Speaking in tongues

Speaking in tongues in Scripture encompasses both intelligible human languages and Spirit-enabled utterance that transcends ordinary communication, with distinct purposes depending on context.

Manifestations of Tongues

At Pentecost, believers filled with the Holy Spirit spoke in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them, with each person in the crowd hearing the disciples speak in their own native language. (Acts 2:1–11) This represents tongues as recognizable, known languages—a sign validating the gospel’s universal reach. Similarly, when the Holy Spirit came upon Gentile believers at Cornelius’s house, they spoke in tongues and praised God (Acts 10:44–46), and when Paul laid hands on believers at Ephesus, the Holy Spirit came upon them and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. (Acts 19:6)

However, Paul addresses a different phenomenon in Corinth. When someone speaks in a tongue, they speak not to people but to God, uttering mysteries by the Spirit that no one understands. (1 Cor 14) This represents ecstatic utterance—intelligible to God but not to human listeners without interpretation.

Purpose and Regulation

Speaking in different kinds of tongues and the interpretation of tongues are gifts distributed by the Spirit for the common good. (1 Cor 12:4–11) Yet Paul establishes clear priorities: anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves, but the one who prophesies edifies the church. (1 Cor 14) The one who speaks in a tongue should pray that they may interpret what they say (1 Cor 14), ensuring corporate benefit rather than private experience alone.

When praying in a tongue, the spirit prays but the mind remains unfruitful (1 Cor 14)—a reality Paul addresses by emphasizing that unless intelligible words are spoken, how will anyone know what is being said? (1 Cor 14) Tongues without interpretation create confusion rather than edification in corporate worship.

Is KJV error-free?

No. The KJV contains errors that, while relatively minor in terms of Scripture’s overall message and small in total number, are not insignificant[1].

The distinction between the original biblical texts and any translation is crucial. Fundamentalist scholars have historically contended that inerrancy applies to “the original record—the autographs or parchments of Moses, David, Daniel, Matthew, Paul or Peter,” not to any particular translation[1]. As one early fundamentalist stated, “There is no translation absolutely without error, nor could there be, considering the infirmities of human copyists, unless God were pleased to perform a perpetual miracle to secure it”[1].

The KJV translators themselves never claimed perfection. The Anglican clergy working on the King James Version stated their purpose was not to make a new translation, but to make a good one better[2]. Additionally, King James I gave specific instructions to the translators that shaped their work, including requirements about ecclesiastical terminology and conformity to Church of England theology[2], which influenced translation choices beyond purely textual considerations.

Modern scholarship recognizes this reality. For many evangelical Christians, inerrancy extends only to the autographs of the Bible, while the manuscripts and English translations that descended from them are understood to contain variation in readings, from scribal mistakes to theological emendations[3]. There is nothing deceptive about referring to our Bibles as authoritative Scripture even though they are not absolutely perfect—they remain “to all practical intents and purposes … a thoroughly accurate rendering of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as originally given”[1].

[1] William W. Combs, “Errors in the King James Version?,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal Volume 4 (1999), 4:162–163.
[2] Modern English Version (Lake Mary, FL: Passio, 2014), ix–x.
[3] Amy Anderson and Wendy Widder, Textual Criticism of the Bible, ed. Douglas Mangum, Lexham Methods Series (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2018), 183.

Bible Reliability

Bible reliability rests on establishing that Scripture functions as a trustworthy historical document before addressing its theological claims—a foundational distinction that shapes how we evaluate textual evidence.

The Logical Foundation

Knowledge of Jesus depends on the Bible, and sustaining convictions about who he is requires Scripture, since the Word of God and the Word made flesh are inseparably connected.[1] This creates a critical problem: if someone claims faith in Jesus while denying that the Bible is at least basically reliable, their faith is exposed as empty.[1] The reliability question therefore precedes—and enables—claims about inspiration or inerrancy.

Archaeological and Historical Validation

Many so-called assured scholarly results that challenged orthodox views of Scripture have been overturned by continuing biblical and archaeological investigations.[2] Historical skepticism about biblical figures has repeatedly collapsed under evidence. Scholars once denied that the Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser existed and treated Israel’s fall as mythology, but archaeologists have excavated his capital city and discovered his name inscribed on bricks.[2] Similarly, scholars claimed Moses could not have written the Pentateuch because writing hadn’t been invented, yet archaeologists have since unearthed thousands of tablets and inscriptions from centuries before Moses, revealing six different written languages from his period.[2] Papyrus discoveries in Egypt forced scholars to date the Fourth Gospel no later than AD 125, challenging earlier claims of late composition.[2]

The Trajectory of Evidence

Scholarship increasingly validates Scripture’s claims—not proving infallibility, but establishing reliability and revealing nothing incompatible with the highest view of Scripture.[2] After more than two centuries of rigorous scrutiny, the Bible has survived—and on the critics’ own terms of historical fact, Scripture appears more credible now than when rationalist attacks began.[2]

[1] R. C. Sproul, Defending Your Faith: An Introduction to Apologetics (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2003), 178–179.
[2] James Montgomery Boice, Foundations of the Christian Faith: A Comprehensive & Readable Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 76–78.

Bible version debates

Bible version debates center on two interconnected questions: how the biblical text reached us through the centuries, and which translation methods best convey the original meaning to modern readers.

The Journey from Original to Modern Versions

The Bible as we know it represents the end product of lengthy historical processes, and what eventually became Scripture did not originate as such.[1] The biblical books began as disparate units—many oral—developed organically as part of the nation’s literature, with the temple’s sacrificial rituals serving as the religion’s primary focus.[1] This organic, pluriform character persisted until the temple’s destruction halted textual growth, and only late in the process did debates arise about which books should be included in the canon.[1]

Before printing, texts survived only through hand-copying, and both individual copying and room-full copying methods created accuracy problems.[2] However, Hebrew and Christian scribes maintained rigorous methods for replacing worn copies, and since manuscripts lasted 200–500 years, only two or three generations could span 1,000 years—making the notion that countless copying generations obscured original meanings a myth.[3]

The Textual Criticism Debate

Different schools of thought exist about recovering the original wording, organized by how much weight they place on external evidence (manuscripts and witnesses) versus internal evidence (analyzing why variants arose).[4] Most textual critics today believe both types of evidence are somewhat subjective and both are necessary.[4]

The belief that textual criticism has radically altered the biblical text prompted modern versions, though the actual changes—at least in the New Testament—are far less fundamental than often supposed.[5]

Translation Philosophy

Modern debates distinguish between formal correspondence (word-for-word approaches) and dynamic equivalence (meaning-for-meaning approaches), reflecting different priorities in conveying the original authors’ intent to contemporary audiences.

[1] Eugene Ulrich, “Methodological Reflections on Determining Scriptural Status in First Century Judaism,” in Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Assessment of Old and New Approaches and Methods, ed. Maxine L. Grossman (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010), 146–147.
[2] Jerry L. Sumney, The Bible: An Introduction (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2021), 19.
[3] Steven Collins and Joseph M. Holden, eds., The Harvest Handbook of Bible Lands (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2019), 22.
[4] Daniel B. Wallace, “Textual Criticism of the New Testament,” in The Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. John D. Barry et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).
[5] F. L. Cross and Elizabeth A. Livingstone, eds., in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 1607.

The Synoptic Problem

The Synoptic Problem addresses a fundamental puzzle in Gospel scholarship: the Synoptic Gospels contain numerous similar passages and stories with minor differences, and scholars seek to explain these similarities while determining the literary relationships among Matthew, Mark, and Luke[1].

The Core Difficulty

The three Gospels share substantial material presented in similar order, yet the Fourth Gospel’s markedly different content and arrangement demonstrates that this agreement cannot be attributed to chance or simply reflecting the historical events of Jesus’ ministry[2]. The first three evangelists record the same episodes, miracles, parables, and major events, yet report Christ’s words and the events themselves in notably different ways[3]. The challenge becomes explaining this “unity in diversity and diversity in unity.”

Why This Matters

The significance extends far beyond academic curiosity. The Synoptic Problem affects numerous areas of New Testament scholarship—form criticism, textual criticism, historical Jesus research—and meaningfully influences conclusions about early Christian theology, sacraments, and church institutions[4]. Since Markan priority has dominated scholarship for over a century, a fundamental shift in consensus would require rewriting much scholarly literature[4].

The Dominant Solution

The Two-Source theory, the most widely accepted solution, proposes that Mark’s Gospel served as the direct source for Matthew and Luke, while Matthew and Luke also independently drew on a lost source called “Q” for material appearing only in those two Gospels[2]. Scholars have largely rejected oral tradition as sufficient explanation, since the agreements include not only identical Greek wording but also identical ordering of material beyond what oral memorization would preserve[2].

[1] Douglas Mangum, The Lexham Glossary of Theology (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014).
[2] C. M. Tuckett, “Synoptic Problem,” in The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 6:263.
[3] Martin McNamara, Targum and Testament Revisited: Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible: A Light on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010), 250.
[4] David Alan Black and David S. Dockery, Interpreting the New Testament: Essays on Methods and Issues (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 76–77.

Critiques of separatist Presbyterian movements and evangelical Protestantism

Ecclesiastical Divisiveness and Lack of Christian Love

When Bible-believing Christians separated from the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America over liberalism, those who left felt deserted and betrayed by those who remained[1]. More problematically, the periodicals of those who separated devoted more space to attacking those who disagreed with them than to addressing liberalism itself, and those who left refused to pray with or maintain fellowship with true believers who had not separated[1]. This resulted in inward-turning, self-righteousness, and hardness, with the impression that separation had made them so right that anything could be excused—habits they later applied to treating each other poorly over minor differences[1].

Inadequate Ecclesiology and Doctrinal Minimalism

Evangelical movements adopted a minimalist approach to doctrine and marginalized the church, replacing integrated doctrinal formularies with atomized statements of faith designed to support parachurch organizations that came to replace the church itself[2]. This reflects a broader weakness: Presbyterian evangelicalism has exhibited a tendency for ecumenical charity to dissolve into doctrinal indifferentism and for social crusading to drift into moralism and conformity to humanism, creating a map of the dangerous highway leading away from authentic Reformed tradition toward doctrinal cafeteria-style Christianity[3].

The fundamental tension is that in the flesh, one can stress purity without love or love without purity, but not both simultaneously—without reliance on Christ and the Holy Spirit, stress on purity becomes hard, proud, and legalistic[1].

[1] Francis A. Schaeffer, The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer: A Christian Worldview (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1982), 4:97–98.

[2] Kenneth Brownell, “Review of Deconstructing Evangelicalism—Conservative Protestantism in the Age of Billy Graham by D. G. Hart,” Themelios (2006), 31:2:102.

[3] Richard F. Lovelace, “Evangelical Revivals and the Presbyterian Tradition,” Westminster Theological Journal (1979), 148.

Verbal Plenary Preservation and KJV-Only

Verbal Plenary Preservation and KJV-Only theology rest on foundational errors that conflate inspiration with transmission and make claims unsupported by historical evidence or textual reality.

The Core Error: Confusing Inspiration with Preservation

The fundamental problem underlying VPP is its false assumption that God’s inspiration of Scripture at a particular historical moment also requires His divine preservation of every single word ever written down by any scribe.[1] This represents a category mistake. The Bible’s inerrancy does not mean that copies of the original writings or translations of those copies are inerrant; copies and translations are inerrant only to the extent that they accurately reproduce the original writings. God breathed out the original writings, and humans transmitted and translated the copies—a distinction that is both accurate and necessary because errors in a copy or translation reflect the fallible humans who copied or translated them, not God’s fault.[2]

The “Majority” Misnomer

The Textus Receptus is Erasmus’s compilation from manuscripts dating mostly from AD 900 to 1100, called the Majority Text—a misnomer. Erasmus could have consulted manuscripts from numerous geographic locations, various time periods, and even Latin manuscripts which outnumbered the Greek two-to-one, but instead used a very narrow group of texts.[1] The Dead Sea Scrolls, which are second-century copies predating the Majority Text by hundreds of years, substantiated the accuracy of earlier non-majority texts.[3]

Demonstrable Errors in the KJV and TR

Words in Acts 9:6 are not found in any Greek manuscript but were inserted by Erasmus into his Greek New Testament, which became the basis for the KJV. Erasmus frankly admitted he took the words from Acts 26:14 and inserted them because they appear in the Latin Vulgate.[4] In Hebrews 10:23, the KJV reads “profession of our faith” when the Greek word is hope (ἐλπίς), not faith (πίστις)—an indisputable error, since hope appears in all manuscripts and the KJV translators rendered this Greek word “hope” fifty-two other times in the New Testament.[4]

The Historical Reality

The early church had no doctrine of preservation; no doctrine of preservation in any form was stated in a creed until the seventeenth century—apparently non-existent during the creation of the earliest manuscripts, during the Majority Text period, and even beyond Erasmus’s creation of the TR.[1]

A Reasonable Alternative

God inspired the original autographs and has sovereignly protected His Word through the preservation of thousands of manuscripts with thousands of slight variations—arguably none doctrinally significant. God has ensured the purity and preservation of His Word through thousands of surviving manuscripts spread over thousands of years and miles, showing His superintending care through imperfect men so that the Bibles we have today can truly be called God’s Word.[1]

Footnotes:

[1] Got Questions Ministries, Got Questions? Bible Questions Answered (Bellingham, WA: Faithlife, 2014–2021).

[2] Andrew David Naselli, How to Understand and Apply the New Testament: Twelve Steps from Exegesis to Theology (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2017), 42–43.

[3] Got Questions Ministries, Got Questions? Bible Questions Answered.

[4] William W. Combs, “Errors in the King James Version?,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal Volume 4 (1999), 4:157–158.

Psalm 12 addresses the preservation of God’s people

Psalm 12 addresses the preservation of God’s people, not the preservation of God’s text—a crucial theological distinction that reshapes how we interpret this passage within the church’s life and mission.

The psalm’s primary concern centers on the church existing as a small flock surrounded by a godless world, with David praying for God to preserve it through the power of His Word[1]. The structure of the passage makes this clear: the pronouns “them” and “him” in verses 6–7 refer more naturally to the afflicted and needy mentioned in verse 5, rather than to the words of the Lord[2]. When God promises “you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever,” the referent is the believing community, not textual transmission.

This becomes theologically significant when we recognize what the psalm actually accomplishes. In contrast to the unreliability of the wicked’s words, Yahweh’s words are pure like refined silver, meaning they are absolutely trustworthy[3]. The purity of God’s words serves as the basis for confidence that He will protect His flock—not as a promise of miraculous textual preservation. God’s revelatory prophetic words stand in sharpest contrast to the false and perverse words of the enemy[2].

For the church, this reframes our confidence. We trust God’s character and His promises not because we possess an errorless manuscript transmission, but because we possess an eternally reliable God who has committed Himself to His people’s welfare. God will protect those who trust His Word, teach, believe, and proclaim it, affording aid, relief, and salvation to the one who yearns for it, preserving him for eternity from this wicked generation[1]. The psalm’s promise is pastoral and ecclesiological—God safeguards the flock that depends on His Word, not the mechanical preservation of documents.

[1] Carl Manthey Zorn, The Psalms: A Devotional Commentary, trans. John F. Sullivan (Milwaukee, WI: Northwestern Publishing House, 2018), 36–37.
[2] Rolland McCune, A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity: Prolegomena and the Doctrines of Scripture, God, and Angels (Allen Park, MI: Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, 2009), 50.
[3] Sherri L. Klouda and Kevin R. Warstler, “Psalms,” in Holman Illustrated Bible Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen and Jeremy Royal Howard (Broadman & Holman, 2015), 554.

תִּצְּרֶנּוּ

תִּצְּרֶנּוּ 

Preserve who? What? Psalm 12:7 appears within the closing section of the psalm, where the congregation responds with assurance that God will protect the faithful amid widespread corruption.[1] The form תִּצְּרֶנּוּ requires careful grammatical analysis. Parsing the verb form: The verb breaks down as follows: תִּ (prefix indicating imperfect second masculine singular), צְּר (root נצר), ֶנּ (object suffix “him”), and וּ (paragogic nun, a final letter that adds emphasis without changing the basic meaning). The imperfect tense expresses either future action or a characteristic, timeless statement of God’s protective work. This verse forms part of a six-line strophe containing God’s direct words, surrounded by four-line strophes.[2] Syntactic function in Psalm 12: The verb functions as the main predicate of God’s promise to the vulnerable. The psalm’s central theme contrasts human deception with God’s pure, reliable words—“like silver refined in a furnace, purified seven times.”[1] Within this framework, תִּצְּרֶנּוּ represents God’s active response to the community’s lament about widespread falsehood and social breakdown. The second-person address (“you will guard”) transforms the psalm’s movement: the community voices complaint (verses 1–4), God responds with assurance (verse 5), and then reiterates His commitment to protect the faithful (verses 6–8). The verb’s protective sense aligns with the broader structure. The psalm follows a chiastic pattern where the opening plea for help (verse 1) mirrors the closing plea for protection (verses 7–8), with God’s promise to arise and protect the vulnerable at the structural center.[1] Thus תִּצְּרֶנּוּ anchors God’s commitment within this carefully balanced poetic architecture—a pledge that divine vigilance will counter the human treachery surrounding the faithful. [1] Robert G. Bratcher and William David Reyburn, A Translator’s Handbook on the Book of Psalms, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1991), 115. [2] Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 5:120. Interpreting the Word correctly The form תִּצְּרֶנּוּ is an imperfect second masculine singular form of the verb נצר[1], meaning “you will guard him” or “you will protect him.” The root נצר carries multiple related senses depending on context. The verb encompasses keeping watch and protecting, preserving (such as peace), and observing or complying with laws and commandments[2]. In Psalm 12:7 specifically, where this form appears, the sense is protective vigilance—God’s active guarding of His people against the threats surrounding them. The imperfect tense here expresses either future action or a general statement of what God characteristically does. Combined with the second-person masculine singular form, it addresses the reader directly: you (God) will guard him (the faithful person). This creates an intimate assurance that divine protection operates on behalf of the vulnerable, which aligns with the psalm’s broader concern for those endangered by deceit and wickedness. Understanding תִּצְּרֶנּוּ requires recognizing that natsar emphasizes active, watchful care rather than passive preservation. The verb suggests a guardian who remains vigilant, maintaining protective oversight—which is why it appears frequently in biblical contexts where God’s faithful protection of His people is in view. [1] THE LEXHAM ANALYTICAL LEXICON OF THE HEBREW BIBLE. [See here.] [2] William Lee Holladay and Ludwig Köhler, in A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 244.

Meaning in Psalm 12

In Psalm 12:7, תִּצְּרֶ֓נּוּ (note the final suffix is -וּ, not -נּ) carries the meaning “you will guard him” or “you will protect him,” functioning as a declaration of divine protection rather than a request.

The Semantic Function

The verb תִּצְּרֶ֓נּוּ means “you will guard him,” with the third masculine singular suffix referring to the poor and needy mentioned in the preceding verse[1]. The root צרר here expresses protective custody—God actively safeguarding the vulnerable from hostile forces. This represents the root’s sense of enclosing or securing something within protective boundaries, distinct from the more aggressive meanings (oppression, binding) the root carries elsewhere.

Grammatical Nuance and Poetic Shift

In biblical poetry, the shift from a third masculine plural suffix in the previous line to a third masculine singular suffix for the same referent is not unusual, and the singular suffix may also carry a distributive sense, referring to each one in the group[1]. This grammatical transition emphasizes individual care—God guards not merely the collective body of the poor, but each person within it.

Interpretive Context

The verse functions as a statement of assurance rather than petition: “You protect us”[2], reflecting God’s response to the psalmist’s lament about widespread falsehood and wickedness. David expresses confidence despite the wicked appearing to have the upper hand, knowing the needy receive special care from God[3]. The word thus anchors the psalm’s theological resolution: divine protection remains operative even when human corruption seems dominant.

Footnotes:

[1] Timothy E. Saleska, Psalms 1–50, ed. Christopher W. Mitchell, Concordia Commentary (Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2020), 276.
[2] Robert G. Bratcher and William David Reyburn, A Translator’s Handbook on the Book of Psalms, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1991), 120.
[3] Kenneth L. Barker, ed., NIV Study Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2020), 901.

My translation of Psalm 12:7

7

Thou

shalt

keep

them

,

O

Lord

,

1 אַתָּֽה

→

3 תִּשְׁמְרֵ֑

4 ם

→

2 יְהוָ֥ה

859

8104

1992

3068

Thou

shalt

preserve

them

from

this

generation

.

→

→

5 תִּצְּרֶ֓נּ

6 וּ׀

7 מִן

8 הַ

9 דּ֖וֹר

5341

587

4481

1755

for ever	.
10 ז֣וּ11 לְ12 עוֹלָֽם
2098 5769

Strong Number

1992. הֵם hêm, haym; or (prol.)

      הֵמָּה hêmmâh, haym´-maw; masc. plur. from 1931; they (only used when emphatic):—it, like, × (how, so) many (soever, more as) they (be), (the) same, × so, × such, their, them, these, they, those, which, who, whom, withal, ye.

prol. prolongation, prolonged
masc. masculine
plur. plural

5341. נָצַר nâtsar, naw-tsar´; a prim. root; to guard, in a good sense (to protect, maintain, obey, etc.) or a bad one (to conceal, etc.):—besieged, hidden thing, keep (-er, -ing), monument, observe, preserve (-r), subtil, watcher (-man).

prim. primitive

587. אֲנַחְנוּ ʾănachnûw, an-akh´-noo, appar. from 595; we:—ourselves, us, we.
appar. apparent, apparently

My own translation:

The Hebrew reads:

אַתָּה יְהוָה תִּשְׁמְרֵם

תִּצְּרֶנּוּ מִן־הַדּוֹר זוּ לְעוֹלָם

Transliteration:

Attah YHWH tishmerem;

titsrennu min-haddor zu le'olam.

A careful analysis is required because of the pronouns.

תִּשְׁמְרֵם (tishmerem) = "you will keep/guard them" (plural object).

תִּצְּרֶנּוּ (titsrennu) = "you will preserve him/it" (singular object suffix).

הֵם (-em) in תִּשְׁמְרֵם is clearly plural.

נּוּ (-ennu) in תִּצְּרֶנּוּ is grammatically singular, not plural.

This shift from plural to singular is one of the reasons translators differ in how they render the verse.

My own translation as a Hebrew scholar would be:

"You, O LORD, will guard them;

You will preserve each one from this generation forever."

Or more literally:

"You, O Yahweh, shall keep them;

You shall protect him from this generation forever."

The singular suffix in תִּצְּרֶנּוּ is often understood collectively, referring back to the group of righteous poor and needy mentioned in verses 5–6. Hebrew frequently moves from a plural antecedent to a singular collective expression.

The flow of the psalm supports this understanding:

Verse 5: God promises to arise for the oppressed poor and needy.

Verse 6: God's words are pure and trustworthy.

Verse 7: Because God's promise is trustworthy, He will preserve His afflicted people.

Thus, in context, the most natural translation is not that God is preserving His words, but that He is preserving the people to whom the promise was made.

A translation reflecting both grammar and context would be:

"You, O LORD, will keep them;

You will protect each of them from this corrupt generation forever."

Or:

"You, O LORD, will guard Your people;

You will preserve them from this generation forever."

Theologically, this verse is primarily about the preservation of God's faithful people amid a wicked generation, rather than a direct statement concerning the preservation of the words of Scripture. The immediate antecedent is the poor and needy of verse 5, while the singular object in תִּצְּרֶנּוּ functions as a collective singular referring to the individual member of that preserved group.

Psalm 18:30 and Psalm 12:6-7

Psalm 18:30 KJV

As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the Lord is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him.

Psalm 12:6-7 KJV

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.

Presbyterian Minister Rev. Matthew Henry on Psalm 12:7

That God will secure his chosen remnant to himself, how bad soever the times are (v. 7): Thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. This intimates that, as long as the world stands, there will be a generation of proud and wicked men in it, more or less, who will threaten by their wretched arts to ruin religion, by wearing out the saints of the Most High, Dan. 7:25. But let God alone to maintain his own interest and to preserve his own people. He will keep them from this generation, (1.) From being debauched by them and drawn away from God, from mingling with them and learning their works. In times of general apostasy the Lord knows those that are his, and they shall be enabled to keep their integrity. (2.) From being destroyed and rooted out by them. The church is built upon a rock, and so well fortified that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. In the worst of times God has his remnant, and in every age will reserve to himself a holy seed and preserve that to his heavenly kingdom.

In singing this psalm, and praying it over, we must bewail the general corruption of manners, thank God that things are not worse than they are, but pray and hope that they will be better in God’s due time.

Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged in One Volume (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994), 760.