Book Review - Bradley, Bill. "Purified Seven Times: The Miracle of the English Bible."

Claysburg, PA: Revival Fires Publishing, 1998

by Rick Norris

Evangelist Bill Bradley claims that anyone who reads his book Purified Seven Times "with an open heart and a mind not closed to truth" will come to share his KJV-only opinions. Let's examine a few of his opinions with an open mind and compare them to the facts.

Bradley wrote: "There has not been one English translation produced after the King James Bible that came from the true Bible text ...NOT ONE!" (p. 117). He added: "Every English bible produced after the King James Bible of 1611, the Authorized Version, came from the perverted, corrupted text fabricated by Westcott and Hort" (p. 117). He again emphasized: "Every English translation produced since 1611 (you read correctly--EVERY English translation produced since 1611) is based on the inferior, corrupt, minority text" (p. 118).

How can Bradley honestly claim that English translations such as the 1755 translation by John Wesley, the 1833 Bible by Noah Webster, the 1842 Bernard's Bible, the 1850 revision of the KJV N.T. by Baptists Spencer Cone and William Wyckoff, the 1853 English Old Testament by Issac Leeser, and the 1866 American Bible Union translation were based on a 1881 Greek text? In addition, English translations such as the NKJV, MKJV, Jay Green's Literal Translation, 21st Century KJV, and Holy Scriptures according to the Masoretic Text [O.T.] by the Jewish Publication Society were not translated from the Westcott-Hort Greek text. Furthermore, Bradley was aware that there are at least two English translations of the Syriac Peshitta [a good Bible according to KJV-only advocates). Bradley himself referred to the 1851 Murdock's translation of the Peshitta N.T. (p. 57).

Without any proof, Bradley also claimed: "Every word change in the text of the New King James Version was taken directly from the text that produced the Revised Standard Version, the New International Version and all the other so-called bibles--the minority text of Westcott and Hort" (pp. 121-122). Bradley, who promotes himself as an authority in the history of the English Bible, should know that his statement is false and perhaps libelous. The NKJV was translated from the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts. At Genesis 1:28, the NKJV translated a Hebrew word as "fill" in agreement with Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, and Geneva Bible while the KJV translated it as "replenish" in agreement with the Bishops' and Catholic Douay-Rheims. At Matthew 23:24, the NKJV has "strain out" in agreement with all the early English Bibles before 1611 on the KJV-only line of good Bibles. At Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8, the NKJV has "Joshua" in agreement with Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, and Luther's. At Hebrews 10:23, the NKJV has "hope," which is also the rendering of all the earlier English Bibles before 1611 and which is the same way that the KJV translated this same Greek word every other time. The NKJV has "our God and Savior Jesus Christ" in agreement with the earlier English good Bibles at 2 Peter 1:1. At Revelation 18:13, the NKJV has "bodies" in agreement with Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, and Bishops' while KJV has "slaves" in agreement with the Douay-Rheims. More examples could be given. Will any amount of evidence convince those who have closed their minds to the facts?

Bradley's book is built on a faulty understanding of the phrase "purified seven times." This phrase means that God's Word was completely or perfectly pure when given. It does not mean as Bradley implied that God's Word needed to go thru a "process of refining and purifying" by translators (p. 117).

Translators cannot add anything to the perfection and purity of God's Wordin the originals. This liberal concept of a process of purification thru seven English translations is just as unscriptural as Ruckman's additional revelation claims. Bradley actually listed a total of eight English translations in his two consecutive paragraphs (p. 116) [Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, Geneva, Bishops', and KJV], which destroys his own faulty claim.

Therefore, it is clear that several of the most important statements emphasized by Bradley as being truth on pages 116-131 in his book are actually falsehoods. It takes only one example of one exception to an absolute or universal blanket statement to prove it false. Any believer with his mind open to the truth will be greatly disappointed by this book. How can Bradley expect others to open their minds to the truth when he seems to close his mind to it?


Back