Bryan C. Ross opens his study bluntly: any study of the doctrine of preservation must begin with Psalm 12:6–7. He highlights that the King James Version places the verb preserve in verse 7, and that the dispute is whether the antecedent of that preservation is the Lord’s words or the godly people in David’s day. Ross presents this question as the microcosm of the whole preservation debate and urges sober, grammatical and contextual consideration rather than quick dismissals.
Those who reject a textual preservation reading commonly advance a grammatical case, often called “gender discordance.” Ross presents William W. Combs’ argument as representative: modern versions (NIV, NASB, ESV) render verse 7 with masculine pronouns referring back to the needy or the godly (you/they/us), while the Hebrew word for “words” in verse 6 is feminine; therefore, Combs (and W. Edward Glenny in like manner) conclude the promise refers to people, not to the words. Ross lays this out exactly as it appears in the excerpts and shows why this objection demands careful reply rather than mere assumption.
Ross turns next to the rebuttals found in the literature. He quotes Thomas Strouse and others who point out that Hebrew frequently allows a masculine pronoun with a feminine antecedent and that the rule of proximity normally requires the nearest antecedent to be preferred. Ross gathers the examples he adduces from Psalm 119 (111; 129; 152; 167), where feminine terms for testimonies or statutes stand transparently in apposition to masculine pronouns. He also notes the lexical grammars cited in his sources — Genesius’ observation about weakening of gender distinction and Waltke & O’Connor’s statement that the masculine pronoun is often used for a feminine antecedent — to show that the phenomenon is regular and that the simple gender‑agreement objection is not decisive.
Ross then examines the contextual argument that the psalm’s theme is the preservation of the godly rather than the words. He fairly reports Combs’ and Glenny’s contention that verses 1–5 set the scene: David laments the godly disappearing and the oppressed groaning, so verse 7, they argue, promises God will preserve the righteous. Ross points out (as his excerpts show) that this contextual reading is often built upon the grammatical claim; once the grammatical objection is shown to be inconsistent or selectively applied, the contextual dismissal of the words‑reading loses its force. In short, Ross does not ignore context but insists context cannot be used to overturn straightforward antecedent and lexical evidence when the grammatical objection is dubious.
Weighing the evidence Ross presses toward a restrained conclusion: Psalm 12:6–7, read in the KJV tradition he defends, naturally connects the verb preserve in verse 7 with the antecedent in verse 6, “the words of the LORD.” His book’s structure — moving from grammatical objections through contextual considerations to a section titled “Correct Exposition: Preservation of the Words” — shows the direction of his careful, conservative case as presented in the excerpts. At the same time Ross warns against extreme uses of Psalm 12:6–7 in pro‑King‑James argumentation; his posture is firm for preservation of the words while urging sober, measured argumentation rather than caricature.
For the Mid‑Acts, right‑division reader who uses the KJV as the trusted English text, Ross’s study gives a pastoral and practical charge: study Hebrew honestly, do not let selective grammatical technicalities decide matters apart from broader usage, and hold Scripture’s promise of preservation with humility. The psalm’s assurance in the King James — that the LORD will keep and preserve — is offered as spiritual comfort and as a starting point for disciplined study, not as a club to silence honest questions. Ross models careful exegesis rooted in the materials he surveys; his conclusion invites both conviction and charity in ongoing discussion about God’s preservation of His Word.