Testing the "Seven Times Purified Theory"

Your biased conclusion is incorrect.

The preserved Scriptures in the original languages remain the proper standard and authority for proving things concerning Bible translations and concerning interpretations.

Your human KJV-only reasoning is not proof that your opinions are correct and scriptural.

 

You haven't proven that to be true.

.

You have convinced yourself of this but in truth there are few, if any, Greek and Hebrew scholars who believes the scriptures are perfectly preserved somewhere on this earth
There are 4 families of manuscripts, so scholars and bible writers have a choice to make.

But that is an argument for another day. Now we are on the subject of Psalm 12 and I can't remember that you have made a comment on this subject.

I must say that I do not understand your charge of "human" KJV-only reasoning. Is there something wrong with being human? If you mean I am getting my reasoning from others, then I will remind you I have quoted no human author. My thoughts are my own and I have presented biblical reasons for my views on Psalm 12:7. I have even compared your version and commented on it.

SNIP

 

I am soundly noting that your claims for the KJV are your own human opinions and that they are not stated in the Scriptures.
You do not demonstrate that the Scriptures state your only claims for the KJV.

 

You're forgetting the marginal note in the AV 1611 for the 2nd them Psalm 12:7-"Heb.him, I. Euery one of them.", which proves the AV men believed the verse is about PEOPLE.

I believe God's words were absolutely-pure when He gave them. His chosen penmen either quoted Him directly, or He caused them to write exactly what He wanted.

And the reason you (and every other KJVO) are KJVO is because you've subscribed to the false, man-made KJVO myth. Over the years, you've been presented with FACTS proving the KJVO myth false, but you must be in thrall to that myth as you continue to believe it.

"THE KJVO MYTH-PHONY AS A FORD CORVETTE!"

 

You know, I started reading your posts some time back with the idea that I could respect you and have even commended you on your translation efforts. So, I don't quite understand your attempting to pick a fight with me just because I am exercising my God given liberty to believe the KJV is the word of God in the English language. I know the KJV is a translation from the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic languages and it should be obvious that I have examined the underlying words that make up my bible. This thread is not about the KJV, it is about Psa 12 and what verse 7 means in the context. I have told you what I think it means and have not done it with disrespect towards you. What gives with you?

I have never suggested that any foreign language bible be translated from the KJV and the suggestions in your comments that I have are misleading and, I believe are designed to make yourself look superior. I think that is called a condescending attitude with a little dishonesty mixed in to make you look as good as possible. I do not understand why someone who believes the KJV bible is the word of God in the English language makes all you folks jerks.

I will go back through the comments to see if you have given God half the glory for the work you have completed as you have given yourself. I can't remember you giving him any.

 

The issue is not the claim that the KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense (univocally) as the pre-1611 English Bibles are the word of God translated into English and in the same sense (univocally) that post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are the word of God translated into English. The 1611 KJV is an English Bible translation in the same sense (univocally) that the 1560 Geneva Bible is an English Bible translation. Along with being a new translation, the KJV itself is a revision of multiple varying or different English Bible translations that its makers identified as being the word of God. The 1611 KJV was more a revision than it was a new translation.

You try to suggest that the KJV is the word of God in the English language in some different sense than other English Bible translations are even to the point of suggesting that the KJV is perfect and inerrant. In one thread, you attempted to claim that God translated the KJV. You fail to demonstrate that what you believe concerning the KJV is true and scriptural. You can choose to believe assertions concerning the KJV that are not true, but that will not make them true.

Because Bible believers disagree with your opinions concerning the KJV does not make them into jerks as you incorrectly allege.

 

Do you have anything to offer on the topic of this thread?

 

Do the Scriptures actually teach or support the new KJV-only purification process argument that KJV-only advocates may use to try to discount or minimize 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 by inspiration 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 by inspiration 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, partially 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 translations in different languages, in seven English translations, or in seven editions of the KJV. In the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary, some words or phrases used to define the word pure include the following: “Unmixed,” “clear,” “free from mixture,” “separate from all heterogeneous or extraneous matter,” “real, true,” “incorrupt,” and “absolute, that and that only unconnected with anything else.” The unabridged Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary included the following in its definitions for pure: “free from defects; perfect, faultless,” and “free from anything that adulterates, taints, impairs, etc.; unmixed; clear” (p. 1463).

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 defects or impurities that need to be removed during a claimed purification process. Thus, the quality of being absolutely or 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 this context concerning the words of the LORD. 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. Every word of God is pure (Prov. 30:6). The commandment of the LORD is pure (Ps. 19:8). The law or the word of the LORD is perfect (Ps. 19:7). Pure words of the LORD would 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.

 

Again, most KJVOs ignore or overlook that big word "as" in Psalm 12:6.

 

This is generic rhetoric at best. Everyone already knows what "pure" means. What we want to know is why verses 6 and 7 concerning the words of the LORD suddenly appears in the context where they are not the main point of the psalm. You have not addressed the psalm and what it means at all. Really, you could have made the same comments from many of the chapters and books of the bible. The understanding and knowledge of Psalm 12 is not advanced to anyone by your wordy commentary that basically says nothing.

The words of the LORD that are pure and those he speaks in V 5. They say this;

5 For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.

These are the only words spoken by the LORD in Psalm 12. These are the words that he says are pure words.They are gracious words. They are in verse 5. They are words of promise and words that require a demonstrable action of The LORD. This is the manner in which he will respond to the prayer of the poor and oppressed in the day of their calamity.

There must be a distinct and observable fulfillment of a Bible prophecy or the prophet will be proven to be a false prophet. So says the scriptures.

Now, we cannot go back and find any time when the LORD, who has been seated on the Father's throne and at his right hand for two thousand years plus already, has arisen from his seat and fulfilled this promise of deliverance and so we must conclude that this prophesy has not yet been fulfilled. This is the reason David says the promise in V 5, that the LORD has made, will endure and be preserved from this generation for ever. It will not be fulfilled in David's generation but in a future generation. That generation will take hope in the promise.

So, the preservation has a two-fold application. First, his promise of deliverance will be preserved over generations, and second, his people will be preserved.

Meanwhile, "The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted."

I will be back later to prove from scripture what this silver tried in the furnace of earth is all about. Remember. These psalms are about Israel, the people of God and this psalm is one in a series that is developed into a theme that is dependent on particular words in the text. Ther is a set time for this theme to play out and be fulfilled. Thus says the scriptures.

Ps 102:13 Thou shalt arise, and have mercy upon Zion: for the time to favour her, yea, the set time, is come.

I have already shown that your bible does not carry the theme into Ps 12. The KJV does.

 

The TRUTH is, the AV makers believed those verses are about PEOPLE, but KJVOs ignore the translators' plainly stated opinion, and try to use those verses to lend some artificial credence to their false KJVO myth.

Where does Ps. 12 mention the KJV at all? Where does the entire text of the KJV mention the KJVO myth at all?

 

My argument in this thread has not been that I think the KJV is a stand alone bible for the whole world. It is in English. It will not help the Japanese who do not know English. But bibles don't save anybody. If the Japanese have a bible, most, if not all of them will remain unsaved. What all men need is a preacher because it is the gospel of Jesus Christ that is the power of God unto salvation. One can and must preach the gospel in his own words and only men with a testimony of salvation will preach this glorious and wonderful gospel to the unsaved. The scriptures are profitable to men AFTER they are saved. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God, we are told. How can they hear without a preacher, and how can they preach except they be sent? That is the reason, I suppose, that you went to Japan where they already had a bible before you arrived as a missionary sent from God.
In the beginning of this age God sent out 11 apostles and 70 prophets to a nation who had synagogues and copies of the scriptures in their own language. The men who God sent to them did not have a written bible but they all had an encounter with Jesus Christ and were witnesses of his resurrection from the dead. The Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 was carrying a copy of the scriptures and reading from the clearest chapter in them about Jesus Christ, Isa 53, and still he needed a preacher to finally be saved. This proves that the written scriptures are for the saved and preachers and preaching is for the unsaved. I have quoted 4 things God said about the written scriptures and none of them applies to the unsaved.

God said he has chosen the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
He said the preaching of the cross was to them that perish foolishness, but to us who are saved it is the power of God.

Now, I am glad that you went to the Japanese and preached to them the wonderful gospel and taught the saved ones things that the Spirit of God has taught you out of the KJV bible. And I am thankful that God chose the English speaking people, to whom he gave his perfect scriptures, who were willing to go to all nations, rather than to the Japanese, few of whom have ever been interested in it.

But I am puzzled. If I remember correctly you said in one of your comments that the Japanese already had a translation. Since words do not matter in translations according to you and others, why do they need another translation? Is their current translation not good enough? Why not instruct those who are saved out of it?

By the way, getting back to the KJV. The Spirit of God indwells the man who believes the gospel, and he loves the word of God and gives the man he indwells a love for the word of God as well as all things that pertain to God.

Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.

When I am quoting the LORD speaking in Psa 12, verse 5, promising to arise and deliver the poor and oppressed remnant of Israel, I am getting the word from the Hebrew. There is not any disagreement between the two, Hebrew and English. This word is translated the same way in all 13 instances I have already mentioned in the KJV. Not so in the Geneva.

Finally, thank God the gospel of Jesus Christ saves men, and the Holy Spirit of God seals them and they will never be lost, whether they ever know anything about Psalm 12 and what verses 6 and 7 in that psalm means. But I am thankful to know them.

 

Where does the scriptures mention that it is the pleasure of God for 100 translations in the same language if it is the words of the scriptures that are the vehicles for his thoughts, as he says? Paraphrases and gender change editions such as is practiced by the NIV reminds me of what is going on in our culture now. It is a strong argument for infiltration or it makes one wonder who is in charge of that translation company.

I despise the hypocrisy of you people. SNIP.

 

Romans 2:1, ". . . Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. . . ."

 

Where are the direct quotations where those whom you accuse say that "it is the pleasure of God for 100 translations in the same language"? Are you attacking a straw man that is not what is believed and stated by those whom you accuse?
Most of those 100 were one-man translations that were not widely distributed and are not in use and may only be found in the hands of Bible collectors.

Only a small number (perhaps around a dozen or less) of English Bible translations are very widely distributed and read. The same reasoning in your question would condemn the making of yet another English translation in 1611 when several were already available. Where do the Scriptures mention that it was the pleasure of God to have ten to twelve English translations before a new one in 1611 was made?

David Daniell observed: “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). D. A. Waite listed the KJV as being number 17 on his chronological list of complete English Bibles (Defending the KJB, p. 203).

It is a fact that the KJV does not provide an English word for each and every original-language word of Scriptures in its underlying texts.