Steven Avery
Administrator
https://www.facebook.com/trinity.bustria/posts/1472028119508951?comment_id=1472101316168298&comment_tracking={"tn":"R4"}
Albert Hembd
Trinity Bustria
Albert Hembd
under pressure from King James Only advocates, sometimes Gomez relented to his contributors, and translated from the King James instead of from the Masoretic Text. Such was the case in Psalm 12.7 (verse 8 in the Masoretic Text), where Gomez translated them as feminine (to make 'thou shalt keep them apply to the words of God), whereas the original Hebrew is masculine, and applies to the saints, the poor and needy ones described in verse 5. By the way, the original Reina/Valera was correct in this, but under pressure, Gomez revised the original Reina/Valera to follow the King James Version instead of the Hebrew Masoretic Text.
In all fairness to the King James Version, the word 'them' in English doesn't have gender, so it was impossible for the AV translators to translate 'them' as masculine instead of feminine.
=================The Masoretic text - I am a scholar in the Masoretic Text - I have lived seven years in Israel, where I am studying with Professor Yosef Ofer, the one of the two or three leading scholars in the Masoretic Text. Professor Ofer was the editor of the official Bible of the Israeli Knesset and the Hebrew University.
The Masoretic Text says 'thou shalt keep them' in reference to the poor and needy ones, as Calvin correctly notes.
Psalm 12.6 (verse 7 in the Masoretic Text) in the Masoretic text reads:
אִֽמֲר֣וֹת יְהוָה֘ אֲמָר֪וֹת טְהֹ֫ר֥וֹת כֶּ֣סֶף צָ֭רוּף בַּעֲלִ֣יל לָאָ֑רֶץ מְ֜זֻקָּ֗ק שִׁבְעָתָֽיִם׃
"The words of the LORD are pure as silver tried in a furance of earth seven times."
The word for words above in Hebrew is אִֽמֲר֣וֹת, which is feminine. It is from the Hebrew work אִמְרָה, which is feminine.
But when we come to 'thou shalt keep THEM', the word 'them' in the Masoretic Text is masculine. Therefore, 'them' cannot naturally refer to 'words.' The Hebrew word used - תְּשְׁמְרֵ֑ם ends with ם, mem sofit, which is masculine, and it can only mean 'thou shalt keep them [masculine]. And therefore 'them' is not referring to אמרות words which is feminine; it is referring to אביונים, 'poor ones', which is masculine.
All the Masoretic manuscripts are agreed in these words.
The Reina Valera formerly translated the Masoretic Text correctly. The Gomez does not.
Trinity Bustria
Thank you, again, Albert Hembd, for your responses. I want to first candidly state that I am a "Ruckmanite" who--in the main--supports the TBS and its work. If you can believe it, I hold devotions and conduct Bible studies with my Tanakh and Greek New Testament (and even use it church during sermons) published by the TBS. Without going into too much detail, I thank the LORD God of Israel for the TBS's faithfulness to the Confessional Texts and their God-honored, Protestant translations. In that, if it were not for the TBS, the Bible distribution work that a sister Bible distribution society (that shall not be named) and I are engaged in among the children of Israel would not be possible. Even though I am a self-professed "Ruckmanite," I agree with the now disbanded, former TBS of Canada and their stance on the Authorized Version and Psalms 12:7's promise of preservation pertaining to "words of the LORD," and I unapologetically stand upon the Authorized Version (as the pure, preserved, infallible, error-free, given-by-the-mediate-inspiration words of God), I am conceived of the same English text that there is a place for: a. the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus (particularly Scrivner's work) b. knowledge and use of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek
My aim is not to strictly inform you of my Bibliology, position on the edifying nature of knowing and using the Bible's original tongues, or my approach to upholding the Confessional Texts. Rather, my aim is to be like the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ and magnify His word above His name as He did in His dealings with the son of Jesse (Psalm 138:2).
In all truth, I am not an eminent Hebraist like you (and my grasp of Modern Hebrew is not like unto yours--yet), yet my position (and that of the former TBS of Canada) regarding HaShem's words being preserved "for ever" are not without validity.
Rav ibn Ezra, the same who rightly contended that נַשְּׁקוּ-בַר is about a "son" and not "purity" in worship, maintained that the promise of preservation is regarding "the words of the LORD." It is the opinion of one Christian witness to our Jewish friends that ibn Ezra is "the most exacting of medieval Jewish commentators." I opine, in anticipation of Kimchi being upheld as an authority for reading verse seven's promise pertaining verse five's poor, that ibn Ezra tends to be more of a careful exegete and reader of the Hebrew Bible than Kimchi. Even so, we are not without any other credible-enough authority and Hebrew expertise to understand that verse seven's promise is inclusive of verse five's poor.
Jerome in his Latin translation of a proto-Masoretic Text in the disputed verse (i.e., Psalm 12:7) uses "ea" as the pronoun for the antecedent "eloquia." "Ea," meaning "them," and "eloquia" ("words/utterances") are feminine. The Latin translator consulted not just the Targumim but Ravs contemporary to him abiding in Bethlehem. He would not have been uniformed as an Hebraist as to what would be appropriate Latin diction and word selection for Psalm 12:6-7.
It is not on the basis of ibn Ezra or Jerome that we are to read Psalm 12:6-7 in the context and framework I am advocating. Even though, according to University of Birmingham Hebrew professor John H. Eaton, the main, historical Jewish position and exegesis regarding these verses upholds ibn Ezra over Rashi's, we should be Bereans and follow the comandment of the Rabbi come from God in searching the Scriptures (John 5:39).
The issue of gender discord regarding the masculine עֲנִיִּים and אֶבְיוֹנִים of verse five and the feminine אִמְרוֹת of verse seven appear to pose a problem to reading אִמְרוֹת as having a corresponding pronoun in תִּשְׁמְרֵם in verse seven. Yet, applying our faith in and the understanding of the truth that the Scriptures are our Final Authority in all matters of faith and conduct and that they interpret themselves, we would do well to note the following:
1. “Through a weakening in the distinction of gender … masculine suffixes (especially in the plural) are not infrequently used to refer to feminine substantives (E Kautzsch, ed, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 2nd ed by A E Cowley [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910], 440, sect O). Gesenius' assertion is valid when we let the Torah/Law be our light.
In the First Book of Moses, we learn that B'reishit/Genesis 31:9's "your father" has a masculine plural pronoun suffix: אֲבִיכֶם. Reading further along in the Torah, we behold in the same book in the next chapter, in the fifteenth verse that "milch camels and their colts" are worded as: גְּמַלִּים מֵינִיקוֹת וּבְנֵיהֶם, שְׁלֹשִׁים. The verse features a masculine plural pronoun suffix with a female antecedent. In Shemot/Exodus 1:21, we also another example of a masculine plural pronoun suffix with a female antecedent: וַיְהִי, כִּי-יָרְאוּ הַמְיַלְּדֹת אֶת-הָאֱלֹהִים
Gesenius' assertion was not without warrant and had Biblical grounding.
2. In Tehillim/Psalms 119:111, 129, 152, and 167 in a passage dealing with the very words of God, the Confessional Text (i.e., the Masoretic Text) presents more gender discord:
נָחַלְתִּי עֵדְו*ֹתֶיךָ לְעוֹלָם: כִּי-שְׂשׂוֹן לִבִּי הֵמָּה.
פְּלָאוֹת עֵדְו*ֹתֶיךָ; עַל-כֵּן, נְצָרָתַם נַפְשִׁי.
קֶדֶם יָדַעְתִּי, מֵעֵדֹתֶיךָ: כִּי לְעוֹלָם יְסַדְתָּם.
שָׁמְרָה נַפְשִׁי, עֵדֹתֶיךָ; וָאֹהֲבֵם מְאֹד.
We observe feminine עֵדְו*ֹתֶיךָ with masculine הֵמָּה in verse 111, feminine עֵדְו*ubuֹתֶיךָ with masculine נְצָרָתַם in verse 129,
feminine מֵעֵדֹתֶיךָ with masculine יְסַדְתָּם, and feminine עֵדֹתֶיךָ with masculine יְסַדְתָּם in verse 167. This is similar to what we read in Mizmor/Psalm 12:6-7 (using the Christian verse numbers) wherein feminine plural noun for God's words are followed by a masculine plural pronoun regarding them.
This may not be the wording of the Confession, but "[t]he words of the LORD are pure words...[kept and preserved] for ever" in light of the Confessional Text's (i.e., the Masoretic Text and its English translation in the Authorized Version) own pure, preserved words.
(I would be remiss of me to not acknowledge James Ach (a Sabra), J/A, Jeffrey Khoo, Kent Brandenburg, and Qwek Suan Yew's writings significantly helped with my argument in that I learned a high amount of information from what they wrote that I later verified.)
Last edited: