Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

The Purification Approach To The Kjv


2T3:16

Recommended Posts

  • Members

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

 

There are people that believe that this is prophetic with regards to the KJV. They feel that the various printings are purifications (for example some think the Oxford 1769 printing is one purification) and that there will be a final error free printing. So AV 1611 would be the first .... Oxford 1769 another ... etc.

That is, the KJV was complete and perfect from the beginning but there is a purification process with the printed representations of the KJV that will result in a jot and tittle perfect printed text after the seventh printing. What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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

 

There are people that believe that this is prophetic with regards to the KJV. They feel that the various printings are purifications (for example some think the Oxford 1769 printing is one purification) and that there will be a final error free printing. So AV 1611 would be the first .... Oxford 1769 another ... etc.

That is, the KJV was complete and perfect from the beginning but there is a purification process with the printed representations of the KJV that will result in a jot and tittle perfect printed text after the seventh printing. What do you think?

I never heard the teaching applied to the various editions of the KJV or companies involved in printing the KJV. It has been applied to the seven major English versions of the bible culminating in the KJV.

 

1) Tyndale's

 

2) Matthew's

 

3) Coverdale's

 

4) Great Bible

 

5) Geneva

 

6) Bishop's

 

7) King James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I never heard the teaching applied to the various editions of the KJV or companies involved in printing the KJV. It has been applied to the seven major English versions of the bible culminating in the KJV.

 

1) Tyndale's

 

2) Matthew's

 

3) Coverdale's

 

4) Great Bible

 

5) Geneva

 

6) Bishop's

 

7) King James

If this or the other were to be true then in order for the Word to be consistent, the same would have to apply for each translation into each language.

 

Psalm 12:6 is simply making an emphatic statement as to the purity, the sureness, the trustworthiness of the Word of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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

 

There are people that believe that this is prophetic with regards to the KJV. They feel that the various printings are purifications (for example some think the Oxford 1769 printing is one purification) and that there will be a final error free printing. So AV 1611 would be the first .... Oxford 1769 another ... etc.

That is, the KJV was complete and perfect from the beginning but there is a purification process with the printed representations of the KJV that will result in a jot and tittle perfect printed text after the seventh printing. What do you think?

I think it is balony.  :biggrin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If this or the other were to be true then in order for the Word to be consistent, the same would have to apply for each translation into each language.

 

Psalm 12:6 is simply making an emphatic statement as to the purity, the sureness, the trustworthiness of the Word of God.

Not necessarily. The argument is that God wasn't obligated to preserve his word in every language. Just like the original inspiration of scripture only came in one language, i.e. koine Greek, (talking NT here) then God was only obligated to preserve it in one language, i.e. English. The argument is carried further by saying that since koine Greek is a dead language and English is the "universal language" then logically that would be the language God chose to purify and preserve his word. Also, the fact that the English bible has produced the most fruit the last 500 years would confirm the position that it's the preserved word of God.

 

A lot of this is hard to prove. Really, it can't be proven scripturally only practically and perhaps through through mss research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Not necessarily. The argument is that God wasn't obligated to preserve his word in every language. Just like the original inspiration of scripture only came in one language, i.e. koine Greek, (talking NT here) then God was only obligated to preserve it in one language, i.e. English. The argument is carried further by saying that since koine Greek is a dead language and English is the "universal language" then logically that would be the language God chose to purify and preserve his word. Also, the fact that the English bible has produced the most fruit the last 500 years would confirm the position that it's the preserved word of God.

 

A lot of this is hard to prove. Really, it can't be proven scripturally only practically and perhaps through through mss research.

That doesn't seem to hold water. Scripture doesn't say God's Word will only be preserved in one language. While the KJB has a solid track record, translations in other languages do too.

 

Actually the universal language is American English, certainly not the kings English from over 500 years ago, so that point doesn't fit. There is also the point that American English is slipping from it's top spot, just as the American dollar is slipping.

 

In any event, in its context, Psalm 12:6 is simply making an emphatic statement as to the purity, the sureness, the trustworthiness of the Word of God; not putting forth a formula for the translation of the Word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That doesn't seem to hold water. Scripture doesn't say God's Word will only be preserved in one language. While the KJB has a solid track record, translations in other languages do too.

 

Actually the universal language is American English, certainly not the kings English from over 500 years ago, so that point doesn't fit. There is also the point that American English is slipping from it's top spot, just as the American dollar is slipping.

 

In any event, in its context, Psalm 12:6 is simply making an emphatic statement as to the purity, the sureness, the trustworthiness of the Word of God; not putting forth a formula for the translation of the Word.

Yes, but the argument of the bible correctors is that God only inspired his word in the "original languages" and therefore they keep the words of God bound up in a dead language that not even the Greeks speak or read anymore and which only they (the bible correctors) can truly understand. Which of course none of them can agree on (they are always adding or changing the meaning of the Greek words). The bible linguists become like priests at the Latin Mass speaking a dead language nobody can understand and the "layman" waits for them to explain the true meaning of the words.

 

 So what is the difference between what they teach and what this teaching is. Where does it say in scripture that God only could give his word or preserve his word without error in the original languages (notice I didn't say "original manuscripts/autographs" because now they say "original languages/ tongues" which is not quite the same)?

 

As far as the "American English" vs the King's English I think you are splitting hairs here. They are still both modern English, the KJV being Early Modern English. English is far from slipping. Even now the Chinese are making it a mandatory language to learn in their schools and France has apparently spent billions of euros to get people to learn their language as opposed to English but people still choose English. It's the language of the UN, the Olympics and universal travel. The dollar might slip and America might crumble but the language will be around until the Second Coming.

 

You might be right about Psalm 12:6 being a emphatic statement or a Hebrew expression concerning purity, but than again maybe not. I'm not really sure which it is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't know enough of any other language to check these matters myself. A few folks that I know, and trust, who can, speak of some translations they know in other languages as being the preserved Word of God just as they believe the KJB is. They will readily point out that there are some translations in some languages that are poor translations, naturally they don't see these as the preserved Word of God any more than they do the corrupted English MVs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I never heard the teaching applied to the various editions of the KJV or companies involved in printing the KJV. It has been applied to the seven major English versions of the bible culminating in the KJV.

 

1) Tyndale's

 

2) Matthew's

 

3) Coverdale's

 

4) Great Bible

 

5) Geneva

 

6) Bishop's

 

7) King James

In the following video a similar list is given at 3 min 39 seconds then at 4 min 42 seconds he gives a list of King James Bible revisions claiming the last on the list is the final purification, I'll type his list here:

 

1) 1611 He

 

2) 1611 She

 

3) 1613

 

4) Cambridge 1629

 

5) Cambridge 1638

 

6) Oxford 1769

 

7) Pure Cambridge Edition

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

In the following video a similar list is given at 3 min 39 seconds then at 4 min 42 seconds he gives a list of King James Bible revisions claiming the last on the list is the final purification, I'll type his list here:

 

1) 1611 He

 

2) 1611 She

 

3) 1613

 

4) Cambridge 1629

 

5) Cambridge 1638

 

6) Oxford 1769

 

7) Pure Cambridge Edition

 

1. "or Sheba" not "and Sheba" in Joshua 19:2 
2. "sin" not "sins" in 2 Chronicles 33:19 
3. "Spirit of God" not "spirit of God" in Job 33:4 
4. "whom ye" not "whom he" in Jeremiah 34:16 
5. "Spirit of God" not "spirit of God" in Ezekiel 11:24 
6. "flieth" not "fleeth" in Nahum 3:16 
7. "Spirit" not "spirit" in Matthew 4:1 
8. "further" not "farther" in Matthew 26:39 
9. "bewrayeth" not "betrayeth" in Matthew 26:73 
10. "Spirit" not "spirit" in Mark 1:12 
11. "spirit" not "Spirit" in Acts 11:28 
12. "spirit" not "Spirit" in 1 John 5:8 

 

Sorry, but I don't see either one as being in error.

 

For example:

 

"Bewray" is just an archaic word meaning "betray".

 

The root of the English word "flee" means to "fly".

 

"Spirit" or "spirit"? Really, either can be used. In I John 5:8 the "spirit" that bears testimony on earth is the regenerated spirit of man through the Spirit of God. If you doubt this check out John 3 where Jesus speaks of the "water and the Spirit".

 

 "Sin" or "sins". We all know that the word "sin" can also refer to sins collectively like in the statement, "Christ bore my sin on the cross". Well, Christ bore all my sins on the cross (John 1:29)..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Actually, I found a total 14 distinguishing "marks" on his website. Then I checked them against 8 texts (2 local church/ministry supported King James Bibles, KJV 1611, 1637 Cambridge, 1728 KJV published by Baskett, 1769 Oxford,  1840 KJV edition published for the American Bible Society, and an original 1909 Scofield) How about I post them on separate threads one at a time? Some may be interested because most contemporary King James Bibles differ here:

Joshua 19:2, 2 Chron 33:19, Ezra 2:26, Job 30:6, Job 33:4, Jer 34:16, Ezek 11:24, Nahum 3:16, Matt 4:1, Matt 26:39, Matt 26:73, Mark 1:12, Acts 11:28, and 1 John 5:8

 

One reason this is important is explained in this slightly long (36 min) video:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Members

To imply what one person has decided is pure, the "PCE" is to infer that all other KJV Bibles are not.   Nonsense. 

One person building an Ark was nonsense too. But I am with the Ark builder. Some things are spiritually discerned and between the individual and God. To say Pure in refence to Psalms refers "purified 7 times over" as being prophetic. If some believe that then what is that to thee?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

One person building an Ark was nonsense too. But I am with the Ark builder. Some things are spiritually discerned and between the individual and God. To say Pure in refence to Psalms refers "purified 7 times over" as being prophetic. If some believe that then what is that to thee?

 

That person was directed by God and I don't think it was nonsense.  When an uneducated person decides what is pure that is nonsense.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...