1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured Interpretations of Psalms 12:7

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Tim71, Aug 20, 2017.

  1. Tim71

    Tim71 Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2016
    Messages:
    123
    Likes Received:
    23
    Faith:
    Baptist

    1. 1. I believe the word of God is always pure - it doesn't need purification. How pure is the word of God? As pure as silver tried seven times in a furnace of fire.

      Ps 12:6 The words of the LORD ARE pure words...
      - not "will be" pure words after a seven fold purification process.

      Ps 119:140 Thy word IS very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.
      - God's word IS always pure - it is in fact incorruptible (1P 1:22-24).

      Pr 30:5 Every word of God IS pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
      - Whenever and where ever God speaks you can be sure that every word IS pure.

      Verse seven is a little bit tougher for me to interpret. Mainly because I have a hard time identifying what the pronoun is referring to, is it the godly man, the poor and needy, his words, his promises?. Seems like it could go both ways in English and Polish. The marginal note in my "THE " KJV says, Heb. him. the Spanish has "los" (masculine not "las") Coverdale has "preserve us", Bishops has "thou wylt kepe the godly, O God: thou wylt preserue euery one of them", etc. Many good godly men differ on the interpretation of this passage. I find all of their argument compelling.

      I can take it either way. I will say once again that Scriptural preservation is not about preserving word counts, jot and tittles, word order, etc. I came to this conclusion for several reasons:

      1) The exact finger of God copy of the 10 Commandments became the habitat of worms after Moses crushed them at the foot of the mountain Ex 31:18, 32:15-16,19). It is not preserved.

      2) God made another copy (Ex 34:1-4) like unto the first copy. That copy is no longer extant - it is not preserved - at least not anywhere that is useful to the Church of God. And if preservation isn't about practical availability to the Church of God in all matters of faith and practice then I'm not interested in it. I'll let the theologians in Seminary jump through their theological hoops and gnat strainers, I'm too busy preaching the word of God and building up the Church of Christ.

      3) Moses & Joshua both made copies of the law. None of those copies are extant - they are NOT preserved.

      - As to points 1 - 3 please try and determine the exact word count, word order, with jot and tittle precision and try and tell me: Was the finger of God copy of the 10 Commandment more like the list in Exodus 20or more like the list in Deut. 5? Note the DIFFERENCES!

      4) Jehudi took the words of God and burned them (Jeremiah Jr 37:23)! They were NOT preserved! Ok, I know, Baruch wrote from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the book which Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire (Jr 37:18), but did you notice that the WORD COUNT CHANGED, because we read, "there were added besides unto them many like words" (Jr 37:18). The word count was NOT PRESERVED in its original form it was added unto!

      5) None of the original copies of Moses, Joshua, Ezra, the prophets, etc. are preserved they are in fact no longer extant. None of Gospels, Paul's epistles, or Peter and John's original writings are preserved. They are no longer extant - not preserved.

      6) It sure looks like Hezekiah's men added unto the book of Proverbs (Proverbs 25:1). That produced a DIFFERENCE in word count and added a whole lot of jots and tittles.

      7) Entire books including the entire New Testament have been added to the words of God since David supposedly got the promise of preservation in Ps 12:6-7; this in spite of the admonition of Solomon, "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." Proverbs 30:5-6.

      8) Rarely do the quotes of the Old Testament as found in the New Testament match.

      9) Jesus (Luke 4) and the Eunuch (Acts 8) both read from the Book of Isaiah and the text that they read from doesn't match any extant book of Isaiah in any language - not Hebrew, not Greek, not Latin, and not English! They are in fact DIFFERENT! The Scriptures that Jesus and the Eunuch read from are in fact no longer extant! That goes for Timothy's Holy Scriptures as well!

      10) I've asked, begged, pleaded, implored, and beseeched the brethren, who insist that David was promised that God's words would be preserved in every generation, to produce any one copy of the Reformer's multiple translations in any language that they believe demonstrates this preservation; so that I could compare it to "THE" KJV in my hand and see what kind of preservation they are talking about. After all preservation "from this generation for ever" (Ps 12:7) has to include all the generations prior to 1611 and pass through the Reformers. The Reformer's Bibles are EXTANT - preserved!!! Here are the responses I've gotten:

      1) I do not believe there is or ever was a complete and inerrant Bible either before or after the KJB.
      - A flat out denial of preservation in every generation.

      2) All of the pure, perfect, true, inerrant copies of the Reformer's Bibles were burned up by Roman Catholics! All that remain are corrupted versions of Luther, Tyndale, Coverdale, Valera, Huss, Wycliffe, the Czech (Moravians), Polish, Spanish, German, French, Italian, Dutch, Russian, etc.
      - Ah, excuse me, burned up and preserved are mutually exclusive!

      3) I wasn't alive back then i only know what I know today. I know that the KJV in my hand is exactly pure, perfect, true and inerrant down to the jot and tittle and any version or edition that doesn't match it jot and tittle is corrupt.
      - Ah, they weren't alive in 1611 yet they believe the KJV was translated perfectly in 1611.
      - Double ah, the 1611 edition doesn't match THE KJV in their hand - certainly not jot and tittle.
      - Triple, ah, we have the EXTANT (preserved) editions of the Reformers many of them are still being read, believed, received, preached and lived today.

      Preservation has never been about preserving jots and tittles, word counts, word order, orthography, etc. Scriptural preservation should never be compared to grandpa's coin collection "preserved" down in the vaults at 1st National Bank & Trust Jerusalem where every "generation" can come and take a peek at the exact same mint condition coins. No, that type of preservation doesn't fit the Scriptures or history! Scriptural preservation is more like grandma's pickles where the nutritional value is preserved even though the form (jots, tittles, word counts, etc.) changes.

      Mark this phrase down and keep it in your little black book:

      In the form that God wants each generation and language to have.

     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,480
    Likes Received:
    780
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I can't recall having a serial re-inspirationist on the board before. If it is true that the Bible is preserved "in the form that God wants each generation and language to have," what is the argument against the NA28 being the "form that God wants" our generation to have?
     
  3. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,082
    Likes Received:
    3,480
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It is a bunch of copy and paste nonsense. He doesn't even understand what it means.
     
  4. Tim71

    Tim71 Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2016
    Messages:
    123
    Likes Received:
    23
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I copy and pasted this because I felt this is where the topic belongs.

    What exactly is nonsense about it?

    Why would you falsely accuse me of not understanding what it means?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    8,180
    Likes Received:
    664
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Tim, do you mean someone else wrote it and you copied and pasted it, or just that you wrote and then copied and pasted in this particular forum?

    Thanks.
     
  6. Tim71

    Tim71 Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2016
    Messages:
    123
    Likes Received:
    23
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I know people who are KJVO.
    They're helping me interpret some of the dialogue with TC.

    I am personally KJVO. I would measure myself as a number 2 on the Baptist Board metrics. (Which I have been accused of being ignorant and not sane) I may not even know if that assessment is true.

    I do believe that Gods word can be found in other translations. I personally believe the KJV has issues with it translations of scriptures.

    Like anyone who is searching for truth. I want to know what God wants us to know and not what some man told us
     
  7. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,082
    Likes Received:
    3,480
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You may want to get your advice from someone qualified to give it. So far your "people" have made you look rather foolish.
     
  8. Tim71

    Tim71 Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2016
    Messages:
    123
    Likes Received:
    23
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I thought by going to the Baptist Board I was seeking advice. Where exactly am I being foolish. The only foolishness is lack of understanding. I'm trying to understand. So if I look foolish please have patience with me. You know TC you were where I was at one time. God blessed you with an education to know these things. Please don't look down on me because I want to learn
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,082
    Likes Received:
    3,480
    Faith:
    Baptist
    In contradicting the established rules of Hebrew grammar.

    I don't see that. I see you contradicting anything that contradicts KJVOism.

    I don't, and I am not sure you do. I have to admit I suspect your motives for being here.
     
  10. Tim71

    Tim71 Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2016
    Messages:
    123
    Likes Received:
    23
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I'm sorry where did I contradict the rules of Hebrew grammar

    I'm trying to learn my position. What other motives are you insinuating?
     
  11. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,082
    Likes Received:
    3,480
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So, if you really want to learn, let's do an exegesis of Psalm 12. We will look closely at verses 5-7.


    5מִשֹּׁ֥ד עֲנִיִּים֮ מֵאַנְקַ֪ת אֶבְיֹ֫ונִ֥ים עַתָּ֣ה אָ֭קוּם יֹאמַ֣ר יְהוָ֑ה אָשִׁ֥ית בְּ֝יֵ֗שַׁע יָפִ֥יחַֽ לֹֽו ׃

    6אִֽמֲרֹ֣ות יְהוָה֮ אֲמָרֹ֪ות טְהֹ֫רֹ֥ות כֶּ֣סֶף צָ֭רוּף בַּעֲלִ֣יל לָאָ֑רֶץ מְ֝זֻקָּ֗ק שִׁבְעָתָֽיִם ׃

    7אַתָּֽה־יְהוָ֥ה תִּשְׁמְרֵ֑ם תִּצְּרֶ֓נּוּ ׀ מִן־הַדֹּ֖ור ז֣וּ לְעֹולָֽם ׃

    8סָבִ֗יב רְשָׁעִ֥ים יִתְהַלָּכ֑וּן כְּרֻ֥ם זֻ֝לּ֗וּת לִבְנֵ֥י אָדָֽם ׃

    As you have refused to answer my question I have asked (twice) whether you are seminary trained, I will assume you are not and translate the above for you.

    5 "Because the poor are oppressed, because the needy are groaning, I will now rise up," says ADONAI, "and grant security to those whom they scorn." 6 The words of ADONAI are pure words, silver in a melting-pot set in the earth, refined and purified seven times over. 7 You, ADONAI, protect us; guard us forever from this generation 8 the wicked strut about everywhere when vileness is held in general esteem.

    First of all the prevailing rule of Hebrew grammar demands that the antecedent of "them" (in the KJV) or "us" in the Hebrew, cannot be "words" as they don't match in case, number, and gender.

    The antecedent of "them" (in the KJV) or "us" in the Hebrew must be, according to the rules of Hebrew grammar, the "poor" and the "needy" of verse 5. (As I pointed out earlier even the KJV says, in the margin "him: every one of them" - IE "every one of us who are oppressed, poor, and needy.")

    The prayer is that those being oppressed will be protected by the Lord (Adonai, not Jehovah/Yahwah) from "this generation" - this time, forever. The prayer is that God would protect his poor and needy for all time. His love and concern will always insure His protection, and that love and concern, and the protection that is the result of that love and concern, will last forever.
     
  12. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,082
    Likes Received:
    3,480
    Faith:
    Baptist
    By (wrongly) insisting the "them" refers to the words and not to the poor and needy.
     
  13. Tim71

    Tim71 Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2016
    Messages:
    123
    Likes Received:
    23
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Thank you TC. I appreciate you taking time and translating the Hebrew Scriptures for me.

    I don't recall you ever asking me if I have attended seminary. My answer is no I have not. I don't have an education. I realize I am uneducated. I have a lot to learn. Now you know how someone can be so ignorant, foolish or insane well there is your answer. Like I stated earlier some of us were not afforded the opportunities of an education. I would hope you can understand how easily Psalms 12:7 can be misunderstood by someone who reads their KJB and listens to preaching that has misinterpreted this verse
    many times over.
    I do know our Lord says any man who lacks wisdom let him ask of God. I also believe the Lord has given us teachers to explain these questions we have. I just pray Lord you guide me into all truthes and keep me away from all error. I have been led down wrong paths many times, it hurts tremendously when your eyes have been opened to false teachings. The people you love have been deceiving you. (Maybe intentionally maybe through ignorance....only the Lord knows)

    Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding. Proverbs 4:7.

    I really believe every true Christian prays this prayer if they're seeking truth.

    I'm not understanding this part of the disagreement we have here

    I said "Orthographic adjustments, spelling standardizations, and correction of errors of the PRESS do not constitute changes in the text or the underlying readings."

    You response was
    Where can I verify this information That meaning of the words have been changed?

    I have a lot more questions but I've said to much already
     
  14. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,082
    Likes Received:
    3,480
    Faith:
    Baptist
    My mistake. That was Reynolds. I tender my humblest apologies for my error.
    I wasn't afforded the opportunity either. I worked myself half to death for my BS. I used my GI bill for much of the rest (I am a disabled vet with a compensatable service connected disability). I received my last degree when I was 55 years old.

    I got my education the old fashioned way. I worked for it. :)

    The person who has done the most extensive comparison of the 1611 edition to the current KJV is a guy named Rick Norris. Just ask him. He is here on the Baptist Board under the screen name Logos1560. I am sure he will be glad to post the many differences between the 1611 and its modern editions.
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  15. Greektim

    Greektim Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,211
    Likes Received:
    138
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I bet you would have said this to an OT prophet too. Sometimes, they are both!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,983
    Likes Received:
    67
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Along with checking a 1611 edition of the KJV, you can verify the information in books such as the following:

    Norris, Rick. Today's KJV and 1611 Compared and More. Statesville, NC: Unbound Scriptures Publications, 2013.
    Norris, Rick. Facts from 400 Years of KJV Editions. Statesville, NC: Unbound Scriptures Publications, 2017.
    Norton, David. A Textual History of the King James Bible. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
    Scrivener, F. H. A. The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611). Cambridge: At the University Press, 1884. [the text of Scrivener's book may can be found online at books.google.com]

    If only the type changes or differences that are identified as substantial by KJV defender D. A. Waite [adding a word, omitting a word, changing the tense of verbs, changing a word to another word, changing the number [singular/plural] of words, changing the case of pronouns, changing the gender, etc.] were counted, there would still be over 300 if not over 400 differences. This KJV-only count or claim of only 136 substantial changes between the 1611 and the Oxford KJV edition in the Scofield Reference Bible is factually incorrect.

    There were over 140 words added to a typical present KJV edition that are not found in the 1611 edition. For example, six words were added were added at one verse (Eccl. 8:17). At nine verses, three words were added (Lev. 26:40, Num. 7:31, Num. 7:55, Josh. 13:29, Jud. 1:31, 2 Kings 11:10, 2 Cor. 11:32, 2 Tim. 4:13). Two words are added to eighteen verses while one word is added to over eighty more verses. Thus, just the number of words added in later editions is greater than this incomplete, incorrect count of 136.

    In addition, over 45 words found in the 1611 edition are omitted in a typical present KJV edition if the 21 repeated words omitted at Exodus 14:10 are included. When compared to the 1611 edition, over 60 times the number [singular/plural] of nouns, pronouns, or verbs is changed in most typical present KJV editions. Twenty or more times the tense of a verb is changed. There are also a good number of the other type changes that Waite himself identified as being “substantial” between the 1611 edition and a typical present Oxford edition. One example of these other type changes would be the places (as many as 200) where the case of pronouns was changed.

    Some of the claimed printing errors in the 1611 edition of the KJV may not have been the fault of the printers of the 1611 edition. The printers of the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible may have been responsible for the errors, which the KJV translators may have failed to correct. Here is one such example:

    2 Kings 24:19 [Jehoiakim--1560 Geneva Bible; Joachin--1602 Bishops' Bible]
    Jehoiachin {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1631, 1633, 1634, 1640, 1644, 1650, 1655, 1657, 1698 London KJV editions]
    Jehoiakim [1629 Cambridge KJV edition]
     
  17. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    12,901
    Likes Received:
    178
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I am not sure if I understand the purpose of this thread. Apparently the pronouns of Psalm 12:7 are said to refer to the words or sayings of verse 6, rather than the oppressed and needy folks of verse 5. If that is the argument, I think the pronouns refer to the oppressed and needy folks of verse 5. The Lord [YHWH] will protect them, you will preserve each one from this generation forever.

    Note that when scripture, or its translation, is ambiguous, it opens the door to speculation, and speculation is the mother of false doctrine. Yes, some scholars think the pronouns refer to verse six, but many, if not most scholars think they refer to verse 5.

    Many of us (lay-people) believe we were saved through an English translation of God's word, so we believe God has preserved His word sufficiently for His purpose. I am sure some people have been saved through the dreaded NIV, for nothing is impossible for God. :)
     
  18. Tim71

    Tim71 Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2016
    Messages:
    123
    Likes Received:
    23
    Faith:
    Baptist

    I probably would have, and would have relied upon much prayer and discernment also. I'm just not going to believe everything I'm told.
     
  19. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,983
    Likes Received:
    67
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I would agree that the Scriptures do not actually teach a purification process as some KJV-only authors have suggested.

    The truth that is stated in Psalm 12:6 is the fact that "the words of the LORD are pure words" meaning 100% absolutely and wholly pure. Pure used in the particular context of describing the quality of the words of the LORD given to the prophets and apostles would clearly be asserting 100% absolute, complete purity or perfection with no mixture of any impurities at all. After the assertion of fact, then an illustration, simile, or comparison is given [as] to confirm that truth, not to contradict it by suggesting that there were some impurities in the pure words given to the prophets and apostles. Thus, the phrase "purified seven times" (Ps. 12:6) actually stated clearly concerning silver on earth is used to illustrate and affirm that the words of the LORD are 100% wholly, absolutely, completely, and perfectly pure when given by God. This phrase about the refining or purification of silver obviously and clearly does not contradict the earlier assertion or statement of fact. That phrase does not indicate or assert that the words of the LORD are mostly pure or almost pure with a few impurities, defects, faults, corruptions, errors, or contaminants mixed in so that they needed to go through a gradual improvement or refining process of seven purifications in seven English translations or in seven purifications of the various editions of the KJV. Words of the LORD asserted to be wholly and completely pure in the positive or absolute degree could not be made more pure. Thus, the quality of being completely pure and completely free from all impurities that is asserted concerning the words of the LORD could not be increased. Nothing can be asserted to be more pure than what is already 100% absolutely pure according to the meaning of pure used in the context. Pure in the positive degree simply make an assertion about what is described as being pure, and it does not compare it to other things. Pure is clearly not used in a comparative degree concerning the 100% absolutely and completely pure and perfect words of the LORD. The word of the LORD is perfect (Ps. 19:7). Pure words of the LORD have the very same absolute, complete purity as very pure words (Ps. 119:140). The use of “very” would emphasize the fact of the absolute purity, but it could not increase the purity of words that are already 100% wholly and absolutely pure.

    Those KJV-only subjective, private interpretations or misinterpretations suggesting a purification process based on Psalm 12:6 could be considered an example of eisegesis, reading into a verse ideas that were not actually stated in it. KJV defender 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). KJV-only author Gary Miller wrote: “Purifying something seven times makes it almost perfect. But God’s words are perfect” (Why the KJB, p. 16). H. D. Williams acknowledged: “God’s Words are in no need of being ’cleansed’ or ’purified’” (Pure Words, p. 53).
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,983
    Likes Received:
    67
    Faith:
    Baptist
    There are several KJV-only authors that have attempted to apply "purified seven times" to the KJV.

    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). .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). Doug 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 Stands, p. 282).

    William 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). Ed 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). Joey Faust listed the KJV as the seventh English translation, and he asserted: “The Authorized Version (i. e. KJV) is the final purification” (The Word, p. 45). T. S. Luchon also used this argument, listing the KJV as the claimed seventh English Bible (From the Mind of God, p. 66).

    Gail Riplinger also adopted a variation of this same KJV-only argument. Riplinger 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, Riplinger 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 KJV-only book. Would it be acceptable KJV-only math and reasoning for four translations to be counted as one?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
Loading...