Several KJV-only authors use a form of the "purified seven times" claim.
In a variation of this argument from a 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). Byers wrote that the Geneva Bible was the "sixth translation" (p. 9), but later he wrote that "Geneva is five" (p. 97). Byers' claim is incorrect since the KJV is not the seventh English translation that belongs on their line of Bibles.
David Daniell wrote: “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). David Norris noted: “between 1526 and 1611, nine English translations of Scripture of significance were made” (Big Picture, p. 333). Some examples include the following: Tyndale's New Testament, Joyce's New Testament, Coverdale's Bible, Matthew's Bible, Coverdale's Latin-English New Testament (1538), Taverner's Bible (1539), the Great Bible, Coverdale’s revision of Tyndale’s (1549), Bishop Becke's Bible (1551), Richard Jugge's New Testament (1552), Whittingham's New Testament (1557), Geneva Bible, Bishops' Bible, Lawrence Tompson's New Testament (1576), and KJV. In addition, there was more than one edition of many of these Bibles with many changes and revisions in them. The 1539 Great Bible is different from the 1540 edition of the Great Bible. The 1568 Bishops' Bible is different from the 1569 edition and the 1572 edition. Furthermore, each Bible was not always an improvement at every verse over the one before it. Even those translations that were overall better than the previous one usually had a few renderings that were poorer than the earlier Bible. Sometimes the next Bible in the line made some changes for the worse by adding words from the Latin Vulgate. For example, the Bishops' Bible was considered by many to be overall a poorer translation than the Geneva Bible.
Is Byers suggesting that people have to have seven translations into their language before they can have a reliable and accurate one? Does he think that it takes God seven attempts before the Holy Spirit can guide translators to produce an inerrant translation? Is he suggesting that the KJV improves on the Hebrew and Greek? Is he implying that the pure Word of God in the originals can be made more pure through a process of revision and corrections in translations? Such questions may upset some KJV-only advocates, but they are based on the implications of their own claims.
The phrase "purified seven times" (Ps. 12:6) indicates that God's Word was 100% completely and perfectly pure when given by God. This phrase clearly does not indicate that God's Word had some impurities and needed to go through an improvement process of seven purifications in seven English translations or in seven purifications of the various editions of the KJV. 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).
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). 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, p. 282). 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). 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).
Gail Riplinger also adopted a variation of this same KJV-only claim. She 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, she 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 misleading KJV-only book. Is it acceptable KJV-only math and reasoning for four translations to be counted as one?
What consistent criteria was used to determine objectively which translations to include? It seems that KJV-only advocates cannot agree on which Bibles to include on their lists and on which Bibles to leave off. Do they start with the assumption that the KJV has to be the seventh one and then subjectively pick out six others to make their count work? Are they willing to count four translations as one in order to make it fit their conjectures?
