The "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie" used by KJVOs is false.

[Reynolds]

According to you, which one?

I actually thought I was replying to someone else. Sorry. Wish edit didn't go away so quick.

 

[Silverhair]

Last eve I passed beside a blacksmith's door
And heard the anvil ring the vesper chime;
When looking in, I saw upon the floor,
Old hammers worn with beating years of time.

"How many anvils have you had," said I,
"To wear and batter these hammers so?"
"Just one," said he; then with a twinkling eye,
"The anvil wears the hammers out, you know."

And so, I thought, the anvil of God's Word,
For ages, skeptics blows have beat upon;
Yet, though the noise of falling blows was heard,
The anvil is unharmed - the hammers gone.
​

You too will pass.

That is a nice poem, so I copied it to my CPU. Now as to Psa 12:7. You say this refers to the words of God, but if you look at the context, as you should, what do we find?

In context we see that david expresses his confidence in God. God has said He will deliver those that seek Him
The first 4 verses show what man is like. He is unfaithful, idle, lying and boastful,
Verses 5 & 6 assure us that Gods' word is true and that we can trust His promise of safety in an evil world.

The question is what is God going to preserve? Well the context says it is those that seek Him. Why do I say this, it is because words are not bothered by wicked people.

 

[Stratton7]

And I'd like to do my part in making them extinct, as well as many other believers of other false doctrines, and cult members

A bit depressing that you’d like to make extinct those who believe they have God’s words in English. Simply because the KJO believes God keeps His promises by keeping the words pure. Telling.

There are quite a few FORMER KJVOs now. (I never was one.)

I’ve seen the opposite occurring often as well. Whether through comments I read, articles, or personal friends (including myself once upon a time not using the AV) are finding out the issues with the MV’s and now only use the KJB. Yes, it’s a “B”ible.

 

[JD731]

In this post I am going to try to help set the context for this Psalm. This is a continuation of a theme that has already ran through the first 11 Psalms and is a continuing theme of all the prophetic word of God. It must be understood in this context. Knowing that most, if not all, who are sharing their comments do not know this and it would be impossible to teach you in a few words in a single post, I will just make some comments and post a few scriptures. This will also show why we must have the words of God in a single compilation and not just his message like most commentators are teaching here.

First of all Jesus Christ is seated on the right hand of the Father in heaven on his throne. He has been seated there since he ascended after his resurrection from the dead. That is some 2000 years. Read the details of this. You should read the context because I am just going to quote a limited amount for my purpose here.

Acts 2:32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool.

How long is Jesus to sit on the throne of the Father? Until the Father makes his enemies his footstool. He is still seated there today. When will he arise from the throne? Do we know?

19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.(a theme)

If God has spoken of these things by all his prophets, then it is a theme and we should be able to find this theme in the writings of the prophets. We should also see Jesus arising from the throne of his Father in heaven to come to the earth to conquer his foes and to restore all things. On June 29, 2021 at 10:17 he has not done that yet.

In Psalm 12, verse 5 he say he arises to deliver the poor and oppressed and afflicted, which is a description of the remnant of Israel, small as they are, who are about to be destroyed by the one who is puffing at them.

This word "arise" becomes very important because it is one of the key words, though not the only one, by which we will be able to set this Psalm in it's correct context.
I will show you that The arising of Jesus Christ from his Father's throne in heaven to deliver this remnant of Israel on earth is a continuing theme of the first 11 Psalms. I will make quotes and I expect you to read the context. Let's get started.

Ps 3:7 Arise, O LORD; save me, O my God: for thou hast smitten all mine enemies [upon] the cheek bone; thou hast broken the teeth of the ungodly.
Ps 7:6 Arise, O LORD, in thine anger, lift up thyself because of the rage of mine enemies: and awake for me [to] the judgment [that] thou hast commanded.
Ps 9:19 Arise, O LORD; let not man prevail: let the heathen be judged in thy sight.
Ps 10:12 Arise, O LORD; O God, lift up thine hand: forget not the humble.

The answered prayer, the Lord speaks.

Ps 12:5 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.

All these are speaking of the same arising and for the same reason. It is to answer the prayer that begins Psa 12.

Look at what is said in Ps 2.

5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou [art] my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
8 Ask of me, and I shall give [thee] the heathen [for] thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth [for] thy possession.
9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.

This is the Son who was on his right hand but is now a man of war.

Watch this.


Psa 4:3 But know that the LORD hath set apart him that is godly for himself: the LORD will hear when I call unto him.


Trust me when I tell you that this is a theme of the same prophecy even though there are types and likenesses of it in the scriptures and certain words are crucial for this theme. Take away these words and the theme can become impossible to track through the scriptures. Only God can keep them intact.

I have only given you the first 12 Psalms but the theme runs throughout the rest of the Psalms and the scriptures, even into the NT. Please do not remove or replace these key words lest I lose my way. I will show you others later.

 

[Michael Hollner]

When KJVOs are faced with the fact of no Scriptural support for the KJVO myth, they often try to counter with "Psalm 12:6-7 is proof text for KJVO." However, they ignore several facts about that supposition:

1.) The AV makers included the following footnote for the 2nd them in V7- "Heb. him, I. euery one of them." That shows they knew V7 is about PEOPLE, not God's words. The AV makers subbed 'them' for 'him', as they knew the verse is about people & not just one person.

2.) For the sake of discussion, let's say those verses ARE both about God's words. WHERE DO THEY MENTION THE KJV, by the slightest quark of the least implication?

Thus, the KJVO myth remains without any Scriptural support. Therefore, it CANNOT be true.

Sorry boss, I am going to have to go with Heinrich Friedrich Wilhelm Gesenius (3 February 1786 – 23 October 1842) on this one. He was a German orientalist, lexicographer, Christian Hebraist, Lutheran theologian, Biblical scholar and critic, an actual Hebrew Grammar scholar and well qualified to examine the Hebrew grammar in Psalms 12:6-7.

Those who interpret Psalms 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), therefore “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 Wilhelm Gesenius, a classic Hebrew grammarian said, quote, “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” (Kautzsch, E. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar 2ndEd. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910).

 

[37818]

Sorry boss, I am going to have to go with Heinrich Friedrich Wilhelm Gesenius (3 February 1786 – 23 October 1842) on this one. He was a German orientalist, lexicographer, Christian Hebraist, Lutheran theologian, Biblical scholar and critic, an actual Hebrew Grammar scholar and well qualified to examine the Hebrew grammar in Psalms 12:6-7.


Those who interpret Psalms 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), therefore “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 Wilhelm Gesenius, a classic Hebrew grammarian said, quote, “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” (Kautzsch, E. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar 2ndEd. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910).

View attachment 4941

How did he address the Hebrew "him" in verse 7?
Geneva Bible, ". . . thou wilt preserue him from this generation for euer. . . ."
I have no problem with ". . . Thou wilt keepe them, O Lord: . . ." referring to the word in verse 6.

 

[robycop3]

The contradiction is an imaginary one in your mind. There is no prohibition of incest until the law of Moses, and there is complete biblical clarity that God only created two people and that all of the humans descended from them. If you have a scripture for God creating more humans besides Adam & Eve, please give it. If not, you have created a man-made doctrine to ease your personal sensibilities.

There was no law against murder, either, but God severely punished cain for it. There was no law against adultery or fornication either, but Jacob, as told by God, demoted Reuben for his affair with Bilhah. What was abominable to God before He gave Moses the law was abominable to Him before that. And that included incest between immediate family members.

Equivocation plain and simple. I know it is hard to admit you have your own man-made doctrines when you make a hobby-horse of accusing other people of that.

Call it what you want; the Scriptural & historical evidence is there for everyone to see. Now, had this evidence been presented by Prof. E. Z. Luvvin of the Alfred E. Neumann School of Applied Hispory, you'd be acclaiming it, but since it was presented by an old retired steelman, it's false to you. I see...

 

[robycop3]

A bit depressing that you’d like to make extinct those who believe they have God’s words in English. Simply because the KJO believes God keeps His promises by keeping the words pure. Telling.

I, too, believe we have God's word in English; just not only in the KJV. And the KJV's rendering of His words is NOT PURE. I, & others, have pointed out some of the KJV's goofs & booboos, & you're batting.000 in countering them.

I’ve seen the opposite occurring often as well. Whether through comments I read, articles, or personal friends (including myself once upon a time not using the AV) are finding out the issues with the MV’s and now only use the KJB. Yes, it’s a “B”ible.

Yes, Satan is still using some people to hawk his false KJVO myth, including some well-meaning Christians who don't know any better.

Is the KJVO myth found in the KJV? Newp!
Does the KJVO myth contain lies? Yerp!
No Christian should subsctibe to that man-made KJVO garbage.

 

[robycop3]

Sorry boss, I am going to have to go with Heinrich Friedrich Wilhelm Gesenius (3 February 1786 – 23 October 1842) on this one. He was a German orientalist, lexicographer, Christian Hebraist, Lutheran theologian, Biblical scholar and critic, an actual Hebrew Grammar scholar and well qualified to examine the Hebrew grammar in Psalms 12:6-7.

Those who interpret Psalms 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), therefore “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 Wilhelm Gesenius, a classic Hebrew grammarian said, quote, “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” (Kautzsch, E. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar 2ndEd. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910).

View attachment 4941

Prof. G didn't address the issue of Ps. 12:7 directly. Some of the AV makers were well-qualified in ancient Hebrew as well, & they interpreted the Hebrew of V7 as "him", but, knowing the verse was about more than one person, used "them" in the AV's text. Others, wishing to keep their rendering as literal as possible, used "him".

 

[Logos1560]

A bit depressing that you’d like to make extinct those who believe they have God’s words in English. Simply because the KJO believes God keeps His promises by keeping the words pure. Telling.

You incorrectly imply that only KJV-only advocates believe God keeps His promises, but your allegation is not true. Your allegation would bear false witness.

Perhaps you suggest that God promised something that He did not promise. God did not promise that words added by men (such as the many words added by the KJV translators) are pure words of God since that would contradict what God said in other places. God did not promise that errors made by men whether in copying, in printing, or in translating are pure words of God. God did not promise that mistranslations or inaccurate renderings are pure words of God.

 

[Logos1560]

This is a faulty reasoning based upon a wrong assumption.

Wilhelm Gesenius's assertion would apply to your own faulty KJV-only reasoning. Your erroneous KJV-only reasoning is based upon wrong assumptions. You assume unproven KJV-only premises that you do not prove to be true and that are not true.

 

[rlvaughn]

There was no law against murder, either, but God severely punished cain for it. There was no law against adultery or fornication either, but Jacob, as told by God, demoted Reuben for his affair with Bilhah. What was abominable to God before He gave Moses the law was abominable to Him before that. And that included incest between immediate family members.

Just make it up as you go. Since it is man-made -- your man-made doctrine -- you can do that. You cannot find any other humans that God created, so all that is left to do is to deflect. Abraham married his sister (Genesis 20:12; the daughter of his father, by a different wife), and God did not condemn that. Yet, Leviticus 18:9 makes it illegal. Amram, Moses’ father, married his own aunt, Jochebed (Exodus 6:20), and God did not condemn that. Yet, Leviticus 18:12 makes it illegal. Until you are willing to take notice of your own man-made doctrines, you might want to consider toning down your condemnation of everyone else.

 

[Michael Hollner]

Prof. G didn't address the issue of Ps. 12:7 directly. Some of the AV makers were well-qualified in ancient Hebrew as well, & they interpreted the Hebrew of V7 as "him", but, knowing the verse was about more than one person, used "them" in the AV's text. Others, wishing to keep their rendering as literal as possible, used "him".

Yes, but the final text says "thou shalt keep them" referring to and following the context of verse 6 'The words of the Lord."

Psalms 119:111; 129; and 167 are also all talking about the word of God and exhibit the same gender discord as Psalm 12:6-7. Yet, in the inconsistent craft of modern textual criticism, the modern versions of the NIV, NASB, ESV, etc, did not care about rectifying the discord in these passages by translating them differently from the KJB. Therefore, it seems that proximity takes precedence over gender accord even in modern versions, except in Psalms 12:6-7, for they don’t like the promise of divine preservation being presented. An example of a total lack of consistency in the modern versions and an obvious attack on the doctrine of divine providence and preservation.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, but the final text says "thou shalt keep them" referring to and following the context of verse 6 'The words of the Lord."
View attachment 4944
Psalms 119:111; 129; and 167 are also all talking about the word of God and exhibit the same gender discord as Psalm 12:6-7. Yet, in the inconsistent craft of modern textual criticism, the modern versions of the NIV, NASB, ESV, etc, did not care about rectifying the discord in these passages by translating them differently from the KJB. Therefore, it seems that proximity takes precedence over gender accord even in modern versions, except in Psalms 12:6-7, for they don’t like the promise of divine preservation being presented. An example of a total lack of consistency in the modern versions and an obvious attack on the doctrine of divine providence and preservation.

NOTHING in the bible refers to any translations, but to the Originals themselves!

 

[robycop3]

Just make it up as you go. Since it is man-made -- your man-made doctrine -- you can do that. You cannot find any other humans that God created, so all that is left to do is to deflect. Abraham married his sister (Genesis 20:12; the daughter of his father, by a different wife), and God did not condemn that. Yet, Leviticus 18:9 makes it illegal. Amram, Moses’ father, married his own aunt, Jochebed (Exodus 6:20), and God did not condemn that. Yet, Leviticus 18:12 makes it illegal. Until you are willing to take notice of your own man-made doctrines, you might want to consider toning down your condemnation of everyone else.

NONE of them married their direct relatives. And we see what happened to the descendants of Lot's daughters who got their own dad drunk & seduced him-they carried God's curse.
Whoever Cain's wife was, she wasn't his full sister.

 

[robycop3]

Yes, but the final text says "thou shalt keep them" referring to and following the context of verse 6 'The words of the Lord."
View attachment 4944
Psalms 119:111; 129; and 167 are also all talking about the word of God and exhibit the same gender discord as Psalm 12:6-7. Yet, in the inconsistent craft of modern textual criticism, the modern versions of the NIV, NASB, ESV, etc, did not care about rectifying the discord in these passages by translating them differently from the KJB. Therefore, it seems that proximity takes precedence over gender accord even in modern versions, except in Psalms 12:6-7, for they don’t like the promise of divine preservation being presented. An example of a total lack of consistency in the modern versions and an obvious attack on the doctrine of divine providence and preservation.

You were doing fine til you decided to give your opinions of modern translators.

And I told you the reason the AV men wrote "keep them" instead of "keep him".
And at any rate, those verses, indeed, all of Psalm 12, nor ANY SCRIPTURE AT ALL, is about any particular Bible version or translation being the only "official" one. The whole "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie" is just more KJVO horse feathers.

 

[rlvaughn]

NONE of them married their direct relatives.

More deflection to preserve your man-made doctrine, whatever you mean by "NONE of them married their direct relatives." Abram and Amram married people whom they were forbidden to under the law of Moses (the same law which you are trying to use to prove your man-made point about Cain).

Whoever Cain's wife was, she was a descendant of the only two humans God created. You have not found in the Bible where God created any others. There were no others.

 

[robycop3]

More deflection to preserve your man-made doctrine, whatever you mean by "NONE of them married their direct relatives." Abram and Amram married people whom they were forbidden to under the law of Moses (the same law which you are trying to use to prove your man-made point about Cain).

Whoever Cain's wife was, she was a descendant of the only two humans God created. You have not found in the Bible where God created any others. There were no others.

No deflection at all. God ADDED to His law against incest, which people knew before the Exodus. His parents' marriage had occurred long before then, as had Abe's, Ike's, & Jake's. But God made an end of that practice among the Israelis. (I doubt that Amram & Jochebed were still alive at the Exodus, as Moe was then age 80. but it didn't matter, as their marriage had occurred before God forbade that type of marriage any more.) God extended it to include step children & other step-relatives.

And again, the only case of incest between direct, close relatives in Scripture was that of Lot's daughters with their dad, & we know what a disaster followed for the descendants of that incident.

Do YOU have a candidate for Cain's wife who wasn't his sister? I don't, but I firmly believe it was other than a sister. You can beat that dead horse all you like, but my opinion won't change unless proven wrong by actual evidence, not opinion or guesswork.

Now, do you have anything to say about the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie"?

 

[rlvaughn]

No deflection at all. God ADDED to His law against incest, which people knew before the Exodus. His parents' marriage had occurred long before then, as had Abe's, Ike's, & Jake's. But God made an end of that practice among the Israelis. (I doubt that Amram & Jochebed were still alive at the Exodus, as Moe was then age 80. but it didn't matter, as their marriage had occurred before God forbade that type of marriage any more.) God extended it to include step children & other step-relatives.

And again, the only case of incest between direct, close relatives in Scripture was that of Lot's daughters with their dad, & we know what a disaster followed for the descendants of that incident.

Funny that you deflect this time by finding refuge in the fact that God had not yet forbade the type of marriage between Abram & Sarai or Amram & Jochebed, but are not willing to admit that he had not yet forbade the type of marriage of Cain & his sister (or Cain & his niece, etc.). You refuse to admit the obvious, so instead create a man-made doctrine that God might have made someone else for him to marry.

Do YOU have a candidate for Cain's wife who wasn't his sister? I don't, but I firmly believe it was other than a sister. You can beat that dead horse all you like, but my opinion won't change unless proven wrong by actual evidence, not opinion or guesswork.

The candidates for Cain's wife is someone who was born to Adam & Eve, or to a child of Adam & Eve, or to a grandchild of Adam & Eve -- because they were the only people here that God created. You have not bothered to deny that fact this time around, but find refuge in a man-made doctrine that assuages your discomfort over how the descendants of Adam & Eve came about. Totally man-made. A firm belief in a Ford Corvette.

Now, do you have anything to say about the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie"?

No, I don't address "thingies". But I am addressing some of your comments in the OP:

...the fact of no Scriptural support... ...myth remains without any Scriptural support. Therefore, it CANNOT be true.

You are paddling the same boat you try to put others in, the boat christened "myth without any Scriptural support."

 

[37818]

. . . not willing to admit that the type of marriage of Cain & his sister (or Cain & his niece, etc.).

Nevertheless the descendants of Adam and Eve, brothers and sisters had to have married. And again with Noah's grandchildren had to marry their near of kin.