LORD are pure (his words are, not people).

7Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.​

The LORD promises to keep and preserve "them" (the words of the LORD) forever.

 

[npetreley]

The LORD promises to keep and preserve "them" (the words of the LORD) forever.

It seems more likely to me that "them" refers to the faithful. That's what this psalm is about, not words. The line about words is just assurance that if God says he will preserve them (the faithful) you can be assured it is true.

I think you KJVO folks are guilty of the expression, "When you've got a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

 

[franklinmonroe]

...The LORD promises to keep and preserve "them" (the words of the LORD) forever.

Rufus, I see your point ("speak" in v.2, followed by "lips" and "tongue" in vs. 3-4, and "words" in v.6). However, these statements specify only the verbal words of God; nothing about the written word (no words like 'pen', 'letters', or 'hand').

I do believe that God's spoken words ARE preserved forever (with or without support of this verse). I am not seeing any proof for preservation of scriptures in this verse; and certainly not anything specific as the location (on the Earth?), the method (through humans?), the form (in a book?), etc.

 

[Rufus_1611]

Rufus, I see your point ("speak" in v.2, followed by "lips" and "tongue" in vs. 3-4, and "words" in v.6). However, these statements specify only the verbal words of God; nothing about the written word (no words like 'pen', 'letters', or 'hand').

I do believe that God's spoken words ARE preserved forever (with or without support of this verse). I am not seeing any proof for preservation of scriptures in this verse; and certainly not anything specific as the location (on the Earth?), the method (through humans?), the form (in a book?), etc.

How are the spoken words of God preserved if they be not written? Is the Bible necessary if God's verbal words are preserved somewhere?

 

[franklinmonroe]

How are the spoken words of God preserved if they be not written?...

Rufus, you have asked logical follow-up questions, which I thought would naturally come. For the moment, let's assume that I don't know how God preserves His words (very plausible, because for most of what God accomplishes, I am completely devoid of knowledge or understanding of it). Of course, this is irrelevant to the meaning of Psalm 12:7; either the verse plainly supports the preservation of written revelation from God, or it does not. Please, lead me over the 'bridge' that connects the words of this verse to the preservation of physical scriptures.

Is the Bible necessary if God's verbal words are preserved somewhere?

This question is a non-sequitur, in that, assuming that God's verbal words are preserved somewhere has no bearing whatsoever with the necessity for the Bible. We already know with a very high degree of certainty that all of God's spoken words have not been presented to us in written form. God has communicated with humans through various means; He conversed with Adam before the Fall (dreams and angels also come to mind). This pesent world does need the Bible. We do NOT need all the words that God has ever 'spoken'. Frankly, I don't think we even have all the written words of God (but we have all that we need).

 

[Rufus_1611]

Rufus, you have asked logical follow-up questions, which I thought would naturally come. For the moment, let's assume that I don't know how God preserves His words (very plausible, because for most of what God accomplishes, I am completely devoid of knowledge or understanding of it). Of course, this is irrelevant to the meaning of Psalm 12:7; either the verse plainly supports the preservation of written revelation from God, or it does not. Please, lead me over the 'bridge' that connects the words of this verse to the preservation of physical scriptures.

I don't see a direct promise of the form of how those words will be preserved in Psalm 12. However, I would say that scripture is preservation of the vocalized words of God and I'll use one of your Bibles to make the point...

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," - 2 Timothy 3:16​

Further, the expression "it is written" occurs 80 times in the Holy Bible. Note Jesus' use here...

"And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves." - Matthew 21:13​

...He doesn't say, "it was said" he says "it is written" and He doesn't seem to question whether or not the words of God were preserved properly.

"The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born." - Matthew 26:24​

Notice, He followed written instruction and seemed satisfied that it was preserved properly.

Thus, when I hear the written Word of God, while I may not hear tone and inflection, I believe it to be the voice of God Himself as it is through the written Word that He has preserved His verbal word. Save for becoming a mystic and thinking I hear the voice of God directly, I'm not sure how it could be otherwise.

 

[franklinmonroe]

I don't see a direct promise of the form of how those words will be preserved in Psalm 12...

Rufus, I can appreciate a truthful and courageous statement when I see one.

However, I would say that scripture is preservation of the vocalized words of God...

Yes, I'll agree to the extent that God has a literal 'voice'..

Further, the expression "it is written" occurs 80 times in the Holy Bible...

True, but inapplicable toward a complete 'Holy Bible' (in the sense we usually think of). In every New Testament verse that has "it is written" and every verse that uses "scriptures" they are still referencing the Hebrew laws, prophecies, and poems. There is no question that Jesus and the apostolic authors considered the text of Tanakh scrolls inspired revelation from God. Psalm 12 does not specifically address written text at all, and these "it is written" passages do not address a composite 'Holy Bible' (with both Old and New testaments).

I don't remember the details, but the Greek Septuagint version is significantly shorter in some books and longer in other books than the Masoretic text (not including Apocryphal additions). Did God allow early Christians to use an unpreserved 'Bible'? If so, why would we today be more privileged than those Christians?

The phrase "word of God" occurs about 60 times in the New Testament and not a single verse clearly establishes that the phrase "word of God" refers specifically to a written document. Moreover, many of those verses strongly indicate that the "word of God" was the Lord's disciples' verbal gospel message. They were preaching and teaching (and probably not reading) to listeners.

...when I hear the written Word of God, while I may not hear tone and inflection, I believe it to be the voice of God Himself as it is through the written Word that He has preserved His verbal word...

Yes, not only when we hear it, but when we read it, too!

 

[Keith M]

While researching your comments, I came across verses in the Holy Bible that precede Psalm 12:7, which uses the English, to show exactly why Psalm 12:7 is referring to the preservation of the words of the LORD.

Didn't bother to read the article, did you Rufus? The point of the article is that, in English, Psalm 12:7 can be taken to mean the words are being preserved. In English rules "them" would refer to the antecedent "words."

However, the Psalm was not written in English, it was written in Hebrew. And because the Psalm was written in Hebrew, Hebrew grammatical rules apply.

The underlying Hebrew holds the key. In Hebrew, nouns and pronouns have a gender form - masculine or feminine. Not that the objects themselves have to be physically male or female, but rather words are classified into these two categories, much like the French words "le" and "la" are the masculine and feminine forms respectively of the English word "the".

In verse 7 of the KJV, the words "preserve them" was translated from the Hebrew word natsar (naw-tsar', Strong's #5341), and is in masculine form. The Hebrew word is a verb and can have either a feminine or a masculine form suffix, depending on whether the object(s) (noun or pronoun) it is acting upon is in feminine or masculine form. In this case it's in the masculine form. So we then know that whatever it's referring to (it's antecedent) must also be in masculine form.

Examining the word "words" in verse 6, we see that the underlying Hebrew word is 'emrah (em-raw', Strong's #565). This word is in feminine form. If the author (David) wanted to use the masculine form, so that the "them" in verse 7 would match, he would have used the Hebrew word 'emer (ay'-mer, Strong's #561), which is the exact same word but in the masculine form.

Examining the words "poor", "needy" in verse 5, we see that their Hebrew words are `aniy (aw-nee', Strong's #6041) and 'ebyown (eb-yone', Strong's #34) respectively. These words are both in masculine form.

So, it appears that in order to read this passage as a "word preservation" passage would require the breaking of Hebrew grammar rules. In the Hebrew, this passage is clearly a "people preservation" passage. The meaning that is clear in the Hebrew is blurred and is easily missed in the KJV.

- from the article "Psalms 12:6-7 A Great 'Word Preservation' Passage - Or Is It?" by Brian Tegart

This clearly demonstrates how, following grammatical rules of the original Hebrew, "preserve them" cannot possibly refer to the preservation of words, but to the preservation of people. The grammatical rules of English, the receptor language, do not apply to this passage since the passage was not written in English. Applying the rules of English to the original Hebrew language shows a great depth of confusion and ignorance about grammar, Rufus.

Does this help to clarify some of your confusion, Rufus? Or will you continue to hold to your opinion even though the facts prove your opinion is wrong? Fiction (your erroneous opinion) or fact (Hebrew grammar), Rufus? I'll stick with what the psalmist wrote, and not with some contrived opinion based on a language that didn't even exist when the Psalm was written.

BTW, this is not a KJVO issue. This is an issue of whether Hebrew grammatical rules, the rules of the original language the psalmist used, are properly applied or rejected in favor of something else. God promised to preserve His word, but this issue applies only to the passage in question. Please do not try to hijack this into a KJVO debate, because that is not the issue intended in the OP. Franklin, I would greatly appreciate if you and Rufus would continue your side conversation elsewhere as it has little or nothing to do with the OP.

 

[franklinmonroe]

...However, the Psalm was not written in English, it was written in Hebrew. And because the Psalm was written in Hebrew, Hebrew grammatical rules apply...

We have covered the gender form antecedent argument here before. "There are exceptions to every rule" and the Gender Form Rule is no exception.

Rufus has conceded that Psalm 12 does NOT specify a written preservation, which effectively eliminates this verse as a support to any Onlyist position.

 

[Rufus_1611]

Didn't bother to read the article, did you Rufus?

I read it and I gave us much credence to it as I do most of the information on that site.

The point of the article is that, in English, Psalm 12:7 can be taken to mean the words are being preserved. In English rules "them" would refer to the antecedent "words."

We're agreed then. If we're English speaking people, reading from the English Holy Bible, we'll conclude that it means what it says.

However, the Psalm was not written in English, it was written in Hebrew. And because the Psalm was written in Hebrew, Hebrew grammatical rules apply.

I guess it comes down to whether or not you believe God was involved in the English Bible and whether or not the English Bible is Holy. If He was involved and it is Holy, I'm gonna believe that He knew to use English rules for His English Bible (He's smart like that and they're His rules). If it is unholy and corrupt the way that you are suggesting it is, then I'm going to go learn Hebrew.

This clearly demonstrates how, following grammatical rules of the original Hebrew, "preserve them" cannot possibly refer to the preservation of words, but to the preservation of people.

[Edit]

The grammatical rules of English, the receptor language, do not apply to this passage since the passage was not written in English. Applying the rules of English to the original Hebrew language shows a great depth of confusion and ignorance about grammar, Rufus.

It would allegedly show a great deal of ignorance about Hebrew grammar which is not a source of pride for me. However, I do like to believe I understand English and in English the Holy Bible says what it says and means what it says. The passage is about "the Words of the LORD". The only way to get people to think otherwise, is to get them to deny that there is a Bible in the English language and we must go to the Hebrew.

Does this help to clarify some of your confusion, Rufus?

I don't recall indicating that I was confused. I believe the passage to be quite clear and easy to understand. I read, speak, write, understand and believe that God gave me His word in my language. Sounds like you're confused as to whether or not you are English or Hebrew.

Or will you continue to hold to your opinion even though the facts prove your opinion is wrong?

You share my "opinion" in English. You are opposed to it in your understanding of Hebrew.

Fiction (your erroneous opinion) or fact (Hebrew grammar), Rufus?

The B-I-B-L-E Yes that's the book for me. I stand alone on the word of God, the B-I-B-L-E (in English).

I'll stick with what the psalmist wrote,

Cool, me too.

and not with some contrived opinion based on a language that didn't even exist when the Psalm was written.

Who is the author of language? You ever see this?

BTW, this is not a KJVO issue. This is an issue of whether Hebrew grammatical rules, the rules of the original language the psalmist used, are properly applied or rejected in favor of something else. God promised to preserve His word, but this issue applies only to the passage in question. Please do not try to hijack this into a KJVO debate, because that is not the issue intended in the OP.

What a bizarre accusation. I did not mention KJVO once, I countered your contention that Hebrew grammatical rules should make us question our Bible and cause us to think that it means something other than what it says. If you desire that I not participate, I'll gladly find another sandbox.

Franklin, I would greatly appreciate if you and Rufus would continue your side conversation elsewhere as it has little or nothing to do with the OP.

If the OP was about Psalm 12:7, the conversation had everything to do with it. Regardless, I will respect your wishes and refrain from future posts.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

I guess it comes down to whether or not you believe God was involved in the English Bible and whether or not the English Bible is Holy. If He was involved and it is Holy, I'm gonna believe that He knew to use English rules for His English Bible (He's smart like that and they're His rules). If it is unholy and corrupt the way that you are suggesting it is, then I'm going to go learn Hebrew.

:applause: :applause: :applause:

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Those who interpret Psalm 12:7 as referring to people and not the Word of God say that since the pronominal suffix “keep them” in verse 7a is in the masculine gender (plural) and “the words of the LORD” in verse 6 is in the feminine gender (plural), “them” must refer to “people.” In order for it to refer to God’s Word the pronominal suffix must also be in the feminine gender like the substantive. This is a faulty reasoning based upon a wrong assumption. As Gesenius, a classic Hebrew grammarian teaches, “Through a weakening in the distinction of gender, which is noticeable elsewhere . . . And which probably passed from the colloquial language into that of literature, masculine suffixes (especially in the plural) are not infrequently used to refer to feminine substantives.” [Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, edited and enlarged by E. Kitsch, second edition by A. E. Cowley, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910, 2nd edition), page 440, Section O].

Some examples from the OT where this phenomenon occurs include:

Genesis 31:9, "Thus God hath taken away the cattle of your [masculine plural pronoun suffix -- referring to Rachel and Leah) father, and given them to me."

Genesis 32:15, "Thirty milch camels with their [masculine plural pronoun suffix - referring to the thirty female camels) colts, forty kine, and ten bulls, twenty she asses, and ten foals."

Exodus 1:21, "And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them [masculine plural pronoun suffix -- a reference to the midwives] houses.

Psalm 119:111, “Thy testimonies [feminine plural noun] have I taken as an heritage for ever: for they [masculine plural pronoun] are the rejoicing of my heart.”

Psalm 119:129, “Thy testimonies [feminine plural noun] are wonderful: therefore doth my soul keep them [masculine plural pronoun suffix].”

Psalm 119:152, “Concerning thy testimonies [feminine plural noun], I have known of old that thou hast founded them [masculine plural pronoun suffix] for ever.”

Psalm 119:167, “My soul hath kept thy testimonies [feminine plural noun]; and I love them [masculine plural noun suffix] exceedingly.”

These are only a few examples cited to demonstrate the nature of feminine plural nouns in relation to their masculine pronouns. According to the Hebrew language, it is most legitimate to refer the suffix pronoun “them -- masculine plural pronominal suffix (verse 7a)” to “the words -- feminine plural substantive of the LORD (verse 6).” For them to insist that the gender must be the same is eisegesis. We cannot force the Word of God to say what we want it to say. Also it is wrong to insist that biblical Hebrew grammar and syntax must conform to the English grammar and syntax.

Thomas Strouse agrees and wrote, “. . . 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. . . . . As the KJV/TR bibliologists have argued all along, both the context and the grammar (proximity rule and accepted gender discordance) of Psalm 12:6-7 demand the teaching of the preservation of the Lord’s pure words for every generation.”

http://www.truthbpc.com/v2/main.php?menu=resources&page=resources/vpp_04

 

[Pastor_Bob]

"The appropriate interpretation of Psalm 12:7 is not without question in the churchly tradition. Problems arise from the textual base chosen for the translation, Greek-Latin or Hebrew ... Contemporary Bible versions and the reciprocating confirmation of each other's validity give the dogmatic impression that as a result of new and better methodologies, the modern rendering is best and that past problems have been resolved. A casual perusal of the popular literature on the subject of Bible texts and versions will show, however, that the Reformational Churches' expression of their common faith in Scripture's providential preservation of the texts in their possession is evaluated in an unsympathetic and pejorative manner. Scholars such as Bruce M. Metzger and Kurt Aland discredit the value of the Reformation Greek texts and subsequently the English Bibles on textual grounds. Metzger, giving a standard reply, writes,

"Partly because of this catchword [Textus Receptus] the form of the Greek text incorporated in the editions that Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzevirs had published succeeded in establishing itself as 'the only true text' of the New Testament, and was slavishly reprinted in hundreds of subsequent editions. It lies at the basis of the King James Version and of all the principal Protestant translations in the languages of Europe prior to 1881. So superstitious has been the reverence accorded the Textus Receptus that in some cases attempts to criticize or emend it have been regarded as akin to sacrilege" (Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, Oxford University Press, 1968, p. 106).
​

"What these writers fail to say is that the Authorized Version is not an ad hoc English translation, but stands at the end of the 16th century English Bible tradition. ... To deny the Authorized Version on textual grounds is to do the same for the Bishops, Geneva, Great, Coverdale, Matthews and Tyndale Bibles going back to 1524. It also questions the scholarship of the Protestant exiles of Mary's romanish persecution who had escaped to the safe haven of Geneva as well as the value of every 16th and 17th century commentator who based his work on Erasmus' Greek New Testament.

"The bifurcation of the Reformation Bible tradition and the post-19th century English Bibles is seen in the New Revised Standard Version render[ing of] Psalm 12:7, "You O Lord, will protect us; you will guard us from this generation forever." In a similar manner, the New International Version translates verse 7, "O Lord, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever." In spite of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia reading "keep them" and "preserve him," both the NRSV and NIV have elected not to translate the Hebrew and have, in its place, substituted a translation from the Greek and Latin rendering of these two pronouns. By so doing, the editors of these translations have endorsed one exegetical tradition, the Greek- Latin, to the exclusion of the other, the Hebraic, and by doing so have censured any further debate within the Hebrew exegetical tradition itself. ...

"This essay will show the diversity of the textual and exegetical tradition of Psalm 12:6-7 ... By so doing, the inadequacy of modern renditions of Psalm 12:7 will be exposed...
"Michael Ayguan (1340-1416) ... On Psalm 12:7 Ayguan comments, 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...

"Martin Luther's German Bible ... Following the arrangement of this Psalm, Luther penned a hymn, two stanzas of which reflect his understanding of verse 6 and 7: ... "Thy truth thou wilt preserve, O Lord, from this vile generation..." In poetic form, Luther grasps the significance of this verse both for the preservation of those who are oppressed and for the Word of God. The two-pronged significance of this interpretation to both people and God's words in Luther's Psalter was to have wide-ranging significance in the English Bible tradition.

"Calvin's Commentary on the Psalms ... in the body of the commentary he writes, 'Some give this exposition of the passage, Thou wilt keep them, namely, thy words; but this does not seem to me to be suitable." [Thus while Calvin did not believe Psalm 12:7 referred to the Word of God, he admits that others did hold this view in his day.]

"Coverdale Bible, 1535 ... reads for [verse 7] of Psalm 12: "Keep them therefore (O Lord) and preserve us from this generation for ever." With the absence of "Thou shalt" to begin verse 7, there is a direct connection between 'words' and 'keep them.' In the first clause, Coverdale intended the words to be kept; in the second clause people are in view..."

"The Matthew Bible 1537. ... In Psalm 12:67 Rogers translated, "The words of the Lord are pure words as the silver, which from the earth is tried and purified vii times in the fire. Keep them therefore (O Lord) and preserve us from this generation for ever." Following Coverdale, Rogers makes a clear connection in his translation between the words being the antecedent to "them." ... The significance of Roger's marginal note is that two of the greatest Hebrew scholars referred to by the Reformation writers differed on the interpretation of "them" in Psalms 12:7. [Thus we see that the interpretation of this verse was also divided among Jewish scholars.]

"The Third Part of the Bible, 1550. Taken from Becke's text of 1549 this edition of the scriptures contains the Psalter, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs. ... In verse 7 there is a note at them which states, 'some understand here certain men, some others word." Again, the translators and exegetes allowed breadth of interpretation of "them" to include people and words.

"The Geneva Bible, 1560. ... The preface reads, "Then comforting himself and others with the assurance of God's help, he commendeth the constant vigil that God observeth in keeping his promises." The text reads, "The words of the Lord are pure words, as the silver, tried in a furnace of earth, fined seven fold. Thou wilt keep them, O Lord: Thou wilt preserve him from this generation forever." [The margin reads, "Because the Lords word and promise is true and unchangeable, he will perform it and preserve the poor from this wicked generation." Thus the Geneva took a position that verse 7 applies both to the preservation of the Bible and of God's people.]

"Annotations by Henry Ainsworth, 1626. Briggs commends Ainsworth as the "prince of Puritan commentators" and that his commentary on the Psalms is a "monument of learning." ... Ainsworth states that "the sayings" [of Psalm 12:7] are "words" or "promises" that are "tried" or "examined" "as in a fire." He cross references the reader to Psalm 18:31; 119:140; and Proverbs 30:5, each reference having to do with the purity of the word.

"Matthew Poole's 1685 Commentary of the Psalms ... writes at verse seven, "Thou shalt keep them; either, 1. The poor and needy, ver. 5 ... Or, 2. Thy words or promises last mentioned, ver. 6. ...

"In summary ... [t]he 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"

(Peter Van Kleeck, The Translational and Exegetical Rendering of Psalm 12:7 Primarily Considered in the Churchly Tradition of the 16th and 17th Centuries and Its Expression in the Reformation English Bibles: The Genius of Ambiguity, March 1993).

 

[npetreley]

The gender matching idea is interesting. How does it match (or not match) in the Septuagint? I think it might be interesting how the Septuagint translators viewed this.

 

[Salamander]

In rendering that "them" can only be understood as people /the poor,(supposedly) being kept from the oppressors, makes God less than God in that the poor and needy are not altogether kept from the oppressors. Even the poor and needy of God's people ( though there really aren't any, for He became poor that we might be made rich in Him and the heirs according to His promise) are often oppressed by slight of hand and thievery. why it is even the basic understanding that most "Christrians" are very gullible and easily duped by scams to only relieve them of their savings.

So apply that to the modernistic "reasoning" of Psalm 12 and see where that leaves you concerning the Omnipotence of God!

It's a direct attack upon the voracity of the Scriptures to deny that this Psalm is speaking of anything other than the preservation of God's word by God. It's His word that is our weapon against apostacy and erroneous teaching.

 

[Salamander]

BTW, Thank You Pastor_Bob for that information, it only adds more stability to my stand on God's word!

 

[Askjo]

http://www.truthbpc.com/v2/main.php?menu=resources&page=resources/vpp_04

Amen! I second that. Preach it, Pastor Bob!

 

[Askjo]

While researching your comments, I came across verses in the Holy Bible that precede Psalm 12:7, which uses the English, to show exactly why Psalm 12:7 is referring to the preservation of the words of the LORD.

1Help, LORD; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men.

2They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak.
​

What do they speak in vanity? Words, and their words come from flattering lips and a double heart.

3The LORD shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things:​

The Lord will take care of their flattering, proud words.

4Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us?
​

Their words will not prevail.

5For 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.

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

The words of the LORD are pure (his words are, not people).

7Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
​

The LORD promises to keep and preserve "them" (the words of the LORD) forever.

Amen! I second that. Preach it, Rufus!