Were God's words purified seven times?

First, I think it best to place the "doctor" in Vance's title in quotes. It is dubious at best. These supposed "Bible believers" do not literally believe their favorite text. They fail to follow the logic of their "exegesis." If the scriptures left the pen of David and other Biblical authors *inerrant* -where are the inerrant copies and translations? Are all or some of the Hebrew apographs inerrant? Is the LXX inerrant? Is the Old Latin inerrant? Are the early English versions inerrant? The obvious answer is that they are not. Yet somehow the KJV shows up inerrantly. Was the 1611 inerrant or the 1639 or the 1769 inerrant?

Actually, since the autographs were not placed in a book- it naturally follows that the *only* inerrant book in human history (according to the KJVOs) is the KJV! This should certainly warrant a scriptural explanation. If those who wish not to follow this irrational position are "following men" then please let them describe how they know they are following God. Did He talk to them in a dream? If they are following doctrine lets hear it. Certainly, their position is not found in this text (Psa 12:6-7).:type:

 

I've never seen anyone take a poem or song literal as we know the writers take literary license.

I have also heard this verse used to say any doctorine in scripture must be confirmed by a minimum of 7 verses by 7 different writers.

 

I guess this "doctor" is the same kind of "doctor" we see on most bulletins these days...put out by diploma mills. Kinda like one big circuit of guys who preach for each other and grant each other degrees for teaching Sunday School classes and "life experience".:BangHead:

 

Several KJV-only authors use a form of the "purified seven times" claim.

In a variation of this argument from a line of good Bibles, William Byers claimed that the KJV is the seventh translation in the English language from the pure text and is thus "purified seven times" (The History of the KJB, pp. 9, 23, 97-98). Byers wrote that the Geneva Bible was the "sixth translation" (p. 9), but later he wrote that "Geneva is five" (p. 97). Byers' claim is incorrect since the KJV is not the seventh English translation that belongs on their line of Bibles.


David Daniell wrote: “There were ten new English versions of the Bible or New Testament between Tyndale’s first New Testament in 1526 and the famous King James or Authorised Version of 1611, and all were influential” (Bible in English, p. 126). David Norris noted: “between 1526 and 1611, nine English translations of Scripture of significance were made” (Big Picture, p. 333). Some examples include the following: Tyndale's New Testament, Joyce's New Testament, Coverdale's Bible, Matthew's Bible, Coverdale's Latin-English New Testament (1538), Taverner's Bible (1539), the Great Bible, Coverdale’s revision of Tyndale’s (1549), Bishop Becke's Bible (1551), Richard Jugge's New Testament (1552), Whittingham's New Testament (1557), Geneva Bible, Bishops' Bible, Lawrence Tompson's New Testament (1576), and KJV. In addition, there was more than one edition of many of these Bibles with many changes and revisions in them. The 1539 Great Bible is different from the 1540 edition of the Great Bible. The 1568 Bishops' Bible is different from the 1569 edition and the 1572 edition. Furthermore, each Bible was not always an improvement at every verse over the one before it. Even those translations that were overall better than the previous one usually had a few renderings that were poorer than the earlier Bible. Sometimes the next Bible in the line made some changes for the worse by adding words from the Latin Vulgate. For example, the Bishops' Bible was considered by many to be overall a poorer translation than the Geneva Bible.


Is Byers suggesting that people have to have seven translations into their language before they can have a reliable and accurate one? Does he think that it takes God seven attempts before the Holy Spirit can guide translators to produce an inerrant translation? Is he suggesting that the KJV improves on the Hebrew and Greek? Is he implying that the pure Word of God in the originals can be made more pure through a process of revision and corrections in translations? Such questions may upset some KJV-only advocates, but they are based on the implications of their own claims.


The phrase "purified seven times" (Ps. 12:6) indicates that God's Word was 100% completely and perfectly pure when given by God. This phrase clearly does not indicate that God's Word had some impurities and needed to go through an improvement process of seven purifications in seven English translations or in seven purifications of the various editions of the KJV. Thomas Corkish agreed: “Some have mistakenly said that the Bible has need to be ’tried’ (’refined’) seven times in order for it to be given as ’pure.’ Actually, it was as ’refined’ silver from the beginning” (Brandenburg, Thou Shalt Keep Them, pp. 143-144). He added: “The Bible is not a pure Word because of any derivation, development, revision, recovery, or improvement” (p. 149).


Although beginning his list with Wycliffe's Bible, Timothy Morton made a similar inaccurate claim to that of Byers when he wrote: "Each of these Bibles was (and still is) a valuable translation, but the King James of 1611 is the purest--the seventh and final purification" (Which Translation Should You Trust, p. 9). Stauffer maintained that "the King James Bible became the seventh purification of the English translation in fulfillment of this prophecy" [Ps. 12:6] (One Book, p. 282). Bradley stated: "The King James Bible was the seventh major English translation of the Scriptures" (To All Generations, p. 29). Bradley also began his list with Wycliffe's Bible and included Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, and Geneva Bibles, but he omitted the important Bishops' Bible of which the KJV was officially a revision. In his later book, Bradley actually listed a total of eight English translations in two consecutive paragraphs [Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, Geneva, Bishops', KJV], which actually made the KJV the eighth translation (Purified, p. 116). Nevertheless, Bradley claimed: "When the seventh major English translation of the Bible was published, the Word of God in English was complete; it was perfect" (Ibid., p. 131). DeVries also asserted that the KJV is "the seventh major translation of the Bible in the English language" (Divinely Inspired, p. 28). In his list, DeVries listed Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, Matthew's, Great, Geneva, Bishops', and KJV, but he omitted the important 1535 Coverdale's Bible. Phil Stringer also proposed: “It took several decades and seven major translations (Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew’s, Great Bible, Bishops, Geneva, King James) in order to get the pure Word of God in English” (Carter, Elephant, p. 47).


Gail Riplinger also adopted a variation of this same KJV-only claim. She contended that “the English Bible was ’purified seven times’ and that “the KJV is its seventh and final purification” (In Awe, p. 131). In her book, she maintained that “the English Bible’s seven purifications are covered, including, the Gothic, the Anglo-Saxon, the pre-Wycliffe, the Wycliffe, the Tyndale/Coverdale/Great/Geneva, the Bishops, and the King James Bible (p. 33) [see also pp. 131, 843, 852]. She proposed that “the KJV was the seventh polishing of the English Bible” (p. 137). This seems to be one of the main themes of her misleading KJV-only book. Is it acceptable KJV-only math and reasoning for four translations to be counted as one?

What consistent criteria was used to determine objectively which translations to include? It seems that KJV-only advocates cannot agree on which Bibles to include on their lists and on which Bibles to leave off. Do they start with the assumption that the KJV has to be the seventh one and then subjectively pick out six others to make their count work? Are they willing to count four translations as one in order to make it fit their conjectures?

 

What is it exactly that is dubious about Dr. Vance's PHD?

 

It is probable that Vance does have a PHD, but the problem is that anyone with a PHD should be able to discern the truth and not follow the irrational errors of KJVOnlyism. The only rational KJVO position is actually not KJVO at all, but KJVP.

Seven purifications of the words of Scripture completely contradicts what many KJVOs falsely claim that Psalm 12:6-7 referrs to the preservation of words. If God promised to preserve His words forever in this passage, as most KJVOs claim, then those perfectly preserved words could not possibly have needed purification. Preservation of the poor and needy is what is referred to in Psalm 12:7, as is shown plainly by the context, and Psalm 12:6 is basically just an aside added by the writer. The irrationality of the KJVO error causes one faction to contradict the other in many cases, and this is one of those cases. God's perfectly preserved words had to underfo seven purufications before it was right? Not a chance!

 

So you have decided that we have a perfect pure bible in English? Good on you, mate! Which one is it?

 

Which brings to mind the question if the KJV is the perfect preservation of God's words in English, which KJV edition is the perfect one? And which KJV edition is it that isn't really the word of God? After all, with various editions of the KJV having differences, they cannot all be the perfect one, now can they? The old KJVO saying that what is different is not the same also applies to the KJVs - what is different is not the same. So which of the various KJV editions is the right one?

 

Logos1560:

Unfortunatley p131 omits the Wycliffe Bible.
I note that the Tyndale/Coverdale/Great/Geneva are
FOUR BIBLES, not one.
I note that the King James Bible is NOT just one
Bible.

Logos1560: //see also pp. 131, 843, 852//
see also page 864

 

Originally Posted by James_Newman

Robycop3: //Every valid version.//

Amen, Brother Robycop3 -- Preach it! :thumbs:

Robycop3: //His degree is in ENGLISH, not Greek, Hebrew, or theology.//

Very Good! My present pastor (for the past 12 years) has a first
degree in English from OBU = Oklahoma's Best University
or probably Oklahoma Baptist University. He can sure explain a
lot of stuff about the Bible (which I study written in English).
He must be an expert on Figures of Speach.

 

Whather his degree is in English, Swahili, or rocket science, he should know better than to follow the errors of the KJVO position.

:tonofbricks: :BangHead: :smilewinkgrin:

 

On the back cover of Laurence M. Vance's 2006 book entitled KING JAMES, HIS BIBLE, AND ITS TRANSLATORS, the following is stated:

"Laurence M. Vance, Ph.D., holds degrees in history, theology, accounting, and economics."

It does not say which of these areas his Ph.D. is in, and it does not say from what school he obtained that degree.

 

Earlier you said:

Does this mean that you believe God deliberately gave us an impure bible? How pure is our English bible today? Is it as pure as it was from the gitgo? If a valid version is not 'pure as silver purified seven times', is it the word of God?

Psalms 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Remember?

 

The words of the original autographs were pure. However, copying, translating and printing God's words have resulted in errors being found in all modern language translations, whether English, Spanish, German, etc. You see, God's words were pure, but mankind, being error-prone, has rendered God's words down to our generations. There is not a single English translation without error of some kind, including the various KJVs.

 

Vance's Dubious PhD.

It is quite simple actually. Ruckman's school has no one on staff with a PhD in Greek. Ruckman's PhD. is from BJU in the field of Church History. His dissertation dealt with "Evangelism in the Light of the Book of Acts." Normally you author a thesis and defend it before a panel of PhDs who did original research in the same field as your thesis.:BangHead:

Ruckman's school by its own admission is a Bible Institute- hardly an institution structured to award PhDs in any field.:tonofbricks: