The King James Bible: The Seventh Purification?

A popular argument used by King James onlyists, especially by Ruckmanites and dual inspirationists, is that the King James Version of the Bible is in the seventh purification of Scripture. This argument goes like this: The King James Bible is the seventh English translation, and fits the "purified seven times" of Psalm 12:6-7. Some radical proponents of this position go as far as to say that English is the seventh main language of Bible translation. Additionally, some claim that, of the KJV editions, the 1900 Pure Cambridge Edition is the seventh purification of the KJV. When you take the most radical of views regarding this doctrine, you get the seventh language being English, the seventh translation being the KJV, and the seventh KJV being that of the PCE.

However, this argument is a gross twisting of the Scriptures. I am a King James onlyist, so I write this as an admonition to brethren who use, and have used, this bad argument for our English Bible. There are a couple of points I want to make in this article.

1) This is Not What Psalm 12:6-7 is Saying

Let's begin by examining the passage in question.

"[6] The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. [7] Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." (Psalm 12:6-7)

It nowhere mentions a "purification process" where the seventh will be the pure Scriptures. In fact, that would imply that the Words the Psalmist had were not pure, as he didn't have a "seventh purification" copy. The verse simply compares the purity of the Words of God to the purity of seven-times-purified silver. To twist the verse into anything more is handling the Word of God flippantly and eisegetically.

Now, understand me, Psalm 12:6-7 promises the preservation of Scripture. However, to claim it's a promise of a seventh edition of the seventh translation in a seventh language is not right. Below, I explain how the KJV is not even the seventh translation into English.

2) The King James Bible is Not the Seventh English Translation of the Bible

Despite what many think, the King James Bible is not the seventh translation of the Scriptures into English (or the first, for good measure!). We have the Tyndale (1), Coverdale (2), Matthew's (3), Taverner's (4), Great/Large (5), Geneva (6), Bishops' (7), and the Douay-Rheims (8), all before the Authorized Version. If we include Wycliffe (which, for the sake of argument, we will not be using in our rebuttal), you have nine English Bibles before 1611.

I can already sense the flags being raised. "The Douay-Rheims isn't a valid translation; it comes from the Latin Vulgate!" If we exclude the Douay-Rheims (DRA) on this basis, we have to reject the Coverdale, Matthew's, and Taverner's Bibles, because Coverdale used the Latin Vulgate and Luther's German translation; he did not know Greek or Hebrew. Matthew's Bible is primarily Tyndale and Coverdale's work, and therefore is also from Latin. Taverner's is a revision of the Matthew's Bible. That means we only have four of the eight pre-1611, modern English translations, making the King James Bible the fifth. You cannot even attempt to recruit the Wycliffe as it was from the Latin Vulgate, and therefore, would be excluded from the list. Even if we did include it, the fact is, four plus one is five, making the KJV number six, not seven. The math does not allow the King James Bible to be the seventh English translation.

Some try to exclude the Tavener's Bible, simply because it is a revision of the Matthew's Bible. If we were to be consistent, Matthew's is a revision of Coverdale, whose New Testament and several Books of the Old Testament are Tyndale's work. Even the Great Bible is a revision of the Matthew's Bible. Additionally, the King James Bible is a revision of the Bishops' Bible, so why does the King James Bible, Coverdale, and Matthew's get a pass but not Tavener's? When you do the math, you get four translations of both the New Testament and Old Testament (Tyndale and Coverdale are considered one because Coverdale did the Books Tyndale wasn't able to) before the KJV, if you exclude the revisions and include the DRA.

3) The Pure Cambridge Edition is Not the Seventh KJV Edition

Additionally, the Pure Cambridge Edition (PCE) of the King James Bible is not the seventh edition. I want to preface this by saying I believe the PCE from 1900 is the correct edition of the King James Bible to use. Despite this, it is not the seventh edition. A popular PCE defense website, bibleprotector.com, lists the following editions as the seven purifications:¹
  1. 1611 first edition
  2. 1611 second edition
  3. 1613
  4. 1629
  5. 1638
  6. 1769
  7. 1900
However, a different site, also a defender of the Pure Cambridge Edition, has a different list.²
  1. 1629
  2. 1638
  3. 1762
  4. 1769
  5. 1873
  6. "Somewhere right after WWI"
  7. 1920
This raises the question: Why do these two lists disagree if there really are seven purifications leading to the PCE KJV? The fact is that there were many different editions of the KJV, the PCE is not the seventh. There were two editions in 1611, one in 1612, 1613, 1629, 1638, and many others. There is simply no way to reconcile history with this argument. If one wants to say they're referring to "main editions," the question arises: Who determines which is a "main edition" and which isn't? If one of these men could list the qualifications for a "main KJV edition," and they could prove that only a set of seven fit, I will cede the point. Until then, there is no evidence to suggest the PCE of all editions is the seventh.

Conclusion

As of now, I cannot accept the theory of seven, seven, and seven purifications. Why wasn't seven languages enough? Why the seventh translation also? And why the seventh edition of it? Does seven not mean seven or twenty-one? Until someone can produce a consistent list of qualifications (with reasons) for how English is the seventh biblical language, the KJV is the seventh translation, and the PCE the seventh of its editions, I simply cannot believe this argument.


Sources:
1. "Seven major purifications of the KJB." Bible Protector, 27 May 2014, bibleprotector.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=56. Accessed 18 May 2025.
2. "Summarizing the History." Pure Cambridge Text, 1 May 2018, purecambridgetext.com/post/2018/05/01/summarizing-the-history. Accessed 18 May 2025.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why KJV?

Image
People often ask, "Why KJV? Why are you a King James onlyist?" In this post, I want to discuss some reasons why. Before I explain why I am a King James Bible believer, I want to make it clear what I do and do not believe. There are three main positions on the KJV: Hyper-KJV-onlyism (denoted by H-KJVO(ist)), you have regular KJV-onlyism (KJVO(ist)), and KJV preferred (KJVP). The H-KJVOist is the Ruckmanite . They believe in "dual" or "double" inspiration —the idea that the King James translators themselves were inspired in the process of making their translation. Next, we have the normal KJVOist. This person believes the KJV is a perfect in every word, much like the H-KJVO . However, in variance with the Ruckmanite, the normal KJVOist believes God helped guide the translators, but He did not inspire the translation. The normal KJVOist believes the KJV is perfect but allows the possibility of other perfect translations in other languages. Lastly, the KJVP. S...
Read more

Why I am a Classical Trinitarian

Image
Today, many Christians lack a good understanding of the Trinity. They know of the "three in one" but past that, they seem to have little knowledge. And in an attempt to explain it, many times they accidentally teach heresies—even if that is not their intent. In this post, I want to explain what the Bible says about the Trinity, and why I believe the Bible teaches what is known as Classical Trinitarianism. Basic Explanation of the Trinity: As we begin, I want to just explain what the Trinity is. The Trinity is not a term found in the Bible. However, it's a term we use to explain the triune nature of God (which is found in the Bible). Simply put, God is one What and three Whos . In other words, God is one Being and three Persons . As the hymn writer put it: "Holy, holy, holy! merciful and mighty! / God in three Persons, blessed Trinity!"¹ There was a creed written in the 6th century, the Athanasian Creed. This creed gives a very good outline about the ...
Read more

Contradictions in Modern Bible Versions

Image
As Christians, we believe the Bible is the inerrant and infallible Word of God. Therefore, when a "contradiction" arises, we can, through careful study, see that no true contradiction exists within this divinely inspired Book. If someone intentionally messed with the Bible, you would expect this congruity to be ruined, and this is exactly what we see. These modern translations of God's Word not only come from a corrupted source, but the way they've translated God's Word also causes contradiction. As we look into this topic, it is important to define the two types of contradictions we see:  textual contradictions  and  translational contradictions.  Textual contradictions are those caused by the text underlying a particular translation whereas a translational contradiction is one which stems from a poor translation of a particular passage. We will take a look at both of these in this article. Textual Contradictions 1. As we begin, we will take a look at the Gospe...
Read more