Should I believe the author?

"Them" could be the correct translation, but if English had gender, like Hebrew, it would be clear that "them" in vs. 7 doesn't refer to the "words of the Lord" in vs. 6.

 

And what purpose is that?

The two things have nothing to do with one another. What I am saying is that some confuse the different kinds of notes. Some notes are to provide alternative readings, some are not.

 

I have to agree. This is one of the reasons I suggest buying an AV Bible that is published in England where the AV is still protected by a copyright owned by the Crown. Because The Queen owns the AV she gets to decide who is allowed to print it and this is a very small club (Cambridge, Oxford and R. L. Allan & Sons). Becaue of this the text is better protected from alteration and the translators notes are often retained.

Sadly, this can not be said of the cheap American bootleg Bibles that are sold at the Christian chain stores here in the US.

 

How can you be wrong, because you took the passage out of context. You isolated vss 6 and 7 away from the context of Psalm 12. You said later that it is a comparison with the words of man and the words of God.


Here is a breakdown of the passage.

Help, LORD; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men. They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak. (vss 1-2)

The godly and the faithful have because so scarce, that they don't seem to exist anymore. People speak vanity and with flattering lips and double heart. We will later see a contrast to this point here with the Lord's words not being false.


The LORD shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things: Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us? (vs 3)
David, still in his prayer, is asking that the Lord cut off those with the flattering lips spoken of in vss 1-2.

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.(vs 4-5)
The wrong done by the flattering words and vanity. People's words cannot be trusted. The Lord set him in safety(godly from vs 1). This here is a promise from God.

Notice, we are through the first 5 verses. The context has clearly been set, and it isn't about the Bible. It is about the godly man and those that use flattering lips. The Lord will set the godly man in safety according to verse 5. Now David will show a contrast(after a promise from God) to the false words of man to the pure words of God.

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. (vs 6)
Opposite to those in verses 1 and 2, the Lord's words are pure. What he says in verse 5 will be true because the Lord doesn't lie. He will set him in safety from the oppression.

Again, notice nothing is mentioned yet about the Bible. While the Bible does include Gods words, they are not all of them. The Bible is everything that God wanted us to have, but it didn't record every single word that God has ever said. Not all the conversations between Adam and God are recorded for instance. David is talking about the words that God says and that they are true and pure, not like the ones that speak with flattering words...


Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted. (vs7)

To say that David as change the subject just in this one verse doesn't have any contextual support. He is speaking about what he had just said in verse 5, who is speaking about the godly in verse 1. The "them" in the KJV is literally "him." Which could NOT be referring to words as we don't call words by "him." The KJV has them because it is speaking of the plural of the poor and needy which is more than one person. In English, we use the term "them" to refer to more than one person so "him" would be grammatically incorrect even though it would be a literal translation.


context doesn't support any change of the subject. Those that say it is speaking about the Bible in verse 7 need to show from the context that David changes the subject and why the term "him" is in the text and how words could be referred to as "him."

No you haven't messed at all with the Word of God. All you have done is "messed" with the translation. The "him" "I" "every one of them" is actually literally what God wrote. Technically putting in "them" is "messing," as you put it, with the Word of God. The translators are correct. The marginal note here is the literal translation of the word. It is him. Which is a person. However, we are talking about more than one person, so the plural is needed, which is "them."

 

Hello and welcome.

I have a few problems with your reasoning.

1. Verse 6 speaks of God's words which is a change from the overall subject of the Psalm. I don't see the logic that verse 7 can't "change the subject" when verse 6 has already changed it.

2. The note 1611 KJV note at verse 7 does not tell us that the pronoun refers to a person. Hebrew only has two genders. Do you know the gender of the Hebrew word for "words"? Hint: it ain't "it".

3. The English word "them" can refer to either people or objects.

4. Pronouns don't attach themselves to "subjects". Pronouns attach themselves to antecedents. In English the pronoun attaches itself to the nearest antecedent. The nearest possible antecedent to "them" in verse 7 (KJV) is "words" of verse 7. Can you explain that?


There is a pretty strong argument against the reading of the KJV in Psalm 12:7. You (and some others here) are dancing all around it.

On the other hand I think the KJV is correct here. Why should I make your points for you?


God bless,
A.F.

 

I lean toward the preservation of words theory, but really am not certain. Apparently the KJV team were in the same boat .

However, it is still very difficult to get OVPLO (One Version Per Language Onlyism) from this passage.

 

I don't see any way to get to "OVPLO" from the passage either. I am perfectly statisfied that God's words are preserved in Hebrew and Greek.

A.F.

 

I understand - I find your posts very reasonable even when I don't agree . I knew that OVPLO was not your view.

 

Just remember this, that your conclusion about God's word being preserved is true. I don't believe Psalm 12 is teaching that, but many other passages do teach that.

It isn't a change of subject here. The Psalm is contrasting the words of man with the words of God. Back in verse 2, we see the lying words of man. Verse six is a contrast of that. In verse 7, he is continuing what was being spoken of in verse 5. The passage is about the lying words of man vs true words of God and the oppression of the godly and the Lord setting him in safety.

Please explain further, I do know that words aren't referred to as he.

Agreed

Read verses 5-7 instead of just vss 6 and 7.

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. 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.

I look at it as the Lord will set him in safety and David reminds us that the Lord's words, in contrast with the lying words of those that oppressed, are pure words. Then he continues on with the Lord keeping him(or them).

I'm not advocating that the KJV reading is wrong here. I have no problem with it. I'm only speaking about the interpretation. I know the NASB puts it this way "You, O LORD, will keep them; You will preserve him from this generation forever." I will admit that I do not know Hebrew, so I'm ignorant of how to translate the passage. I can only go by what I'm told.

Thanks for you comments though. I would love to see your reason against the reading of the KJV

 

For a moment I thought you were going to have to make a decision as to whether you would just continue believing what you had always believed, or actually consider the possibility you could have been wrong. (I guess that will never happen).

 

AF is factually correct, as usual.

 

I also lean toward the 'preservation of spoken words' view.

The clues in the passage are the words "lips", "tongue", and "speak".

 

Hello again jbh28

I think I will read the passage and think about your ideas some more. Sometimes I learn new things by trying to read it the other way.

There are several people on this board who know infinitely more about Hebrew than I do. I have some nice reference material though.

When online I like to use www.blueletterbible.org. I look up the passage, go to the verse then hit the "c" button for details of the translation. If I click the Strong's number I get details on the word. Sometimes I hit the "v" button for different translations. I have so much fun with it I get distracted for a long, long time.....

In English - "word" or house or rock are "it". Some languages limit things to masculine or feminine, however. For example: in Spanish the table or the house is she (la mesa, la casa). On the other hand, the boat or the car is a he (el barco, el coche). It works that way for abstract nouns too. Hebrew has a similar feature.

Another of my points is that a reader of an English translation expects the translation to conform to English rules of grammar. That is one reason for my comment about antecedents. Antecedents are important in Hebrew and Greek too. The rules seem a little more complex though.

I think that sometimes different translators come down on different sides of a fine point. In places you will find that even recent translations will differ substantially. I think this is a case where the text seems ambiguous and the translator makes a choice depending on how he weighs the different aspects.

I expect be off line for a few days. If this thread is still going maybe we can talk more.

God bless,
A.F.