Testing the "Seven Times Purified Theory"

[John of Japan]

There is a theory that is used to explain how we got a perfect Bible in the KJV that we may call the "Seven Times Purified Theory." It is based on Psalm 12:6--"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." Please be aware that this thread is not intended to discuss v. 7, which involves some complicated issues of both grammar and OT textual criticism. (I heard a paper presented on this at the Bible Faculty Summit last week.) Rather, I want to test out the theory with the Japanese Bible. (Please note that at times my tongue will be firmly planted in my cheek, and don't be offended. )

First of all, note that the KJV version of the theory occurs in different iterations. The most common one looks at the English versions before the KJV, and decides that the KJV is the final product of the purification process. Rick Norris points out the version of the theory which says that the KJV is the seventh version (The Unbound Scriptures, p. 236. Rick ably refutes the theory.)

Bill Grady has a somewhat different version of the theory. He points out seven versions before the KJV, with the KJV then being the "new beginning" after the seven versions, since it is the eighth. See Final Authority, p. 160.

A weird version of the theory on the Internet takes the version to seven "Received Texts" beginning with the "Aramaic Received Text" (Huh? What's that?): https://www.nowtheendbegins.com/kin...d-seven-times-preserved-word-of-god-kjv-1611/

 

[John of Japan]

Now, my "Purified Seven Times Theory" is based on the Japanese Bible, which I have proven in other threads is far superior to any English version. (I dare anyone to prove me wrong.) Here is the list:

ブラウン新約聖書
元訳聖書
文語訳聖書
永井訳新約聖書
口語訳聖書
新改訳聖書
ライフライン聖書

Now, if you are astute in Japanese and the Japanese Bible, you will note that I do not include such heretical versions as the JW 新世界訳 or the Catholic 共同訳新約聖書 or the liberal 新共同訳. One must have discernment when putting forth an STPT theory. Oh, and by the way, since it is my theory, and based on the history of the Japanese Bible, it cannot be wrong. It is not a hypothesis or a theory, really, but truth. I dare anyone to prove otherwise.

 

[John of Japan]

P. S. Note that I am not mocking the KJV, which I grew up with, preach and teach from, memorize from, and love.

P.P.S. For brevity's sake, let's call this theory the STPT.

 

[Logos1560]

Here are some of the statements by KJV-only authors who use this argument.

In one form or variation of the argument from a tree, stream, or 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). William 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 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). David Sorenson claimed that “the KJV was the seventh refinement of God’s Word in English from Tyndale” (God’s Perfect Book, p. 137). David Sorenson declared that the KJV “has been purified at least seven times as it were in a furnace of earth” (p. 116). Hugo Schonhaar asserted: “This writer believes that God used the previous seven translations as a purification of the English text” (Woods, King’s Bible, p. 270). John W. Sawyer declared that the Geneva Bible was “the fifth refining of the Word of God in English” and that the Bishops’ Bible was “the sixth refining” (Legacy of our English Bible, pp. 8, 9). Timothy Morton asserted: “From Tyndale’s translation in 1525 to the King James Bible of 1611 the text of the English Bible went through a period of purifying” (From the Original Text, p. 7). David Cloud also suggested that “a purification process occurred in the 16th century as the Scriptures came out of the Dark Ages into the era of printing” (Answering the Myths, p. 54). David Cloud claimed: “We must remember that it took 230 years for the Bible to be perfected in English, from the time of the first translation by Wycliffe to the King James Bible of 1611” (Dynamic Equivalency, p. 58). David Cloud asserted: “From Tyndale to the KJV the English Bible was undergoing a process of revision and purification” (For Love of the Bible, p. 185).

William Bradley stated: "The King James Bible was the seventh major English translation of the Scriptures" (To All Generations, p. 29). William 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 Seven Times, 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, Ed DeVries listed Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, Matthew's, Great, Geneva, Bishops', and KJV, but he omitted the important 1535 Coverdale's Bible. After citing Psalm 12:6, William P. Grady claimed that the KJV is “the seventh major English translation,” purified seven times (Given by Inspiration, pp. 105-106). James Rasbeary asserted: “The King James Bible was the seventh and final English Bible—‘pure words … purified seven times” (What’s Wrong, p. 92). 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). Ben Pierce claimed that “the printing and publication of the King James 1611 would be the 7th and final completed English translation” (Valiant for the Truth, p. 106). Joey Faust listed the KJV as the seventh English translation, and he asserted: “The Authorized Version (i. e. KJV) is the final purification. This is a fulfillment of God’s promise to preserve His pure words” (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). G. John Rov asserted: “This ‘vine’ (John 15:5) of Bible translations into English that were the growth and issue of the King James Bible, numbered six, making the King James Bible the final translation” and “the seventh, according to Psalm 12:6” (Concealed from Christians, p. 115). After citing the fourteen rule for the making of the KJV, Laurence Vance claimed: “The seven English versions that make the English Bibles up to and including the Authorized Version fit the description in Psalm 12:6 of the words of the Lord being ‘purified seven times’ are Tyndale’s Matthew’s, Coverdale’s, the Great Bible (printed by Whitchurch), the Geneva Bible, the Bishops’ Bible, and the King James Bible” (King James His Bible, p. 84). Michael Hollner asserted: “God used a ‘purified seven times’ (Psalm 12:6-7) refining process during all the English translations prior to the 1611 version, and used men to refine the 1611-1769 versions to give us a final product” (King James Only Debate, pp. 442-443, 2021 edition).

Gail Riplinger also adopted her own variation of this same KJV-only argument. Gail Riplinger contended that “the English Bible was ’purified seven times’ and that “the KJV is its seventh and final purification” (In Awe of Thy Word, 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? Gail Riplinger asserted: “English Bible, which saw its seventh and final purification in the King James Bible, can never be updated (Ps. 12:6, 7)” (Hazardous Materials, p. 29).

 

[John of Japan]

Here is a website that claims two different iterations of the theory, a language one (like the website above, though with a different order), and an English Bible one: We only use the KJV Bible because it is the only true Bible. Apparently the website author believes it is quite all right to hold to two different interpretations of the same Scripture.

 

[JesusFan]

Here is a website that claims two different iterations of the theory, a language one (like the website above, though with a different order), and an English Bible one: We only use the KJV Bible because it is the only true Bible. Apparently the website author believes it is quite all right to hold to two different interpretations of the same Scripture.

Supreme irony is that the 1611 translators never claimed this for their translation, nor saw it as being perfect and error/mistake free, and the original word god gave to His Apostles and prophets was pure once received by them first time period!

 

[JesusFan]

Here are some of the statements by KJV-only authors who use this argument.

In one form or variation of the argument from a tree, stream, or 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). William 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 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). David Sorenson claimed that “the KJV was the seventh refinement of God’s Word in English from Tyndale” (God’s Perfect Book, p. 137). David Sorenson declared that the KJV “has been purified at least seven times as it were in a furnace of earth” (p. 116). Hugo Schonhaar asserted: “This writer believes that God used the previous seven translations as a purification of the English text” (Woods, King’s Bible, p. 270). John W. Sawyer declared that the Geneva Bible was “the fifth refining of the Word of God in English” and that the Bishops’ Bible was “the sixth refining” (Legacy of our English Bible, pp. 8, 9). Timothy Morton asserted: “From Tyndale’s translation in 1525 to the King James Bible of 1611 the text of the English Bible went through a period of purifying” (From the Original Text, p. 7). David Cloud also suggested that “a purification process occurred in the 16th century as the Scriptures came out of the Dark Ages into the era of printing” (Answering the Myths, p. 54). David Cloud claimed: “We must remember that it took 230 years for the Bible to be perfected in English, from the time of the first translation by Wycliffe to the King James Bible of 1611” (Dynamic Equivalency, p. 58). David Cloud asserted: “From Tyndale to the KJV the English Bible was undergoing a process of revision and purification” (For Love of the Bible, p. 185).

William Bradley stated: "The King James Bible was the seventh major English translation of the Scriptures" (To All Generations, p. 29). William 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 Seven Times, 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, Ed DeVries listed Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, Matthew's, Great, Geneva, Bishops', and KJV, but he omitted the important 1535 Coverdale's Bible. After citing Psalm 12:6, William P. Grady claimed that the KJV is “the seventh major English translation,” purified seven times (Given by Inspiration, pp. 105-106). James Rasbeary asserted: “The King James Bible was the seventh and final English Bible—‘pure words … purified seven times” (What’s Wrong, p. 92). 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). Ben Pierce claimed that “the printing and publication of the King James 1611 would be the 7th and final completed English translation” (Valiant for the Truth, p. 106). Joey Faust listed the KJV as the seventh English translation, and he asserted: “The Authorized Version (i. e. KJV) is the final purification. This is a fulfillment of God’s promise to preserve His pure words” (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). G. John Rov asserted: “This ‘vine’ (John 15:5) of Bible translations into English that were the growth and issue of the King James Bible, numbered six, making the King James Bible the final translation” and “the seventh, according to Psalm 12:6” (Concealed from Christians, p. 115). After citing the fourteen rule for the making of the KJV, Laurence Vance claimed: “The seven English versions that make the English Bibles up to and including the Authorized Version fit the description in Psalm 12:6 of the words of the Lord being ‘purified seven times’ are Tyndale’s Matthew’s, Coverdale’s, the Great Bible (printed by Whitchurch), the Geneva Bible, the Bishops’ Bible, and the King James Bible” (King James His Bible, p. 84). Michael Hollner asserted: “God used a ‘purified seven times’ (Psalm 12:6-7) refining process during all the English translations prior to the 1611 version, and used men to refine the 1611-1769 versions to give us a final product” (King James Only Debate, pp. 442-443, 2021 edition).

Gail Riplinger also adopted her own variation of this same KJV-only argument. Gail Riplinger contended that “the English Bible was ’purified seven times’ and that “the KJV is its seventh and final purification” (In Awe of Thy Word, 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? Gail Riplinger asserted: “English Bible, which saw its seventh and final purification in the King James Bible, can never be updated (Ps. 12:6, 7)” (Hazardous Materials, p. 29).

Wonder why the 1611 translators never claimed any of this for their version, as they were not KJVO

 

[John of Japan]

The first translation on my list of seven is the one man NT of Nathan Brown (ブラウン新約聖書), the second Baptist missionary to Japan. (Jonathan Goble was the first, and they planted the first Japanese Baptist Church together.) This was the very first published translation of the NT in Japanese, though Karl Gutzlaff had published a poorly done Gospel of John in Singapore in 1937, done with some marooned Japanese sailors.

However, though Brown's NT was basically a good translation, it was done in the colloquial Japanese of the day, though all written documents of the day were done in the classical Japanese. Also, Brown's version was done with no kanji (Chinese characters), making it hard to read. A further issue was that it was not done from the KJV or the TR (Gasp! ), but Brown did his own textual criticism. The cover says, "from the oldest existing Greek manuscripts." Well, obviously it needed to be purified. It was later revised using the kanji, but still done with Brown's textual criticism, I believe.

That brings up the question, how do you purify a Bible? Isn't God's Word pure from the get go? Ps. 119:140, "Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it." Prov. 30:5, "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him."

Anyone want to help out and answer this for me?

 

[37818]

That brings up the question, how do you purify a Bible? Isn't God's Word pure from the get go? Ps. 119:140, "Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it." Prov. 30:5, "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him."

Anyone want to help out and answer this for me?

God's given word was and is pure. Bible translations which deviate from His given word deviate from being God's pure word. Readers, translations and manuscript variants are not exempt.

 

[JesusFan]

God's given word was and is pure. Bible translations which deviate from His given word deviate from being God's pure word. Readers, translations and manuscript variants are not exempt.

All valid English translations are His infallible word to us!

 

[37818]

All valid English translations are His infallible word to us!

So during and being ended are both true, John 13:2. The Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) and it's omission are both correct.

 

[JesusFan]

So during and being ended are both true, John 13:2. The Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) and it's omission are both correct.

No, just saying that since NO perfect and inerrant Translation available, even with known additions and omissions, all still word of God to us!

 

[Logos1560]

Here is a website that claims two different iterations of the theory, a language one (like the website above, though with a different order), and an English Bible one:

Along with the form of the theory that advocates seven languages with the last being English and the form that advocates the KJV as the purified seventh English translation, there is a third form that suggests purification through seven editions of the KJV with the 1769 usually claimed to be the final purified edition.

M. H. Tabb contended that “the seventh and final edition was in 1769, the ‘purified text’ at last” (Inspiration, p. 272).

Charles Barrier suggested that the 1769 was the seventh and last revision of the KJV, listing the seven revisions as occurring in “1611, 1613, 1644, 1676, 1680, 1701, 1769” (Looking for the Lamp, p. 25).

At one time, Peter Ruckman referred to “seven revised copies of the AV (1611, 1613, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1769, and 1850) that result in a purified Book” (Differences in KJV Editions, pp. 18-19), but later in a different book he would list fourteen editions.

Lloyd Streeter claimed that the perfection of the KJV "should be looked upon as a winnowing or refining process extending from Tyndale through 1769" (Seventy-five Problems, p. 104).

Al Lacy maintained that "the 1769 edition of the 1611 King James Bible is PERFECT" (Can I Trust My Bible, p. 144). Al Lacy claimed: “The King James Bible we have today is the 1769 edition. You will please note that it is number SEVEN. There has never been another edition since” (Ibid.).

Lawrence Bednar referred to “KJV language up-dating, up to the final 1769 edition” (Evidence of the Divine Hand, p. 72; see also p. 276). Lawrence Bednar claimed that “the finalized KJB text is inerrant” and that “inerrancy will extent to the final authorized 1769 KJB edition” (Case, p. 102).

KJV-only advocates do not typically apply their "purified seven times" claim to Bible translations in other languages such as German, Spanish, or Japanese.

 

[John of Japan]

Along with the form of the theory that advocates seven languages with the last being English and the form that advocates the KJV as the purified seventh English translation, there is a third form that suggests purification through seven editions of the KJV with the 1769 usually claimed to be the final purified edition.

M. H. Tabb contended that “the seventh and final edition was in 1769, the ‘purified text’ at last” (Inspiration, p. 272).

Charles Barrier suggested that the 1769 was the seventh and last revision of the KJV, listing the seven revisions as occurring in “1611, 1613, 1644, 1676, 1680, 1701, 1769” (Looking for the Lamp, p. 25).

At one time, Peter Ruckman referred to “seven revised copies of the AV (1611, 1613, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1769, and 1850) that result in a purified Book” (Differences in KJV Editions, pp. 18-19), but later in a different book he would list fourteen editions.

Lloyd Streeter claimed that the perfection of the KJV "should be looked upon as a winnowing or refining process extending from Tyndale through 1769" (Seventy-five Problems, p. 104).

Al Lacy maintained that "the 1769 edition of the 1611 King James Bible is PERFECT" (Can I Trust My Bible, p. 144). Al Lacy claimed: “The King James Bible we have today is the 1769 edition. You will please note that it is number SEVEN. There has never been another edition since” (Ibid.).

Lawrence Bednar referred to “KJV language up-dating, up to the final 1769 edition” (Evidence of the Divine Hand, p. 72; see also p. 276). Lawrence Bednar claimed that “the finalized KJB text is inerrant” and that “inerrancy will extent to the final authorized 1769 KJB edition” (Case, p. 102).

This is helpful. I missed that theory, though I have Lacy's book. I declare, you must have the best library of books on the KJVO controversy in existence!

I may have one you don't, though. I was recently Our Blessed Book, by a young evangelist, Caleb Garraway. I'm about halfway through now, and so far it's better than the typical book in the genre--actually has some good apologetic stuff in it, but the book hasn't really gotten to the KJV apologetic yet.

KJV-only advocates do not typically apply their "purified seven times" claim to Bible translations in other languages such as German, Spanish, or Japanese.

So my claim is unique! But seriously, KJV advocates do not claim the theory in other languages mostly because it is an insular doctrine, IMO. What I mean is, when you work so hard to defend the Bible in one language, you forget that maybe God wants His Word in other languages, there being 3000 languages with no Bible portions, according to some estimates. So KJVO organizations have been very slow to support missionary Bible translation, in spite of the Great Commission. The Dean Burgon Society has done little in this area, except that a few of them started the William Carey Bible Society, which then went belly up. Bearing Precious Seed Global has a good start, but time will tell.

 

[John of Japan]

The second Japanese translation on my list of seven is the 元訳聖書, Moto Yaku Seisho. This means "Original Translation Bible." because it was the very first complete Bible in Japanese. The source text was the KJV, not the Hebrew and Greek, though they were consulted as well as Luther's German translation. The above mentioned Nathan Brown was originally on the translation team but quit to do his own translation because: (1) the team would not translate from the original Greek and Hebrew, and (2) they would not translate "baptism" as "immersion," the team being led by Presbyterians. So he quit and did his own translation of the NT, as mentioned above.

The "Original Translation" did not completely follow the KJV or the TR, incorporating some critical text readings. For example, it omitted Luke 17:36, Acts 15:34, 1 John 5:7, and various phrases. So, Peter Ruckman and anyone else who thinks there is a "Japanese KJV," you're wrong!! A friend of mine in Japan was told by a Ruckmanite pastor that there was such a Japanese Bible, and the pastor would not accept the facts from the missionary, but rather believed Peter Ruckman who knew no Japanese. What arrogance! So a missionary was denied support because of a Ruckmanite lie.

Now, the Moto Yaku had various problems, which necessitated "purification" (again, how do you purify the Word of God?):
1. It was in classical Japanese, much harder for a Japanese to understand than for an American to understand 1611 English.
2. It translated the Greek future with a Japanese potential. (In classical Japanese that is ん, pronounced "n," added to a verb.) So in Acts 1:11, for example, it read, "This same Jesus may come in like manner...."
3. Since it was a double translation, there were many translation errors.

 

[Logos1560]

I declare, you must have the best library of books on the KJVO controversy in existence!

I would have over 200 books and booklets by KJV-only authors. I obtained five this week.

I have around 12 to 20 books that answer KJV-only claims.

 

[Ziggy]

>“incorporating some critical text readings. For example, it omitted Luke 17:36, Acts 15:34, 1 John 5:7“

Except these are not just "critical text readings", but also Byzantine/majority readings—just not TR or KJV.

 

[37818]

>“incorporating some critical text readings. For example, it omitted Luke 17:36, Acts 15:34, 1 John 5:7“

Those are interesting. I am sure of 1 John 5:7 not to be original. I am undecided on the other two.

 

[JonC]

This is helpful. I missed that theory, though I have Lacy's book. I declare, you must have the best library of books on the KJVO controversy in existence!

I may have one you don't, though. I was recently Our Blessed Book, by a young evangelist, Caleb Garraway. I'm about halfway through now, and so far it's better than the typical book in the genre--actually has some good apologetic stuff in it, but the book hasn't really gotten to the KJV apologetic yet.
So my claim is unique! But seriously, KJV advocates do not claim the theory in other languages mostly because it is an insular doctrine, IMO. What I mean is, when you work so hard to defend the Bible in one language, you forget that maybe God wants His Word in other languages, there being 3000 languages with no Bible portions, according to some estimates. So KJVO organizations have been very slow to support missionary Bible translation, in spite of the Great Commission. The Dean Burgon Society has done little in this area, except that a few of them started the William Carey Bible Society, which then went belly up. Bearing Precious Seed Global has a good start, but time will tell.

Or.....God wants people to learn early 17th Century English. It was good enough for Moses and Jesus, after all.

 

[Michael Hollner]

I would have over 200 books and booklets by KJV-only authors. I obtained five this week.

I have around 12 to 20 books that answer KJV-only claims.

Did you order Dr. Bednar's book yet?
Evidence of the Divine Hand on True Scripture: Bednar, Dr. L: 9781453719268: Amazon.com: Books