Psalm 12:6-7; an errant 'proof' of inerrancy (reject, Earth, translation)

[Jayhawker Soule]

The following is my post from a different thread. I'm posting it here in the hopes that we can focus this thread on a specific, and I believe flawed, arguement Biblical (read KJV) inerrancy. The Bible (read KJV), it is argued, is the "pure words" of God, preserved as pure (read inerrant) forever. As prooftext Psalm 12:6-7 is offered.

Leaving aside the obvious fact that this type of argument is a near laughable example of Circulus in Demonstrando, i.e., "(Circular Argument, Begging the Question): restating the premise in the conclusion rather than proving or disproving.", it is instructive to look at the verse in question.

KJV

• 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.
• 12:6 The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
• 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

But what was the real intent of the Psalm?

Septuagint

• 12:5 Because of the misery of the poor, and because of the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the Lord, I will set them in safety; I will speak to them thereof openly.
• 12:6 The oracles of the Lord are pure oracles; as silver tried in the fire, proved in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
• 12:7 Thou, O Lord, shalt keep us, and shalt preserve us, from this generation, and for ever.

NET Bible

• 12:5 “Because of the violence done to the oppressed,because of the painful cries of the needy, I will spring into action,” says the Lord. “I will provide the safety they so desperately desire.”
• 12:6 The Lord’s words are absolutely reliable. They are as untainted as silver purified in a furnace on the ground, where it is thoroughly refined.
• 12:7 You, Lord, will protect them; you will continually shelter each one from these evil people,

bible.org makes the following observation about the 'then' in 12:7 ...

The third person plural pronominal suffix on the verb is masculine, referring back to the “oppressed” and “needy” in v. 5 (both of those nouns are plural in form), suggesting that the verb means “protect” here. The suffix does not refer to twrma (“words”) in v. 6, because that term is feminine gender.

... thereby aligning itself with the Septuagint translation.

It turns out that Psalm 12:7 is mantra material for the KJV-only crowd, so there is more than a little discussion of it. For example:

WHY PSALM 12:6,7 IS NOT A PROMISE OF THE
INFALLIBLE PRESERVATION OF SCRIPTURE

< --- snip --- >

The main proof text employed to teach an infallibly preserved Bible is Psalm 12:6, 7, which in the KJV reads,

“The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”

It is commonly asserted that this is proof positive that God promised to infallibly preserve His written Word. Not only is this seized as proof of the certain preservation of the Scriptures in the original languages, but it is often applied to perfect preservation of the Scriptures in the English language, particularly and exclusively the King James Version in English. [Note: The actual origin of using Psalm 12:6-7 to apply exclusively to the KJV and its Textus Receptus Greek is Seventh-day Adventist author Benjamin G. Wilkinson, whose 1930 book was plagiarized by Jasper James Ray in his 1955 book, God Wrote Only One Bible. See the article, “The Unlearned Men” by Doug Kutilek, and “The Great Which Bible? Fraud” by Kutilek & Hudson, both on this website.].

We shall examine in detail these verses as regards grammar, context, and the views of biblical authorities both ancient and modern to determine their correct interpretation and application.

< --- snip --- >

The vast majority of translations and commentaries to which I had access agreed with the conclusions reached independently above, viz., that the promise of preservation applies to the persecuted people of God. Most gave no reasons, but some gave sound arguments from grammar. The pre-Christian Greek translation of the Old Testament, commonly called the Septuagint (LXX), reads, “you, O Lord, will guard us, and you will keep us,” etc., understanding the pronouns as first person plural “us” in both cases instead of “them” and “him” as in the Masoretic Hebrew text. Whatever the cause of this difference, the LXX clearly supports the “people” position.

The Targum to Psalms, the interpretive Jewish translation of the Hebrew into Aramaic which dates from the early Christian centuries, reads, “you, O Lord, will keep the righteous ones, you will protect them from this evil generation forever.” The antecedent of “them” is spelled out plainly.

The Peshitta Syriac, a second-century Christian translation of the Old Testament, reads, “because of the robbery of the poor ones (masculine plural)...” (Vs. 5), “the word (masculine singular) of the Lord is a pure word....” (Vs. 6), “you, O Lord, will keep them (masculine plural); save me and rescue me from this generation forever” (Vs. 7). Gender and number agreement and the personal pronoun me confine the reference to people, not words.

Jerome’s fourth-century Vulgate translation of the Old Testament into Latin reads “us” in both cases like the LXX, instead of “them” and “him”; it clearly applies the promise to saints, not Scriptures.

Augustine, using a Latin text that read “us” twice in verse 7 rather than “them,” of course, understood the promise to apply to people. Rabbinic scholar Rashi (d. 1105) writes, “you will keep them -- this is said concerning the poor and afflicted who are persecuted by this generation.”

The greatest medieval Hebrew grammarian and lexicographer, David Kimchi (d. ca. 1240), explains the passage, noting the change in Hebrew from masculine plural them to masculine singular him: “‘you, O Lord, will keep them’ -- you will keep the poor ones, and he said ‘you will preserve him’ -- which is singular, concerning every poor one, and the poor in every place wherever he may be.”

Calvin shows awareness of other interpretation but expressly rejects it on grounds of context: “Some give this explanation to the passage, thou wilt keep them, namely, thy words; but this does not seem to be suitable. David, I have no doubt, returns to speak of the poor, of whom he had spoken in the preceding part of the psalm.”

The Geneva Bible (1560), produced by Puritan exiles from the cruel reign of Mary, translated verse 7, “Thou wilt keep them, O Lord: thou wilt preserve him from this generation forever,” and in a marginal note on them added, “That is, thine, though he were but one man.” Among Puritan writers who understood the promise to apply to people are David Dickson (1655), John Mayer (1663), and Matthew Henry (d. 1714). The learned Hebraist and Baptist pastor John Gill (d. 1771) takes a position and then gives reasons, which is far better: “Verse 7: ‘Thou shalt keep them, O Lord,’ etc. Not the words before mentioned, as Aben Ezra explains it, for the affix is masculine, not feminine:...but the sense is, that God will keep the poor and needy, and such as he sets in safety, as Kimchi rightly observes.”

Among 19th century authors who concur are Adam Clarke, Symon Patrick, George Horne, E. W. Hengstenburg, J. A. Alexander, Albert Barnes, C. B. Moll in Lange’s, C. H. Spurgeon, Joseph Excell in Biblical Illustrator, G. Rawlinson in Pulpit Commentary, F. C. Cook, George Murphy, J. J. Stuart Perowne, and Franz Delitzsch. The last one of these is among the few to give reasons, but his arguments are grammatical and accurate. “The [pronominal] suffix in verse 8a [7a in English] refers to the miserable and poor; the suffix [him] in verse 8b [7b] refers back to the man who yearns for deliverance mentioned in the divine utterance, verse 6 [5].”

Among 20th century authorities that accept as valid the reference to the poor and needy are Cheyne, Briggs (apparently), Maclaren, W. E. Barnes, Kirkpatrick, F. B. Meyer, Arno Gabelein, Cohen, W. G. Scroggie, W. O. E. Oesterly, H. C. Leupold, Dahood, the Open Bible (marginal note), and the New International Version, which adopts the reading of the LXX (which fact is not noted in the margin).

Counting scholarly noses does not constitute proof. However, it is evident that the vast majority of interpreters accept the position maintained by the writer -- that God has promised here to preserve and guard His saints. Included among these commentators are some of the best Hebraists and expositors of all time, Rashi, Kimchi, Calvin, Gill, Hengstengerg, Alexander, Perowne, and Delitzsch. Though most do not give reasons for their view, those who do so present valid arguments from grammar and context.

- see Psalm 12:6-7

The evidence appears overwhelming. Whatever forces led to the early translation, it seems near certain that subsequent interpretation was driven, not by some Holy Spirit, but by simple self interest. This willingness to distort Scripture in the defense of dogma speaks volumes.

[Scott1]

Thanks for the education Deut!

[Scuba Pete]

Dear Deut,

it amazes me that without having ever met the translators of the KJV, you find opporunity to ascribe ulterior and nefarious motives to them. To whit:

Originally Posted by Duet

This willingness to distort Scripture in the defense of dogma speaks volumes.

While you may have found an error in the KJV translation, your final conclusion is completely unsupported and mean spirited. We benefit from hundreds of years of scholastic research that the translators of the KJV had no access to. They did what they could with what they had to work with.

I say this as someone who feels that the concept of the "Inspired Version" does not honor God. The KJV has several shortcomings, but the motives of the translators are not among them.

[Katzpur]

You know, I just thought of something. Psalm 12 contains David's words, not God's. David said, "Thou shalt keep them (i.e. the words of the Lord), O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." This wasn't God saying He'd preserve His words at all.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

Dear Deut,

it amazes me that without having ever met the translators of the KJV, you find opporunity to ascribe ulterior and nefarious motives to them.

It amazes me that your eagerness to attack me personally at every opportunity so seriously impairs your reading comprehension. Rather than quote a line out of contect, let's look at the entire paragraph ...

The evidence appears overwhelming. Whatever forces led to the early translation, it seems near certain that subsequent interpretation was driven, not by some Holy Spirit, but by simple self interest. This willingness to distort Scripture in the defense of dogma speaks volumes.

The referenced "willingness to distort Scripture" was clearly directed against those promoting a particular "subsequent interpretation" in the defense of the dogma of KJV inerrancy, and not against the translators. You make no points and impress nobody by adding your own distortions.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

This wasn't God saying He'd preserve His words at all.

Good observation.

[Scuba Pete]

My apologies for reading it wrong... maybe you should be clearer about whom you are referring to.

Rather than merely clarify that you were NOT discussing the translators, you have ascribed to me a willingness to simply distort your words which is in it's own right a HUGE distortion of my intent. But I am sure you will justify that in your own mind.