Psalm 119:140 Thy word is very pure.

[FSSL]

Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.

The KJVOs uses passages that say "Thy Word is Pure" as evidence that they have the only pure Word of God. There are a number of problems with this idea of purity:

1) The KJVO will admit that there were errors in various editions of the KJV. I know of none, on this forum, that hold the 1611 as the standard. If the idea of "purity" means that we have Bibles that are 100% error free, then the KJVO still has a problem. The KJVO community cannot agree as to which edition is the most pure. The Scriptures never speak of this process of becoming pure. God's Word has always been pure and currently is pure. To speak in degrees or percentages of purity, and quote David when he said it is very pure, is blasphemous.

2) The writers of Scripture use the word "pure" as the characteristic of God's Word. That is, God's Word is "pure" in that it is set apart from all other books of wisdom. Secular books can be free from error, but that is not the biblical concept of "purity." We have the original Code of Hammurabi! You cannot get more free from variants than the original! When David said, "Thy word is very pure, therefore thy servant loveth it." David did not simply love the Word because he had a document free from textual issues. The basis of his love comes from his recognition of the "purity" of the Word. In other words, He loved the Word because it has been tried. It has been proven to be a precious source of wisdom for his life! Psalm 18:31, the same word "pure" is translated as "tried."

My point is simply this: The KJVO imports an idea on the word "purity" that does not does it do justice to the meaning of the passages. Nor does it correlate well with the rest of Scripture.

 

[prophet]

When you start off a post with 'The KJVO uses...'  you are unhealthily obssessed. 
But to enter discussion,...do you believe :
1. The Bible is pure, because it has been purified through a refining process?
2.  The Bible is pure, because it has no corruption?
3.  The Bible is pure, because it is unpolluted?
4.  The Bible is pure because it is undiluted?
5.  The Bible is pure, in spirit and in truth, though the letter is not ?
6.  Something else, entirely?
Anishinabe

 

[rsc2a]

When you start off a post with 'The KJVO uses...'  you are unhealthily obssessed. 
But to enter discussion,...do you believe :
1. The Bible is pure, because it has been purified through a refining process?
2.  The Bible is pure, because it has no corruption?
3.  The Bible is pure, because it is unpolluted?
4.  The Bible is pure because it is undiluted?
5.  The Bible is pure, in spirit and in truth, though the letter is not ?
6.  Something else, entirely?
Anishinabe

7. God's promises are true/pure/without fail because He cannot lie.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.

....The Scriptures never speak of this process of becoming pure.

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

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[prophet]

I agree, that the obvious comparison is :God's Word to the finished product of silver.  This would ,however, put 'David's meaning' at 'free from corruption'.
That is what pure silver is.
7 has a meaning, and we all know it.  It doesn't mean 'special',  'set- apart', or anything close. It means 'finished' or complete.  No? Yes?

Anishinabe

 

[FSSL]

I agree, that the obvious comparison is :God's Word to the finished product of silver.  This would ,however, put 'David's meaning' at 'free from corruption'.
That is what pure silver is.
7 has a meaning, and we all know it.  It doesn't mean 'special',  'set- apart', or anything close. It means 'finished' or complete.  No? Yes?

Anishinabe

Basically. The root meaning of "pure" in the context of Psalm 12 means to be "clean." It is not enough to say that the word is without error (which is certainly included in the idea) or finished and complete. It does not go far enough. We have secular literature that is without error and finished. It is far more than that. Purity of the word means that it has a moral quality. The value of God's Word is that it is without deceit. The poor in Psalm 12 can trust the word of God because He is holy, just and righteous and His words are morally excellent.

The root meaning of the word "pure" in the context of Psalm 119:140 means to be "tried or refined." It is not much different than Psalm 12. In fact, they are pretty much synonymous (because of the silver parallelism). Because this is a different word, the KJV translators put a marginal note so that Psalm 119:140 to identify the basic meaning of the word "pure" as "tried." It does not mean to be without a variant (as Avery uses the word). It means that David is testifying to how God's word has been tested by previous generations and all of His promises returned true.

I don't want to make too much distinction between the words in Psalm 12 and Psalm 119. My point is that to say that the word "pure" means it is without variant simply fails to take into account the usage and context.

KJVOs suggest that Psalm 12 is a promise of KJV purity. Unfortunately, it devalues the word in David's own hands and all of the other editions of the KJV that have variants (not to mention all of the genuine Bibles).

[attachment deleted by admin]

 

[prophet]

Again, I reject the idea that the AV is a result of a purification process.  This seems to be just made up 'doctorin'.  If it isn't as pure as David's original words, than we have a failure on God's part, to preserve His Word, no matter which of the languages that He created, it is translated into.
That said, I do believe that the AV was the final completion of the process of putting the Bible into an acceptable English translation.  But it was put into Spanish at the same time, by different translators, palabras limpias.

Anishinabe

 

[Ransom]

That said, I do believe that the AV was the final completion of the process of putting the Bible into an acceptable English translation.

So you have no problem with "made-up 'doctorin,'" as long as it's your preferred "made-up 'doctorin,'" right?

 

[prophet]

That said, I do believe that the AV was the final completion of the process of putting the Bible into an acceptable English translation.

So you have no problem with "made-up 'doctorin,'" as long as it's your preferred "made-up 'doctorin,'" right?

I haven't claimed any doctrine here.  Believing that the effect that the Common English Bible has had ,on the lost, in the last 400 years, speaks for itself is not equal to claiming some doctrine.  What I said ,in the post you quoted, was observation, and was stated as such. 
  I'm not coming across that Sault Ste. Marie bridge after you, but if you come across, I'll treat you to some pike 'n fry bread.  Some wild cranberry n rhubarb oat crisp for desert, and maybe fresh black bear.
Bring all your gas cans in your trunk, and plan any medical procedure you need while you're here.  And don't forget to load up at Wal-mart.
 

Anishinabe

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Even in plain English, to suggest that Psalm 12:6 teaches that the word of God is going through a process is absurd. It is a comparison of the word to silver ALREADY pure.

You asked for scripture talking about the process of becoming pure, or more precisely, you made the following false statement, talking about what it means to speak of pure:

> The Scriptures never speak of this process of becoming pure.

Clearly, the scriptures do give that picture in the refining of silver, answering your question.

Whether you accept this as having any application to, eg. the Received Text process of working with the Greek and Latin preservation texts, or the process of the Westcott-Hort recension restoration based on the 1800s publication of Codex Vaticanus combined with the Hortian theories, is interpretative (and not at all absurd).

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[FSSL]

You asked for scripture talking about the process of becoming pure, or more precisely, you made the following false statement, talking about what it means to speak of pure:

> The Scriptures never speak of this process of becoming pure.

Clearly, the scriptures do give that picture in the refining of silver, answering your question.

As much as you want to see a process of scripture becoming refined in that passage, it is not there. There is a simple declaration, in English, " words of the LORD are pure words."

I could get technical and bring up the fact, as illustrated by the KJV italics, that there is no verb. This is an adjectival usage which has absolutely ZERO tense/time elements involved. It is a statement of fact. The words of the Lord have been and always have been "pure."

This process you foist on this passage really blasphemes God. It says that when He gave His word, it was not pure.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Again, I reject the idea that the AV is a result of a purification process.  This seems to be just made up 'doctorin'.  If it isn't as pure as David's original words, than we have a failure on God's part, to preserve His Word, no matter which of the languages that He created, it is translated into.

Did God fail in Jeremiah's day?

Jeremiah 8:8

“How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.

 

[Ransom]

I haven't claimed any doctrine here.

Oh really.

I do believe that the AV was the final completion of the process of putting the Bible into an acceptable English translation.

That is a doctrinal claim: specifically, a teleological one, claiming that the English Bible had an end purpose that it was striving toward, and that end goal was the AV.

If you were not claiming a certain doctrine, you could not say that. The AV would not be the "final completion" of anything; at best, it would simply be one step in the ongoing history of Bible translation.

Believing that the effect that the Common English Bible has had ,on the lost, in the last 400 years, speaks for itself is not equal to claiming some doctrine.

What last 400 years? There actually is a Bible titled the "Common English Version," and it is all of 2 years old.  Obviously you mean the Authorized Version, so kindly just call it the Authorized Version. Clarity is not helped by the KJV-onlyist tendency to multiply superlative titles for their Bible of choice.

 

[rsc2a]

Believing that the effect that the Common English Bible has had ,on the lost, in the last 400 years, speaks for itself is not equal to claiming some doctrine.

What last 400 years? There actually is a Bible titled the "Common English Version," and it is all of 2 years old.  Obviously you mean the Authorized Version, so kindly just call it the Authorized Version. Clarity is not helped by the KJV-onlyist tendency to multiply superlative titles for their Bible of choice.

Actually, using this as his criteria, it would seem that prophet would be a proponent of the Vulgate. It's got more than a 1000 years on the KJV.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

This process you foist on this passage really blasphemes God. It says that when He gave His word, it was not pure.

Here you are simply fabricating unto false accusation.

First, can you point to any manuscripts before the Reformation era that, in one volume, are God's fully pure word?  It is hard to even find a single volume of God's word, pure or impure, before the 4th century.  That is not any problem for God. All his inspired words are pure, to Moses, Jeremiah, Peter, Paul and the apostles. And in the pure word of God today.

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:

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Steven Avery]It is hard to even find a single volume of God's word, pure or impure, before the 4th century.[/quote]

And?

 

[FSSL]

Here you are simply fabricating unto false accusation.

It is all about your redefinition of "pure." If you intend to continue using Psalm 119:140 and Psalm 12:6 to suggest that the word was becoming more pure... then you are saying that the word, originally, was not very pure.

First, can you point to any manuscripts before the Reformation era that, in one volume, are God's fully pure word?

Ahhh.... tweaking the discussion point... why not just stay on point? There is enough above that has already satisfied what "pure" means biblically to see that your continued objections are not related.

The word of God, whether in verse, passage, chapter, book, 5 books or complete 66 books is the very pure word of God.

But for giggles, we have the LXX, Hexapla, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and tens of thousands of mss of both Greek and Hebrew. All of them... the "very pure word of God."

Why not join us? We believe that the KJV (even the Cambridge edition) is very pure. We are not into discrediting God's word in its various forms and translations.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

... we have the LXX, Hexapla, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and tens of thousands of mss of both Greek and Hebrew. All of them... the "very pure word of God."

In your Bible text economy, can you indicate how many corruptions, or the types of corruptions, that would make a text less than the "very pure word of God" ?

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

> In your Bible text economy, can you indicate how many corruptions, or the types of corruptions, that would make a text less than the "very pure word of God" ?

So again, in your textual economy, 1,000, or 5,000, or 10,000 or 50,000 corruptions is still the "very pure word of God".  There is no corruption that is less than very pure.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Your question is irrelevant to my question, which is simply about your declarations about what is a "very pure" Bible.

If you don't want to say how many corruptions could make a version impure, simply say so.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven