PURE BUT NEVER PURIFIED!
Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD
are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified
Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is
pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
I have before me a portion of an article
which recently came to our mail box. I want you to read it just
as it appeared in the paper. I have framed it here in order that
there be no question as to exactly what was in the paper in
note --: Gods word purified seven times, Psalm
A Hebrew O. T.
Written in Hebrew (1500-389 B. C.)
Parts of the
Hebrew O. T. Written in Aramaic (1500-500 B. C.)
A N. T. Written
in Koine Greek street language (40-90 A. D.)
An Old Syriac
translation of those texts into Syrian (120-150
An Old Latin
translation of those texts into Latin (140-200 A.
translation of those texts for the beginning of
the Reformation (1500-1560 A. D.)
English translation (A. V. 1611) for the end of
the Reformation (1525-1611 A. D.)"
If the significance and seriousness of
this error has not already registered with you, let me define the
word purify. The writer speaks of God's word having
been purified seven times and bases his statements and steps of
purification on one of our texts. Psalm 12:6 The words of
the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth,
purified seven times. Notice that it is not the word of God
that is purified seven times. Rather the purity of the word is illustrated by the
purifying of silver by putting it to the fire seven times to
remove every bit of the dross.
What does the word purify mean?
According to my unabridged Webster's it means, "to make
pure, to free from anything that debases, pollutes, adulterates,
or contaminates; to purify metals. To free from foreign or
objectionable elements: to purify a language. To free from guilt
or evil. To clear or purge. To make clean for ceremonial or
ritual use. To become pure." To suggest that the word of God
needed purifying seven times is to suggest that it was very
impure in the beginning and it had to go through the repeated
steps outlined in the article before it reached its pure state in
1611 A. D.
The word purify is used 14
times in 13 verses in the KJV. In every instance it means to
purify something or cleanse something that is unclean or in the
case of metals it means to refine by melting and skimming off the
dross and other foreign matters. I will not give all the
references here for the sake of time and space. But, notice these
three examples. The word is first used in Numbers 19:12 He
shall purify himself with it on the third day, and on the seventh
day he shall be clean: but if he purify not himself the third
day, then the seventh day he shall not be clean. It is
obvious that here the word has reference to someone who was
impure. One who was perfectly pure could not be purified. Another
good example is found in Malachi 3:3 And he shall sit as a
refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of
Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto
the LORD an offering in righteousness. They could not
offer an offering in righteousness in their polluted state so God
must purify them. The third example is equally indicative of the
meaning of the word purify. Titus 2:14 Who gave himself for
us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto
himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. We were
all guilty of sin and iniquity. We must be purified if we were to
be the special people of God. Let me give a fourth verse. James
4:8 Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your
hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded. The
other ten times the word is used are equally indicative of the
meaning of this word. It never speaks of purifying something that
is already perfectly pure. The exact opposite is true. It speaks
of purifying that which is sinful, guilty, polluted, or has dross
mixed with it, as in the case of precious metals. You could as
easily make God more godly as to purify something or someone who
is perfectly pure. The declaration that Gods word was
purified seven times means that the person writing that
considered it to be very impure in its origin. Those holy men of
God (II Pet. 1:21) wrote a polluted, impure book, according to
this man and it must be purified.
The word purified is used 12
times in 11 verses in the KJV and in every instance it speaks of
something or someone that was impure and was purified by some
prescribed means. The first instance of this word in the KJV has
to do with purifying the altar. Before any of the vessels of the
house of God, the tabernacle, could be used they had to be
purified, sanctified for holy use. Leviticus 8:15 And he
slew it; and Moses took the blood, and put it upon the horns of
the altar round about with his finger, and purified the altar,
and poured the blood at the bottom of the altar, and sanctified
it, to make reconciliation upon it. In the New Testament
the word is used three times. I will note only one. 1 Peter
1:22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth
through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that
ye love one another with a pure heart fervently. Again,
every instance in which the word purified is used
in the KJV it indicates something (or someone) that is polluted
and needs purging, something that is impure and needs purifying.
It is never used to speak of something that is perfectly pure
that is altered in some way.
The word purifieth is found
two times in the KJV and in each instance it speaks of someone
who is unclean and impure who purifies himself. It speaks of
someone, under the Law, who touched a dead body and does not
purify himself and consequently he defiled the tabernacle if he
went into or about it. Numbers 19:13 Whosoever toucheth the
dead body of any man that is dead, and purifieth not himself,
defileth the tabernacle of the LORD; and that soul shall be cut
off from Israel: because the water of separation was not
sprinkled upon him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet
upon him. He is unclean and defiled and needs to be
purified. If he does not purify himself he consequently defiles
the temple and his uncleanness stays upon him. Of the second
coming of Christ and our being conformed to his likeness, John
wrote, "And every man that hath this hope in him
purifieth himself, even as he is pure" (1 John 3:3). Notice
that it is not Christ who is purified. It is the believer who
purifies himself because he has the hope of being made like
Christ at his coming. Christ is absolutely and perfectly pure. He
needs no purifying any more than the precious word which the Holy
Spirit inspired holy men of God to write needs purifying.
None of these three words are ever used to
speak of something or someone that is already pure, clean, or, in
the case of metals, already refined to its highest degree. They
are used to speak of something or someone who is impure, unclean
and unrefined being purified by a prescribed process.
The suggestion that God's word must go
through seven purifying steps to become perfectly pure is a
reproach against God. It discredits the Holy Spirit. And, it
demeans the work of those holy men of God who wrote the original
manuscripts. The writer to whom I have referred goes on to make
this charge, "Critics of the AV 1611 (1769) King James Bible
by their attacks on the Bible, destroy the faith of anyone, who
really believes that the Bible is infallible and the Word of God
for the English speaking people." But, is it not much
more destructive to the faith of people to teach that God gave
and his inspired men wrote a book that was filled with dross,
impurities, and imperfections that had to be corrected and
purified seven times to finally come up with an infallible Bible?
Is it not more destructive to the faith of believers to teach
that the King James translators achieved a state of perfection
that was above what the Holy Spirit and those holy men of God
achieved? Is it not pure, unadulterated heresy to teach that the
original manuscripts inspired by the Holy Spirit and penned by
Holy men of God as they were moved by the Holy Spirit were filled
with dross, impurities, and uncleanness? It amazes me
that these folks think they can charge those who hold positions
such as mine with destroying the faith of believers in the Bible,
yet think they can assualt the original manuscripts, those which
came straight from God to holy men who wrote them, and declare
them impure and in need of purification and corrrection without
destroying the faith of any. Is it not much more serious to
declare that Peter, Paul, Isaiah, Moses and others, though
inspired and superintended by the Holy Spirit, recorded words
that needed correction and purification?
Consider this. David declared that the
word of God written by him and those before him was pure. If it
needed purifying, as was indicated in the article being
critiqued, David was a liar when he said the word was pure, and
very pure. Psalm 119:140 Thy word is very
pure: therefore thy servant loveth it. Oh, No! David. It will be A D 1611 before Gods
word will be pure and very pure. What you and those inspired men
before you have written is filled with dross and must be purified
several times before it will reach perfection.
If the word of God must be purified as our
writer claims it had to be, then Solomon lied when he wrote that
it was pure several centuries before A D 1611. That wise man was
either ignorant and not inspired or the Holy Spirit who inspired
him was ignorant when he inspired him to write that the word of
God was pure. Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he
is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Solomon
and the Holy Spirit thought the word of God was pure back there,
centuries before the A V 1611 came along. They did not know it
must experience several purifications before becoming infallible.
Several purifications it must experience before every word would
I do not mean to be harsh. I certainly
would not be irreverent in my treatment of this matter. It is
serious business. I am trying to get you, Dear Reader, to see the
illimitable folly of this idea that the word of God was given in
an impure, adulterated, polluted form and was brought from that
state into a state of purity and perfection by the seven alleged
purifications set forth by the article written by a
Sovereign Grace Baptist editor!
The Bible is a God-breathed book in its
original manuscripts. pasa grafh qeopneustoz, wrote the Apostle
Paul. The word qeopneustoz literally translates God-breathed.
Is it not unmitigated blasphemy to even infer that God
breathed out a lot of impurities, dross, and imperfections when
he originally sent forth his word and that it took several
different translations to get it purified from its original
My subject is GOD'S WORD PURE BUT NEVER PURIFIED. I will give several arguments which show the word of
God, as originally written by prophets and apostles was pure and
did not need to be purified.
THE UNWAVERING TESTIMONY OF THE WRITERS OF THE BIBLE THAT GOD'S
WORD WAS PURE FROM THE BEGINNING AND DID NOT NEED TO BE PURIFIED
Solomon declared in his day that every
word of God is pure. Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is
pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
There was no question in the mind of this wise and inspired man.
He was convinced and he was inspired to declare that every last
word of God was pure then. Every word he wrote, every word his
father, David, wrote, every word Moses and Joshua wrote, every
word was a pure word without any purification. The word of
God is pure but never purified.
David, on a number of occasions,
proclaimed the original purity of the word of God. He declared
the words of the Lord to be pure like silver that had gone
through the most thorough purification and refining process which
took seven firings. Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are
pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven
times. I have pointed it out before and I do it again.
What this verse says was purified seven times was the pure silver
to which the pure words of God are compared. It was not
Gods words that were purified seven times. It is sad when
someone is so desperate to prove a point that he will do such
violence to a verse in wresting it to support his point.
David confirmed that the word of the Lord
had stood the test of purity and was certain. Psalm 18:30
As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he
is a buckler to all those that trust in him. Gods
way is perfect and it would not be if he had given a Bible that
was filled with error, dross, impurities, and heresy and would
not be purified for centuries after he gave it.
David affirmed that the word of the Lord
is right and pure, so much so that it rejoices the heart and
enlightens the eyes. Psalm 19:8 The statutes of the LORD
are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is
pure, enlightening the eyes. How could a polluted, impure
word of God enlighten the eyes? No way! Only the pure,
unadulterated, holy word of God could enlighten the spiritual
eyes. David would tell us unequivocally, "The word of
God is pure, never purified."
David declared the word of the Lord to be
very pure in its original state, before it had gone through any alleged
purification steps. Psalm 119:140 Thy word is very
pure: therefore thy servant loveth it. Some would have us
believe that David should have been more honest. He should have
written, "Thy word will someday be pure."
What of New Testament writers? They used
the Septuagint as their Old Testament. Paul certainly considered
the word of God to be pure and holy and good. Romans 7:12
Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just,
The law of the Lord is so perfect that it
converts the soul and so sure that it makes the simple wise. Psalm
19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the
testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. And,
My Friends, that has been true throughout its history. It was
true in the days of David. It is true today. Did the world have a
perfect Bible before A D 1611? Most certainly! Absolutely!
Some believe the book of Job to be the
oldest book of the Bible. If that be true, when Job penned the
first sentence of that book he had one sentence of the pure word
of God, the perfect word of God, the unadulterated word of God.
As each book was penned the pure word of God moved closer to
completion but never closer to purity. It was
infinitely pure, has always been infinitely pure, and will always
be infinitely pure.
CHARACTER, NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD SHOW THAT HE WOULD NOT
GIVE FORTH HIS WORD WITH MUCH DROSS AND MANY ERRORS IN IT THAT
WOULD NEED TO BE REMOVED THROUGH SEVERAL PURIFICATIONS
God is righteous in all his ways and holy
in all he does and he was holy when he sent forth his holy and
pure word. Psalm 145:17 The LORD is righteous in all his
ways, and holy in all his works. The Bible is a work of
God and his work was perfect from the beginning. Deuteronomy
32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are
judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is
This verse declares the work of God to be
perfect. Was the Bible a work of God as it was given or did it
have to wait until 1611 to be his work? He cannot be the author
of any work that is not perfect. If the Bible was impure and
imperfect, as the article mentioned declares, then God is not its
author for all his work is absolutely perfect.
This verse declares all his ways to be
judgment, right down the line correct. They are exact. They are
not open to question.
This verse declares him to be a God of
truth without iniquity. Wait! Do you mean, Moses, that God never
lies? That there is no iniquity in him? How can you say he is a
God of truth if he sent forth an impure, adulterated Bible? This
verse was written long before the various translations that were
supposed to be steps in the purifying of the Bible were ever
made. Evidently Moses would support our contention that the word
of God was and is pure but never purified.
It has suddenly occurred to me, as I sit
here writing, that this explains the objections that some have to
our appeals to the Greek and Hebrew. They would object even if we
had the originals because some, along with our writer, consider
the originals and the best copies of the original Greek and
Hebrew to be spurious, polluted, and adulterated.
TREATMENT OF THE WORD OF GOD REVEALS THAT HE CONSIDERED IT TO BE
PURE IN ITS ORIGINAL STATE
Jesus considered the Bible to be words
that proceeded directly from the mouth of God. Matthew 4:4
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by
bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth
of God. As I have said before, and as the KJV translators
declared in their message to the readers of their translation,
the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament are taken
from the Septuagint. Jesus and his Apostles considered the
Septuagint to be the word of God. I noticed that our writer left
the Septuagint out of his list. Why, when it is evident that it
was referred to by Jesus, Paul, and others in the New Testament?
One of my sources is the KJV translators themselves.
In each of the temptations set before him
Jesus appealed to the pure word of God for his answer to Satan.
If it was impure, why would the pure Son of God use it and quote
it as the very words that proceeded from the mouth of God?
The unbelieving Jews, in the days of
Christs earthly ministry, used the Septuagint. I doubt any
will dispute that. Was the Septuagint which they studied and
searched to be considered the Word of God? Apparently Jesus
thought so for he said to them, John 5:39 Search the
scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they
are they which testify of me.
Jesus was so confident that the word of
God was pure that he declared that his death and all its details
would be exactly as written in the word of God. Matthew
26:24 The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto
that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for
that man if he had not been born. He expected his trial,
his crucifixion, his treatment by his tormentors to be exactly as
set forth in the word of God. No variation! No detail left out!
He would go just as the prophets had declared he would. The only
way he could have said such was if the word of God was pure when
given and pure when translated by the Seventy who translated the
Jesus considered the word of God to be so
pure and perfect that he was convinced and declared to others
that everything written of him in it must come to pass. Luke
24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake
unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be
fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the
prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Everything
written in the law concerning Christ must be fulfilled.
Everything written in the prophets must be fulfilled. Everything
written in the Psalms must be fulfilled.
If those books were still in an imperfect
state with a lot of dross and error in them and their
purification would not be complete for another 1600 years, how
could he be certain that every prophecy would be fulfilled, every
type would be fulfilled, every Psalm would be fulfilled? Where
was the dross if none was found in these areas of the Bible?
Jesus declared the word of God to be truth
and he did not mean the AV 1611 KJV. It is truth, but that is not
what he had in mind. If the Bible had not been pure in its
original giving, it could not have been declared to be truth.
Jesus would have had to say, "Thy word contains truth,
but we will have to wait until King James gets his translation to
be able to say it is truth."
APPEAL THAT MEN OF GOD MADE TO SCRIPTURE IN SUPPORT OF THINGS
THEY DID OR SAID IS EVIDENCE THAT THEY CONSIDERED THE WORD OF GOD
TO BE PURE
Joshua appealed to the writings of Moses
in support of things he taught the people to do. Joshua
8:31 As Moses the servant of the LORD commanded the children of
Israel, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses, an
altar of whole stones, over which no man hath lift up any iron:
and they offered thereon burnt offerings unto the LORD, and
sacrificed peace offerings.
In his charge to Solomon, David appealed
to the Scriptures in a manner that revealed he considered them
pure and perfect. 1 Kings 2:3 And keep the charge of the
LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, to keep his statutes, and his
commandments, and his judgments, and his testimonies, as it is
written in the law of Moses, that thou mayest prosper in all that
thou doest, and whithersoever thou turnest thyself.
In the days of Ezra they followed the
written word in their sacrifices and offerings. Ezra 3:2-4
Then stood up Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and his brethren the
priests, and Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and his brethren,
and builded the altar of the God of Israel, to offer burnt
offerings thereon, as it is written in the law of Moses the man
of God. And they set the altar upon his bases; for fear was upon
them because of the people of those countries: and they offered
burnt offerings thereon unto the LORD, even burnt offerings
morning and evening. They kept also the feast of tabernacles, as
it is written, and offered the daily burnt offerings by number,
according to the custom, as the duty of every day required.
The services of the temple were observed
just as it was written in the book of Moses. Ezra 6:18 And
they set the priests in their divisions, and the Levites in their
courses, for the service of God, which is at Jerusalem; as it is
written in the book of Moses.
When Philip was speaking to the Ethiopian
eunuch the man was reading from the prophet Isaiah. He had been
to Jerusalem to worship. He was, doubtless, reading from the
Septuagint (KJV translators being witnesses). Yet,
Philip did not hesitate to take that book and preach Christ to
the man. If you can or could read the Greek of the Septuagint,
would you be willing to use it to preach Christ as Philip did?
Now, since Gods preachers are to preach the word of God, we
must conclude that Philip considered the Septuagint to be
Gods word and did not hesitate to use it when preaching the
gospel to this man.
Eighty times the expression, it is
written, is found in the Bible indicating the belief of
those Godly men back there that the word of God was true, and
pure, and holy, and perfect, and needed no purification.
DETAILS OF HOW THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN PROVE IT TO BE PURE AND NOT
IN NEED OF PURIFICATION BY ANY TRANSLATION
It is literally a God-breathed book and
must therefore be pure. 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is
given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for
reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
God did not just suggest things and then his prophets write it
and inject a lot of their own ideas in so that it must be
purified seven times before we would have the pure word of God.
God did not throw out a bunch of things
for the men to write that would be comparable to mined ore which
contained silver and a lot of dross also. His word, when given
originally contained no dross, no impurities, no imperfections.
It was the pure, unadulterated word of God. It was pure and
would never need to be purified!
Holy men of God spoke as the Holy Spirit
moved them and thus came down the inspired, pure and holy word of
God. 2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by
the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by
the Holy Ghost. The Bible, in its original manuscripts,
did not come by the will of man, but the will of God. It was not
written by deceitful men but by Holy men of God. Those men did
not write what they pleased but were moved by the Holy Ghost in
their writings. And, according to Peter, it was more reliable
than a vision or a voice speaking from heaven. Apparently Peter
did not feel it was filled with dross which would require several
purifications to reach a state of purity.
Since the Spirit breathed the word and
moved men to write under his direct control and supervision,
there is no way a less than pure Bible in need of being "purified
seven times" would have been the product of His
THAT GOD'S WORD MUST BE PURIFIED SEVEN TIMES BEFORE IT IS THE
PURE AND PERFECT WORD OF GOD CARRIES SOME AWFUL INFERENCES WITH
It is a blasphemous attack upon the work
of the Holy Spirit and those Holy men of God who penned the
original manuscripts. It is a disgraceful implication that no one
had a pure Bible until A D 1611. It is a despicable insult to the
Holy Spirit and an unfounded exaltation of King James to suggest
that King James was able to get his Church of England translators
to produce what the Holy Spirit could not get the Old Testament
Jewish writers or the Baptist writers of the New Testament to
produceľa pure Bible.
It is an insult to all those godly saints
before 1611 who ignorantly thought they had the pure word of God.
If the Bible had to be purified seven times to reach perfection
in the AV 1611 KJV then no one before that time had the pure word
It makes liars of all those writers of the
original manuscripts when they claimed they were writing the pure
word of God when, according to the article cited above, it did
not reach infallible purity until 1611. It makes God a fool for
before the Bible was even complete and before there were any
translations he had already magnified his word above all his name
even though, according to this erring brother, that word which
our great and holy God had so magnified was filled with flaws,
dross, and impurities which would not be removed for centuries to
come. Psalm 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple,
and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for
thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
I contend that the word of God, as it
flowed from the pen of those holy, inspired men of old was
perfectly pure, perfectly holy, perfectly infallible, perfectly
the word of God. Translations could never improve upon it. If
translations changed it in even one iota, they did not change it
for the better. You cannot purify that which is perfectly pure.
When I hold the KJV in my hand I have no
problem declaring it to be the word of God. There are some other
worthy translations that I have no problem declaring to be the
word of God though I never use anything but a 1769 KJV to preach
from and rarely consult anything else but a Greek New Testament
when I am studying.
With full knowledge that I will be
attacked and caviled for what I am about to say, I will say it
anyway. I believe a sincere, devout, prayerful child of God,
especially a member of one of the Lords true churches, can
take nearly any translation and by study, and faithfully
comparing Scripture with Scripture, he can learn the truth. I
agree with the translators of the A V 1611 "that the
very meanest translation of the Bible . . . is the word of
God." I ask you, Dear Reader, do you agree with the A
V 1611 translators? Or, were they in error when they said
that. Here is the complete statement. "Wee doe not
deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation
of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for
wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet)
containeth the word of God, nay is the word of
A history of the translating of the KJV
reveals that they divided into groups and each man in the group
would translate the same verses as every other man in the group.
Then they would meet together to hash out the differences in
their translations. When each group had translated their assigned
area they would all meet and if they had translations upon which
the entire body of translators (54 men were nominated to do the
work but only 47 were known to have participated) could not
agree, they would send the disputed section to learned men in the
land and ask for their opinion. Does that sound like the work of
inspired men or simply men who are trying to get a good
translation? Paul conferred not with flesh and blood about things
inspired by God. The rules which they set down called for the use
of other English translations, namely, Tindolls,
Matthews, Coverdales, Whitchurchs and the
Geneva. They confess they did not hesitate to use these other
translations and considered them to be good translations.
I am currently researching the history and
accounts of the translation of the AV 1611. In the not too
distant future, I will be writing more material on this subject.
I am also compiling a list of questions which I will submit for
your consideration. A few of those appear here.
Did the KJV translators err in their
assessment of other translations? Did they err when they denied
inspiration for their translations? Did they err when they said
the Septuagint was the Word of God? Did they err when they
suggested that there might be some things in any translation that
was halting, superfluous, or not so agreeable to the original,
that it might need correcting? Did they err in admitting that
they often altered, ammended, and corrected their translations?
Will it be destructive to the faith of young believers if we tell
them that the KJV 1611 translators admitted to "altering,
amending, and correcting" their translations? Were
the KJV 1611 translators in error when they encouraged "the
Reader to seeke further," to go beyond their translation and
study Biblical words and language for themselves, rather than
dogmatize as many are doing? (More later!)
Return to Index Page for Past Issues
of The Grace Proclamator and Promulgator
CENTRAL BAPTIST CHURCH HOME PAGE
Last updated on
Friday, March 04, 2011