Preserved Word of God Psalm 12:6-7 Deception

Ever since we wrote the KJV Only Deception article there have been many comments regarding Psalm 12:6-7. People rush to tell us that the Lord promised to preserve his word (the Bible) in this passage. They go on to express their belief that this promise is being fulfilled through the KJV. Some go as far as to announce that they know that the KJV is THE “perfect preserved Word of God” because of this passage – How they KNOW this I still have yet to find out.

As a result of this perpetual, errant belief, I’d like to set the record straight in the form of a post on the blog rather than just respond in the comments section.

Psalm 12:6-7 is about God’s promises not the Bible. We are being told that God keeps his promises (i.e., he will keep his word). This isn’t a passage about the preservation of the Bible (i.e., God’s Holy Word).

This passage is misunderstood because, in typical IFB fashion, it’s pulled out of context and twisted to form a meaning different from what it was intended.

This is David and the Lord having a conversation. David is crying out for help because the righteous people of his day were fleeting (see verses 1-4).

Then the Lord replies and reassures David telling him not to worry that he has seen the trouble and promises to rise up to rescue them (see verse 5).

Then in verse 6 he tells David that his promises are pure and perfect like refined silver.

Then in verses 7 & 8 the Lord summarizes and reminds David what he promised, to protect and preserve “them” (the oppressed believers) (verse 7) even though wickedness is pervasive throughout the earth (verse 8).

Again, to reiterate, the “them” that verse 7 mentions isn’t God’s words, but the object of the chapter, the oppressed, victimized Christians of that era.

This is a HUGE mistake in the KJV and might I add a sloppy and irresponsible one. And I can’t believe that preachers continue to perpetuate this obviously false teaching.

Let’s pretend for a moment that the “them” in verse 7 were about god’s word. From the context we can clearly see that it’s about the promises NOT the Bible. Plus, on top of all that, God said that HE would preserve “them”. As a result, logic would dictate that it’s not mankind’s responsibility to preserve “them”. “They” WILL be preserved whether they’re written in Hebrew, Greek, English, Spanish, Pig Latin, braille or Martianese. Nowhere in the bible is it written or even suggested that humans are supposed to be concerned with whether “they” (his promises or the Word of God) are being preserved or not.

Another aspect of this is what I alluded to in the beginning of the article and friend and colleague Greg so astutely points out each time someone raises this argument. Let’s stretch the pretending even further and let’s say that this passage in Psalm does reference God’s promise to “perfectly preserve His Word” (the Bible). One is hard pressed to find anywhere in that passage or elsewhere in the Bible where God promises to do so by way of the KJV.

Finally, most scholars generally agree that we don’t even have all the original manuscripts. The bible is recognized to have been pieced together from families of manuscripts that have been scattered in different parts of the world. As a result, logic dictates that if we don’t even have all the original Words of God how can we now have a perfectly preserved Word of God? It’s an impossibility. Even to this day, scholars disagree about whether the Apocrypha is the Word of God.

This idea that we have the perfectly preserved Word of God especially when the idea is from Psalm 12:6-7 is an asinine claim to knowledge on many fronts and I hope that you won’t fall prey to the lie and deception of it all.


  1. The King James Version–Preserved or Restored:

    1.) If the King James Version translators were able to make comparisons with the texts that were available to them, then why are we not allowed to do comparisons with the ancient manuscripts that we have retrieved since the seventeen century? Why must we to the exclusion of all other Bible translations study from the King James?

    2.) The transmission that has been described by King James only advocates is the process of restoration, not preservation.

    3.) What people who subscribe to this position on the King James Version of the Bible fail to recognize is that their logic contains an apparent contradiction. Having various readings spread abroad which accurately record portions of the inspired words of biblical authors is completely different than having all the correct words aligned perfectly in a single document. In other words, what has been termed by the King James only proponents to be an “infallible preservation” of the Bible is contradictory because having such would not be based upon manuscripts which contain textual variances. It is inconsistent to equate “correction” with “preservation” because both words have opposing overtones. The first word implies the existence of error, whereas the later connotates maintaining the accuracy thereof. If errors are found and corrected in the manuscripts which form the basis behind a Bible translation, then how is the Word of God perfectly preserved?

    4.) Did the King James translators somehow obtain a perfect translation of the Scriptures? If so, then why can we not use them instead of the King James Version?

    5.) If we are to follow the K.J.V. onlyite’s advice in dismissing the modern textual criticism performed by conservative, biblically sound scholars who love God, then why not also reject the King James Version because King James, Erasmus, and their translator colleagues had also engaged in textual criticism? Every Bible translation is a product of textual criticism. Also, King James onlyites fail to recognize that they have raised their own unique standard of textual criticism when they express their feelings for the text of the King James Version.

    6.) Why not abuse the scriptural text of Psalm 12 (like K.J.V. onlyites do) and claim the same faulty interpretation as applying exclusively to a different translation such as the NASB?

  2. Nishal-I think the KJV is a fine, 17th century English translation, some came before it and many came after it, but make no mistake it is a TRANSLATION, and thus a work of man, so therefore it has some issues.

    Your KJV TRANSLATION calls the blessed Holy Spirit an “it” in four places! Jn1:32, Rom 8:16, Rom 8 26 and 1 Pet 1:11, all modern translations correct this obvious mistake, the only translation to join the KJV in this obvious mistake is the JW’s wicked “New World Translation” who don’t believe in the Deity of Christ!

    Your KJV TRANSLATION has the Roman soldiers hanging a dead Jesus on the cross at Acts 5:30, modern translation have corrected this mistake!

    Do you believe that turtles can talk and sing? Your KJV TRANSLATION apparently does! Have a look at Song of Solomon 2:12.

    Compare in your KJV TRANSLATION Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9. Both are stories about Paul’s Damascus road experience. The KJV says at 9:7 they didn’t hear a voice, at 22:9 they heard the voice!

    2 Cor 6:11-13 KJV TRANSLATION “O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) by ye also enlarged.”

    Same passage from the NIV ” We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you. We ae not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us. As a fair exchange – I speak as to my children – open wide your hearts also.”

    God wants us to be able to understand His word and message to us, that is the whole idea of having bible translations! Can you not see how much more easily the NIV is to read and understand than the KJV in this passage? I could study this KJV passage for a year and not know what it means!

    1. Greg,
      Not to mention that the KJV believes a unicorn exist!

      1. God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the “strength of a unicorn” (Numbers 23:22).BTW the so called unicorn was a Rhino in Scripture not a horse with horn

  3. i disagree KJV is the true word of God. just compare the verses from any other bible versions and you will see the difference eg kjv reads : Luke 9:56
    For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them
    niv reads : Luke 9:56
    and they went to another village.
    or answer this from the bible :Was Joseph really the father of Jesus?
    kjv reads: Luke 2:33
    And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.
    niv reads: Luke 2:33
    The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him and answer this as well
    Where did Jesus go?
    KJV reads :John 16:16
    A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father. do you know what the niv bible reads
    ‘John 16:16
    In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me. ‘

    2nd cor 2:11 reads ‘lest satan should get an advantage of us

    there are also verses that warns us that there will be many that come in Gods name but will not be the God of the Bible and will lead many astray

    the devil

  4. Steve

    I totally agree with your assessment of this chapter. Even if this passage were talking about the “word of God – the Bible,” what did that look like in David’s day? David only had portions of what we have today. I am also amazed at how it seems that EVERY TIME we see the word(s) “word, word of God, word(s) of the Lord…” in the Bible that we think “Bible.” That’s just wrong.

  5. You would think that this would be obvious to anyone studying this chapter. I even think it’s obvious in the KJV, although not as clear as in some of the new translations. But for biggest KJV mistake, I still go with the KJV calling the Holy Spirit an “it” in four places. John 1:32, Romans 8:16, Romans 8:26, and 1 Peter 1:11. The only other translation that makes this huge error is the Jehovah’s Witness “New World Translation.”

Comments are closed.