Do the Scriptures actually teach or support the new KJV-only purification process argument that KJV-only advocates may use to try to discount the many differences between the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV?
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 inspiration of God. This phrase about the refining or purification of silver obviously and clearly would 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 in 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 purer; therefore, they would not have any impurities that need to be removed during a claimed purification process. 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 purer than what is already 100% absolutely pure according to the meaning of pure used in the context. Pure in the positive degree would simply make a true assertion concerning 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 absolute purity, but it could not increase the purity of words that are already 100% wholly and absolutely pure.
KJV-only subjective, private interpretations or misinterpretations suggesting a purification process or refining 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). Glenn Conjurske observed: “If the New Testament which Tyndale produced in 1525 needed 244 years of refining and polishing ere it could be regarded as ‘absolutely authoritative,’ this operation was not preservation at all, but restoration” (Olde Paths, Sept., 1995, p. 198; Bible Version, p. 63).
