Ruckman’s seven times purified, et al

“Happy Birthday, God’s Bible! You were born in 1611; you were born as the seventh in the lists of Bibles that preceded you (see Psa. 12:6-7). You were the culmination of God’s word in history: 1) a Hebrew received text (1780–400 B.C.), an Aramaic received text (603–515 B.C.), a Greek received text (A.D. 35–96), a Syrian received text (A.D. 120–180), a Latin received text (A.D. 140–150), a German received text (Martin Luther, A.D. 1520-1600), an English received text (the AV, A.D. 1526–1611). It was the culmination of the Bible in the English language: Tyndale (1525), Coverdale (1535), Matthew (1537), Great (1539), Geneva (1539 [sic]), Bishops’ (1568), King James (1611). You were seventh on the lists of two sevens.” Happy Anniversary KJV: a Collection of Articles from the 2011 Bible Believers’ Bulletins Honoring the Authorized Version, Peter S. Ruckman, Pensacola, FL: BB Bookstore, 2011

The idea that the King James Bible has been purified seven times has become a popular theory in King James circles. I do not know whether it originated with Peter Ruckman (quoted above), or elsewhere. It probably does not matter. There are a number of differing theories vying to be the correct one. (Although, fascinatingly, this seems to be one area folks do not get incensed about, as long as you agree that it has in some way or every way been purified seven times.)

I am a staunch KJV supporter and defender. I do not hold the idea that Psalm 12:6 somehow applies to the right Bible having to be purified seven times. One of the primary proofs against this is the various ways people achieve making the King James Bible in some way be Number 7 in a series, which appear contrived, in my opinion. For some it is pinnacle Bible in the seventh language. There are other ways to achieve the goal, all different in method and purpose, to make it be the seventh Bible. If I were going to do so, I would keep it simple. The King James translators’ rule number 14 mentions six predecessors – Tindoll’s, Matthew’s, Coverdale’s, Whitchurch’s, Geneva, and Bishop’s – making the 1611 translation the seventh. Duane Bryant uses this system also. Why not stop there, if you are going there in the first place?

One problem seldom seems settled on, which should be settled before beginning, is what do we mean in terms of the groups of seven Bibles? Does it mean complete Bibles that contain all the Old and New Testaments (e.g. Tyndale only translated the NT and Pentateuch)? (Some, in fact, include Wycliffe rather than Tyndale because Wycliffe was complete and Tyndale was not.) Does it mean translations made from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek (Wycliffe and Douay-Rheims are based on the Latin Vulgate). Does it only mean translations made from the Textus Receptus? Lots of things need to be asked and answered before the discussion even starts.

[Other connections to the number 7 are made as well. For example, the King James Bible uses the term Jehovah only seven times and only in the Old Testament; the King James Bible is the product of seven years of translation work, the English purification process took seven decades, etc.] 

Geoffrey Grider says Psalm 12:6 means the Bible “shall be preserved from that 7th generation forever. It’s probably just an amazing coincidence, but, the Bible has undergone 7 main iterations and they are as follows:”

1. The Aramaic Received Text: 603 – 515 BC
2. The Hebrew Received Text: 1780 – 400 BC
3. The Greek Received Text: 35 – 96 AD
4. The Syriac Received Text: 120 – 180 AD
5. The Latin Received Text: 140 – 500 AD
6. The German Received Text: 1520 – 1600 AD
7. The English Received Text: 1525 – 1611 AD

The Help Through Hope website uses a seven-fold division with the same languages (above, though with some differences in order and dating).

Afterward, they posit the purification of the Scriptures in English is seven-fold also:

1. The Gothic
2. The Anglo-Saxon
3. The Pre-Wycliffe
4. The Wycliffe
5. The Tyndale/Coverdale/Great/Geneva
6. The Bishops
7. The King James Bible

The English Bible’s seven-fold purification in the above list is equivalent to that proposed by the popular author Gail Riplinger.

In two “Line Upon Line” lessons (Gathering Into One and Standing for Purity), Matthew Verschuur spells out the seven times without (prior to), and within the King James Bible.

When the King James Bible was translated, their instructions were to follow the following versions:

1. Tyndale’s (1525, 1534),
2. Matthew’s (1537),
3. Coverdale’s (1535),
4. The Great (1539),
5. The Geneva (1560),
6. The Bishops’ (1568).

The Scripture which indicates seven times of purification can also be applied to the editions of the King James Bible. There are seven major editions. They are:

1. The First 1611,
2. The Second 1611,
3. The 1613,
4. The 1629,
5. The 1638,
6. The 1769,
7. The Pure Cambridge Edition from around 1900.

Summarized, the most common theories seem to be:

1. The King James Bible is the seventh major translation into major world languages.
2. The King James Bible is the seventh major early English translation.
3. The King James Bible itself has gone through a seven-fold purification process.

Many seem to see these three theories as complementary rather than exclusive.

Would the idea that purified seven times in Psalm 12:6 is a prophecy that must be fulfilled mean that: 

1. the Bible translated into each language must eventually have a seven times translation process (of some sort) in order to be the pure word of God? 
2. the Bible in the English language only, specifically the King James Bible, is the pure word of God?

I know there are those who believe No. 2. I am not sure how many arrive at the No. 1 position.

Psalm 12:6 says “The words of the Lord are pure words.”  They in the past and in the present are pure. They always have been pure. They always will be pure. Psalm 12:6 does not say “The words of the Lord have been, are, or will be purified seven times.” “Purified seven times” modifies “silver” rather than “words.” Then the figure of speech (beginning with “as”) suggests by analogy a similarity of the purity of an observable temporal process (silver) with an eternal spiritual force (words of the Lord). Silver – intensely, expertly, and purposefully purified – gives us a manner of comparison to the word of God, which is pure always and forever. See Psalm 119:89. (Note that both “tried” and “purified” both grammatically modify “silver.” Only by the extension of the simile do they relate to “The words of the Lord.”) I am suggesting to us, then, that we interpret the meaning of Psalm 12:6 by what the King James Bible says rather than what people say about the King James Bible.

While I know good solid Christians who hold the idea of the Bible being purified seven times, this seems to me—boiled down to its essence—actually to be a “low” view of the Bible and its preservation rather than a high one. I cannot get around the fact that, though it may not mean to, this theory actually denies that God preserved his word to all generations.