Featured Interpretations of Psalms 12:7

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.

 

I bet you would have said this to an OT prophet too. Sometimes, they are both!

 

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]

 

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.

 

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).

 

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?