Were God's words purified seven times?

[Keith M]

Ruckman's school is qualified to hand out PhDs - in error, avoidance of truth, spin and name-calling. Of course the school is not qualified to hand out PhDs in any legitimate area.

:tonofbricks: :BangHead: :thumbs:

 

[James_Newman]

The words of the original autographs were pure. However, copying, translating and printing God's words have resulted in errors being found in all modern language translations, whether English, Spanish, German, etc. You see, God's words were pure, but mankind, being error-prone, has rendered God's words down to our generations. There is not a single English translation without error of some kind, including the various KJVs.

So what is your position? Is Ps 12:6 a copyist error?

Psalms 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

The words of the Lord are pure. My bible isn't pure. Therefore my bible... you fill in the rest.

 

[PrimePower7]

Therefore "his bible is not God's Word". What about that? There is no alternative. Nonsense! Sheer Nonsense!

 

[Rufus_1611]

The words of the original autographs were pure. However, copying, translating and printing God's words have resulted in errors being found in all modern language translations, whether English, Spanish, German, etc. You see, God's words were pure, but mankind, being error-prone, has rendered God's words down to our generations. There is not a single English translation without error of some kind, including the various KJVs.

Weren't the original autographs drafted by error prone men? God has the power to author pure words through error-prone men but not the power to preserve pure words through error-prone men?

 

[Ed Edwards]

James_Newman: //So what is your position? Is Ps 12:6 a copyist error?//

Psalm 12:6 is correct.
Here again it is from the KJV:

Psalm 12:6 (KJV1611 Edition, bolding by Ed):
The wordes of the Lord are pure wordes: as siluer tried
in a fornace of earth purified seuen times.

To understand it, one need to wrap one's mind
around the word 'as', the similie indicator.
The 'as', indicating the similie, means one does NOT
need to take the 'seven times' literally - it is a figure
of speech.

 

[James_Newman]

James_Newman: //So what is your position? Is Ps 12:6 a copyist error?//

Psalm 12:6 is correct.
Here again it is from the KJV:

Psalm 12:6 (KJV1611 Edition, bolding by Ed):
The wordes of the Lord are pure wordes: as siluer tried
in a fornace of earth purified seuen times.

To understand it, one need to wrap one's mind
around the word 'as', the similie indicator.
The 'as', indicating the similie, means one does NOT
need to take the 'seven times' literally - it is a figure
of speech.

So how pure is that? Is it just kinda pure? Like maybe it has some specks of dross floating around in it but it's pretty good? If the bible in my hand is not as pure as silver purified seven times, can I still call it the wordes of the Lord?

 

[Ed Edwards]

This post comes rom here:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=31304&page=9

Proverbs 18:10 (KJV1611 Edition):

The name of the Lord is a a strong tower:
the righteous runneth into it, and is safe.

Yes, the "a a" error is in the Nelson reproducton
of the KJV1611 (third printing) edition.
However, such an 'oops' does not invalidate the
inerrancy of the KJV1611 Edition.

Certainly the 'a a' Doesn't change any doctrines.

Most folks don't even notice the error, just us
retired proofreaders
This minor 'oops' doesn't invalidate my saying:

The KJV1611 Edition contains the INERRANT preserved Written
Word of God - pure as the sweet precious blood
of Jesus which by the grace of God
flows freely unto you and I, to save our souls.


(BTW, my ounce of Fine Gold says '999.9' that is
9,999 out of 10,000 atoms therein will be gold atoms.
This also means there might be 1 out of 10,000 atoms
that are NOT Gold. They could be silver, or some
non-precious metal, or some metal worth even
more than gold. )

F.H.A. Scrivner indicated he counted 8,422 marginal notes
in the KJV1611 Edition giving alternate readings from the source,
alternate ways to translate the Hebrew or Greek, etc.

I also consider axiomatically that my HCSB = Christian
Standard Bible /Holman, 2003/, contains the
pure INERRANT preserved Written Word of God.
I also note it is the same language I speak:
21st century (2001-2100) English.
(21st century English is 99% like 21st century Texican)

There are near to 850,000 words in the English Bibles avaialble
about 1950. (that number varies from transaltion to translation,
version to version, and isn't really important at all.)
If the 850,000 word Bible were as fine as my chunck of Gold,
there would only be 85 words missing, added, changed, etc.

If one would let us discount such problems as the 'a a' problem which
are OBVIOUS, then yes, every valid English Version is collectively land
individually the pure INERRANT preserved Written Word of God. Amen.

 

[James_Newman]

This post comes rom here:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=31304&page=9


Most folks don't even notice the error, just us
retired proofreaders
This minor 'oops' doesn't invalidate my saying:

The KJV1611 Edition contains the INERRANT preserved Written
Word of God - pure as the sweet precious blood
of Jesus which by the grace of God
flows freely unto you and I, to save our souls.


(BTW, my ounce of Fine Gold says '999.9' that is
9,999 out of 10,000 atoms therein will be gold atoms.
This also means there might be 1 out of 10,000 atoms
that are NOT Gold. They could be silver, or some
non-precious metal, or some metal worth even
more than gold. )

F.H.A. Scrivner indicated he counted 8,422 marginal notes
in the KJV1611 Edition giving alternate readings from the source,
alternate ways to translate the Hebrew or Greek, etc.

I also consider axiomatically that my HCSB = Christian
Standard Bible /Holman, 2003/, contains the
pure INERRANT preserved Written Word of God.
I also note it is the same language I speak:
21st century (2001-2100) English.
(21st century English is 99% like 21st century Texican)

There are near to 850,000 words in the English Bibles avaialble
about 1950. (that number varies from transaltion to translation,
version to version, and isn't really important at all.)
If the 850,000 word Bible were as fine as my chunck of Gold,
there would only be 85 words missing, added, changed, etc.

If one would let us discount such problems as the 'a a' problem which
are OBVIOUS, then yes, every valid English Version is collectively land
individually the pure INERRANT preserved Written Word of God. Amen.

Just as long as we are clear that you do not believe the bible IS the word of God, just that it may contain hight quantities of such a substance.

 

[PrimePower7]

Ed!!!!

Hey, brother.
I thank you for the fine illustration. I like it! I see your point. Even 7x's purified silver may have an element of impurity. But how does that take something like the "pure word of God", add impurity to it and still call it the "pure word of God"?

Bill

 

[franklinmonroe]

Weren't the original autographs drafted by error prone men? God has the power to author pure words through error-prone men but not the power to preserve pure words through error-prone men?

God used His power to author pure words through inspired men, and we have received His confirmation directly about that inspiration method in His recorded revelation itself. This is a doctrine that Christians have been blessed with from the time of the Early Church.

God does have the power to preserve pure words through error-prone men, but evidently He has not chosen to obviously exibit that power by transmitting His revelation without a significant degree of uncertainty through the ages, nor did He choose to describe His preservation method to us.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Psalms 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Remember?

If you insist upon being literal here, then this description would only be applicable to the known and received "words of the LORD" at the time of the writing of Psalm 12. "Are" means present tense only. A different grammatical construction would be required to imply future inclusion (such as, 'will be' or 'are always').

 

[franklinmonroe]

...Does this mean that you believe God deliberately gave us an impure bible? How pure is our English bible today? Is it as pure as it was from the gitgo? If a valid version is not 'pure as silver purified seven times', is it the word of God?

Doesn't this verse teach that the "words of the LORD" were once 'impure'? It would seem to imply (if taken literally) that the LORD's words went into the process as 'impure' words in some degree (how is this even possible if they came from our holy LORD?). Finally, after impurities were removed "seven times", a level considered "pure" was attained (what process could possibly improve or purify the LORD's words?). Is this purity measured in heavenly terms, or earthly?

In strictly human terms, "pure" is always relative. We do not posses completely unadulterated or unblemished substances. Which reminds us of the the sacrificial animals that were to be 'spotless'. Were they really physically 'perfect'? No, of course not. Yet, God received them as an acceptable offering. Thus, they were 'declared' pure by God. Praise God, I will also be declared pure one day!

 

[EdSutton]

Doesn't this verse teach that the "words of the LORD" were once 'impure'? It would seem to imply (if taken literally) that the LORD's words went into the process as 'impure' words in some degree (how is this even possible if they came from our holy LORD?). Finally, after impurities were removed "seven times", a level considered "pure" was attained (what process could possibly improve or purify the LORD's words?). Is this purity measured in heavenly terms, or earthly?

In strictly human terms, "pure" is always relative. We do not posses completely unadulterated or unblemished substances. Which reminds us of the the sacrificial animals that were to be 'spotless'. Were they really physically 'perfect'? No, of course not. Yet, God received them as an acceptable offering. Thus, they were 'declared' pure by God. Praise God, I will also be declared pure one day!

Uh- anyone note the simile?? "as" in the verses cited. The picture is that of silver refined seven times, with the result that it is [now] considered pure silver. The "words of the Lord" are pure from the 'get-go'! And somewhat as franklinmonroe has said, I'm declared pure, as well, and some day I will be pure, at the redemption of my body.

Ed

 

[robycop3]

With all the discussion about the "purity" of God's words, an element is missing...THERE'S NOT ONE QUARK OF SCRIPTURE POINTING TO THE KJV OR ANY OTHER ONE VERSION in Psalm 12:6-7. Vance made up his doctrine and applied it to the KJV as being the 7th and culminating version without one blip of SCRIPTURE to support it! Same as other elements of the KJVO doctrine, it comes straight from the imagination and guesswork of MAN.

 

[Keith M]

AMEN!!!!!!

 

[Salamander]

Psalm 12:6, KJV: "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times."

This verse is used by one group of Onlyists who tell the goofy theory that the Scriptures in English have been purified seven times, culminating in the KJV. Two of the spreaders of this codwallop are Terry Watkins & Dr. Lawrence Vance. (BTW, Vance also spreads the false "seven Church Ages" doctrine.)

But let's look at the SCRIPTURE.

It begins, "The words of the LORD **ARE** pure words." David wrote this C. 1000 BC. and David was comparing God's words with the purest physical thing he knew, silver refined seven times. This was the standard for the silver used in the Tabernacle utensils, and was very pure, even by modern standards. Thus, David wrote in a comparative sense, which is universally translated **AS** silver by virtually all Old Testament translators.


God's words were pure from the gitgo in whatever languages He gave them. And the differences in languages is NOT lost to God. After all, He made every one of them! Thus, what He has caused to be written in English is as pure as He chose, again from the gitgo, despite the vast differences in Hebrew and English. His words haven't been refined at all; they've been presented in English to reflect the changes in the language since God first placed His word in English.

Thoughts, anyone?

yes, the words of the Lord are "AS" silver tried in a furnace of earth, not that the words were tried. try re-reading the verse again.

 

[Keith M]

Thing is, no matter how it gets twisted around by onlyists, what is preserved in vs. 7 is not the words, but the poor and oppressed people.

Belief that God's words had to be tried and purified 7 times is apparently belief that God didn't get it right the first time. In the words of my grandmother, "Aw, pshaw!" And in my own words, "Hogwash!"

 

[Mexdeaf]

Perhaps we should look at it from this perspective- WHAT or WHO purifies the Word?

The Greek and Hebrew?

The translators?

KJV- onlyists or PAVV's (Proponents of All Valid Versions)?

Vance, Ruckman, etc. (and ad-nauseam)?

No, not in the least. As Paul said, God forbid!

They are GOD'S words and HE will take care of the purification and preservation. He doesn't need anyone's help. The Holy Spirit is the teacher of God's Word and will lead us into all truth, whichever version (or language) it be found in.

 

[robycop3]

yes, the words of the Lord are "AS" silver tried in a furnace of earth, not that the words were tried. try re-reading the verse again.

Sal, please read my OP a little more closely. I said David was COMPARING God's words to the silver, the purest physical thing David knew. Vance's goofy notion that God's words were purified 7 times in English is absolutely wrong.

 

[Salamander]

Sal, please read my OP a little more closely. I said David was COMPARING God's words to the silver, the purest physical thing David knew. Vance's goofy notion that God's words were purified 7 times in English is absolutely wrong.

I answered your folly, my mistake.

If, and since, the Lord is the Keeper of the purity of His Word, then why is it so many insist upon corrupt and misleading MSS as the same pure words? That should be your question instead of this "calling' you've imposed upon the Lord.

The key is Ps 12:6,7

The "poor and needy" lame duck cannot be true unless you insist that the Lord didn't become poor that we might be made rich in Him!

Diametrically and especially doctrinally, the KJB is still God's pure Word.