Question: Does Psalm 12:6 refer to the KJV version?
“The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.” (Psalm 12:6)
As Christians we are supposed to study, rightly dividing the Word of Truth. I am sorry to say that the KJV-Only camp does one of the worst exegeses of this verse. In some sense I am not surprised as a lot of people in the KJV-Only camp is fond of eisegesis instead of doing proper exegesis. (May God forgive them for mishandling His Words, adding to what His Words really mean… for they know not what they do… or do they?)
Arguments that Psalm 12:6 does not apply to the KJV are as follows:
ARGUMENT #1 – This is a completely wrong interpretation of the verse. Frankly speaking, I am ashamed to call myself a pastor if this is the way I interpret the verse. Such interpretation of the said verse that it refers to the KJV is one of the many lies, illogical fallacies, and serious misinterpretations of Scripture that the KJV-only movement has peddled. The verse does not in anyway imply that David was referring here to the KJV at all. Honestly speaking, to assume otherwise would be “adding” to the real meaning of the text. KJV-Onlyists keep on accusing modern translations of omissions, subtractions, and additions; and yet by their misinterpretation or misusing the verse as referring to the KJV, they become guilty of the very accusations that they make. What the KJV-Only is doing in using this verse as a defense of the KJV is no different than what Quiboloy is doing when he uses verses referring to Jesus as referring to himself, or what Manalo is doing misusing Isaiah 43:5 and other verses telling his followers that the “far east” there refers to the INC church (and take note that they have a lot of verses to “prove” their claims). If this is the kind of exegesis/Bible interpretation we resort to, anybody can just take a verse and apply it to their claim.
ARGUMENT #2 – If this refers to the KJV, seven times reckoned from what? From the original manuscript? From the Latin? From what language? From what time? From what edition of the KJV? (There had been so many revisions!) From what edition of the TR? Frankly speaking, this raises far more questions than answers.
ARGUMENT #3 – No serious Bible commentary based on reputable scholarship attributes the verse as referring to the KJV.
ARGUMENT #4 – No serious Bible commentator, scholar – not even Spurgeon himself, the prince of preachers and very well respected in Independent Baptist circles while respecting the KJV – did not regard it as free from error nor did he regard it as inerrant. He writes, “Do not needlessly amend our authorized version. It is faulty in many places, but still it is a grand work taking it for all in all, and it is unwise to be making every old lady distrust the only Bible she can get at, or what is more likely, mistrust you for falling out with her cherished treasure. Correct where correction must be for truth’s sake, but never for the vainglorious display of your critical ability [Commenting and Commentaries, p. 31.]”
Spurgeon in fact supported any revisions to the KJV if it is necessary to make it a much more, purer text. He writes, “Concerning the fact of difference between the Revised and Authorized Versions, I would say that no Baptist should ever fear any honest attempt to produce the correct text, and an accurate interpretation of the Old and New Testaments. For many years, Baptists have insisted upon it that we ought to have the Word of God translated in the best possible manner… by the best and most honest scholarship that can be found. We desire that the common version [KJV] may be purged of every blunder of transcribers, or addition of human ignorance, or human knowledge, so that the Word of God may come to us as it came from His own Hand. Unlike Ruckman who heretically declared the KJV as superior to the original text and considered it as divine revelation, Spurgeon regarded the original language much more superior than the KJV.
In his autobiography, recounting the laying of the foundation-stone of the Metropolitan Tabernacle, Spurgeon explains why they chose a Grecian design for the building: “Greek is the sacred tongue, and Greek is the Baptist’s tongue; we may be beaten in our own version [the KJV], sometimes; but in Greek, never.” (Autobiography, vol. 2, p. 327).
ARGUMENT #5 – This false and heretical interpretation of Psalm 12:6 is propagated by the gods of the KJV-Only movement who have very questionable background in terms of scholarship like Gail Ripplinger, Ruckman, Hyles et al.
ARGUMENT #6 – Even the KJV translators never made such a claim using that verse. Again, if you read the preface, they consider all translations as imperfect: (http://www.dbts.edu/2012/04/09/the-embarrassing-preface-to-the-king-james-version/).
ARGUMENT #7 – The Words of the Lord are in the original language. This is what is perfect. In English and in any other language, what we have are translations of the original language. Again, translations have nuances and are not perfect considering that a word in the original text may not be 100% the exact word in another language. (Take the word “Love” in the original text. You have several Greek words for love. Whereas, in English and Visayan, you have only one word. When Jesus says, “Peter lovest thou me more than these” three times, you cannot fathom really deeply what Jesus meant if you do not go back to what the original text is saying because English has only one word for love.
Hi ! my name is Zigfred Diaz. Thanks for visiting my personal blog ! Never miss a post from this blog. Subscribe to my full feeds for free. Click here to subscribe to zdiaz.com by Email
You may also want to visit my other blogs. Click here to learn more about great travel ideas.
Leave a Reply