Any careful study of the doctrine of preservation must begin, as Bryan C. Ross insists, with Psalm 12:6-7. Ross opens his booklet by noting that these verses are “shrouded in controversy” and that for many King James supporters they “comprise the clearest statement of God’s promise to preserve His ‘words’.” That reality alone should make Psalm 12 a place of patient study rather than hurried assertion.
The controversy is simple to state but hard to settle: does Psalm 12:6-7 promise the preservation of God’s words or the preservation of God’s people? Ross stresses that the King James text itself uses the verb preserve in verse 7: “Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” Modern versions (as Ross documents) commonly read the LORD as preserving the needy or the faithful, while the KJB reading appears to point the promise at the “words of the LORD” mentioned in verse 6.
Much of the push away from the KJV reading rests on what is called a grammatical argument — the so‑called gender discordance. Ross quotes critics such as William W. Combs and W. Edward Glenny who argue that the Hebrew pronouns in verse 7 are masculine and therefore (they say) cannot refer back to the feminine noun “words” in verse 6. Combs summarizes the concern by arguing that the promise in verse 7 probably applies to the righteous rather than to the Lord’s words; Glenny similarly insists that Hebrew grammar requires the righteous be the antecedent.
Ross does not let that claim stand without examination. He marshals responses cited in his study — for example Thomas Strouse’s rebuttal that proximity is the natural rule for antecedents and that the Psalter commonly employs what appears as “gender discordance.” Ross also brings up traditional Hebrew grammar (Genenius) and newer syntax work (Waltke & O’Connor) showing the masculine pronoun can and does refer to feminine antecedents in Hebrew usage. He further notes that Psalm 119 exhibits the same pattern repeatedly (testimonies/statutes … they/them), and that commentators have inconsistently applied the gender argument even while acknowledging Psalm 119:152 as a promise of preservation.
Contextual appeals are handled the same way in Ross’s treatment: they are often tethered to the grammatical claim. Combs, as quoted by Ross, reads the psalm as David’s assurance that God will preserve the righteous amid a wicked generation, and Glenny expands that context-driven case in similar terms. Ross demonstrates that those contextual readings depend upon the prior grammatical move; if the grammatical move is selectively applied, so too is the contextual exclusion of the words from verse 7.
Pastorally, Ross’s careful survey calls Bible students to two plain duties. First, study Psalm 12:6-7 without importing ad hoc grammatical rules that are applied only when convenient; Ross shows the argument from gender is not decisive and that proximity and Psalter usage must be considered. Second, give weight to the KJV wording and the historical place of Psalm 12 in preservation discussion: as Ross writes, any study of preservation must begin here. For those of us who hold a KJV-only, right-division (Mid‑Acts) stance, Ross’s booklet is a reminder to read the text carefully, to weigh grammatical and contextual claims fairly, and to pursue humble, faithful study of God’s preserved testimony.