“Purified Seven Times”: A Case of Defective Exegesis and Improper Application by Doug Kutilek

The following article is reprinted with permission from “As I See It”, Volume 13, Number 9, September 2010, a free monthly newsletter published by Doug Kutilek. Subscription information is available here at the author’s website: KJVOnly.Org. Note: our posting of this article does not imply our complete endorsement of all particulars contained therein.


 

“Purified Seven Times”: A Case of Defective Exegesis and Improper Application

One of the near-universal but untested assumptions of “King James Only”-ites is that Psalm 12:6, 7 has specific reference to God’s perfect preservation of Scripture in the copying and translating process, and that more specifically this refers to the King James Version, and in truth only to the KJV and no other Bible version in English or any other language on earth. This interpretation is both grossly arbitrary and wholly unsound.

That passage reads (KJV, all spelling, punctuation and italics as in original 1611 edition):

The wordes of the LORD are pure wordes: as siluer tried in a fornace of earth purified seuen times.

Thou shalt keepe them, (O LORD,) thou shalt preserue them, from this generation for euer.

We will here mention only in passing one particular misinterpretation by KJVO zealots of this text, to wit, that the promise of preservation in v. 7 refers back to the “words” of v. 6, when in fact it refers (as the Hebrew and the context show) to the persecuted believers of v. 5 (“For the oppression of the poore, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise (saith the LORD,) I will set him in safetie from him that puffeth at him”; for proof of my analysis, see the commentaries of John Gill or Franz Delitzsch on this Psalm; or, more fully, my article “A Careful Investigation of Psalm 12:6, 7,” The Biblical Evangelist, October 14, 1983. That article does need some modification, expansion and revision–which I hope to undertake shortly–but is essentially correct as written).

By remarkable extrapolation, the faulty foundational interpretation imposed on this text by KJVO partisans is alleged to first refer to the written word of God, then to its perfect transmission to posterity, which culminates most particularly and in fact uniquely in the English translation of the Scriptures known as the King James Version. An arbitrary explanation? Completely so. Nothing in the text nor context speaks of the copying or translating process at all, and certainly nothing about any English Bible version, nor indeed a particular one among them. Even so, it is somehow “found” in the text, resulting in an interpretation as exegetically forced as the Mormons finding the combining of the Book of Mormon with the Bible in the two sticks of Ezekiel 37:16-19.

Our attention here will be directed to the “use” made by KJVOers of the simile in v. 6 “as silver tried in a furnace of earth purified seven times” as though it were a reference to seven stages in God’s providing a “pure Bible” to the English-speaking people (and only to the English-speaking people) in the form of the KJV.

(One must ask–if the Word of God was verbally and plenary inspired, as indeed the Bible teaches, and then verbally and plenarily preserved in the copying and transmission process, as the novel doctrine created by KJVOers in the 1990s claims [see “The Error of ‘Verbal Plenary Preservation’,” As I See It, 12:11], why would there be any need to purify the Bible even once, much less “seven times”?)

As far as I can discover, the first writer to abuse Psalm 12:6–“purified seven times”–as though it were actually a promise / prophecy regarding the process of transmission of the Bible from antiquity to the modern era, was Peter S. Ruckman, Sr. A correspondent (whom we leave anonymous at his request, but who has made a systematic study of Ruckman’s published books) wrote to us:

Peter Ruckman seemed to use a form of the “purified seven times” claim in his commentary on the book of Psalms. Commenting on that phrase from Psalm 12:6, Ruckman indicated that the word “went out in seven installments” that included the Hebrew O. T., the Aramaic, the Greek N. T., the old Syriac translation, the Old Latin translation, the German translation of Martin Luther, and the AV of 1611 (I, pp. 70-71; see also his The Christian’s Handbook of Biblical Scholarship).

We don’t own Ruckman’s commentary on Psalms or otherwise have direct access to it, but do have his The Christian’s Handbook of Biblical Scholarship. Those “seven installments” in which God’s word went out are indeed alleged to be (The Christian’s Handbook of Biblical Scholarship, p. 125 in 1987 edition; p. 129 in 1988 edition):

1. the Hebrew part of the OT
2. the Aramaic part of the OT
3. the Greek NT
4. an “old Syriac” translation of 1.-3.
5. an “old Latin” translation of 1.-3.
6. a German translation of 1.-3. made during the Reformation
7. the KJV, allegedly “from the end of the Reformation”

Several of these are “problematic,” since number 4., the Peshitta Syriac version (no doubt what Ruckman has reference to) differs in literally thousands of places, all told, from the Masoretic Hebrew text, the textus receptus Greek NT, and the KJV. For example, the Peshitta Syriac does not contain I John 5:7, John 7:53-8:11; Acts 8:37; and other passages, and in fact did not include Revelation and several other NT books at all!

And number 5. the Old Latin version, in the OT was not made from the Hebrew text but was made from the Greek Septuagint translation, which version is to Ruckman and the whole of the KJVO herd “anathema.” And in the NT, the Old Latin manuscripts differ in many hundreds of details from the textus receptus Greek edition. Examples: all Old Latin manuscripts read “Isaiah the prophet” rather than “the prophets” at Mark 1:2; all read “men of goodwill” like Greek manuscript Vaticanus and the Vulgate, rather than “goodwill toward men” in Luke 2:14; all lack “after the spirit” in Romans 8:1 and lack “and in your spirit which are God’s” at I Corinthians 6:20; etc. (see my article “The Truth About the Waldensian Bible and the Old Latin Version,” Baptist Biblical Heritage 2:2, Summer, 1991)

Number 6. Luther’s German version, does NOT precisely conform to the Masoretic OT, the textus receptus NT, or the KJV. Among other things, it does not have I John 5:7 (see “Ruckman on Luther and I John 5:7: Dolt or Deceiver?” As I See It, 4:8, August 2001).

And there is no definitive edition of the KJV, with even the two editions issued in 1611 differing between themselves in over 2,000 places. Differences between these two and later KJV editions are many times greater.

One is hard-pressed to see a perfect and pristinely pure text in steps 4.-7. since these do not agree precisely or in all details with each other or with 1.-3. (whatever printed editions one may claim as the “true original” of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek)

Somewhat surprisingly, the KJVO acolytes of Ruckman seem not to have followed their chosen “Pied Piper” in his abuse of this text (though they have gone in lock-step with him on many others), but have struck out in a different path of text abuse. It is common place among KJVO authors to find the “purified seven times” phrase limited to seven steps in the purification and perfection of the Bible in English, always culminating in the KJV as the crown of perfection. One problem: there is continual disagreement among authors as to the identity of these supposedly Divinely-foretold steps.

I enquired of Rick Norris of Statesville, North Carolina (who knows KJVO literature far better than anybody else of my acquaintance) if he could shed some light on KJVO misuse of “purified seven times” and he promptly and graciously sent me the following:

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 wrote:  “Let’s just count those English translations that came of the pure text of Erasmus: Tyndale’s is one; Coverdale’s is two; Matthew’s is three, the Great Bible is four; Geneva is five; the Bishop’s is six; and the King James is seven” (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).  Morton listed “Wyclif’s Bible (1382), Coverdale’s Bible (1535, using Tyndale’s New Testament from 1525), Matthew’s Bible (1537), The Great Bible (1539), The Geneva Bible (1560), and The Bishops’ Bible (1568)” (p. 9).

Douglas 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).  Stauffer listed: 1. Tyndale (1525), 2. Coverdale (1535), 3. Matthew (1537), 4. Great (1538), 5. Geneva (1560), 6. Bishops (1568), and 7. King James (1611) (pp. 282-284).

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, Inerrantly Preserved, 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 in the Living Room, 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 of Thy Word, 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).

As a survey of this sampling of typical KJVO literature shows, there is nothing like a consensus among these writers on details except that Psalm 12:6 is a promise, a prophecy of the purification of the English Bible in seven steps which somehow amazingly, no matter how variant, always culminates in the KJV as the seventh and final “purification.” It is immediately obvious that this claiming of seven steps in the “purification” of the English Bible is a “just so story” designed to shoe-horn the history of the English Bible back into the previously utterly forced twisting of Psalm 12:6. And of course, we must ask again: why did or would a “perfectly preserved Bible” (so they claim Psalm 12:7 teaches) need purification?

All the lists are defective. First, what is the Gothic version doing in Riplinger’s line of English Bibles? Gothic was a Germanic language spoken in the region north of the Black Sea in the 4th century A. D. and later, and the Gothic version made zero contribution to later English Bibles. Besides, it is known NOT to have included John 7:53-8:11, and therefore would not be a “pure” Bible by KJVO standards.

All but Riplinger omit the Anglo-Saxon version, though the Anglo-Saxon language IS part of the parental heritage of English, and the Anglo-Saxon version of the late first millennium did impact, however remotely, later English versions. On the other hand, to include it is problematic: it only consisted of the Gospels, and was made from a Latin version (partly conforming to the Latin Vulgate, partly conforming to the Old Latin), not from Greek.

Riplinger mentions a “pre-Wycliffite” version. Since she already mentioned the Anglo-Saxon, she can’t mean that, and there is nothing like a complete NT or whole English Bible version between the Anglo-Saxon and Wycliffe, except some partial paraphrases, metrical Psalms, and fragmentary translations. Perhaps she just made it up, like so much else that she claims as fact.

One wonders why Wycliffe is included in most lists–his version was based on the Latin Vulgate of Jerome and not at all on the Hebrew or Greek. Wycliffe’s version is considered (relatively) pure by KJVOers, yet Jerome’s translation from which it came is deemed an abomination by them (by contrast, see my articles “The Latin Vulgate Bible Translation in Historical Perspective,” parts I & II, As I See It, 5:4; 5:5, April & May 2002). Furthermore, Wycliffe and his assistants produced two versions, one largely literal or “formally equivalent,” the other more literary or “functionally equivalent” (stylistically like the NASB and NIV, respectively). Which one is the “pure” version? Or should both be counted?

Tyndale is included by all (lumped together with 3 other versions by Riplinger, no doubt to preserve the total of “seven”), though he published a decidedly incomplete Bible (only NT and Pentateuch), and furthermore, he made two revisions of his NT, making three editions in all. Why count just one of them–were not the 2nd and 3rd editions’ “purifications”?

Coverdale is in most lists, but the major part of his OT was based on Latin and German versions, not on the Hebrew. How can such a Latin- or German-based Bible be considered “pure”? Matthew’s Bible and the Great Bible suffered the same problem in the OT as Coverdale–for large sections of the OT, the Hebrew text was NOT used as the basis for translation. Yet these are included in the “purification” line.

And as for the Geneva Bible, be it noted that there was a Geneva NT (1557) made before the whole Bible was issued (1560) and the two NTs involved are clearly distinct translations. Shouldn’t these then be counted as two revisions in the line leading to the KJV? And then we have to consider Tomson’s revision of the Geneva NT, first issued around 1576, which became the usual form of the ”Geneva” NT thereafter And there appeared in 1599 and afterward editions of the Geneva with the Tomson NT but with a translation of Revelation by Junius, making four separate editions of the Geneva NT alone. Our total has already far surpassed “seven” revisions in the KJV line, and there is yet more to consider.

One glaring omission from every list offered in the literature cited above is the Rheims NT of 1582. The reason for the omission is obvious: it was a Roman Catholic translation made from the Latin Vulgate–horrors! But the Anglo-Saxon and Wycliffe versions were also made from the Vulgate, yet somehow they are “pure.” But far more notable: the King James translators themselves esteemed the Roman Catholic Rheims NT highly, and adopted its readings in nearly 3,000 places in their NT!!! (I demonstrate this in “Is the King James Version a ‘Roman Catholic Bible’?” As I See It,” 6:2 February 2003). The KJVOites are at odds with the KJV translators–the former uniformly dismiss the Rheims NT as corrupt, while the latter valued it enough to follow it 3,000 times in their translation! Beyond doubt they (the KJV translators) would have included the Rheims in any list of English versions leading to their own.

If Psalm 12:6 actually prophesied a seven-step purification of the English Bible, the seven historic steps should be immediately obvious to anyone who studied the matter, and all authors should be in agreement, just what we do not find! And if the 1611 Bible was that final, pristine, perfect seventh English version, why don’t we still use that edition today?

(There is actually another misuse of “purified seven times” met with in pro-KJVO literature, namely that the seven steps of purification were various editions of the KJV, beginning in 1611, with various revisions and corrections, supposedly culminating in the 1769 Oxford edition, supposedly purified from every spot and wrinkle, and preserved and in use today. Unfortunately for this theory, as for the other, the facts are very much and entirely otherwise.)

Let us return to consider the actual words of the text. We must note how dull indeed the KJVOers show themselves to be in their utter failure to recognize in Psalm 12:6 a simple simile: ”as silver purified in a furnace of earth purified seven times.” A simile is a “figure of speech involving the comparison of one thing with another of a different kind, as an illustration or ornament. . . . They . . . are normally introduced by as or like” (The New Fowler’s Modern English Usage, edited by R. W. Burchfield; 3rd edition, p. 714). In our Psalm, the “purity” of the words uttered by God in v. 5 is compared to the purity of silver that has been repeatedly refined. It is NOT the words that are said to have been purified, but rather the silver which is so treated.

Further, that the word “purified” refers to the silver and does NOT refer back to the “words” of the first clause of v. 6 is crystal clear in the Hebrew where “purified” is the word mezuqqaq, a masculine, singular participle, agreeing with “silver” / keseph, a masculine singular Hebrew noun, whereas “words” in v. 6 (both times) is feminine and plural. Hebrew characteristically has agreement in gender and number, and if “purified” referred to the “words,” they should agree in gender and number, but they do not agree in either. Therefore, it is obvious that there is not any declaration of any kind in this verse that the “words” had been, or would be (claiming the words are prophetic, as KJVOers actually claim) “purified seven times.”

Some may perhaps object to our “simile” explanation and say that the comparative word “as” in the KJV is italicized and not in the original Hebrew (many KJVOers wouldn’t adopt this counter argument, since they believe the italicized words in the KJV are as inspired and preserved as the rest of words in the KJV). We readily admit that indeed, the “as” is not in Hebrew, and therefore the Hebrew, rather than presenting a simile, is employing a metaphor, which is in essence a simile without the “as” (see The New Fowler’s Modern English Usage, edited by R. W. Burchfield; 3rd edition, p. 491). It is still figurative and only a dullard of monumental proportion would interpret it literally, and claim a seven-fold purification of the words, rather than of the silver of the simile.

It amazes me that people who claim so vehemently to love the Bible, who defend its integrity and insist on its Divine inspiration and inerrancy would be so utterly careless in the study of it so as to convert a mere simile (or metaphor) into a promise of the purification of the English Bible in seven steps (which seven they are utterly unable to agree upon). This is Bible abuse pure and simple. By such blatant perversion of the text, they show themselves to be mere agenda-driven dogmatists, like Jehovah’s Witnesses at the door, rather than serious and solemn students of the Word.

—Doug Kutilek

© Copyrighted by the author. Reprinted by permission.  Posted in full, with no alterations.

75 Responses to ““Purified Seven Times”: A Case of Defective Exegesis and Improper Application by Doug Kutilek”

  1. Greg says:

    Wait – if the ol’ King Jimmy isn’t infallible, are you saying there *aren’t* any unicorns?! But there’s at least a dozen references to them! Next you’ll be telling me that the woman caught in adultery appeared sometime after the 3rd century – sheesh!

    • Nazaroo says:

      Dear Greg: Before writing off the Pericope Adulterae, let me invite you to our site, the world’s largest database on John 8:1-11, in which you will find more external and internal evidence in favour of the authenticity of these verses than you will be able to find for any other passage of the NT.

      We have over 500 articles, and thousands of photos of ancient manuscripts, charts, and maps. Our website spans some 40,000 pages of material.

      http://adultera.awardspace.com/

      peace
      Nazaroo

  2. Steven Avery says:

    Hi Folks,

    Hopefully folks here who are concerned about the tone of the discussion will remove the above “King Jimmy” reference and moderate if necessary.

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

  3. Bob Hayton says:

    Sorry, I missed that. Yes, It was probably tongue in cheek, but we try to keep the rhetoric toned down here. Greg if you could avoid using “King Jimmy” as it is offensive to some and we don’t want to encourage that around here.

    I do admit in a few places Doug Kutilek is a bit direct in the post here too. But we thought it worth sharing nonetheless. He gets his fair share of invective from certain corners of KJV onlyism so I understand his perspective.

  4. Greg says:

    My apologies. It was only two weeks ago I was doing damage control about the unicorn reference with an unbeliever, so I was still shaking that off. I guess I’m not a fan of calling it the A.V. when you consider what Wycliffe. and Tyndale went through (not requiring for authorization from the King).

    I’m probably a bit too grumpy about some of my Fundy childhood. Feel free to ignore the off-the-cuff ramblings of a software guy.

    • Bob Hayton says:

      Thanks Greg for understanding. I’m not sure what the strictly KJV Only folk do with “unicorn” but the TR Onlyists have no problem understanding it to be a word which could refer to rhinoceroses or something like that.

  5. Steven Avery says:

    Hi Folks,

    “Doug Kutilek .. bit direct”

    This article from Kutilek I actually find interesting and can be a good starting point for discussion of the question. e.g. I would definitely agree with him that the historical layout given by Gail Riplinger is strained. And pointing that the sensible views of Bradley and Stinger are non-identical is clearly fair game.

    In my experience, KJB defenders appreciate the ideas of setting forth the editions or versions unto purification yet really do not get dogmatic about the whole issue.

    The article on Psalm 12 where Kutilek made a lot of errors is “Why Psalm 12:6,7 is not a Promise of the Infallible Preservation of Scripture” which was discussed on the finished-yet-available AV1611 forum. Maybe Doug Kutilek would like to address those, I would be happy to write up an article extracting the errors in simple form, if that article is to be discussed here.

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

  6. [...] One of the near-universal but untested assumptions of “King James Only”-ites is that Psalm 12:6, 7 has specific reference to God’s perfect preservation of Scripture in the copying and translating process, and that more specifically this refers to the King James Version, and in truth only to the KJV and no other Bible version in English or any other language on earth. This interpretation is both grossly arbitrary and wholly unsound.(source) [...]

  7. Tom Bonvie says:

    Say what you may; think what you will; believe as you have…
    In the end, your comments are simply noteworthy,but not trustworthy. Only what’s done for Christ will last. The “bottom” line…”which was..and is..and is to come..” shall prevail. To doubt the preservation of God’s Holy Word as being inerrant, infallible,and inspired as depicted in the KJB, are the doubts of a fool, answerable only at the Judgement Seat if Jesus Christ.

    • No problem, Tom. Just point me to the passage in Scripture that says God will produce an infallible translation into the English language in the year 1611 and I will believe you.

      You should learn a lesson from the KJB defenders on this board that make educated arguments for the KJB – otherwise you are left with nothing but empty tradition. To speak in the name of God, things that God has not spoken, makes you a false prophet.

    • Steven Avery says:

      Hi Folks,

      The passage is right next to the verse that tells you about the 66-book canon that comprises the New Testament and Tanach (OT) :)

      ======

      Now I am not saying that Tom’s approach is the strongest in this type of environment .. I am saying that the verse demand is not a refutation.

      Clearly if there is a pure and perfect Bible, there are not multiple conflicting such Bibles. The logic of faith (Hills) and the scriptural imperative of inspiration and preservation can be used as evidence that there is one such Bible. Then it is up to us to search for, and recognize, the pure and perfect word of God.

      Shalom,
      Steven Avery

    • brainout says:

      Psalm 12:6 refers to GOD’s Words, not a translator’s. And the qal participle of kasaph means ALREADY PURE, to tie to amarot t’horot (pure words, yes KJV translated it well).

      Since God is Perfect, so are His Own Words, and they don’t need further refining by a translator or anyone else. So this business about English revisions is downright blasphemous.

      GOD GETS IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME. So we but need to learn HIS Words, which are indeed perfectly preserved in aggregate; and because in aggregate, TESTABLE. Not just in one mss, but in them all, TR included.

      As Christ Himself said, ‘My Words shall not pass away’ (Matt24:35; Mk13:31; Lk21:33); and, He equated HIS Word with God’s (since He is God), John 8:31, 43 — Him directly claims to have the very Words of God repeatedly in that chapter.

      Those words were NOT spoken in English. So the words that are His, are NOT in English.

      It’s okay to translate, so long as you compare the translation to the Words God Preserved, since only THOSE words will never pass away.

      So the one doubting the preservation of God’s Word, is the KJVOnlyist.

      He lacks FAITH that the Holy Spirit can TEACH him the Original Words;
      he lacks FAITH that God preserved His Original Words, since the KJVO mistakes media for content — by which (silly) definition, you wouldn’t have an original KJV1611, either, as it was burned up in the London fire of 1666;
      he lacks FAITH that even a child can learn those words, so it’s not elitist;
      he lacks FAITH that those 1st-century and prior words convey the Full Verbal Plenary Inspiration which Christ Himself promised, as noted above.

      So the ones having foolish doubts, are the KJVO.

    • brainout says:

      Typo correction: I wrote, ‘Him directly claims to have the very Words of God’ — that’s good Greek (heroic accusative), but makes bad English. So replace ‘Him’ with ‘He’. Of course, the emphasis on Him being the Hero is lost in English translation. :)

    • brainout says:

      Other typo correction: saraph instead of kasaph. Next time I won’t read something else and type at the same time. :)

  8. I suspect that some people deliberately quote the 1611 Edition to make the King James Bible seem out of place and bad.

    There is simply no need to quote the KJB with 1611 Edition spelling, as though it is somehow superior or more “real”, when every normal edition today is exactly identical to the letter in Psalm 12:6, 7.

    As for Psalm 12’s application to a series of purifications, I point out that the seven major Protestant English Bible Versions of the Reformation form a seven-times sequence, and I also point out that there is a seven-time progression with the editions of the KJB.

    • redgreen5 says:

      bibleprotector

      As for Psalm 12’s application to a series of purifications, I point out that the seven major Protestant English Bible Versions of the Reformation form a seven-times sequence, and I also point out that there is a seven-time progression with the editions of the KJB.

      The only way that you can reach “seven major versions” of the Protestant Reformation Bible is by:

      a. inflating minor edition changes to make them become “versions”;
      b. ignoring other updates and not adding them into the tally of revisions

      There is no reason to do this unless someone had an a priori specific number in mind that they were aiming for.

      You also haven’t addressed this particularly pointed detail in the original post:

      Further, that the word “purified” refers to the silver and does NOT refer back to the “words” of the first clause of v. 6 is crystal clear in the Hebrew where “purified” is the word mezuqqaq, a masculine, singular participle, agreeing with “silver” / keseph, a masculine singular Hebrew noun, whereas “words” in v. 6 (both times) is feminine and plural. Hebrew characteristically has agreement in gender and number, and if “purified” referred to the “words,” they should agree in gender and number, but they do not agree in either. Therefore, it is obvious that there is not any declaration of any kind in this verse that the “words” had been, or would be (claiming the words are prophetic, as KJVOers actually claim) “purified seven times.”

      If the Hebrew linguistic analysis is correct, then this appears to be the fatal blow to the “purified seven times” argument. “Purified” *cannot* be referring to words because the Hebrew grammar doesn’t permit it.

    • “redgreen5″,

      If the major Protestant Versions of the Reformation era requires “inflating minor edition changes to make them become ‘versions’;” why are they distinctly different and have distinct names, as in here: http://www.archive.org/details/hexaplarpsalterb00wrig
      As for “ignoring other updates”, the key words here are “major”, “Protestant” and “versions”. So 6 editions of the Great Bible are but one version. And a work like Taverner’s or Tomson’s are not major. Also, the Douai Rheims is not Protestant.

      Now, to the dealing with the Hebrew… as you might tell, I can read and write English. I happen to believe that God’s Word is in English. Therefore saying that something else is God’s Word which differs to His Word… cannot be how God speaks to me and a billion others. Reference to “masculinity” etc. are not relevant.

      If “purified seven times” does not apply to a process, what does the Scripture mean when it states that? What else could “times” mean … Einstein’s theory of special relativity?

  9. redgreen5 says:

    bibleprotector

    As for “ignoring other updates”, the key words here are “major”, “Protestant” and “versions”.

    But several of these are just incremental changes from the predecessors. There are only 8 years between Geneva and Bishops; obviously not much of an update was possible. The amount of change was minimal, with Bishops primarily being edited to remove Calvinistic overtones. Yet *both* of these count in your tally of revisions.

    Furthermore, you ignore not only Coverdale, but Matthews. As for Coverdale, he borrowed from Tyndale heavily, and I note that Tyndale’s bible is not on your list anywhere. Tyndale’s work was of such high quality that much of it still permeates the KJV and NKJV today.

    You also ignore all post-1611 updates – including the 1769 update – allowing only one such update to count as “major Protestant version”. This allows you to artificially bring your tally to seven. Thus demonstrating what I said above:

    a. inflating minor edition changes to make them become “versions”;
    b. ignoring other updates and not adding them into the tally of revisions

    Now, to the dealing with the Hebrew… as you might tell, I can read and write English. I happen to believe that God’s Word is in English. Therefore saying that something else is God’s Word which differs to His Word… cannot be how God speaks to me and a billion others. Reference to “masculinity” etc. are not relevant.

    Unless you believe that the original Hebrew and Greek has been rescinded or superseded, then knowing the vocabulary and grammar of those languages is *very* relevant. The idea that you can latch onto an English revision of a previous English translation — and ignore what the original, underlying Hebrew and Greek says because you’ve personally decided that you no longer need to know — well, that is baffling to me.

    • Nazaroo says:

      The Hebrew appears to have been plainly superseded, and the Greek is in the same danger.

      peace
      Nazaroo

    • Redgreen5,

      It seems that you are not so familiar with the early English versions. The Bishops’ is not directly an update of the Geneva.

      That’s because “purified seven times” does not strictly mean one version improving another in a linear, culminating fashion. It really only all comes together with the seventh, the AV.

      And I do not ignore Tyndale, Coverdale or Matthews (again, it appears you are not familiar with the data). Here is the list from my website:

      Tyndale’s
      Matthew’s
      Coverdale’s
      Great
      Geneva
      Bishops’
      King James

      I discuss them extensively in my “Guide to the PCE” book too. Clearly, I have not ignored or failed to mention those names.

      Then you said, “You also ignore all post-1611 updates – including the 1769 update”.

      No, I did not. If you read my previous posts above, you will see that I specifically said that there were seven major editions of the King James Bible also.

      But you have erred in your understanding of the word “version”. A version means a text. Those 7 Protestant versions are 7 texts. Whereas, editions of the King James Bible are the same version.

      If what you say is true (and plainly, it is not), you should be able to demonstrate how that the 1611 Edition of the KJB is a different version and translation to the 1769 Edition. Of course, the reality is that there are no significant differences, that is, nothing to warrant calling the present edition a different Bible to the one first printed in 1611.

      Therefore, I have not inflated minor edition changes to make them become ‘versions’. And I have by clear parameters shown what is legitimately to be counted as a major Protestant Version of the Reformation (7) and what is a major edition of the King James Bible (7).

      As an aside, because I believe in perfect text and translation, obviously I believe that the KJB is supersuccessionary to the use of the Hebrew and Greek today. In other words, we don’t need the original languages know to know, understand, and fully attain God’s message.

      Once you read this, you should see that my seven versions and seven editions are factual. I can demonstrate this with data which should be reasonably accepted by non-KJBO Christians and secularists. Interpretations differ, but the facts should stand.

  10. The marginal note in an authentic 1611 KJV states that the word ‘them’ in verse 7 is Hebrew and plural for him – “them from: Heb. him, etc: that is, every one of them, etc”, thus pointing back to verse 5 as has been stated.

    Regarding the 7 translations, since the Bible must be preserved in English and the KJV is the representative Reformation Bible, why can’t we have: 1) Tyndale, 2) Bishops, 3) Great, 4) KJV, 5) RV, 6) RSV, 7) ESV ?!

    • No one believes (not the makers, nor users high or low) that the RV, RSV or ESV is perfect, final, complete, fully accurate, etc. etc.

    • brainout says:

      Mr. Suttles wrote: “The marginal note in an authentic 1611 KJV states that the word ‘them’ in verse 7 is Hebrew and plural for him – “them from: Heb. him, etc: that is, every one of them, etc”, thus pointing back to verse 5 as has been stated.”

      That’s a valuable piece of information. When Gesenius would compile his grammar two centuries later, he had more manuscripts and better tools for comparison. Takes 158 pages to list all the nnu references (I can provide those interested with it, too). Gesenius was quite clear that the nnu in verse 7, is not a special case (v.8 in Hebrew and in his tally). So it should be translated ‘us’.

      Still, in English the objects must agree, so to translate tits’rennu as a 2nd ‘them’ to balance to tishmarem (which is 3rd person plural), isn’t of itself wrong. And your valuable note here, proves the translators knew ‘them’ meant ‘people’, not words. THANK YOU! :)

      KJV will end up being a casualty if the KJVO don’t wake up and realize how their prevarications are slapstick. We need to defend the KJV. It doesn’t have to be perfect, since we HAVE PRESERVED every jot and tittle of the ORIGINAL WORDS God intended!

  11. Steven Avery says:

    Hi Folks,

    The KJB superb note is simply the technical grammatical form, and this works fine for pointing to words and/or people.

    Isaiah 53:9 is a similar examples. The fact that the Hebrew grammatical form there is a plural does not rule the interpretation. There is much more on this if we discuss the other Doug Kutilek article.

    Shalom,
    Steven

  12. redgreen5 says:

    bibleprotector

    But you have erred in your understanding of the word “version”. A version means a text. Those 7 Protestant versions are 7 texts. Whereas, editions of the King James Bible are the same version.

    I assure you that I know the difference between “version” and “text”. The problem is that you are using the words in a highly flexible – and convenient – manner.

    A version means a text. Hmm. Why isn’t the Coverdale Bible called the “Coverdale version”, then?

    Seven versions of the KJV. Hmm. So the RSV makes eight versions? The NRSV makes nine? The NKJV makes ten versions?

    Since definitions of these common terms seems to be the crux of your argument, it is encumbent upon you to lay out the apparatus, the protocol, that you use for determining what is a version (and what is not). It’s also your job to differentiate major vs. minor, and tell us why certain versions/texts/editions fall into the group of seven, and why others do not.

    If what you say is true (and plainly, it is not), you should be able to demonstrate

    Sadly, the burden of proof is not on me.

    * You are the one making the remarkable claim of precisely seven versions.
    * You are the one setting up these artificial boundaries between “version”, “text”, “edition”, and what is major vs. what is minor.
    * You are the one telling us that this is a fulfillment of scripture.

    Burden of proof rests with you.

    As an aside, because I believe in perfect text and translation, obviously I believe that the KJB is supersuccessionary to the use of the Hebrew and Greek today.

    So is the Spanish Bible “supersuccessionary?” Is the German? Italian? Chinese? How many languages were lucky enough to get a supersuccessionary Bible? How do you arbitrate conflicts between language versions of “supersuccessionary” bibles?

    • redgreen5,

      It is somewhat difficult to deal with your latest post because it contains reference to ideas which I have never stated, and implies that I have been misleading in my explanations.

      You say, I assure you that I know the difference between “version” and “text”.

      This does not make sense, in that the word “Text” means a “Version”, therefore there is no difference. A Version is a set of textual choices, a representative reconstruction of the original languages. Therefore, a Version is a Text.

      So, when you ask, Why isn’t the Coverdale Bible called the “Coverdale version”, then?

      I would answer, of course, the Coverdale is a Version.

      Then you say, Seven versions of the KJV.

      Now, this is something I have never said. I said that there are seven major editions. There is a big difference between a version and an edition, which is my point.

      If you are really saying there are seven versions of the KJB, please, by all means, present your data. I can show that there is only one Version in the host of editions.

      And beside this, your points are not what I have taught, and it almost seems like you are deliberately fogging the issue, for example, I never said, precisely seven versions as though there were not other versions in existence (if that is your point, in that, I cannot be sure what exactly you thought I have said, nor what exactly you mean).

      And I am not the one setting up these artificial boundaries between “version”, “text”, “edition”

      How can I set up a boundary between “version” and “text”, when they are the same?

      And how can the boundary between “version” and “edition” be artificial, when such words are commonly understood and used in scholarship, each with its different meaning?

      As for having a supersuccessionary Bible, there can be only one. That means I think that the KJB is better than a Spanish Bible. In Puritan times they said that the KJB was the best translation in the world!

      So, I have pointed out that there are seven major Protestant Reformation English Versions which seem to fit the scheme, and I have also pointed out that there are seven major editions of the King James Bible, each which also fit a scheme of seven purifications.

    • brainout says:

      Reply to Andrew Suttles: Thank you for both of your comments. I tried to figure out how to subscribe to your blog yesterday, but could not find any button or link to create the feed.

      If I could be civil with the KJVO I would remain in the debate. But at present there aren’t enough bad words in the English language to suffice as descriptive vocabulary for them. :)

      That about sums it up.

    • Bob Hayton says:

      Brainout,

      At the top of our blog there is an orange button with the RSS picture, click on that or else click on the count button that shows the count of blog subscribers.

      Or click this link:

      http://feeds.feedburner.com/kjvodebate

    • brainout says:

      Reply to Bob Hayton: My comment was about Mr. Suttle’s blog. I couldn’t find a feed or subscribe button on it. Happily, I am already subscribed to YOUR blog here, and wish to subscribe to Mr. Suttle’s, also. :)

    • Steven Avery says:

      Hi Folks,

      brainout
      “there aren’t enough bad words in the English language to suffice as descriptive vocabulary for them.”

      And I would say this is a pretty telling comment, when simply affirming that your Bible is the pure and perfect word of God will bring forth such an unusual anger, animus, vitriol.

      Shalom,
      Steven Avery

    • Bob Hayton says:

      Oh sorry, Brainout. I misunderstood.

    • brainout,

      To subscribe to Andrew’s blog, go to http://abrahamsseed.wordpress.com/feed/

    • brainout says:

      Reply to Erik DiVietro: thank you for the feed link to Mr. Suttle’s blog. It worked!

  13. brainout says:

    Thank you, Doug Kutilek, for this article. It covers aspects of the roiling debate on Psalm 12:7 which I didn’t cover in my ongoing battle with KJVO Youtubers. Five of us demonstrated that grammatically, 12:7′s ‘them’ is a mistranslation in the KJV, and made many videos replete with the relevant sections from Gesenius and Harper. But I didn’t pay any attention to the 7-times usage by the KJVO. To me the TEXT is conclusive of itself. Interpretations based on misread text, are superfluous.

    But they aren’t superfluous, as your article here demonstrates. The KJVO just keep on making the same arguments, ignoring the evidence against them.

    Thank you also very much for your ‘Unlearned Men’ article tracing the source of the KJVO error. Like you, I strongly believe in auditing back to source. You don’t know what kind of error you have until you can trace it from the first transaction giving rise to the error (I do auditing for a secular living). You do that with the KJVO origin, and I am much obliged to you for that.

    Thank you again!

    • brainout says:

      Postscript on this auditing-back-to-source: it is a chilling fact of history that the KJVO claims, methods, and slanders are based in anti-semitism, and are not new. So far as I can tell, KJVO claims and slanders are carbon copies of five other ‘inspired translation’ claims in history. Pogroms against the Jews (term used in its broadest sense, not solely the Russian) follow within a generation of such a claim being accepted by a populus.

      Two of the five such claims are Koran and Book of Mormon.

      The other two were the claims about the Old Latin and then the Vulgate.

      The first claim stems from the Letter of Aristeas. So, following the author’s (probably 250 BC) farcical story about locked-up translators, you have Antiochus. [Sidenote: since his 'Letter' came out after the valid LXX in order to either buttress it or make the Jews appear godlike (which argues that the Letter had an anti-semitic purpose), the LXX itself is not tainted by the Letter. We know from the NT what LXX parts are valid and from history and reading the text, what parts are not.]

      Following the claim the Old Latin was ‘inspired’, is the sordid history of the 200′s+ AD; that’s why Origen was compelled to MAKE a Hexapla, trying to preserve what was left in his part of the world. Following the Vulgate, all manner of persecutions were routinely pursued.

      Interesting how in each case, the translators of the alleged ‘inspired’ translation are overpraised, those relying on the original-language mss are excoriated, vilified, slandered in exactly the same way as Riplinger (among others) does in her scurriliously-ignorant books today. Deja vu!

      KJVO is mean-spirited, mendacious and dangerous, as you keep on explaining. KJVO is not an interpretation: it’s a fascistic and obviously false claim over what IS Bible, especially since we have 400 years of proof that the KJV is mistranslated (i.e., James 4:5, turning the Holy Spirit into a sinner).

      God cannot be in KJVO, since God does not bash or lie, but KJVOers routinely do.

    • Bob Hayton says:

      Brainout,

      I don’t accept your thoughts here. I do see a link between the hesitation to accept the Vulgate, and the hesitation to accept the Textus Receptus and common language translations. Those mirror the KJV Only arguments. But anit-semitism and persecutions against the Jews being a result, I’m not buying it.

      Be careful not to paint KJV Onlyists with too broad a brush. The authors of this blog were all KJV Onlyists at one time or another, and we certainly don’t condone anti-semitism, pogroms or anything of the like.

    • brainout says:

      To Bob Hayton: I’m not saying KJVOnlyists intend these results. The history is pretty clear, that when a translation is considered ‘inspired’, anti-semitic persecution results in short order.

      Law of unintended consequences, perhaps. But I didn’t invent the history, nor the correlation. I might end up doing a book on it, have to think that over.

      The larger point I’m making is that when people embrace the obviously-false idea of inspired Bible translation, that embracing indicates a foundational rejection of the original words God Preserved, and that always leads to a rejection of the people: here, the Jews.

      The original words ARE preserved in aggregate, just as a KJV 1611 printed today (if there is one) would still BE a KJV 1611. One copy of a KJV might have typos, but there are enough of them around to compare. Same, with the mss.

    • brainout says:

      2nd Reply to Bob Hayton: and as to the underlying question of KJVO being anti-semitic, sorry: many of them are. Even Doug Kutilek recognized that connection in his ‘Unlearned Men’ article: search on ‘British Israelism’.

    • Bob Hayton says:

      I can go with “many of them are” but not the blanket statements you had done before. I don’t think the KJVO position is a monolithic entity necessarily. I can appreciate where you’re coming from, but hopefully you can see my angle too. I don’t want to be needlessly offensive, especially as I hope our site can encourage and help some leave KJV Only ideas.

    • Steven Avery says:

      Hi Folks,

      Such a silly diversion.

      Many of the “Christians” with the most hostility to the Jews are precisely and purposefully not-KJB .. why ? .. cause the KJB affirms the Hebrew-Aramaic Masoretic Text as the word of God. The “Christian identity” folks see the Masoretes as the despised Jews, ergo not capable of being true preservers of the Bible text, so they dance around LXX theories. I have confronted them on this .. and boy can they dance.

      And I have seen lighter-weight dancing around the same concepts by modern-versionists, the moment you talk about a Hebraic exegesis supporting the KJB (Rashi, Targumim) they go into a rant about the unbelievign Jews, even though the powerful and strong Reformation scholarship had a good ear for the historic word meanings and exegesis (realizing that there had been some shifting in later years on Messianc verses, especially from 1000-1500 AD.

      However, there is an argument that Christianity, as a whole, the belief in the inspired Bible, is supercessionist, ergo, in this strained construction “anti-semitic”. The solution they would like to see is the elimination of any fundamentalist, evangelical Christianity (which often is KJB-friendly).

      Shalom,
      Steven Avery

    • I really don’t see how KJVO can be related to anti-Semitism. All the KJVOs I am personally familiar with are dispensationalists, and say what you will about dispensationalism, modern dispensationalism is not anti-semitic.

    • brainout says:

      To Bob Hayton and Andrew Suttles: to say that the LXX is an invention of Origen is an anti-semitic claim, besides being a provable lie. To say that the English ‘corrects’ the Greek and Hebrew is an anti-semitic claim. To say that God couldn’t keep His Word pure in the original but had to redo it in English is also an anti-semitic claim. It’s replacement theology, it cuts out the Jew from the Promise of Scripture given in Jeremiah 31:31-34.

      Of course many KJVO do not mean to be anti-semitic. Ruckman himself sings praises to the Jews in November 2005 Bible Believers Bulletin, but is a chief proponent of the LXX-is-an-Origen-hoax. So too, Gipp and other KJVO leaders. It’s STILL anti-semitic to deny the Jewish origin of the LXX, especially since the TR and all Greek NT mss quote from the LXX so extensively.

      These are facts. My goal in making these comments is to focus on the prognostic historical significance of these facts, especially since there is a definable pattern of pogrom-like persecution following ‘inspired translation’ claims going back 2000 years.

      It’s an important dimension to both the articles by Doug Kutilek, and to the KJV-only debate itself. And it’s not getting the attention it should receive.

      I’m also a classic Dispie, btw. I’ll stop commenting now. Thank you for your time!

    • Brainout –

      Don’t stop commenting!

      I only mean to point out that all the folks you reference above are also Classic Dispies, so none of them would ever intentionally hold an anti-semitic view point.

    • brainout says:

      I won’t have time to do a formal book on the 2000-year parallels to the many false arguments in the KJVO movement, for at least a year. Even then, it’s too big a project for just one person, so for now the project sits.

      Meanwhile, I had to do a video summarizing the history, for my Youtube subscribers. If you’re interested, here’s the link its Part 1/2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIB01-umicA

      My subscribers are an eclectic bunch, with pastors and seminary students at the one end, and atheists/Muslims at the other end, with many spiritually-young Christians, in between. So the video’s eclectic too.

      I’m afraid I can’t be civil with the KJVO any longer. Three years ago I didn’t know what King James Only even WAS. Sadly, I was forced into this mess because a KJVO demanded it, and I had to prove him a fraud. That being done now, I’m exiting the debate. The research will continue.

      Thank you for your time and your blog!

    • Brainout -

      It is a mistake for you to exit the debate. Many of us are passionate about the issue because we grew up in it. This discussion is an edifying one and your viewpoint is valued.

  14. brainout says:

    Oh, I forgot to add one obvious but overlooked fact: God doesn’t bash Bibles. KJVO always bash other Bibles and texts which aren’t related to the KJV. So God cannot be pro, KJVO. Thanks again!

    • brainout says:

      Neither were the KJV Translators, it turns out. They condemned the KJVO positions as part of the Church of Rome, inter alia. Just finished a Word doc exerpting from their Preface to the 1611 King James Bible, here: http://www.brainout.net/KJVPrefaceExcerpts.doc . At the top of that 11-page Word doc, you’ll find a link to the ccel.org full reprint of the Preface, and the thesis by Goodspeed, who documented the ignorance of KJVO people, complaining how the Preface was excluded from KJV reprints. So the Munchen politics of catering to KJVO, has a long history.

      He was more right than I knew.

    • Steven Avery says:

      Edgar Goodspeed ? Was he the brainy expert that said that “strain at a gnat” was the “ONE original misprint to survive” ? :)

  15. The only way that you can reach “seven major versions” of the Protestant Reformation Bible is by:
    a. inflating minor edition changes to make them become “versions”;
    b. ignoring other updates and not adding them into the tally of revisions

    In order to demonstrate the previous statements do not apply to my approach, I will attempt to explain or refute ideas according to the following criteria:

    Since definitions of these common terms seems to be the crux of your argument, {c}it is encumbent upon you to lay out the apparatus, the protocol, that you use for determining what is a version (and what is not). {d}It’s also your job to differentiate major vs. minor, {e} and tell us why certain versions/texts/editions fall into the group of seven, and why others do not.

    First I will define two words briefly:

    VERSION = a set of readings, a text type, perhaps a particular Bible translation which is distinct to others.

    EDITION = a particular editorial textual representation of a version.

    1. I said that there were seven major Protestant English versions of the Reformation.

    2. I have said that there are also seven major editions of the KJB.

    1. a. I do not have to inflate minor edition changes to make them versions, in that the following list is widely known to be seven different versions: Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Coverdale’s, Great, Geneva, Bishops’ and King James.

    1. b. I have not ignored other updates in the seven versions, because either I have accounted for them, that is, to say that editions of the any Bible Version are but one Bible Version, that minor other versions are minor because of their limited use, lack of prestige and were not specifically consulted by the AV translators, and that Roman Catholic versions do not count.

    1. c. A version is a distinct entity with a distinct name, identified by its title page as such, and by contemporary references. Thus, various editions of the Geneva Bible are but one Bible Version, and the Geneva is different to, say, the Bishops’ Bible. Editions may show variations within a Version, but are not actually an independent, new or different version unless they were historically/presently are recognised as such.

    1. d. The seven major Protestant Reformation English versions are easily recognised:
    i. there were six Protestant versions listed by Bancroft to be used by the translators of the KJB,
    ii. there are historical and traditional references to the distinct versions in works like A. W. Pollard’s “Records of the English Bible”, etc. (see http://www.archive.org/details/recordsofenglish00poll )
    iii. comparison lists in contemporary secular works, such as McGrath’s “In the Beginning”, etc.

    1. e. The above being easily recognised as seven distinct entities, it follows that it is accurate to state that there are seven major Protestant English versions.

    2. a. I argue that the proper and normal editions of the King James Bible should never be considered and new or different version, but that one version is present in all its editions, that AV. Changing the translation and underlying text of the KJB, would, of course, go against the KJB, but this has not happened in all the various normal editions.

    2. b. It is somewhat emotive to use the word “updates” to describe KJB editions. If that means, editorial revision to standardise the spelling, then certainly, there has been plenty of attempts at this. However, at times, there have been various editions of the KJB which exhibit editorial work which was later rejected, or else, there are editions which alter the spelling and so on to (for example) nineteenth century American use, which might bear the signs of extensive work, but are not to be considered authentic in line with the tradition.

    2. c. Every edition of the KJB, even ones with vast modernist alterations in them, are not considered another version, in that they are still the KJB. However, as a general rule, the more changes away from the 1769 tradition, the more unlikely that an edition is to be found common.

    2. d. A major edition of the King James Bible is not counted by the amount of changes, or merely when it took place, but its overall worth in line with historical recognition, tradition and relative importance in viewing improvements or accuracy in the English presentation.

    Allow me to enumerate: If the first 1611 Edition counts as first, then the second 1611 Edition must be important for establishing what already was correct or incorrect in the first. The folio of 1613 also has a similar function with both those editions. The next important edition is the concerted work of 1629, and again, of 1638, both at Cambridge. The next major edition is that of 1769, which takes into account various small and large editorial advances occurring between 1638 and that year. Finally, the Pure Cambridge Edition of the twentieth century is the refined form of the 1769 with some particular corrections and the Cambridge spellings.

    Conversely, someone could say that an edition like Scrivener’s of 1873 is “major”, however, it had no direct bearing on following editions, was not taken up or generally accepted by Christians or Church goers as a whole, and was afterward justly criticised for faults.

    2. e. The edition which I have identified are the same which are especially mentioned by textual historians, are upheld by data to be significant for their advancement in the overall scheme of purification of the presentation (i.e. correction of typographical errors, standardisation of the language and editorial regularisation). Of course, and I admit, that the final part of the work had to be done by my own research, in showing the seventh edition, but the data has not been justly questioned, even though interpretations differ.

    • Steven Avery says:

      Hi Folks,

      One point that is very simple. Despite the mean-spirited article by Doug Kutilek, this seven purification understanding is really supposed to be a good-natured discussion, thanking God for giving us his pure and perfect word, the scriptures.

      Clearly those who do not accept the excellence and majesty and purity of the King James Bible would never be happy with any such understanding, and for those of us with that appreciation this is simply an interpretation.

      e.g. I believe the dual seven-purification explanations of bibleprotector are very sensible, they look to be consistent, however I would never insist upon those. Especially not as provable, not to modern versionists, not even to other KJB defenders.

      Shalom,
      Steven Avery

    • Once again, I find myself agreeing with you, Steven.

      Whether you agree with the seven-fold purification idea or not, at best it is a convenient shorthand and a mnemonic device. I don’t think anyone should take it as an doctrinal absolute in the conversation.

    • brainout says:

      Reply to Steven Avery: one point that is very simple. Despite your mean-spirited attacks on God’s Word as indeed pertains to all ‘onlyists’, whether KJVOnly, JWonly, TRonly, any-ONE-text-only, is that the ATHEIST sees your arguments and decides God is not worth believing in.

      By contrast, when he Googles ‘KJV mistranslation’, and gets the 7.5 MILLION HITS (some of them in my websites), he has reason to BELIEVE, for a change. For he sees some ADMISSION of errors, some ATTEMPT at scholastic integrity, and CORRECTION of the many mistranslated passages which in English make God look like a fool (Gen 3:11, Deut 6:20, Isa 53:8-12, James 4:5, Hebrews 11:1, and the list goes on and on, I did videos on the foregoing mistranslations).

      So he thinks, ‘okay, this KJV-only thing is just a wacko splinter group, and maybe the Bible is worth believing in, IF I LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL-LANGUAGE TEXTS’. So he does. So in a few weeks or even months, he gets a vocabulary of maybe 600 words in GOD’s Word, and has even more reason to believe. Because in the original, the verses MAKE SENSE.

      So tell me now why civility is warranted, when so many people are going to hell, or never growing up spiritually, because they are stuck with a BAD TRANSLATION no one admits!

      How do you sleep at night? How does any KJVO? We’ve 400 years of MISTRANSLATION documented, even by the KJV translators them selves, who had the INTEGRITY to try and fix their errors, beginning in 1612 forward! They weren’t ashamed (and didn’t need to be, mistakes happen). But you all should be.

      People are dying because of you.

      NOW I’m done with this Kutilek post’s commenting. Yours was the last comment I had to answer, and I will gladly never do so again.

    • Bob Hayton says:

      Brainout,

      I can understand your concern but please be careful not to judge all who hold to the KJV Only position. You said: “Despite your mean-spirited attacks on God’s Word as indeed pertains to all ‘onlyists’, whether KJVOnly, JWonly, TRonly, any-ONE-text-only…” I would dispute that it pertains to all onlyists. We are in the process of moderating some comments by the KJV Onlyists who are writing off those on the other side. We have to be fair and moderate comments that are mean-spirited against fair-minded KJV Onlyists.

      Thanks for understanding.

      Bob

    • Steven Avery says:

      Hi Folks,

      The post above goes about 100x past the posts that were moderated and kept off the forum. Remember, a KJB gets warned for using the terrible word “fluff”.

      Now let us examine.

      chilling fact of history … slanders …anti-semitism …slanders … Pogroms … Koran and Book of Mormon … scurriliously-ignorant … mean-spirited, mendacious and dangerous .. fascistic
      bash or lie …

      So why are you not allowing the posts above, which is similar to many earlier ones ? Do you really expect a gentle and fuzzy response that is not “corrective” ?

      Is this forum meant to be earnest and sincere, unto discussion and scholarship ?

      Shalom,
      Steven

  16. redgreen5 says:

    bibleprotector

    And I do not ignore Tyndale, Coverdale or Matthews (again, it appears you are not familiar with the data). Here is the list from my website:

    Tyndale’s
    Matthew’s
    Coverdale’s
    Great
    Geneva
    Bishops’
    King James

    The problem, of course, is that your list is intentionally shortened, as well as being out of chronological order: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Modern_English_Bible_translations

    2.1 Tyndale’s Bible
    2.2 Bishops’ Bible (1534)
    2.3 Coverdale’s Bible
    2.4 Matthew’s Bible
    2.5 Taverner’s Bible
    2.6 The Great Bible: the first “authorized version”
    2.7 The Geneva Bible
    2.8 The Bishops’ Bible
    2.9 The Douay-Rheims Version

    You leave out the bold versions, because that would bring your total to nine.

    The seven major Protestant Reformation English

    You need four qualifying adjectives above (1-major; 2-Protestant; 3-Reformation; 4-English) in order to artificially create enough requirements to result in your desired number of seven. A convincing argument could be made that Tyndale’s Bible was the true “major” version, of which Geneva, Bishop’s, and KJV were only minor updates.

    You’ve added enough carefully constructed hurdles and subjective criteria to arrive at your desired conclusion. Therefore it’s no surprise that the answer you get is the exactly the answer you were aiming for; after all, you deliberately designed your “test” to produce that answer. What you’re doing is no different than a company that advertises an open job position, but writes the job position in such a careful and restricted manner that only one possible job candidate can fill the position – the same candidate that they wanted to give the position to, all along.

    As for having a supersuccessionary Bible, there can be only one.

    Wonderful. Please cite the chapter and verse of the Bible where we are told to expect *one* supersucessionary Bible that will make the original Greek and Hebrew obsolete. I’m not interested in your private musings, personal interpretations, or hand-made theories. Show me in the Bible where it says we should expect this “supersuccessionary” Bible.

    That means I think that the KJB is better than a Spanish Bible. In Puritan times they said that the KJB was the best translation in the world!

    So because Puritans believed something, we should believe it as well?

    1. I said that there were seven major Protestant English versions of the Reformation.

    Yes, but the only way that you can arrive at this number is by ignoring Tavener’s and Douay. Apparently Douay was good enough quality to make contributions to the KJV – which it did – but not quite good enough to count as one of the “seven versions”. Yes, I know you do so by invoking “major” or “Protestant”; the problem with that explanation is that “major” is in the eye of the beholder, while “Protestant” is irrelevant to the quality of the translation work.

    2. I have said that there are also seven major editions of the KJB.

    Yes you have. But you do so by ignoring many more than just seven editions. Here is just a partial list of the KVJ editions:

    1769, 1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840, 1847, 1857, 1859, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1876, 1880

    So to arrive at your desired conclusion of seven editions, you have to reject – at a minimum – 11 editions, likely more.

    • Redgreen5,

      1. Concerning Versions

      Do I now detect that you accept my proper use of the word version?

      Taverner’s Bible cannot be accounted as major simply because it is not mentioned in the analysis or listings of the reputable sources of major or notable Reformation Bibles.

      I already mentioned specifically above in previous posts that the Douai Rheims cannot count because it is not Protestant.

      This seems like scraping to find an argument against the facts.

      My four criteria “1-major; 2-Protestant; 3-Reformation; 4-English” are indeed in line with the KJBO argument. This means that it is entirely consistent with the KJBO view.

      I do not think that the English Bible scholars would agree that the KJB is merely a “minor” update of the Tyndale. Even if it were 90% similar, we must remember that Tyndale was lacking most of the Old Testament, and that a huge amount of time, effort and money went into the making of the KJB. Thus, for the general closeness, it would be wrong to imply that the KJB is merely a slight revision of Tyndale’s work.

      The KJB comes at the end of a seven purification sequence where the Tyndale comes first. See here: http://finalauthority48270.yuku.com/sreply/128256/t/the-1762-standard-Cambridge-edition-of-the-KJV.html

      2. Concerning editions of the KJB

      Remember that I am counting editions which are significant editorially for the revision which I account to be purification of the presentation.

      Did you know that between 1611 and the end of 1629 there were already 72 separate editions of the KJB, KJ Psalms or KJ New Testament printed? By the time of a year like 1880, I would hazard an extremely rough guess that maybe 36 different editions at least were printed that one year throughout the world.

      Thus, my list of seven particular editions has not been chosen at random, nor are they just any revised work in the printing and editing of the KJB, as Scrivener is often quoted as saying, “Most readers will be aware that numberless and not inconsiderable departures from the original or standard edition of the Authorized Translation as published in 1611, are to be found in the modern Bibles which issue from the press by thousands every year. Some of these differences must be imputed to oversight and negligence, from which no work of man can be entirely free; but much the greater part of them are deliberate changes, introduced silently and without authority by men whose very names are often unknown.” (Authorized Edition, page 3).

      Of course, I reject much of Scrivener’s implications here, but editorial revision is a fact. I am pointing out that there are seven major increments of English-textual critical scholastic importance in the King James Bible, where typographical errors were corrected, the language standardised, and other editorial regularisation having taken place, to come to complete purity in the presentation. These editorially significant editions can be shown as being a “seven times” purified process.

    • Redgreen5,

      Sundry points:

      I once too thought the order of the books should be Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew, if taken in strict chronological order, but I discovered that Matthew’s work was based closely on Tyndale’s, and that it was a conceptual step between Tyndale and Coverdale’s later editions. Also, the KJB translators had the list in the order “Tyndale, Matthew, Coverdale”.

      As for having a supersuccessionary Bible, that does not automatically render all other copies, versions and translations “not Scripture” … ask yourself, why is it that the Tyndale, Matthew, Coverdale or Great Bible are not used today? Supersuccession is the answer.

      As for opinion from Puritan times, we should not lightly discount it, because our Anglo-Protestant Christian heritage and tradition is influenced by the Puritans.

  17. Steven Avery says:

    Hi Folks,

    redgreen5 .. The Douay-Rheims was a reactive Bible, and attempt to counter the Received Text (remember the Erasmus TR was placed on the Index of Forbidden Books) which was available to the common people in their own tongue. The idea was that at least the priests would be understandable in the rcc churches. And the Rheims NT was based on the very different Vulgate text, which is the same reason why the Wycliffe Bible is not included. This does not diss the historical significance, yet clearly it is understandable why they are both not on a lines list, they represent a different NT Bible tradition. And I read a lot of stuff from the 1600s and 1700s, Taverner’s Bible is rarely mentioned as an independent edition. Why ? As Wikipedia says “a minor revision of Matthew’s Bible”. Thus in your attempt to poke holes you are confirming the strength of the bibleprotector exposition.

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

    • redgreen5 says:

      Avery

      The Douay-Rheims was a reactive Bible,

      1. Which is not relevant to the quality of the translation, the amount of influence that it had, or whether it belongs in the line of major English Bibles.

      2. The Bishop’s Bible was a reaction to the Geneva Bible. If bibles produced as reaction are to be ignored or disqualified, then Bishop’s Bible cannot count for the “seven editions”.

      3. Matthews Bible appears to be almost entirely a conglomeration of Tyndale and Coverdale. By that rationale, it qualifies as a minor update:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew%27s_Bible
      Matthew’s Bible was the combined work of three individuals, working from numerous sources in at least five different languages.

      The entire New Testament (first published in 1526, later revised, 1534 and 1535), the Pentateuch and in David Daniell’s view[1], the Books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, First and Second Samuel, First and Second Kings, and First and Second Chronicles, were the work of William Tyndale. Tyndale worked directly from the Hebrew and Greek, occasionally consulting the Vulgate and Erasmus’s Latin version, and he used Luther’s Bible for the prefaces, marginal notes and the biblical text.[2][3][4][5] The use of the pseudonym “Thomas Matthew” resulted possibly from the need to conceal from Henry VIII the participation of Tyndale in the translation.

      The remaining books of the Old Testament and the Apocrypha were the work of Myles Coverdale. Coverdale translated primarily from German and Latin sources.[6] Historians often tend to treat Coverdale and Tyndale like competitors in a race to complete the monumental and arduous task of translating the biblical text. One is often credited to the exclusion of the other. In reality they knew each other and occasionally worked together. Foxe states that they were in Hamburg translating the Pentateuch together as early as 1529.[7]

      The Prayer of Manasses was the work of John Rogers. Rogers translated from a French Bible printed two years earlier (in 1535). Rogers compiled the completed work and added the preface, some marginal notes, a calendar and almanac.

      Ignoring John Rogers’ contribution, Matthew’s Bible is primarily a rehash and repeat of the content previously published in the Tyndale and Coverdale Bible versions which both preceded it. The major work was done already in those versions.

      Moreover, the Matthews OT was translated from German and the Vulgate. So if Douay cannot count because it was translated from the Vulgate, then the same thing applies to Matthews, since the OT did not come from the Masoretic Text.

      So either Matthews is (a) a minor update, due to no significant new/original content; or (b) excluded, due to not being from the same text traditions; or (c) both.

      This does not diss the historical significance, yet clearly it is understandable why they are both not on a lines list, they represent a different NT Bible tradition.

      Incorrect. Taverner’s does not represent a different Bible tradition. Moreover, my point above about the disconnect over the Matthews Bible still stands.

      And I read a lot of stuff from the 1600s and 1700s, Taverner’s Bible is rarely mentioned as an independent edition.

      1. Also irrelevant. The Taverner’s Bible satisfied bibleprotector’s artificial qualifications for a version:

      A version is a distinct entity with a distinct name, identified by its title page as such, and by contemporary references

      But the count of versions exceeded the desired number. At that point, the additional, personally subjective qualifier of “major” was added.

      2. My point to him earlier about *Tyndale* actually being the major revision and Matthews, Geneva, Bishops, etc. being minor updates on Tyndale still stands. “Major” is an entirely subjective sliding scale, that can be applied however one wants.

      Thus in your attempt to poke holes you are confirming the strength of the bibleprotector exposition.

      Sadly, no. What I’ve demonstrated is that bibleprotector’s deliberately angled criteria result in the answer he wanted all along. How could it be otherwise? He designed the experiment knowing what result he wanted it to produce.

    • Steven Avery says:

      Hi Folks,

      redgreen5
      The Douay-Rheims … 1. Which is not relevant to the quality of the translation, the amount of influence that it had, or whether it belongs in the line of major English Bibles.

      You omitted the “quality and source of the text”. The Douay-Rheims was from a radically different NT text than the Bibles in the list from bibleprotector. The Vulgate, not the TR. End of story.

      understandable why they are both not on a lines list, they represent a different NT Bible tradition.
      - redgreen6Incorrect. Taverner’s does not represent a different Bible tradition.

      You misread the “they”, which is Wycliffe and Douay-Rheims.

      The rest of your post was fluff, except for pointing out that the list is not really focused on OT which raises complications, it is NT-based, which should be clear to anyone.

      Thanks again for showing that the bibleprotector list is sensible. As I mentioned above, not provable, but sensible and consistent.

      Shalom,
      Steven Avery

  18. redgreen5 says:

    Avery

    The Douay-Rheims
    You omitted the “quality and source of the text”.

    I did not omit anything. I quoted bibleprotector’s own list of criteria. So there is no need to put that phrase “quality and source of the text” in quotation marks, Avery, since bibleprotector did not use it. The only thing he mentioned in relation to Douay was that it was “not Protestant.”

    As for quality – I already acknowledged that bibleprotector’s criteria includes highly subjective things such as “major”. Now you want to introduce “quality” as another subjective criteria, ignoring that the Douay was the chief Bible of English-speaking Catholics for centuries. Apparently to bibleprotector – and perhaps, to you – being the sole English Bible for a large number of Christians for over 150 years is insufficient to qualify as “major”.

    The Douay-Rheims was from a radically different NT text than the Bibles in the list from bibleprotector. The Vulgate, not the TR.

    As for source – I already answered this with a counterexample. The Mathews Bible OT is from the German and from the Vulgate. If Douay gets tossed out for being from a different NT source, then Matthews gets tossed out for being from a different OT source. Suddenly bibleprotector’s list of seven purified English Bibles comes up one short.

    End of story.

    Sadly, no.

    The rest of your post was fluff,

    Not hardly. But your comment is hardly constructive. I’ll bring it to the attention of the moderators.

    Thanks again for showing that the bibleprotector list is sensible.

    it is not sensible. It remains, as I indicated at the start, a deliberately engineered set of criteria designed to produce the desired outcome. This is accomplished by:

    a. in the case of Bible versions, inflating minor changes to make them become “versions”;
    b. in the case of KJV editions, ignoring other updates and not adding them into the tally of editions;

    To which I can now add:

    c. using subjective criteria such as “major” in such a fashion as to produce exactly the number of Bibles (or KJV editions) desired;

    d. making exceptions to these criteria when said criteria runs against one’s desired set of examples

    • My criteria never mentioned the Vulgate.

      In fact, I acknowledge that the Vulgate was a source for better purifying the English Bible. The witness from the Vulgate helped to better translate from the original Greek.

      Therefore, I accept that Erasmus used the Vulgate, I generally accept Coverdale’s use of the Vulgate, and I accept that without its influence, the KJB would not be as it is.

    • Steven Avery says:

      Hi Folks,

      Agree with bibleprotector, with a small addition.

      This is one of the fascinating nuances of the Bible debate.

      The Received Text was the opponent of the Vulgate .. e.g. William Fulke, Thomas Bilson, William Whitaker and Edward Bulkeley, George Wither, Thomas Cartwright, Richard Bernard, Richard Montague and Francis Turretin were examples of writers on the TR side of the debate, often writing specifically contra the Vulgate and the Douay-Rheims. Bellarmine and Thomas Stapleton were two of many on the rcc-Vulgate side.

      On the other hand, the Vulgate did contribute significantly to the far superior Reformation Bible (Received Text based Bibles throughout the world) .. a point often not properly appreciated by KJB supporters.

      Thus the Rheims is clearly not on the line of KJB Bibles (unless the discussion is simply all English Bibles, including Wycliffe) yet it is in fact an important historical Bible.

      Shalom,
      Steven Avery

    • Steven Avery says:

      Hi Folks,

      Incidentally, those who want to get a background on the history, the first step I recommend is :

      Rhemes and Doway; an attempt to shew what has been done by Roman Catholics for the diffusion of the Holy Scriptures in English by Henry Cotton (1855)
      By Henry Cotton

      Beyond that, you actually read sections by Fulke, Whitaker, Gregory Martin (rcc) and others online.

      If you know of good histories of the Bible battle of the period, please share away .. I have found it has really helped in understanding the current predicament.

      Shalom,
      Steven Avery

    • Steven Avery says:

      Hi Folks,

      The bottom line is simple. The seven versions given by bibleprotector are sensible, they are major and well known and lead to the KJB. They are not proven, they are simply an interpretation.

      Your original ideas that Taverner’s should be included and also Rheims were shown to be faulty on both counts. So you switched gears. That puts us back to the bibleprotector seven. Clearly you are unhappy that the list is sensible today, so you spend a lot of time trying to strain one complaint or another, but it is clear that your first attempt failed, and that one the one before you made it a hobby-horse. If you want to say that the list matches the proposed understanding, we could all give a hearty amen.

      Christianity is always accused of being circular. The belief in the Bible is accused of being circular. You can accuse the seven versions of being circular. Truth often has a circular component, unto the purity and perfection of the Lord Jesus Christ.

      Shalom,
      Steven Avery

  19. Gary Simmons says:

    Bottom line: “major” and “minor” are very flexible and subjective criteria. You can’t do much with that, folks.

    The Hebrew makes it clear that the “them” is referencing the poor and needy of verse 5. Verse 8 makes it clear that the discussion is still about the godless who think to attack the poor and suffer no retribution. God will indeed keep his promises — including the “I will now arise” he spoke within the psalm.

    The entire context, then, most certainly speaks of how God will preserve his words (i.e. keep his promise). Namely, the promise is “I WILL NOW ARISE” to help the poor and the needy. It’s clear that taking verse 7 as an prophetic promise requires one to cut verse 7 away from all seven other verses of the psalm.

    One of the greatest achievements of Protestantism is the authorial intent hermeneutic. Let’s try sticking with it now and then, shall we?

    • brainout says:

      To Gary Simmons: THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU for writing your comment. It’s a promise to the Jews of MESSIAH, so why are the KJVO cutting out the Jews in verse 7?

      THANK YOU THANK YOU. Your comment just made my day.

      “One of the greatest achievement of Protestantism is the authorial intent hermeneutic. Let’s try sticking with it now and then, shall we?”

      YESSSSS!!!!!!

    • brainout says:

      TYPO alert in my 9/7/2010 9pm post: ‘achievements’ not ‘achievement’ (quoting Mr. Simmons).

    • Steven Avery says:

      Hi Folks,

      Gary Simmons
      “The Hebrew makes it clear that the “them” is referencing the poor and needy of verse 5.”

      There are two distinct thems (so already your assertion is ambiguous), the Hebrew exegesis of the giants (Rashi, Kimchi, etc) was very mixed, and proximity is always a factor in what is “clear”. We go into all this in the AV1611 thread.

      “The entire context, then, most certainly speaks of how God will preserve his words ”

      In fact, the Psalm as a whole is a contrast between the faithfulness of God’s words compared to the transient falsity of mans. This you can see very nicely simply by looking at the full Psalm.
      http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5109&postcount=8

      And complementary Psalm verses are nice to look at as well.
      http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5109&postcount=5

      –SNIP– Let’s keep the rhetoric toned down in the comments, here. (Editor’s note)–

      Shalom,
      Steven Avery

    • Gary Simmons says:

      It’s not just God’s promises in general that’s in view in the psalm. The “lens” is zoomed in further to specifically God’s promise to take care of the needy. The focus, it seems, is on God’s promise to take care of the needy and how people by contrast are not caring for the needy.

      In other words, I don’t see the focus as abstractly as you do. It’s not appropriate to look at complementary verses taken out of their contexts. As I said: authorial intent hermeneutic. Here is a better KJV 1611 link.

      Psalm 12 is a cry for deliverance. It is not priestly instruction in the same way as Psalms 1, 37, or 125. It’s not meant to set forth a systematic understanding of preserving God’s revelations. In fact, it’s not at all about God recording anything.

      Rather, it’s about how God will keep his promises. The KJV’s commentary at the top of the page gives an accurate summary: vv 6-7 are David reiterating his conviction that God will keep his promises, namely: God most certainly will cut off flattering lips and he most certainly will arise at the oppression of the poor and the groaning of the needy.

      The contrast between God’s words and man’s words is not merely one of fidelity vs. falsehood & flattery. There’s also pride, rebellion, and malice. So, you can’t narrow this to say that the Psalm is basically about God’s truthfulness vs. man’s untruthfulness. That is only part of this psalm.

      So, it seems that in its own context, Psalm 12 as a whole has a message of God’s justice in that he casts down the proud and uplifts the meek and humble. See also: Hannah’s song in 1 Sam. 2; Mary’s song in Luke 2; Jesus’ statements in Matt 23:12, Lk 14:11, and Lk 18:14.

      Also, look at the broader context of Psalms 11 and 13. 11:4-7 is a statement of faith similar to 12:6-7. To sum up both passages: God really exists. He actively intervenes to exact justice and avenge injustice.

      In short: you can’t take an intercessory prayer sandwiched between two other intercessory prayers and then clip out a verse or two to make doctrine about something the psalm isn’t even talking about. God will keep his promises, as the KJV’s summary of Psalm 12 says. God can keep his promises without needing a written record of them; thus, nothing in the context speaks of written records.

    • brainout says:

      Reply to the wonderful post by Gary Simmons which begins: ‘It’s not just God’s promises in general that’s in view in the psalm. The “lens” is zoomed in further to specifically God’s promise to take care of the needy.’

      Indeed! KJVO twist Psalm 12:7 to CUT OUT THE PROMISE OF MESSIAH. Clever wordplay with Hebrew qum, in verse 5, ties to the prophetic names in the priestly courses of the Hebrew calendar, and THEY tie to Messiah’s birthday prediction in Haggai 2.

      So God’s promise is indeed to the needy — us — tits’rennu, David’s APPLICATION at the time of writing. It’s echoed in the Sermon on the Mount, which thus ‘talks back to’ Psalm 12.

      All this meaning is DELETED by the KJVO contention. So along with four other Youtubers of different sects, I did quick exegetical videos on Psalm 12:7 in context, beginning here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JkinjVcYOs . The exegesis finishes at Episode 2i of the playlist. Off-Youtube: http://www.brainout.net/SatStrat2.htm#KJVO . (To select among Episodes, click on mail slot at right of Play button.)

      Yet there’s more on this ‘tie’ to Psalm 12, which I just learned. Oh, I should first explain. Although my ‘brainouty’ Youtube channel has a comic look, I specialize in exegetical videos, using BibleWorks live onscreen. Some videos are on topics unknown to Christendom, such as Bible’s own rhetorical style of Meter, used to make His words memorable, and test proper remembrance; but above all, the meter is used to remind Jews of an EXACT TIMELINE to Messiah’s then-scheduled death, based on how God constructs Time.

      For example, Hebrew meter in Psalm 90 is perfect; by meter, it summarizes God’s ‘Ages’ (Jewish Dispensationalism) from Adam forward, accounting sabbatically by ‘voting period’ (seventy years). So Moses ties AHEAD to Psalm 12:5 (esp. in Ps90:16-17).

      Isaiah 53′s Hebrew meter is also perfect, and plays off Moses’. Agenda is RETROSPECTIVE on Psalm 12:5′s promise. Videos showing the meter and meaning are many (yikes), embedded with my http://www.brainout.net/BibleHebrewMeter.htm .

      I didn’t fully see the Psalm 12 connection until just now: both Moses and Isaiah play off the ‘qum’ in Psalm 12:5, so that means David uses it to play off Moses Psalm 90:17 (soundplay between qun and qum, also done in the priestly courses David was caused to invent)!

      Moral of the Story: All this unknown-but-provable DOCTRINE would be forever lost, if we bought into the kant that God couldn’t keep his Original Words, but ooops had to go to English 1600 years later.

      So THANK YOU for defending the Integrity of God which the KJVO, all malign — GOD GOT IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME; our task is to learn those words. And they are as easy to learn, as any other language. Five year old Jewish or Greek kids can do them; using 1John1:9 any adult can learn them even more quickly, too.

      Finally, Bible repeatedly tells you how to know what’s ‘inspired’: God promised to preserve ONLY His Original Words, in order to fulfill Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is the focus of the Book of Hebrews. Peter explained that, in 2 Peter 1:21: THE MEN, whatever languages THEY spoke, are inspired by God, so what THEY write is the ‘inspired text’. Never says that about translation. So we even must be wary of the LXX, except for the parts quoted or alluded to in the NT (which is most of the text). Pretty easy to tell what parts of the LXX are bogus, though.

      That’s why Rev 22:16-21 warns us to never add or subtract from the WORDS of ‘this book’, meaning the whole Bible text, not just Revelation. (Greek ‘propheteias’ means ‘inspired words’ see Thayer, Bauer Danker, Friberg lexicons for the Hebrew equivalents.) It’s another synonymal catchphrase often used in the OT, like ‘neither to the right or the left’, ‘hear the words and be careful to obey them’, etc. KJVO would do well to heed that warning.

      Jealousy that God gave His Text through the JEWS is no excuse for the claim of replacement ‘inspired’ texts so that everyone can have his own ‘special’ Bible, waaaahhhh!

  20. Bob Hayton says:

    Let’s not be commenting about other’s posts being “fluff” or other such things. Keep the debate civil.

    Thanks for the interaction from everyone. My time is limited this week for blog matters, unfortunately.

  21. greg says:

    I learn an awful lot on this site, and I am somewhat familiar with Kutilek’s work, and I can’t even begin to rival the knowledge, ref to the work of translation that I see on exhibited this site. It appears clearly to me that Kutilek and others commentors have completely obliterated any idea of the kjv being “purified seven times” nonsense. Now I want to be careful and not go against the rules of commenting here but it appears you are giving Ruckman wayyyyyy too much consideration. I am sure that most folks here know of the crazy things he espouses so I won’t mention all of them now. Now here’s my comment that might not let this get posted. By addressing Ruckman’s silliness, you are acting like he has any validity at all, which I contend he does not. Peter Ruckman has done much harm to the body of Christ.

    Greg

    • Bob Hayton says:

      I agree with you Greg. And your rhetoric and tone here weren’t bad at all. Steve disagrees obviously. Yes purified seven times refers to the word of God, but not to seven purifications leading to the KJV, that’s certainly read into the text.

  22. Steven Avery says:

    Hi Folks,

    Greg, the real questions are simple.

    a) Does purified seven times refer to the word of God ? Sure, even Origen in 200 AD knew that.

    b) And is the KJB the pure word of God. Many here say, surely, yes.

    Beyond that is simply interpretation, a way of looking at the textual history. Clearly nobody who rejects (b) would accept any such interpretation.

    As for Peter Ruckman, as a textual theorist he is historically very significant, as a scholar he was reasonable but somewhat dated, as for other issues, they are auxiliary at most, since Peter Ruckman did not develop a new Bible text, he simply gave arguments for the Bible in hand as the pure and perfect word of God.

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

Staypressed theme by Themocracy