Mark Ward and Psalm 12:6-7
In his last youtube video, Mark Ward mentioned my name again in reference to Psalm 12:6-7. He included a quote from me, which wasn’t the best one for me. I’ve written several thorough and good articles on the subject with many better quotations. Unfortunately, I wouldn’t even say the exact words he quotes anymore, partly because of a change I’ve had for ten plus years on the actual meaning of the word “miracle” in scripture. I’m much more technical about a miracle and I’d have to explain that more, but don’t want to do it in this post.
Ward put out a video on the meaning of Psalm 12:6-7, focusing on whether it teaches the perfect preservation of scripture, which is of course “no” to him. I had already reviewed his journal article on that passage, which is the basis for his video. Below I’m going to put links to articles I’ve written on that passage. Ward makes too much of the dependence on Psalm 12:6-7 for a doctrine of preservation. As an overall critique, he gets several things wrong in the video.
Steelmanning Not
You’ve probably heard of steelmanning. Here’s the meaning:
Steelmanning is the practice of applying the rhetorical principle of charity through addressing the strongest form of the other person’s argument, even if it is not the one they explicitly presented.
Mark Ward does not do that with our position on Psalm 12:6-7. When he doesn’t do something like that, he then also doesn’t allow direct conversation with him. He blocks criticism of his content. I think he and I could have a very decent conversation, but he doesn’t do that, even with all his protestations about unity.
I’ve written a lot on Psalm 12:6-7. We named our book, Thou Shalt Keep Them, after the words of Psalm 12:6-7. We don’t “proof text.” Historical confessions of Christianity used Psalm 12:6-7 among many other verses to defend a doctrine of preservation of scripture. I asked AI recently about this same doctrine using Isaiah 59:21, Matthew 4:4, and Matthew 5:18 about a doctrine of perfect preservation and AI reported those verses taught perfect preservation of scripture.
One of the reasons that it is popular and Mark Ward is careful not to mention (unless he’s just incompetent and uninformed) is the allusions to Psalm 12:6-7 in a multitude of various confessions. It’s obvious confessions that represent almost every true Christian in the world for hundreds of years refer in the language of the confession to Psalm 12:6-7. Crickets from Mark Ward on this. That wouldn’t make his presentation look good.
Pronouns
When Mark Ward makes his argument on the video about gender accordance or discordance in antecedent pronouns, he skips proximity as a guide for pronoun reference. He uses gender as the most important mitigating quality, when numerous examples of discordance exist. Those people in the modern version movement, who hop way back to the “poor and needy” to find a referent to “them,” won’t even mention proximity.
The presentation of Ward short shrifts the examples of purposeful gender discordance in the Bible and referred in Hebrew grammars and syntax. It just doesn’t help his cause of shooting down the biblical and historical doctrine of preservation. This is not steelmanning.
Preserved Copies
Ward uses a title for his video that says that men such as myself are defending the preservation of copies of scripture. I’m guessing I’m in print saying almost one hundred times that I believe in the preservation of words. Ward still twists it for his own purposes. It makes his opposition look crazy, but they don’t even take that position. Crazy is what he wants people to think.
I don’t know one person that I’ve ever met in my entire lifetime that believes God promised He would preserve copies of scripture. No one believes that or teaches that on planet earth. What should someone think about Ward’s expertise about the teaching of preservation when he says such a thing? His echochamber would approve. I too like setting up a row of bobble-head dolls and making statements to them as a measure of my competence.
Further Reading and Research
Besides the above, I could say much, much more, but I’ve been doing that, as seen below. I hopefully may not need to say such things much longer to Mark Ward if he follows through with his published plan of disengaging on this issue in 2025. Until he does, please consider the following one stop shop for Psalm 12:6-7, where you get much more context on the issue.
Further Details in Psalm 12:6-7 Elucidating the Preservation of God’s Words
Psalm 12:6-7 Commentaries and the Preservation of Words
Gender Discord and Psalm 12:6-7
Psalm 12:6–7 and Gender Discordance: the anti-KJV and anti-preservation argument debunked (again)
AI Friday: “Did God Perfectly Preserve Every Word of the Bible?”
I’ve done more than these, but these will suffice. Enjoy.
Good post. I need to go back and listen to the video when I have more time to concentrate on it, but it seems that in much of the content Mark either breezed by it and/or misconstrued material that did not fit his predetermined conclusion.
Last night I listened again to Mark. I believe I can fairly repeat some things I have said previously concerning his plebiscite (direct vote of the qualified voters).
The votes are skewed in whose views they represent. In searching works published and preserved in print, the comments will be primarily from those with sufficient importance to be in print. Elder Joe Doe at Sleepytown Baptist Church, who has spent 50 serious years toiling in the word and trusting in God in order to faithfully preach to his congregation each week (and has not written anyting) will not be represented. Nevertheless, he is as much a representative of the thought of Christians on the subject as Keil and Delitzsch. I expect Mark does not think he is qualified to vote, but I do.
The method is misses the mark. It seems to me that Mark only or primarily looks at commentary interpretations of the verses, and does not consider how some of the same people might apply the verse. I have seen statements in which non-KJVO writers comment on the preservation of Scripture in the context of Psalm 12:6-7, even though they may not interpret both “thems” in verse 7 as the words of Scripture. Spurgeon uses it in at least one sermon in reference to the Bible, even though his commentary on Psalm 12 seems to support the view of Ward.
Here is another example of someone citing Psalm 12:6-7 when discussion providential preservation.
“3. The scriptures have been providentially preserved from all substantial corruptions of the text, so that they answer the original design of their author in remaining a volume (or rather many volumes) of divine inspiration, virtually and wonderfully pure. Psalm 12:6,7.” (Quakerism Not Christianity: Or Reasons for Renouncing the Doctrine of Friends, Samuel Hanson Cox, Boston, MA: D. Fanshaw, 1833, p. 269). I do not know much about Cox, but he was an educated Presbyterian minister with a degree from Princeton (so I suppose Mark should not just dismiss him out of hand as a KJV-Onlyist).