3) THE CORRECT RENDERING OF PSALM 12:6-7.
The next point I wish to contend concerns the translation of Psalm 12:6-7. Professor White devotes several pages to show why he does not believe the King James Bible in regard to its translation of this passage. His contention is that the Hebrew text of Psalm 12:7 should be translated as "preserve him" instead of "preserve them." After citing a Hebrew text, Brother White writes:

"But most importantly, the suffix attached to the word 'preserve' is a masculine singular . . . while the term 'words' in 'words of the LORD' in verse 6 is a feminine plural. Hence, whatever is 'preserved' in verse 7 is not the 'words' of verse 6, as you cannot match a masculine singular to a feminine plural. Yet, Dr. Holland's entire interpretation demands that this passage say that it is the words of the LORD that are preserved in verse 7, yet the grammar of the passage does not allow this interpretation."

Brother White is mistaken. It is possible to match masculine and feminine nouns in Hebrew. Hebrew has only two genders, masculine and feminine (the feminine is also used for neuter nouns). Further, the Hebrew language will allow you to mix the singular with the plural. White also makes the following comment:

"But aside from the textual issue, we point out that 'them' is not the reading of either the Greek or Hebrew manuscripts. It is possible that the KJV translators took the third person masculine singular suffix, literally translated as "him" (NASB), as a 'collective,' and rendered it 'them.' Or, it is possible the translator(s) simply erred and followed the third person masculine plural of the preceding verb."

He is correct in stating the Hebrew third person masculine singular suffix can be taken as a collective. This is common in Hebrew. If, however, the King James translators "erred," as suggested by Professor White, they were not at all alone. Several other English translations render the phrase as "preserve them." The Geneva Bible (1587 edition) translates the Hebrew text as "preserve them." Likewise, modern versions such as the RV, ASV, Darby, and NKJV translate the text as "preserve them." If the KJV translators simply "erred" we must conclude that the translators of these other versions made the very same mistake (something which seems rather unlikely). Or, we can conclude that there is more than one way to translate the verse.

Most modern versions, however, take a different route than either the KJV or the NASV. Instead of "them" or "him" they translate the phrase as "preserve (or protect) us." Such is the reading of the NIV, RSV, NRSV, and NEV (this is also the reading found in Wycliffe's 14th century version and Matthew's Bible of 1540). Although this reading would not support the KJV, it likewise does not support the reading "preserve him." So, why the difference? The answer is supplied by Adam Clarke in his six volume commentary on the Bible. Clarke writes of Psalm 12:7: "Instead of the pronoun 'them' in these clauses, several MSS., with the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the Arabic, have 'us.'" Therefore, the difference deals with a textual variance found within the Hebrew manuscripts and some Old Testament translations. Regarding the Hebrew text, the KJV was based on the text of Jacob ben Chayyim. Modern versions are usually based on the Hebrew text from the family of ben Asher and supported with the Greek Septuagint. This explains the difference between the "us" and "them." But why the difference between "them" and "him"?

The King James translators were not ignorant of this difference. The Great Bible of 1540 reads, "Thou shalt kepe them (O Lorde) thou shalt preserue hym from thys generacyo for euer." As did the 1560 edition of the Geneva Bible. More importantly, the marginal note at Psalm 12:7 in the original KJV reads, "Heb(rew) 'him' i.e. every one of them." Therefore, the translators of the KJV were aware of the translational differences concerning this verse. What they understood is that the Hebrew allows the text to be rendered into English in more than one way. Nor are they alone in this understanding.

The International Critical Commentary notes the textual and grammatical differences regarding this verse. The commentators state that both renderings are most likely interpretations because the original Hebrew lacked verb suffixes. Therefore, just as the early Greek writings did not have punctuation, the early Hebrew did not have verb suffixes to determine if it should be "them," "him," or "us." Additionally, while the Septuagint used the Greek personal pronoun hemas (us), the Greek versions of Aquila and Theodotian used the Greek personal pronoun autous (them), and thus agreed with the Hebrew text referring "to the divine words" (Dr. Charles and Emilie Briggs, T. & T. Clark Publishers, pp. 97-99).

Reformer John Calvin agrees with Professor White as to the phrasing of this verse, but disagrees with his assertion that the singular and plural cannot be mixed together in Hebrew grammar. Calvin writes:

"With respect to his changing the number, (for, he says first, Thou wilt keep them, and, next, Thou wilt preserve him,) it is a thing quite common in Hebrew, and the sense is not thereby rendered ambiguous. These two sentences, therefore, Thou wilt keep them, and Thou wilt preserve him, signify the same thing . . . " (Calvin's Commentary on Psalms, Eerdmans Publishing, p. 179).

Calvin is correct concerning his understanding of Hebrew. Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar notes:

"As in other languages, so also in Hebrew, the predicate in general conforms to the subject in gender and number (even when it is a pronoun . . .). There are, however, numerous exceptions to this fundamental rule. These are due partly to the constructio ad sensum (where attention is paid to the meaning rather than to the grammatical form." (E. Kautzsch, ed., A. E. Cowley, trans., Clarendon Press, p. 462).

Therefore, as Calvin and others point out, grammar is not as important in Hebrew as meaning, thus the constructio ad sensum (construction by thoughts). This is especially true of Hebrew poetry (and even in English poetry I might add). In poetry, grammar takes a back seat to parallelism. With respect to the Masoretic Hebrew text, Dr. Peter Craigie justly points out that, "The two verbs of this verse. . . have 3 personal plural and 3 personal singular suffixes respectively." (Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 19, Word Books, p. 137). This allots the Hebrew text poetic parallelism.

Again, John Calvin fairly notes that the phrase in Psalm 12:7 may very well refer to the words of the Lord, at least the first part of the phrase, even though he himself did not see it this way. 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." (Calvin's Commentary on Psalms, pp. 178-179).

John Wesley, on the other hand, thought it to be very suitable for him. Not only was Wesley a preacher and a theologian; he was also a grammarian, having written grammar books for English, Greek, Latin, French, and Hebrew. Regarding Psalm 12:7, Wesley writes:

"Thou shalt keep them -- Thy words or promises: these thou wilt observe and keep, both now, and from this generation for ever." (John Wesley's Notes On the Bible, presented by Sage Digital Library, vols. 3 and 4, 1996 edition).

Dr. G. Campbell Morgan joins John Wesley in sounding like "KJV Only advocates" (which they were not) in writing:

"The psalmist breaks out into praise of the purity of His words, and declares that Jehovah will 'keep them,' and 'preserve them.' The 'them' here refers to the words. There is no promise made of widespread revival or renewal. It is the salvation of a remnant and the preservation of His own words which Jehovah promises." (Notes on the Psalms, Revell, p.32).

From all this we understand that the original Hebrew did not use verb suffixes, that Hebrew text differ when suffixes are added, and that even if the suffixes are the same they can be translated as singular or plural (as recognized by the KJV translators, as well as other translators and scholars). Therefore, to conclude this verse to be in error reflects an unfounded antipathy.

Having stated all of this, White's argument becomes somewhat moot for the simple reason that there are many other verses in the Bible which teach Biblical preservation. While Psalm 12:6-7 does a wonderful job of clearly presenting the truths of Biblical preservation, it is not the only passage to do so. During our public debate I provided Brother White with a list of several other verses which proclaim the same thing. These verses were ignored by Professor White. Instead he kept asking the same question regarding Psalm 12:7. Brother James has repeatedly stated that he believes in Biblical preservation. Taking him at his word, I have but one question for him (one I certainly hope that he will answer):

Brother James; since you do not believe Psalm 12:6-7 teaches Biblical preservation, and yet you believe in Biblical preservation, what verse do you use to support your belief in Biblical preservation?

It seems to me that instead of disproving a verse which supports a doctrine he says he believes, he would do better if he would provide Biblical support for his own teaching. The real truth is that Professor White believes in Biblical preservation like he believes the King James Bible, in a general sense of the meaning. When push comes to shove, he does not believe the words of the Lord have all been preserved. In fact, he believes some sections are missing. This was a point I made during our debate, a point he failed to respond to. He claims that the tenacity of textual variants proves Biblical preservation, and that nothing has "disappear(ed)" or "fallen through the cracks." In fact, he claims that with all the textual variants found in the various manuscripts, "One of those variant readings is indeed the original. We are called to invest our energies in discovering which one it is." (White, The King James Only Controversy, p. 48).

However, when presented with the fact that liberal and conservative scholars believe that some things are missing, some things have disappeared and fallen through the cracks (such as 1 Samuel 13:1), Brother James offered no reply. When shown that he himself, like many modern textual scholars, believes the true ending of Mark's Gospel is missing, and that the long and short endings were added in the second century (as stated in the writings of Metzger, Aland, Ryrie, and the NIV Study Bible), he again offered no reply. The simple fact is that you cannot believe that any part of the text is forever missing and still claim that nothing has disappeared. Yet, this is exactly what Brother James and most conservative scholars believe. They believe in Biblical preservation without believing in Biblical preservation. They believe the King James Bible without believing the King James Bible. It is not unkind or unchristian to demand an accounting for such obvious self contradictions.