Bryan C. Ross begins his close look with a simple but decisive claim: “Any study of the doctrine of preservation must begin with a consideration of Psalm 12:6-7.” He rightly points out that the King James reads, “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.” For many who hold the KJV and a doctrine of preservation, these two verses form the clearest biblical starting point; that fact alone requires patient and careful exegesis.
Opposing interpreters commonly press two lines of objection. Ross summarizes the grammatical case as advanced by William W. Combs and W. Edward Glenny: the Hebrew pronouns of verse 7 are masculine while the Hebrew word for “words” in verse 6 is feminine, so the antecedent in verse 7 must be the masculine referent in verse 5 (the poor and needy or the godly), not the feminine “words.” As Ross reproduces the debate, modern versions (NIV, NASB, ESV) tend to render verse 7 as God preserving His people, while the KJV reads as God preserving His words — and the dispute turns on which Hebrew principle to prefer.
Ross points readers to the careful rebuttals surveyed in the book. Thomas Strouse and other grammarians note that the rule of proximity and the larger Hebrew usage often allow masculine pronouns to refer to feminine antecedents, a phenomenon attested elsewhere in the Psalter. Ross adduces the Psalm 119 examples cited in the study (for example, the KJV readings of Psalms 119:111, 119:129, 119:167 and 119:152) to show the same pattern of feminine nouns followed by masculine pronouns. He also quotes the classic grammars: Genenius’ statement that gender distinctions sometimes weaken in literary Hebrew and Waltke–O'Connor noting that a masculine pronoun can stand for a feminine antecedent. Those data undercut the claim that gender alone must decide the antecedent in Psalm 12.
Ross likewise engages the contextual case as advanced by Combs and Glenny, who read the psalm as principally concerned with the preservation of the righteous amid wicked generations. W. Edward Glenny’s extended exposition is adduced in the book: he finds David’s complaint about godly men disappearing and then reads verse 7 as God’s promise to preserve the poor, needy, and godly. Ross answers that Glenny’s contextual reading depends upon the very grammatical claim already shown to be inconsistent; if the grammatical objection fails, the contextual argument loses its decisive force. In short, the book presses that the contextual claim cannot stand apart from the contested grammar.
From these careful examinations Ross moves toward the corrective emphasis advertised in his table of contents: a defense of the preservation of the words. The study does not rest on polemics alone but on repeated appeals to Hebrew usage, the Psalter’s own patterns, and the fact that the King James text explicitly uses the verb “preserve” in verse 7. Where modern versions favor the preservation of God’s people in their English renderings, Ross insists readers must reckon with both the textual fact and the linguistic data that permit the KJV reading to mean God preserves His words “from this generation for ever.”
Pastorally, Ross’s work is a sober reminder that doctrine must be pursued with patient grammar and context. For those of us writing from a KJV-only, right-division Mid‑Acts posture, the book is both a caution against selective grammatical proof-texting and an encouragement to anchor our confidence in Scripture’s promises. Let Psalm 12:6-7 prompt careful study: examine the Hebrew considerations Ross presents, weigh the parallel Psalter usages, and then stand humbly on the assurance the passage has long been read to give — that the Lord’s pure words enjoy His preserving care.